Team and Group Workshop Conducted by Heintjie Santos

2. DAY 1
SUMMARY!

3. Unleashing the effectiveness and
efficiency of Groups/Teams!

4. 1. Necessary conditions of an effective group
2. Creativity and Brainstorming
3. Working in cross functional teams and
Virtual teams

5. 1. A clear and elevating goal
2. Results-driven structure
3. Competent team members
4. Unified commitment
5. Collaborative climate
6. Standards of excellence
7. External support & recognition
8. Principled leadership
Source: Larson & LaFasto, F. (1989). “Teamwork: What must go right/What can go wrong”

14. The collaborative team member
(a checklist)1
Ineffective Effective
 Defensive & closed  Candid & straightforward
 Non-supportive  Supportive
 Passive  Takes action
 Negative  Positive
 Inexperienced  Experienced
 Unproductive  Productive
1 Larson & LaFasto (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/What can go wrong. Sage Publications.

15. Threats to Performance
Effort + Motivation
Knowledge + Coordination
Skill

16. Anatomy of Group Decision Making
A rational model of group decision-making
Orientation
Define the problem Determine the goal Plan the process
Discussion
Gather information Identify alternatives Evaluate alternatives
Decision Making
Make group decisions
Implementation
Adhere to the decision Evaluate the decision Seek feedback
Source: Forsyth, D. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd edition), p. 286. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

17. Group Decision Making
BENEFITS
(Compared to Individual Decision-Making)
Breadth of information
Diversity of information
Acceptance of solution
Legitimacy of process

19.  Was this a decision that
called for a rational
decision making process?
[Y or N]
 Was your group process
rational?
 If not, what did you do?

20. Group Decision Making
CHALLENGES
(Compared to Individual Decision-Making)
p Increased information processing demands
p Greater necessity for complex decision rules
n search for common ground
n coordination difficulty
p More complex interpersonal processes
n range of knowledge, skills, and abilities
n coalition formation

21. Hidden Profile Problem
Superior decision alternative that is hidden
because each member only has a portion of the
information that supports this alternative

22. Common Information Effect
 People are more likely to discuss information
they have in common than unique information
 People trust information more when they have
personal access to it
 Information that is broadly shared often gets the
most weight in group judgments

23. Students to discuss

24. Information Silo Model
AGENDA DISCUSSION AGENDA
OPINIONS OPINIONS
FACTS FACTS
Team Member Team Member
AGENDA AGENDA
OPINIONS OPINIONS
FACTS FACTS
Team Member Team Member

25. Hidden Profile Example
A,B,C A,B,F,H A,B,C,D,E C,D,E A,B,F,G A,B,C,D,E F,G,H A,B,G,H A,B,C,D,E
8 Jack
# of independent pieces of positive information 5 Carol
5 Bob

26. Ineffective Strategies for
Overcoming a Hidden Profile
 Increase amount of discussion
 Increase size of group
 Increase information load
 Accountability
 Pre-discussion polling (ask each group member to
indicate their decision at outset)
 Confirmation bias
 Skewed interpretation of information

27. Effective interventions
 Re-direct focus of discussion: Search and consider unique information
 Maintain focus on unique information
 Define goal as a “problem to be solved” not a “judgment to be made”
 Suspend initial judgment – caution members against making a
decision on their own
 Instruct members to record facts during discussion that justify decision
 Rank rather than choose
 Consider alternatives one at a time
 Heighten awareness of who might possess unique information

28.  Put structures in place that will allow complete
use of group’s knowledge and the whole range
of available expertise
 Find out what each person knows
 Express your true opinions and don’t just
express what you think others want to hear
 Focus on solving the problem instead of
pushing your own opinion

30. Guilford’s 3-factor model of creativity:
1. Fluency: Quantity of ideas
2. Flexibility: Diversity of ideas
3. Originality: Rarity; novelty

31. Knowledge-Brokering Cycle
 Innovation: not about solitary genius; more about using old ideas as
raw materials for new ones
 Knowledge Brokering: taking
an idea that is commonplace
in one area and moving it to a
context where it isn't
common at all
1. Capturing good ideas
2. Keeping ideas alive
3. Imagining new uses for
old ideas
4. Putting promising
concepts to test

32. 1. Expressiveness: Group members should express
any idea that comes to mind, no matter how
strange, weird, or fanciful. Group members are
encouraged not to be constrained nor timid. They
should freewheel whenever possible.
2. Non-evaluation: Do not criticize ideas. Group
members should not evaluate any of the ideas in any
way during the generation phase; all ideas should be
considered valuable.
3. Quantity: Group members should generate as many
ideas as possible. Groups should strive for
quantity, as the more ideas, the better. Quantity of
ideas increases the probability of finding excellent
solutions.
4. Building: Because all of the ideas belong to the
group, members should try to modify and extend the
ideas suggested by other members whenever
possible.

34. Leading Creative Organizations:
Key Takeaways
1. Generate as many ideas as possible – quantity likely to
improve quality (i.e., originality)
2. Think in terms of categories to promote flexibility
3. Use the 4 rules for brainstorming – have someone enforce
them
4. Build off of each other’s ideas, combine and recombine –
knowledge brokering
5. The support of key organizational players is critical for
getting new ideas implemented

36. GLOBESMART

37. Real World Analog:
Mars Climate Orbiter Failure
 Failure investigation board concluded the
following:
 Inconsistent communication
 Operational navigation team not fully informed on
details
 Communication channels were too informal
 Verification and validation process inadequate

38. ROE

39. 1. Know the task focus of your team (e.g., creative, tactical, problem-solving)
2. Be clear about the authority of the team (e.g., manager-led vs. self-directing)
3. Focus on minimizing threats in big 3 areas (ability, motivation, communication)
4. Be transparent about how you make decisions
5. Create forum for “healthy” conflict (transform “personalized conflict” into
“de-personalized” conflict)
6. Capitalize on what teams are good at (convergent information-processing and
getting buy-in); capitalize on what individuals are good at (divergent thinking)
7. Keep in touch – virtually and/or face-to-face
8. Make sure the team’s goal is clear!

40. There seems to be a disconnect of what
science knows and what managers practice
in today’s workplace..
“Bridge science and management to address
irrational business decisions and dangerous
half-truths in organizational practices”
-Heintjie Santos

41. Thank YOU!