After the first round submission, we have taken the comments from Prof. Kuo into consideration. In order to be less descriptive and to generate more primary data to aid the initial findings, we have decided to do the role play again and make more documentation about what was being observed during the process.
Similar to the first round of discussion for Exercise A1 and Exercise A2, we were to decide 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 chosen a "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. In Exercise A1, Ashley acted as the supervisor, while Beatrice and Tracy acted as the subordinates. In Exercise A2, the three of us were equally ranked without any supervisors among us. Based on the observation, we have come up with some additional. The findings from this round of discussion together with that from the first round discussion were mapped out below. Most data we illustrate has taken the third person approach for academic analysis purpose. However, we have left in our names so that it is easier for readers to follow.
Kitchenware Pitch in Exercise A1
Before the actual presentation, Ashley, Beatrice and Tracy were basically having dyadic exchanges only. The three of us did not discuss on a group basis, but only two conversations happened instead. Beatrice and Tracy went to talk with Ashley separately to express their own views. Unfortunately, Ashley was not with their idea.
Conversation 1 (with Beatrice's hidden thoughts in brackets):
Beatrice: Ashley, I suggest to use PowerPoint for the presentation.
Ashley: It's waste of time, we only have 30 seconds to present. And using PowerPoint is too boring, it cannot attract the management.
(Beatrice (//>"<)//: No matter what my idea is, Ashley would reject. Then why do I still need to think about this?)
Conversation 2 (with Tracy's hidden thoughts in brackets):
Tracy: Ashley, I suggest to to focus on the comparative advantage of our new product.
Ashley: I don' think it's a must to tell the management about this. You know, we have limited time to present.
(Tracy {{|└(>o< )┘|}}: Ashley would not accept any ideas I suggested. She has the final decision. Let her think and decide everything. I don't want to think anymore!)
Owing to the different power level among Ashley, Beatrice and Tracy, both Beatrice and Tracy who played as the subordinates refrain themselves from providing more ideas. For one reason, they were afraid of outshining Ashley. On the other hand, they thought their efforts, no matter good or bad, would not be recognized. As such, creativity could be quite limited. As the discussion unfold, the team was only left with one task that was of their interest -- to get the job done.
Given the time constraint for the presentation (only 30 seconds), Ashley has eventually 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, Ashley 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. The brief presentation was aiming to catch the management's 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.
Given the time constraint for the presentation (only 30 seconds), Ashley has eventually 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, Ashley 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. The brief presentation was aiming to catch the management's 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
Before the actual presentation, Ashley, Beatrice and Tracy were actively exchanging ideas towards how the presentation shall be accomplished.
Part of the Discussion
Beatrice: Shall we use PowerPoint for the presentation?
Ashley: I think it is not very attractive. How about we create a short introduction clip for the presentation?
Tracy: Agree! We can use the introduction clip to show some key information to the management.
Beatrice: Yes, and we still have more than half minute time left after the video. Why not provide more side information like the cost estimate and suggested selling price to the management?
Ashley: Great idea! Let's go for it!
(Everyone went off the meeting with a smiling face (´▽`))
In Exercise A2, the team was given 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 Ashley, Beatrice and Tracy were all open to freely discuss their ideas without any pressure 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. Moreover, everyone who participated showed support to one another by giving encouragement to the proposed ideas.
To help us explain the observations from Exercise A1, we have taken the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) as reference. The LMX theory assumes that leaders develop an exchange with each of their
subordinates, and that the quality of these LMX relationships would duly influence 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.
There was no team brainstorm as Beatrice and Tracy had to seek for approval whenever they had new ideas. They had no freedom to decide what they wanted to do or how to do it. Ashley had absolute power to decline their ideas. Beatrice and Tracy did not have the chance to understand how it was going nor a full picture of how final decisions were made, besides, from Exercise A1, the two of them had to talk to Ashley separately. In the worst scenario, it was possible that Beatrice and Tracy only get to know the final idea until Ashley was up to speak in the presentation. Subordinates Beatrice and Tracy were not empowered at all. "Everything under the table" clearly shows a lack of visibility within the team.
