Final Group Assignment: Conflict in Work-Life Balance

Over the last few months, our team has been working perfectly in a harmonious atmosphere. Within the whole course, the three of us have not encountered in any conflicts nor arguments. The only difficulty we have faced was that we did not have enough time to discuss our projects as we are all busy with our work. Within bounded hours, we had to deliver coursework without any delays. On the other hand, we have friends and family to take care of. As a result, the squeezed schedule has led to a conflict of work-life balance instead of conflict between us.

Work-life balance is a concept including proper prioritisation between "work" (career and ambition) and "life" (health, leisure, family and spiritual development). Having good work-life balance can prevent us from burning out. A recent research has already pointed out that workplaces have become the single greatest source of stress (CQ Researcher Online). And because all of us are part time students who are dealing with work and study at the same time, the stress that is faced would be even higher. It is indeed a challenge for us to collaborate smoothly.

Conflict Process

The conflict process deals with five steps that help alleviate disagreement and problems within organizations. In our case, it is also applicable among each individuals' self conflict in work-life balance.

Stage 1: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

As all of us are part-time students, we have to work during the daytime and study 2 to 3 nights per week. Thus, our leisure time has become so valuable. It is understandable among the three of us that we prefer not to use our leisure time to discuss our group projects. 

Stage 2: Cognition and Personalisation

Although we have reached mutual consensus that we would avoid occupying each other's leisure time, we are all aware of the fact that finishing our projects and assignments on time is a must. To compromise on a solution, we have agreed to stay in the classroom for few minutes after class every week or take our break time to discuss our outstanding projects. Unfortunately, meeting on weekends was not an option as one of us need to work during weekends. As a result, the meeting times were too short and were not enough for us to dig deep enough for a consent on our final output. 

Stage 3: Intentions

While realising that we did not have much time to finish our projects that cannot be done without discussion, we still wish to obtain good grades in our work. Hence there is a need to find new ways to overcome the hurdles. We spent some time to have a brief discussion one night after class and have agreed to use communication applications like WhatsApp and WeChat for discussing the projects. Since we only have 3 people in the group, communication has been clear without much confusion. We have also agreed to work on Google Doc, the most popular real-time collaborative platform nowadays, so that our work can be consolidated in one place.

Stage 4: Behaviour

In the behaviour step, the conflict becomes visible as we have already identified our cognitive thinking. The behavioural stage is a dynamic process of interaction. At the beginning, not all of us have agreed to use mobile applications as some believed that face-to-face communication is the most effective way when it comes to the discussion of project details. However, we also knew that it is even more important to achieve high performance collaborations, which is the core value of our course. We were all clear about our goals - to do our best in studies. Have said that, we determined to cope with the best agreed way to work together. With the support from each other, we have set up new working protocols and it is easy to get along with our new communication methods.

Stage 5: Outcomes

Because of the time restriction, our decision of making use of mobile applications instead of holding meetings during weekends to discuss our projects have proved to be a good method that saves our time. We can tell the others anytime and anywhere when we have ideas through the apps, and there is no need to wait for every Tuesday night to talk after class. By browsing the conversation history, we can recall our ideas clearly. When we have different opinion, we can voice out immediately and choose the best way to compromise. 

Conclusion

To conclude, after agreeing to use mobile apps and Google Doc to communicate, we did not have to spend long hours in meetings before handing in the projects. We could still fully utilize our leisure time. Of course, when we have different opinion on some important areas, we have to discuss it after class to make sure our directions are the same. Make use of mobile apps is convenient when time is limited, and it could even improve our relationships. Such working context has provided relevant insight on similar work groups and is even applicable to people working in different places around the globe.

References:

1. 5 Stages of Conflict Process. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.edunote.info/2013/01/5-stages-of-conflict-process.html
2. CPP - The People Development People. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from https://www.cpp.com/products/tki/index.aspx
3. Job Stress. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1995080400

Individual Blogs
Ashley: Final Outcome Expectation Conflict
Beatrice: Responsibilities Conflict
Tracy: Deadline Conflict

Group Assignment 2: Drafting a private letter to an offender

1.   Introduction

In this assignment, we are going to review a real case that has happened to one of our team members. Owing to privacy reason, we have substituted the names of the people involved in the incident by fake names. The victim will be named Joey. 

