Background of the Exercises
In Exercise A1 and Exercise A2, we were to discuss on how to pitch a new kitchenware to the CEO, Chief Operating Officer and Marketing Director. In order to facilitate the role play, we have decided to use "digital rice cooker" as the simulated pitching product. In each of the two context, the three of us played different roles according to the description. Based on the observation, we have come up with some interesting findings that are mapped out below.
Kitchenware Pitch in Exercise A1
In Exercise A1 and Exercise A2, we were to discuss on how to pitch a new kitchenware to the CEO, Chief Operating Officer and Marketing Director. In order to facilitate the role play, we have decided to use "digital rice cooker" as the simulated pitching product. In each of the two context, the three of us played different roles according to the description. Based on the observation, we have come up with some interesting findings that are mapped out below.
Kitchenware Pitch in Exercise A1
Given the time constraint for the presentation (only 30 seconds), the supervisor has decided to sell the digital rice cooker idea to the management by playing a 20-second product introduction clip so that the management could have a brief understanding on the product features, i.e. the key selling points of the product. After the short clip, the supervisor still had around 10 seconds to provide some fast facts to the management, such as the main difference between the new and the old rice cookers. Creativity could be quite limited as the main purpose of the brief presentation was to catch attention by providing factual data for consideration. There was, however, no room for providing extra information that could enrich the presentation and make it marketable enough.
Kitchenware Pitch in Exercise A2
In Exercise A2, the team has 1 minute to sell the new kitchenware to the management. Besides showing the 20-second product clip and the general information of the new rice cooker, the team had ample of time to provide other side information for the management's judgment, such as the production cost estimate of the new rice cooker, its suggested selling price, its competitive advantage over other rice cookers, etc. Since all team members are given the opportunity to freely discuss their ideas before the presentation, it has fostered their creativity to come up with multiple pitching ideas. The discussion in general was constructive and was able to generate useful input to finalize the presentation.
From the observation in Exercise A1, there was no team brainstorm as team members had to seek for approval whenever they had new ideas. Team members had no freedom to decide what they wanted to do or how to do it. The supervisor had absolute power to decline their ideas. Team members did not have the chance to understand how it was going nor a full picture of how final decisions were made. In the worst scenario, they might only get to know the final idea until their supervisor gives the presentation. These subordinates are not empowered at all. "Everything under the table" clearly shows a lack of visibility within the team.
While trust is a complex relationship based on a wide range of factors (Golbeck, 2008), an inevitable result of the restriction to speak freely would be low trust. Also due to the dyadic communication restriction, would have hesitation to offer help or provide constructive feedback. They probably would have the fear of outshining their supervisor when proposing their ideas. As such, they may hide their real thoughts and choose not to provide the best solution.
Assuming that the supervisor is not open to new ideas, team members would tend not to commit to the task as much as they could. Since the supervisor could reject their ideas anyway, helping could just be a waste of time. Eventually, the team would develop a self-serving idea, meaning they would only act for their own benefits. Since team members were not likely to collaborate with each other, the poor communication also syndicated a working context that is of low work group support. The diverse skills that were possessed by different team members would likely be wasted. Even if they had a chance to meet, they might jump into conclusion immediately without clarifying them.
The above mentioned observations can also be explained by the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), where it assumes that leaders develop an exchange with each of their subordinates, and that the quality of these LMX relationships influences subordinates' responsibility, decision influence, access to resources and performance (Deluga, 1998). When team members had low trust on their supervisors, they would not want to take on more responsibilities. Moreover, their performance could be worsen as both parties had little trust on each other.
In this team, no laughing was allowed as it would be considered as unprofessional. This kind of emotional blocks would make team members think more narrowly. As suggested by Brown in 2012, vulnerability is the birthplace of innovation, creativity and change. Having emotional blocks as such would restrict team members' creativity and innovative ideas. They tend to avoid risks. It is also relatively more difficult for them to make rational decisions.
Last but not least, since only the supervisor would be presenting the pitch, it could mean the risk for a single point of failure. If he/she presented wrongly or did not get to the point in 30 seconds, the proposal would be rejected. As team members could not speak during the presentation, there is no way to save the whole team.
In short, the power of this team was rather centralized. Team members had little power over the final decision.
In short, the power of this team was rather centralized. Team members had little power over the final decision.