There was no team brainstorm as Beatrice and Tracy had to seek for approval whenever they had new ideas. They had no freedom to decide what they wanted to do or how to do it. Ashley had absolute power to decline their ideas. Beatrice and Tracy did not have the chance to understand how it was going nor a full picture of how final decisions were made, besides, from Exercise A1, the two of them had to talk to Ashley separately. In the worst scenario, it was possible that Beatrice and Tracy only get to know the final idea until Ashley was up to speak in the presentation. Subordinates Beatrice and Tracy were 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. Subordinates Beatrice and Tracy showed fear in outshining their supervisor Ashley when proposing ideas. Beatrice and Tracy actually shared their feelings after the meeting that they have in fact hidden their real thoughts and chose not to provide the best solution simply because they thought it was not worthwhile. They would rather save their talents for other better opportunities where they could be seen as valuable employees to bigger bosses.
Also, due to the dyadic communication restriction, members within the team would have hesitation to offer help or provide constructive feedback to one another. Subordinates were assuming that the supervisor was not open to new ideas. This was testified by Beatrice and Tracy expressing their tendency of not committing to the task as much as they could. Since Ashley could reject their ideas anyway, helping could just be a waste of time.
Relationship wise, the "no laughing" rule has created a rather serious mode of communication among team members. The cold atmosphere has created emotional blocks that made Beatrice and Tracy 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 subordinates' creativity and innovative ideas. Beatrice and Tracy both said they tend to avoid risks because they know that whatever being proposed that would likely be lacking others' support would end up being neglected. It is also relatively more difficult for them to make rational decisions.
Eventually, the team has developed a self-serving idea, meaning all members were acting for their own benefits only. Beatrice and Tracy were not likely to collaborate with each other. Even if they were given the chance to meet, they might jump into conclusion immediately without clarifying them. As a result, the poor communication has created a working context that is of low work group support, which could possibly syndicate that diverse skills that were possessed by different team members would be wasted.
Relationship wise, the "no laughing" rule has created a rather serious mode of communication among team members. The cold atmosphere has created emotional blocks that made Beatrice and Tracy 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 subordinates' creativity and innovative ideas. Beatrice and Tracy both said they tend to avoid risks because they know that whatever being proposed that would likely be lacking others' support would end up being neglected. It is also relatively more difficult for them to make rational decisions.
Eventually, the team has developed a self-serving idea, meaning all members were acting for their own benefits only. Beatrice and Tracy were not likely to collaborate with each other. Even if they were given the chance to meet, they might jump into conclusion immediately without clarifying them. As a result, the poor communication has created a working context that is of low work group support, which could possibly syndicate that diverse skills that were possessed by different team members would be wasted.
Last but not least, since only Ashley would be presenting the pitch, it could mean the risk for a single point of failure. If she presented wrongly or did not get to the point in 30 seconds, the proposal would be rejected. As subordinates 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 in Ashley's hands. Subordinates Beatrice and Tracy had little power over the final decision.
In short, the power of this team was rather centralized in Ashley's hands. Subordinates Beatrice and Tracy 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. Ashley, Beatrice and Tracy had equal power and 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 Ashley was to decide everything. When Beatrice and Tracy had any ideas, they could only tell the Ashley. (In the first few paragraphs under "Kitchenware Pitch in Exercise A1", Beatrice and Tracy needed to talk to Ashley seperately). Ashley would then instruct the rest of the team to do whatever that has been decided by her, which left out the discussion time. In addition, the no laughing and talking working environment cultivated Beatrice and Tracy's concentration that could reduce the time for gossiping and make them work faster. Nonetheless, only having Ashley to present the pitch would mean that Ashley 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, Ashley, Beatrice and Tracy had to discuss what to do for the presentation. The team then reached a consensus and designed what to present afterwards. The end product of the 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, Ashley, Beatrice and Tracy had to discuss what to do for the presentation. The team then reached a consensus and designed what to present afterwards. The end product of the discussion would be the delivery of ideas to the management.