Joey, who was initially hired by a multinational company, has had an unpleasant experience during the employment process with the company and was eventually laid off. The conflict arouse from the exchange between Joey and her immediate manager has led to Joey's decision to file a complaint with the senior management of the company.

In the following sessions, we are going to elaborate on the case background, share the actual letter of complaint that was filed with the company's management, and state the changes in ABC Company after the complaint was filed. By incorporating the ideas proposed by previous academic researches, we hope to analyse the case and provide other possible solutions to handle the conflict that Joey has faced. We will also discuss the reasons behind ABC Company's changes. To draw a focus, we will be working down the rungs of the ladder of inference. We will also aid our analysis by applying theories from the persuasive communication field.

2.   Background of the Case

Joey was very excited when she has received an offer of the position of Customer Services Officer from a multinational company. The company's Customer Services Manager, Ms. Apple Chan, asked Joey to report duty without telling her all the details of her job, for example the exact salary, her job duties, etc. Ms. Chan only told Joey that the offer would be within her expectation. She also told Joey that the Human Resources Department would inform her of the details when she has reported duty. Joey believed that a multinational company as such should have an organized employment procedure, so she decided to ask HR staff members for the details when she started to work on board.

Joey asked Ms. Apple Chan several times about her employment details since her joining. However, after working for one week, Joey has yet to meet any staff from the HR Department and knew nothing about the employment details. She tried to ask Ms. Chan again on the 5^th day's morning. Joey, however, was suddenly brought into a meeting room by Ms. Chan. Ms. Chan told Joey if she felt the job was insecure without the employment contract, she probably would not be a suitable person for the job. If that was the case, there was no need for her to go back to the office after lunch, which in other words Joey was fired.

Joey felt very surprised and unbelievable about Ms. Chan’s decision. She could not believe the employment arrangement of this multinational company was so unsystematic and unorganized. As such, she wanted Ms. Chan’s boss to know about her case and give her a reasonable explanation. Since Joey was laid off by Ms. Chan, she was not able to talk to the top management directly. However, she still wished to express her feelings and comment on her experience during the short stay. She eventually decided to write a complaint letter to the Director of the company, Mr. Wong, to seek for his help on the investigation of the case, hoping to obtain an official explanation on the termination of her employment.

3.   The Letter of Complaint

COMPLAINT on Your Customer Services Manager Ms. Apple Chan

Dear Mr. Wong,

Sorry to bother you, but I think you have to address the following issue.

I was informed to be employed as your staff by Ms. Apple Chan last Thursday. During the confirmation call, Ms. Chan DID NOT confirm with me the details of the job duties, job title nor even my exact salary, etc. She just told me the salary would fit in my expected range.

I then called Ms. Chan again on Friday for the details, such as the job title, salary, days of annual leave etc. Ms. Chan just told me that the details would be stated in the employment contract when I report duty on Monday. I trusted ABC Company, a large multinational company, would be very systematic and organized. I also believed that I would get my employment contract signed and all necessary information I need to know when I report duty on Monday.

When I reported duty in the morning on Monday, Ms. Chan just brought me and another colleague (who also started work on Monday) to a “tentative” seat and then walked around the office once. She did not introduce us to any colleagues and said we would know them when we start working. She only told us the names of top management. After that, she started the training. Before noon that day, I asked Ms. Chan when the employment contract would be ready. She told us that the contract was not ready yet, which at the time I did not ask further about the exact timeline. But I assumed that it would be ready on Tuesday because I haven't worked for any companies that did not give me a contract to sign on or before the 1st day of my work. She also WARNED me that I MUST NOT tell any colleagues I am studying my Master degree. Although I did not know the reason behind, I did not ask about it.

On Wednesday, I asked Ms. Chan again about my contract. Out of my surprise, she told me the same answer - "Not ready yet." To be honest, I think it is quite strange. I have a feeling whether Ms. Chan really need me for this position as a permanent staff or simply because she's lack of staff recently and would like some temporary staff to help her clear the cases on hand. She probably was not willing to sign a contract with me? I have lots of these kind of questions during these few days and did not feel good actually.