Factors that were NOT HELPFUL in Exercise A2
Compared to the team in Exercise A1, the team in Exercise A2 enjoys more freedom of speech. Each member could speak openly about their ideas whenever they wanted. However, with more opinion, there might be too many options to choose from. The decision making process could be lengthy and that the end result could possibly be just having one single compromised decision that may not be able to satisfy all team members.
Factors that were HELPFUL in Exercise A1
The decision making process in Exercise A1 was very fast because supervisor was to decide everything. When the subordinates had any ideas, they could only tell the supervisor. The supervisor would then instruct the rest of the team to do whatever that has been decided by him/her, which left out the discussion time. In addition, the no laughing and talking working environment cultivated staff concentration that could reduce the time for gossiping and make them work faster. Nonetheless, only having the supervisor to present the pitch would mean that the supervisor could fully utilize the 30 seconds' time given, so that there would not be any irrelevant information during the presentation.
Factors that were HELPFUL in Exercise A2
According to Kessler (2013), the "4Ds" of the Appreciative Inquiry Model is defined as Discovery, Dream, Design and Delivery/Destiny. In Exercise A2, all team members had to discuss what they have to do for the presentation. They then reached a consensus and designed what to present afterwards. The end product of their discussion would be the delivery of ideas to the management.
According to Kessler (2013), the "4Ds" of the Appreciative Inquiry Model is defined as Discovery, Dream, Design and Delivery/Destiny. In Exercise A2, all team members had to discuss what they have to do for the presentation. They then reached a consensus and designed what to present afterwards. The end product of their discussion would be the delivery of ideas to the management.
According to Fisher & Boynton (2005), this team is a virtuoso team that chooses members for their skills with the emphasis on individuals, the focus on ideas. The team as a whole work together intensively to address to the needs of sophisticated customer.
In this team, all team members have the opportunity to voice out their ideas and comments. Under such working environment, team members can learn from each other's ideas. Since all members can participate in the discussion, they were able to find out the best agreed idea so as to present to the management. As there was no supervisor-subordinate relationship in the team, the absences of hierarchical orders would mean that all members had an equal share in the idea, and that they all bear the risk of failure equally. The responsibility is thus evenly allocated to individuals of the team. Communication among team members was also transparent so that everyone in the team were fully aware of the presentation details. In case any member forgets the point during the presentation, others can give a hand and continue with the presentation.
The presentation time is 1 minute which is longer than A1, the time constraint becomes less, so that the team can have greater flexibility and provide more information to management for judgment.
Pixar's creativity to innovation practices states that, to foster creativity, everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone and be safe for everyone to offer ideas (Catnull, 2008). If the team know no matter what ideas they give out must be criticized by others, like supervisor, team members would afraid of telling their ideas or thought. In this team, members can tell others anything they think, even though it may sometimes be commented by other team members, they know that is positive comment, which would only strengthen the ideas, and make the team think widely and deeply, instead of killing the creativity.
Conclusion
By observing and comparing the outcomes from Exercise A1 and Exercise A2, we can see some obvious difference in the collaboration qualities. For instance in Exercise A1, the trust level in the team was relatively lower than that of the team that functions under Exercise A2's context. And because of the freedom allowed were different, the creativity that could possibly be generated from discussions in Exercise A2 was more significant than that of the team in Exercise A1. Nonetheless, team members from Exercise A2 were all actively brainstorming throughout the process. Often times, individuals would give specific comments or additional input to other members' thoughts. This has contrasted a lot with the behaviors of individuals in Exercise A1, for which they only bought up limited ideas for the presentation and team members refrained themselves from speaking too much. (See Exhibit 1 below for the summary.)
Exhibit 1: Comparison of Collaboration Outcomes in Exercise A1 and Exercise A2
Although the discussion in Exercise A2 went a lot better than the outcome from Exercise A1, we have not forgotten the need for individuals to come to consensus especially when different people have different opinion.
By incorporating the idea into the negotiation model (see Exhibit 2), we have rest on the assumption that individuals from the team in Exercise A1 had low concern for the relationship among other team members and that they only wanted to get the job done. Therefore, that team was likely functioning with the "1/10 Compete" negotiation style, meaning everyone wants to be dominant in their own ideas.