In this team, all three members had the opportunity to voice out their ideas and comments. Under such working environment, team members can learn from each other's ideas. Since everyone had participated in the discussion, the team was 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). 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 outcome in Exercise A2 in general were better than the outcome from Exercise A1, studying the negotiation styles being used could also provide interesting insights that explains the decision making lapse time.
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. Members withing the team cared little for others. Therefore, that team was likely to be functioning with the "1/10 Compete" negotiation style, meaning everyone wants to stand out as "THE" idea.
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 quality discussions that has generated constructive comments for completing the team's common goal.
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
|
|
Leader-Member Power Distance
|
High
|
None
|
Trust
|
Low
|
High
|
Creativity
|
Low
|
High
|
Teamwork
|
Inactive
|
Active
|
Decision Making Time
|
Fast
|
Slow
|
Risk of Failure
|
High
|
Unknown
|
Although the discussion outcome in Exercise A2 in general were better than the outcome from Exercise A1, studying the negotiation styles being used could also provide interesting insights that explains the decision making lapse time.
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. Members withing the team cared little for others. Therefore, that team was likely to be functioning with the "1/10 Compete" negotiation style, meaning everyone wants to stand out as "THE" idea.
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 quality discussions that has generated constructive comments for completing the team's common goal.
I like the comparison table of the two exercises. It shows clearly the outcomes of the two group context. The analysis using negotiation theory made the blog content richer. However, I wonder if the risk of failure of exercise 1 is really high. If the team consists of a talented leader while the group members are passive and less competent, I think the group setting of exercise one will have a higher chance of success. Some people may need higher level of guidance and stricter rules to govern. With too much freedom may not enhance the effectiveness of group discussion. Passive people do need some forces to push and criticism to some extent can stimulate to refine ideas. Thus, I think different styles of group context will fit different style people. For more self-disciplined people, there is no doubt that a free style group context will enhance creativity and discussion effectiveness. Otherwise the free style will just make the discussion lengthy and may not be effective.
ReplyDeleteHi Group Tab, thanks for your sharing.
ReplyDeleteThis is your second version of the assignment 1, and you do role play again to collect more data. Even my group do the same thing. However, I don't see much more progress in this part. I am confused why team members in S1 would like to talk to the supervisor separately. And the conflict could happen in the process of re-designing the product instead of the presentation way. I like the comparison between S1 and S2, which is realised by showing the same topic discussed in different kinds of context.
"Bear the risk of failure equally" is a point that we team didn't find out. This is a condition under which people will try their best to reach the goal with great self-motivated. That is how ideas come out. Comparing to that, "self-serving" is the opposite side of team member behaviour.
You did a good job.
Thanks again for your sharing.
TAB’s analysis is a bit different from other groups I have read, they used various theories learnt in this course and other courses in the programme to make the discussion more fruitful. Also they have included emotions of the team members during the discussion, which makes the readers feel the atmosphere of the discussion process.
ReplyDeleteThe use of exhibits in conclusion gives a very clear comparison between two exercises. For negotiation style in exercise A1, I agree that the initial style would be 1/10 Compete. When this situation persists and team leader keeps reject members’ idea, team members will show less commitment to the team and become low concern for goals, team communication would be further weaken and eventually switch to a 1/1 Avoid style.
Hi Group TAB, whenever I see your team name, I cannot help thinking of the tab key in my keyboard. This simple but unforgettable name impressed me a lot particularly when I didn't read all your articles and comments. The short introductions on the right hand side of your blog site let me know about your personalities and surprisingly you cleverly merge the communication elements in that. I think it will benefit to your role play and blog writing.
ReplyDeleteTo start with my comments, I prefer to let you know I will express my ideas through: the good, challenge, and the extended discussion/reading. Thank you.
1) The Good
Clear and emotional role play drama(scripts) is the most attractive one and the other one I read is vivid, (emm,Team 1), maybe you can read theirs.