I think at least I have to know how much is my salary. However, she just told me she should be able to give me the range I stated. I started working without signing the contract just because I believed that ABC Company is a large company. But even in a good company, are all staff (or maybe managers) in the company are professional about employment issues? I doubt. I know a staff who has not seen the employment contract even after 2 weeks' work in this company. Since I don't want to affect her, I would not state her name here. However, I think you can check it with HR if Ms. Chan has passed the information to HR.

I believed that it is my rights to know when I can have my employment contract. It is absolutely normal that I felt insecure with the job without the employment contract and all details about employee benefits. I asked Ms. Chan again on Thursday at around 6pm when my contract would be ready and what my exact basic monthly salary is. Same answer again, Ms. Chan said the contract was not ready yet. Then I continued to ask if it is possible for me to get it next week, while she told me NO. I then asked in general how long would it take for the contract to be ready. At that time, Ms. Chan showed extreme intolerance and said she did not know. She said she would ask HR if I really want to know. I sincerely requested her to do so, and told her that, I felt very insecure of my job without the employment contract.

Today I met Ms. Chan at the corridor before lunch, so I asked her if she has helped me to ask HR or not. She then brought me into a meeting room and told me that I am not suitable for this position and I don't need to continue with working here starting from this afternoon. Is it really just because I told her I felt insecure? Or there's any other reasons behind? I wondered because she did appreciated my performance in the early stage before I urged for my employment contract.

May I seek for your help to investigate this case?

For your information, I have told Ms. Chan that I am consulting the Labour Department about my case. I'd appreciate if you can get back to me about your investigation within one month.

Just a little comment on your recruitment arrangement: ABC Company is a MNC. I suppose it is an "organized" and "systematic" company. I think at least HR should let the team head know the approximate preparation time for an employment contract, so that when a newly employed staff asked his/her immediate supervisor or manager about the contract, they can provide the time to the employee. Otherwise, employees would feel helpless and frustrated if he/she has to work for a company by knowing nothing about the employment details.

Thank you in advance.

Your sincerely,

Joey Cheung

4.   Changes in ABC Company after Joey's Complaint 

After receiving the complaint letter in the section above, Mr. Wong replied to Joey and told her that her salary would be transferred to her bank account by Autopay within a week. Mr. Wong also told Joey that the company has realised the problems she mentioned prior to her complaint and they were planning to make some changes that were yet to begin.

Mr. Wong thanked Joey's suggestions and agreed to impose the first round revision of the company's recruitment policy as follows:

1. Ms. Apple Chan will no longer be responsible for any recruitment issues;
2. All recruitment issues will be handled by the HR Department; 
3. Employment contract will be given to new staff members after they have passed the probation period and this information will be communicated before they come on board;
4. All new staff members will be informed clearly about their employment package; and
5. Training of the Customer Services Team will be passed on to another Customer Services Manager instead of Ms. Apple Chan.

Although the termination of employment of Joey cannot be changed, the complaint letter has at least made some impact on ABC Company. Joey also managed to take back what she deserves to receive -- her salary -- even she was only employed for a very short period of time.

5.   Previous Academic Researches

In this section, we will be reviewing previous academic researches on the Ladder of Inference as well as persuasive communication theories in order to support our analysis in the later sections.

5.1 Ladder of Inference

The Ladder of Inference is a metaphor used to describe the way we interpret data and construct meaning (McMillan, 2010). The thinking stages are shown as rungs on a ladder, and would bring us closer to a conclusion after several stages. However, when we climb the ladder, we often convert what we presume to be objective data into subjective opinion (McMillan, 2010). We are so skilled at thinking that we jump up the ladder without knowing it (Frank’s notes). Therefore, the ladder of inference provides a method to follow for reasoning and decision-making.

Thinking Process

From the diagram, we may see the “Thinking Process” of the Ladder of Inference. From the beginning, there are several realities with infinite data. The main concern is "How do we choose the data and interpret it?" In the first rung of ladder, we observe the data in the pool. After that, we would select the data that we want from our experiences and beliefs. Together with our personality or some bias, we would interpret and add meanings on top of the selected data. In the fourth rung of ladder, we make assumptions based on the meanings, while sometimes without considering what they are. Afterwards we would draw conclusions by incorporating our interpretations and assumptions. In last two rungs of ladder, we adopt our beliefs and take appropriate actions based on our beliefs.