On the contrary, the team from Exercise A2 tend to openly discuss random thoughts in order to gather the puzzle pieces for the presentation. The positive attitude among team members by participation and helping others explore new ideas were vivid proofs to the concern for the relationship among team members. The bond was strong within the team where they shared the same goal -- to make the management buy into their idea. By gathering these points, we can conclude that the team in Exercise A2 was functioning in the "10/10 Collaborate" negotiation style, resulting in highly effective collaboration.
References:
Conclusion
By observing and comparing the outcomes from Exercise A1 and Exercise A2, we can see some obvious difference in the collaboration qualities. For instance in Exercise A1, the trust level in the team was relatively lower than that of the team that functions under Exercise A2's context. And because of the freedom allowed were different, the creativity that could possibly be generated from discussions in Exercise A2 was more significant than that of the team in Exercise A1. Nonetheless, team members from Exercise A2 were all actively brainstorming throughout the process. Often times, individuals would give specific comments or additional input to other members' thoughts. This has contrasted a lot with the behaviors of individuals in Exercise A1, for which they only bought up limited ideas for the presentation and team members refrained themselves from speaking too much. (See Exhibit 1 below for the summary.)
Exercise A1
|
Exercise A2
| |
Trust
|
Low
|
High
|
Creativity
|
Low
|
High
|
Teamwork
|
Low
|
High
|
Although the discussion in Exercise A2 went a lot better than the outcome from Exercise A1, we have not forgotten the need for individuals to come to consensus especially when different people have different opinion.
Exhibit 2: Illustration of Negotiation Styles
By incorporating the idea into the negotiation model (see Exhibit 2), we have rest on the assumption that individuals from the team in Exercise A1 had low concern for the relationship among other team members and that they only wanted to get the job done. Therefore, that team was likely functioning with the "1/10 Compete" negotiation style, meaning everyone wants to be dominant in their own ideas.
On the contrary, the team from Exercise A2 tend to openly discuss random thoughts in order to gather the puzzle pieces for the presentation. The positive attitude among team members by participation and helping others explore new ideas were vivid proofs to the concern for the relationship among team members. The bond was strong within the team where they shared the same goal -- to make the management buy into their idea. By gathering these points, we can conclude that the team in Exercise A2 was functioning in the "10/10 Collaborate" negotiation style, resulting in highly effective collaboration.
References:
- Brown, B. (2012). TED Show
- Catmull, E (2008). Harvard Business Review. How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity (September 2008), 64-72.
- Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organization Management
- Fisher, B and Boynton, A (2005). Harvard Business Review. The high-performance organization (July-August, 2005), 117-123.
- Golbeck, J. (2008). Computing with Social Trust. Springer.
- Kessler, E. H. (Ed.). (2013). Encyclopedia of Management Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.gervasebushe.ca/the_AI_model.pdf
- Tara and Kathleen (2011). Everybody's Creative. Just Don't Tell The Creatives. Retrieved from http://www.braidcreative.com/blog/everybody-s-creative-just-don-t-tell-the-creatives
- Tefal (2015). Fuzzy Electronic RK703170. Retrieved from http://www.tefal.com/Cooking-appliances/Rice-%26-Multi-Cookers/Rice-cookers/Fuzzy-Electronic/p/7211000661
- Xu, P. Pondy (2011). Tefal Rice Cooker CM [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=treKL_DtFAw
To be honest, I was shocked to learn that your group’s paper is so excellent. To me, the theories you mentioned and the mindset you showed are very inspired, and I did learn something important.
ReplyDeleteYou guys mentioned ‘Since the supervisor could reject their ideas anyway, helping could just be a waste of time’. I totally agree with that and I have the empathy.
It is true, as a manager, if you reject your subordinates all the time and show you don’t want to hear any ideas from them, gradually, you will not hear any ideas and suggestions. Then, the creativeness and the trust will decline, without doubt, the performance level will drop, at last, the revenue will reduce. Obviously, listening seems to be a tiny thing, but sometimes it will cause a big deal if you ignore it.
Thus, when you complain your employees are not innovative or have low performance, the first thing you need to reflect whether you have done your job that give them opportunities to be innovative. And it also could be explained by the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX).
In conclusion, how well your employees or subordinates perform, which is like a mirror, reflecting how well you treat them.
I find your introduction of your communication process is very interesting. I like the color and style of your blog, and I feel relaxed when seeing your content.! Good JOB
ReplyDeleteDear Group 12 (TAB)
ReplyDeleteIt’s teacher Frank here. I have a fun time reading this. I especially appreciate your team introduction and the concept behind your team name.
