Troy University Week 4 Structuring the Team for Results Discussion

TEAM NORMS THAT CREATE A CLIMATE FOR EXCELLENCE

& STRUCTURING THE TEAM FOR RESULTS

Please review the Chapter 6 and 7 PowerPoint presentations and article handouts. Then review Warrick (2014) again, this time to focus on the third and fourth essential elements for building high-performance teams: team norms (viz., creating a climate for excellence); and team structure (viz., structuring for team results). Select one of the following prompts to answer.

1. [Chapter 6.] Select one of the inferential-error types (viz., overgeneralizing, dichotomizing, catastrophizing, personalizing, emotionalizing, and mind-reading). Identify an example of that error in your experience, and explore how it might have been possible to avoid it.
2. [Chapter 6.] Select one of the decision-making mistakes (viz., groupthink, overconfidence, premature decisions, confirmation bias, shared-information bias, group polarization, and escalation of commitment). Identify an example of that kind of mistake in your experience, and explore how it might have been possible to avoid it.
3. [Chapter 6.] Identify an actual case, in your experience, in which people ascribed status to someone based on diffuse status characteristics. Explore the reasons for this group effect.
4. [Chapter 7.] Consider the eight conditions enumerated by Griffith and Dunham (2015) for enhancing creativity in a team (e.g., to create a foundation for effective brainstorming). How might some of the listed conditions help satisfy, from a perspective of creativity and innovation, the structural imperative of “clarifying the responsibilities of the team, the team leader, and the team members” (Warrick, 2014, p. 72)?
5. [Chapter 7 and Video: Koppel and Smith (1999).] What kinds of structural parameters might a team adopt to ensure a productive flow of divergent and convergent thinking and thereby to help satisfy, from a perspective of creativity and innovation, the structural imperative of “determining how and when the team will meet and for what purposes” (Warrick, 2014, p. 72)?
6. [Handout: SWOT Analysis.] How might a carefully prepared SWOT analysis, as applied to your superordinate organization (noting that SWOT is a business-level model, hence inapplicable to merely a subsidiary unit of a business), help satisfy the structural imperative of “agreeing on a few high impact [sic], clear, and motivating goals” (Warrick, 2014, p. 72)?
7. [Video: Koppel and Smith (1999).] In what respects does IDEO’s choice of team composition help satisfy the structural imperative of “having the right people on the team” (Warrick, 2014, p. 72)?

Instructions

Same guidelines as always: In your commentary, refrain from restating the question or spending time telegraphing what you intend to discuss. Simply indicate the question by number (e.g., #3 or #4). Then immediately start your commentary.

As before, please treat this task as an essay. Write correctly, formalize your style, and remove extraneous expressions. Finally, proofread (i.e., reread your work post hoc to improve precision and address errors). The minimum length for the main commentary is 250 words. Then reply to the commentaries of at least two of the other participants in the class. For each reply, write at least two complete sentences that explicitly address one or more aspects of the participant’s main commentary.

Include in-text citations and a complete reference section at the end of the commentary. Cite the textbook and at least two peer-reviewed, scholarly sources in correct APA style. Refer to the syllabus for the associated rules. Remember, as specified in the syllabus, that an otherwise acceptable source only qualifies if it has a doi-number.

Kareem Edwards

Edwards Post -1

#2

Confirmation bias happens to many of us on a personal or professional level. According to Metzgat (2014), “confirmation bias leads people to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions” (p. 29). Many people make decisions based on how they feel then search for the facts to support those feelings. This method of thinking can be problematic over time as one will always search for anecdote of facts to support their decisions instead of performing the legwork to get the correct answer through a deliberate process. This practice greatly reduces the quality of decisions made (Griffith & Dunham, 2015, p. 121).

Let’s take a look at some of the news networks. For instance, if one is a republican leaning conservative, chances are one will watch Fox News because their news anchors and opinion hosts usually confirm what they may be thinking when it comes to government, policies and their personal opinions on everyday life in America. The same can be said for a democrat leaning progressive or liberal, chances are they will watch MSNBC to get their news because the news anchors and opinion hosts usually confirm how they feel about everyday life in America. All of this is based on emotions and how that network’s interpretation of news events makes the individual feel. The information portrayed on these news networks may have an effect on one’s decisions.

As a section chief for a maintenance analysis office, members in my office attend daily production meetings to discuss the prior days flying operations, the present day operation and also look at the metrics that tell the story of how the unit is performing. At one meeting, the production supervisor mentioned that at his previous duty station, that unit was able to meet their flying schedule effectiveness because of the skill level of the maintainers at his base and he advocated to acquire more skilled personnel at our current location.