5.2  The Heuristic-Systematic Model

In the studies of contemporary social psychology, the heuristic-systematic model is seen as a dual-processing model that discusses the changes in people's attitudes under two different information processing modes -- heuristic processing and systematic processing (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006). The model is often used for analysing persuasive communication processes. 

For heuristic processing, it is more of an automatic process that requires less cognitive resources and is less affected by the variation in situational or personal capacity (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006; Gawronski & Creighton, 2013). It could be interpreted as the first instinct that comes up in a person's mind upon receiving new information. On the other hand, systematic processing would require more thorough logical thinking by taking as much relevant information into consideration as possible so as to come up with the attitudes, judgements and behaviour (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006). In other words, variables such as knowledge or time constraint would be factors among others that could influence the outcome of the later processing mode. 

Although the two modes of processing operate quite differently, they can co-occur in people's information processing (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989). As suggested by Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld and Judd (2006), the degree to which people make use of the two information processing modes resulting in persuasion would be dependant on three classes of motivation, namely accuracy, defence and impression. For accuracy, people will focus on the correctness of information. For defence, people will focus more on their self interest. Impression, however, would be focusing more on the relationship with others including facts and people (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006).

To incorporate the ideas of the two modes of processing and the three motivations in order to resolve conflicts, Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld and Judd (2006) suggested the key is to "move parties towards open-minded, accuracy-motivated processing" (p. 471). 

6.  Case Analysis

In the following parts, we will analyse this case by making use of the Ladder of Inference to identify areas to which Joey could improve on the development of her thinking process in order to better deal with this conflict if she had a second chance. We will also be referencing persuasion theories to explain Joey's success in creating change in ABC Company's employment policy.

6.1 Interaction with Ms. Apple Chan

As observed from the case background, Joey was very angry, disappointed and frustrated about her experience with ABC Company. She never knew that asking about her salary would be a trigger to be fired. Based on her first instinct without really interpreting it, she thought the main problem lies in Ms. Chan. Since she was so frustrated, Joey has obviously jumped into a conclusion that ABC Company is not a good one to work with. 

In the infinite pool, what Joey observed at first was that she got the offer but knew nothing about her package. However, Joey believed that ABC Company is a multinational company so the employment contract should be ready on her first employment date. Unfortunately, her contract was not ready still on Monday. Furthermore, her supervisor, Ms. Apple Chan did not give her an accurate answer about when the contract would be ready. At that point, Joey selected the data as "Ms. Chan escaping from answering her questions" and thus she felt insecure.

With the selected data, Joey has added a meaning to it -- "Ms. Chan has some secrets to hide". It might be ABC Company actually did not want to hire a permanent staff but temporary staff only. The fact that Joey only got a temporary seat in the company has acted as a side proof of what she perceived as the possible truth. After she got fired by Ms. Chan, she got the impression that Ms. Chan actually had no intension to hire her. She has rest on a conclusion that Ms. Chan is not a professional supervisor who has used an unbelievable excuse to fire her.

During the exchange process with Ms. Chan, Joey's sentiment was heated up one time after another by the repetitive negative response from Ms. Chan. The conversation initially started off as being a rational request but has eventually turned into a situation where both parties has lost their patience on each other. Joey has also developed a negative impression of Ms. Chan, so did Ms. Chan having the same thought on Joey. The presence of the defence and impression motivations have created an unfavourable communication context for the two. It is likely that these two drives would override the accuracy motivation for information processing, and that both parties' behaviour were based largely on their emotions and personal interest, thus resulting in the hostile ending at last.

6.2 Interaction with Mr. Wong

Joey believed that she has the right to know about her salary and other information. Besides, she totally had no idea about why she was fired by ABC Company. Therefore, she wrote a complaint letter to the General Manager as ABC Company owed her an explanation.

Given her previous experience with Ms. Chan has resulted in the termination of her employment, Joey realised that she needs to take another approach so as to communicate the incident with Mr. Wong more tactfully. If she has written the letter of complaint solely based on her own feelings, Mr. Wong might judge the case differently. It is possible that he would draw conclusions such as Joey's complains not making any sense or were biased because of the emotional reactions that were triggered by her unfortunate experience. Therefore, to prevent the conflicting ideas that might arise from wrong conclusions made by herself or Mr. Wong, Joey has made use of the Ladder of Inference to to map out the process of moving from what she has observed to what she eventually concluded.