Nice use of visuals and graphics. I like the coherence you imposed upon the complexity of interrelated social phenomena and explain the hows and whys behind group process innovation with clear subsections and disparate application of a set of concepts from various fields of knowledge, applied and basic.
I am being meticulously detailed about all the red flag the readers might have in reading your post in the hope that you will hone your reflexive practices and become a better critical thinker. You have shown many signs of promise in becoming and developing into very good critical, reflexive thinkers. Your group is full generative capacity and creative potential in making refreshing connections among hackneyed topics, applying concepts in surprising contexts while bridging gaps across boundaries and contexts. However, less is sometimes and often more. You might want to be strategic after you have creatively explored your connections among interesting topics with irreverent disregard for the narrow traditions and confined thinking of traditional disciplines. (And don’t you even stop that irreverent disregard that you are justifiably entitled to as a student! All for the sake of better learning!) Revision is the time to channel all those provocative creative thinking and thought of your group to focused aims of making greatest impact in the conclusion through developing and building arguments based on good information and data with persuasive rhetorical power of rigor and relevance.
However, you rely too much on literature (and often surprising ones that do not necessary inform best to help explain) to carry your story forward. You don’t refer to and cite your own group processes enough as evidence, support, or insights; there are no primary data used that PROVE or SUBSTANTIATE your positions or arguments based on individual or group experience to enhance understanding of group innovation processes and group innovation outcomes as they empirically unfolded during your experiential exercises through “thick” description.
“Thick description” refers to the detailed account of field experiences in which the researcher makes explicit the patterns of cultural and social relationships and puts them in context (Holloway, 1997).This can be contrasted with “thin description,” which is a superficial account which is less rhetorically persuasive. Thin description is used to DESCRIBE the group activities, instructions and occurrences, or the ways that your group innovation processes occur and EXPLAIN how the group outcomes are arrived as influenced by the decision contexts. Borrowing theories informed by readings, lectures, and other classes. Rather, practices themselves such as group innovation processes can inform and even produce knowledge through active reflection.
I recommend you work on having a nice introduction that situates your readers the conceptual issues at hand you are addressing through selective, appropriate analyses, relevant integration of concepts from lectures, readings, or other literature in developing and extending arguments to arrive the concluding insight or culminating lesson, as promised and hinted by your thesis statement in the introduction. Knowing and understanding your concluding point enables you to take the most effective approaches to communicate with your readers through appropriate analysis that confers rigor best applies your data and information as generated in group innovation processes and lends clarity in choosing relevant literature that explains, informs, and elucidates.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty nice first draft, though there is still room for improvement. Please adopt suggestions as you see fit. Please post a separate new post of this assignment, and keep the old post intact with comments from me and others. This way it shows your revision effort and gets you bonus points. Enjoy writing and learning!
Also, this is not meant to be a blog comment as a peer; rather, it's written as recommendations for improvement. So, please do not emulate my style in making blog comments on each other's blogs. Please see Trello cards on tips on making constructive comments. Thanks.
Best, Frank
Originality and Aesthetics:
ReplyDeleteReflection is learning to learn from experience. Reflection is a skill involving observation, asking questions, and putting facts, ideas, and experiences together to add new meaning to them all. Regularity, and quality of a reflective component (Conrad & Hedin, 1982) that continually develops an individual’s higher level thinking and problem solving through reflective moments and practices. Being able to analyze problems, generate alternatives, and anticipate consequences are critical skills in any area of life.
Reflection on group processes is the process by which participants mentally and emotionally synthesize direct group processes with their attendant individual experiences, group processes and outcomes through integration and accommodation. How is the process of reflecting on the group processes especially challenging and interesting in informing learning from experience, and here the experience of group innovation processes?
The description and analysis of the group innovation processes are too diary-like, a description of events in mostly a chronological order, to serve as proper observations, data do justice to critical reflection. Your analysis is too descriptive; and your reflection is not reflexive enough. You need to engage in critical reflection about the dynamics of the group processes itself and the feelings and perceptions evoked at the individual and group level while engaging innovation two different decisions which constrain and channel both group and individual behaviors. In engage in critical reflection of group processes, one can identify what helped and what hindered the quality of learning and whether certain behaviors had a positive or negative effect. Team members can reflect on both the processes and products of group work.