As an analyst, that did not make sense to me, so I had my team contact that unit to investigate and what we discovered was that unit daily scheduled their operations instead of doing a weekly schedule. When you do a weekly schedule it holds the maintenance leaders and operations leaders to scheduled take-off and landing times. If an aircraft takes off later than the time it was supposed to, the unit garners a deviation and it affects the flying schedule effectiveness. After presenting the findings to the production supervisor, he was still adamant that the more skilled maintainers were the reason for a higher flying schedule effectiveness and disregarded my findings because it didn’t meet his expectations.

The quality of problem-solving decisions are enhanced when decision-makers identify multiple explanations which (Knapp & Knapp, 2012, p. 45). To avoid confirmation bias, one has to be willing to look at all the facts before making a decision. When a decision is made due to previous outcomes or on emotion and no effort is made to look at facts, it can be detrimental to a group.

Reference

Griffith, B. A., & Dunham, E. B. (2015). Working in teams: Moving from high potential to high performance. SAGE.

Knapp, M. C., & Knapp, C. A. (2012). Cognitive biases in audit engagements. CPA Journal, 82(6), 40–45.

Metzgar, C. (2014). Before you make that big decision . . . Professional Safety, 59(9), 29.

2.

I experienced the adverse effects of escalation of commitment recently during a training rotation to the Army’s Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, LA. My aviation task force supported a ground brigade of about 3,000 Soldiers that engaged in a war simulation against an opposing army. We started training with this unit six months prior to the event and it gave the senior leaders and planners a chance to develop a strong cohesion with each other. However, by the time we went to JRTC, this cohesion developed into an idea that our aviation task force would support the ground brigade no matter what. In aviation combat operations, units must strike a balance between the amount of flight hours they can devote to supporting the customer while successfully maintaining their fleet. All of the aircraft will have to go into major maintenance inspection at the same time if a balance is not maintained, rending them combat ineffective.

We started off at a high operations tempo at the request of the ground commander and he did not relent in what he asked of us even as we were suffering aircraft combat losses daily. Junior leaders began voicing their concern that our tempo was outpacing our maintenance capability and we soon would not have aircraft to fly. However, our senior leaders and planners continued to commit the same number of resources and anyone voicing an opinion contrary to this thought was branded as a bad teammate. Griffith and Dunham (2015) state that “even as mounting evidence confirms a poor decision, groups can experience an escalation of commitment to that course of action.” We eventually outflew our maintenance capabilities and at the end of the rotation, were unable to provide support for critical missions.

There was a second instance of escalation of commitment during this rotation. It was also due to an unhealthy cohesion that senior planners developed. A study by Khoshoroor, et al. (2019) found a direct link between strong team cohesion and escalation of commitment. The mission was to perform an air assault operation in which ground troops are inserted by helicopter to engage enemy forces. The planners spent a great deal of time, energy and resources into the planning process. However, so many resources were devoted to the plan that even after intelligence estimated insurmountable enemy forces at the proposed drop-off site, planners refused to develop an alternate plan. The operation was a failure. During the after-action review, the observer trainers questioned the planner’s motives and questioned whether or not the operation was even necessary. The planners stated that they devoted so many resources to planning that they felt obligated to follow through with the operation. The senior leaders approved the operation because they did not want to appear as if they were not being team players.

One way this situation could have been prevent is through the use of pre-decisional accountability. This is common in the scholar world in the form of peer-review prior to being able to submit to a scholarly journal. In an environment where lives are at stake it is critical that an alternate perspective is always taken into account. Moser et al. (2013) suggests that blind review can be used effectively to push teams to abandon previous constructs. The Army uses what are caused Red Teams. Red Teams act like third-party consultants and work to challenge ideas, avoid group think and aid the team in developing the best possible plan. It is widely used in the highest levels of the military, but I have never seen it in units I have been in. It would be wise for the Army to send Red Teams to imbed themselves with units during training rotations. This would provide an outside insight on the team’s decision-making and help them improve their planning processes. Had a Red Team been invited to imbed themselves with the unit for this rotation, perhaps there would have been a better outcome.

References

Griffith, B. A., & Dunham, E. B. (2015). Working in teams: Moving from high potential to high performance. SAGE.

Khoshsoroor, S., Dapeng Liang, Salami, G. E., & Chitsaz, E. (2019). Team cohesion: A double-edged sword in the relationship between rival estimation and escalation of commitment. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 47(9), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8122

Moser, K., Wolff, H., & Kraft, A. (2013). The de-escalation of commitment: predecisional accountability and cognitive processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 363-376. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01005.x.