Joey thought carefully by using the ladder of inference before she wrote the letter, and she paid attention to why and how she came to her own conclusion. Also, knowing the importance of accurate information in persuasive communication, Joey has planned cautiously on her action so that it was decided based on strong reasoning and reality. Thus, her evidence was powerful and accurate enough to convince Mr. Wong that there is a need for a thorough investigation of the employment issue. And because Ms. Chan has not given any official explanation to Joey's dismissal, which is against the law, ABC Company has the responsibility to get back to Joey with a proper explanation. 

Apart from the reasoning, Joey also took care of the emotional reactions that Mr. Wong could have upon receiving the letter. The relational factor has suggested that Joey should consider about leaving a positive impression on Mr. Wong to gain a bigger chance of getting him to buy into her idea. Therefore, she has praised the company as a multinational company which she perceived to be structural and systematic when handling matters. Such mentioning would implant an impression on Mr. Wong that Joey's perception would be a general expectation of many others. Failing to meet people's expectation could possibly result in damaging the company's reputation, which obviously would be a threat to the company's operations. In this sense, Joey's complaint was actually a timely reminder to the management level so they can address the existing issues before it gets even bigger. 

Also, because of the authority withhold by Mr. Wong is more powerful that Ms. Chan, Joey has more trust in Mr. Wong's ability to deal with the issue than Ms. Chan. Without encountering any direct contact with Mr. Wong before, Joey has not built up any negative impressions nor anger on him. The context for communication was much healthier than that with Ms. Chan as the communication would be focusing more on factual data than personal emotions or biased decisions, which would facilitate conflict resolution.

Structural wise, Joey has followed the best practices of drafting complaint letters by including the background, the problem (cause and effect), the possible solutions, a warning statement with deadline, and closing message that has asked for ABC Company's action -- the five essential elements of an effective complaint letter (English Language Centre of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2006). Such approach has made the communication more effective and straight to the point of what is expected by her.

By seeing the benefits and urgency of knowing the case of Joey with strong reasoning behind, Mr. Wong would likely be acting more proactively towards the follow up actions. To both parties, it would be a win-win situation, where ABC Company is able to pin point its problems for improvement and Tracy is able to obtain feedback from the company quickly.


7.  Conclusion

From Joey's case, it is for sure that the conflict between Ms. Apple Chan and her was irreversible as she has already been fired by the company. However, her letter of complaint did contribute to changing ABC Company's employment process for future staff. Joey also managed to learn from her previous experience and took more cautious approach in her thought development process before drafting the letter of complaint to Mr. Wong. If she could realise the possible issues with how she communicated with Ms. Chan and has avoided leaning too much towards the defence and impression motives, perhaps the situation would not be so bad that she got dismissed from her duties in ABC Company. Anyhow, this is still a good opportunity for Joey to learn from the experience and better communicate in conflicting situations in the future.

References:

1. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context. In Unintended Thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
2. English Language Centre of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. (2006). 'How to Write Complaint Letters'.  Retrieved April 19, 2015 from  http://www2.elc.polyu.edu.hk/cill/eiw/complaint_letter_constructor.htm  
3. Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. (2013). Dual Processing Theories. In The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 282-312). Madison Avenue, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
4. Ledgerwood, Alison; Chaiken, Shelly; Gruenfeld, Deborah H.; Judd, Charles M. (2006). Changing minds: Persuasion in negotiation and conflict resolution. In The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 455-485). Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley Publishing.
5. McMillan M. (2010). The Ladder of Inference: How Presumptions Can Serve Productivity. Blue Mesa Group
6. Senge P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Deckle Edge

Group Assignment 1 (1st revision): Innovating a New Kitchenware in a Team Setting Background of the Exercises

Background of the Exercises

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.

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.

Factors that were NOT HELPFUL in Exercise A1

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. 

Work creativity did not exist as well. When Beatrice and Tracy raised a good idea, Ashley had to point out two negative aspects. She did not encourage innovation among team members nor was she supportive to the subordinates. Since she only criticized without giving counter suggestions, it would only make them feel frustrated. 

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.  

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.

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.

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.)

	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

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.

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.