Based on the learning insights on group processes based on critical reflection, team members can then set personal goals designed to improve their effectiveness within the group. This could be achieved by asking a number of questions inviting self-reflection, especially in relation to the performance outcomes of innovation quality and feasibility and group effectiveness and creativity, etc: What actions did you engage in most and least as an individual in a group, and how do these actions relate or not relate to your group roles? What actions would have helped the group work more effectively? Decide on a personal goal to increase your effectiveness and share it with the other group members” (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998).
Insight and Provocation:
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of ways to influence and motivate readers to help them “consume” your writing with the intended messages, desired impact, emotional responses, and even transformation of perception, views, position, and reality itself. Probably the most important thing is to give the readers a clear and short thesis in the introduction to remind them of your main ideas that will be covered and developed later while making a promise, creating anticipation help guide reading, and fostering expectations that aid subjective interpretation of your writing to your preferred liking. The second most important thing to do is to describe, explain, understand, and then prove with data, arguments, and the good or bad consequences of antecedent causes that you promised to address in the thesis through better understanding of how they relate.
Reflection on group processes is the process by which participants mentally and emotionally synthesize direct group processes with their attendant individual experiences, group processes and outcomes. Through integration and accommodation between the individual experience and the emergent group process of which the individual participates, group level reflection is often accomplished through an active negotiation and resolution of meaning through a dialogic relationship of continuous, mindful reconciliation of sort between the individual experience and the group experience of which one creates jointly together with other teammates via the emergent process of becoming. Reflection is important for both individuals and in groups, as reflection helps internalize the lessons learned and connects those lessons to personal choices and a basic discussion that addresses the progressively sophisticated inquiry that addresses what? so what? now what? The reflective inquiry continually builds insights on prior insights.
Mastery and Understanding:
ReplyDeleteI can see that you understand the concepts and deploy them as the foundations of your arguments. I suggest that after you make your own arguments based on the reflection of your own experience, and merely borrow relevant concepts and theories to help you explain and understand by fill the logical gaps of explanation or inference, or by offering a metaphorical framework to help understand an interrelated set of social phenomena. For instance, you made the observation that there is no work creativity in work routines in the kind of decision context typified by scenario 1. You make an observation to the readers as an individual response or as an individual observing a group processes and these individual and group observations are both fine data and information.
Then you can proceed to borrow or integrate concepts or theories to better explain how and why this can happen in your teamwork where you arrive at a nice explanation that an open environment can motivate creativity and innovation through sharing and exchanges; thereby, closed environment demotivates and discourages creativity through discouraging sharing and exchange of ideas among individuals and groups. A logical gap in reasoning or inference to explain or understand your observation is thereby filled by a nice explanatory framework or a theoretical prediction through linking, bridging, and integrating through analogy, parallels, or complements drawn between your observation and the theoretical predication.
When you directly use concepts to prove your arguments, it is empirically irreverent (there is no point for proving or disproving, as concepts are also just arguments made upon a set of variables with a relationship drawn upon them). When you directly use concepts to prove your arguments, it is rhetorically unpersuasive One is merely using one concept, which might have been better understood or explain for clarity or its common sense status, or its empirical validation by past research findings in specific narrow boundary condition that might or might not help understand or inform your original argument, which is formed based on the forced and superstitious coherence of a causal chain of events, factors, or interests based on one’s individual experience and the group innovation process.
Support and Evidence:
ReplyDeleteNice pictures and video used to attract my attention. Yet, when you want picture to speak for you, you need the picture to convey your point across to your reader. Some pictures do not show your goals of process analysis clearly. When you showed kitchenware, you can apply pictures about kitchenware instead of using a poster that says “creative and not creative”, since it does nothing further makes a point about your description.
Real pitches for innovative kitchen wares, experientially generated during the group innovation processes under two decision contexts, WOULD HAVE BEEN powerful and effective artifacts that group innovation processes leave behind and effectively capture and embody group innovation outcomes with clearly chosen dimensions or features that you wish to compare and contrast in making arguments about how decision contexts impact group outcomes through affecting group processes.
Analysis of “what” questions consists of descriptive observation that deals with facts, what happened, with whom; it provides substance of group interaction and later group reflection. Analysis of “so what” questions shifts from descriptive to interpretive, from meaning of experience for each participant to feelings involved, lessons learned and addresses how and why they occur? Analysis of “now what” questions interprets Contextual nature of this situation's place in the big picture, applies lessons learned/insights gained to new situations, and set future goals, creating an action plan.