The conversations are not only simple but straight to the point, which indicates the strong writing ability behind.
Diversity academic theories were applied including Leader Member Exchange Theory, Emotional blocks, Self-serving ideas, Appreciative inquiry
Combine and blend the reading materials Frank recommended with your analysis, i.e. Pixar’s creativity to innovation practices.
2) Challenge
I doubt whether you should introduce Appreciate inquiry in the Helpful of Exercise 2. Since I never hear about the term and I did a research. In terms of teamwork and ideas forming, this model is useful and constructive. But when I review the limitations and criticism of this analysis and decision making model, time is not considered and it represses potentially important and meaningful conversations that need to take place. (Please check the extended discussion and the references)
b. Agree with the Miracle’s comments on 18th March, 2015. She mentioned one question of mine:
is the Exercise 1 really at a high failure rate? It may be too arbitrary in this situations. As Miracle has addressed her worries, I wont describe details here.
To be continued
3) The extended discussion/reading
ReplyDeleteI quote some references on limitations of AI you mentioned.
Critiques of AI have gotten more sophisticated in recent years, overcoming earlier critiques which came from people not very conversant with the underlying theory. More recent critiques have come from scholar practitioners who use AI and are aware of its limitations. A common concern is with the possibility that a focus on positive stories and experiences during the discovery phase will invalidate the negative organizational experiences of participants and repress potentially important and meaningful conversations that need to take place (Egan & Lancaster, 2005; Miller, Fitzgerald, Murrell, Preston & Ambekar, 2005; Pratt, 2002; Reason, 2000). Christine Oliver (Barge & Oliver, 2003; Fitzgerald, Oliver & Hoaxey, 2010; Oliver, 2005; 2005b) has provided a series of cogent arguments for thinking of appreciative inquiry as more than just studying “the best of” and bringing greater reflexivity to AI practice.
4)References:
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry
2.http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4e6dabc201000dxt.html
3. Bushe, G.R. (2011) Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In Boje, D., Burnes, B. and Hassard, J. (eds.) The Routledge Companion To Organizational Change (pp. 87103). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
4. Introducing Appreciative Inquiry: Discover, Dream, Design, and Destiny. Dr John Peters, NTF, FHEA, Academic Development and Practice Unit, University of Worcester, January 2013.
5. Evaluation of Appreciative Inquiry Interventions, Martin Stellnberger, Victoria University of Wellington, 2010.
P.s I forgot to thank you and show my appreciation on all academic terms you used/shared. Compared to your professional works, our blog has a wide gap between yours and it really pushes me move forward. Special thanks to Frank as well, due to his great efforts on curriculum designs and guide. This is my last comment on the blogs. Thank you girls. Bow.
Hi group TAB, this is 53820292. Thanks for your group sharing. I very appreciate your group work on this article. Your group not only record the conversations for audiences to better know the circumstances, but also analysed the factors which are helpful and not helpful in different situations respectively. And finally gave us a conclusion and drew a table to compare the influence level of different dimensions in two situations. Your group article is well organized and the frame is clear. I can see that your team have paid a lot of effort on this article. Your team did a very good job! And you quoted the "4Ds" of Appreciative Inquiry Model, which is not only make the article more abundant , but also give us more related knowledge. I think "4Ds" is a very useful model when come up with the pitch and thanks for your team's efforts!
ReplyDeleteHi, TAB~
ReplyDeleteThe conversation designed well in the exercise. For the parts not helpful, you have mentioned LMX which is useful for illustrating the responsibility taking. No team brainstorm means no chance to understand among team members. Consequently, there is no creativity existing. However, A1 occupied more in the not helpful parts and just three sentences about A2. Actually, analysis of freedom which may contribute to failure in cooperation might be more detailed for further improvement. The interesting content I think is the “4Ds” of appreciative inquiry model. Actually, the discovery and destiny are essential in the project. But I have no idea about the design and dream mean in the exercise A2. The Negotiation styles you guys presented can be used in real work for different concerns.