It is important here to unpack how and why of the choices the group make the decision impact of these choices under decision contexts rather than just describe your group has solved a problem; reached a conclusion; found an answer; reached a point of understanding.
What did you discover about the advantages and disadvantages of working as part of a group during the two different contexts of group innovation, especially as it relate to performance outcomes such as innovation quality and product or group effectiveness and creativity? How does good teamwork influence success in innovation activities when time and resources are limited? As everyone had their own point of view, many different ideas could be produced in a group. How the energy of group participation influences and encourages other team members to feel more energetic about contributing something.
You can provide alternative interpretations or different perspectives on what you have read in your course or what you have done in your group process that help you engage in the group processes to arrive at better outcomes in activities such as problem solving, coordination, communication, allocation of resource, negotiation, etc. Collaborative practices and projects is a multifaceted and potentially challenging situation that encourages students to frame their own questions, reframe perspectives, and adopt alternative metaphors in examining social phenomena. Clearly the questions a student poses about collaborative practices such as group innovation processes are usually much more process-oriented, dynamic, and complex than are correct short answers to textbook questions. Group reflection focuses on how questions arise. This always requires greater synthesis and creativity than does simple answers.
You can additionally draw come comparisons and connections between what your are learning in this class during lectures or during the readings to your prior knowledge and experience; your prior assumptions and preconceptions; what you know from other courses or disciplines. Critical, reflective thinkers must have the ability to frame questions. Teachers are in the business of framing questions when they decide what they are going to teach. They have framed out the lesson for that day.
Clarity and Coherence:
ReplyDeleteThe structure is clear, when I read it; I can see that you have a good framework. Here is one suggestion. The first one is on is leader-member exchange theory (LEX). I suggest that you put it as the first paragraph in the part about impetus factors in scenario 1. Because, in this part, you mainly mention how leaders influence teamwork. I think this way can make it more coherent through better linking and understanding of the role of a leader and its contribution and impact during the group innovation process.
And there is something in your paper where you are self-contradictory, slapping your own face, changing prior positions already established. They are in the paragraphs about negotiation. Please take a look and examine the gaps and contradictions in logic and reason and address them to make them consistent and coherent if you agree. Please make them clearer, if it’s consistent. Going on the tangent on the peripheral topic of negotiation that is not as relevant or that is not relating or bridging arguments as well is also distracting.
I think the table matrix on collaborative outcomes is a nice addition in your writing, if it further clarifies and informs. However, it is consisted of sweeping generalizations (with incomplete inclusion of variables in contexts that are grossly underspecified). It helps to add specificity and precision to the table by specifying the unit of analysis (individual, group, or relational practice) in relation to the collaboration outcomes (which also need specify whether characterizes group process or group outcome). I also recommend you change the term from collaborative outcome to “level of collaboration skillfulness” to emphasize it is a scale that accesses the relative skillfulness during collaborative encounters of individuals and groups or during parties in practice. The term outcome has too many associations with other constructs such as performance, end results, etc. It can create unnecessarily confusion. You might wish to address some of these issues in the table in the table if you share my concerns.
The negotiation table might be an extraneous appendage that doesn’t add much and can create confusion. In scenario 1, there is a leader who takes charge of everything. Thus, other team members have no chance to compete with each other. Even they compete; the leader makes the final decision. Why not use the compromise mode to explain? Furthermore, in the scenario 2, you used collaboration mode, which is reasonable. But in the part talking about impetus factors in scenario 2, you thought their negotiation is characterized by the compromise mode. They are not the same, and the contradiction is interesting and informative of the incoherence of fallacies in your reasoning and thinking.
I have to say that I do like the blog design not only for the clear content structure but also the background color (my favorate color pink). :P
ReplyDeleteYou listed the factors which are not helpful in both exercises, and highlightened the keywords in between. It allows me reasonning and thinking in the contrary way rather than formal forward logic, which made me discovered more on these two circustances.
The conclusion part is quite precise, and it is the words in my heart when you analyze the "Factors that were NOT HELPFUL in Exercise A1". The supervisor too dominant to let others speak out.
In all, I agree with your ideas and like the formation.