WRITTEN BY:
CHEN XIAONI, Renee 53635420
LUI LAIKING, Kimmy 53970571
WU XIAOXU, Effie 53659791
A collaborative team is the interaction of involving people
work together by sharing opinions and knowledge. To build up mutual trust, enhance
creativity and impact positively on the quality of working life for virtual
team members become familiarity, honesty and full participation harness the
collective expertise of the team. Exercise A1 and A2 reveal two completely
different trust management types, one is characterized by low levels of trust
while the other is high-trust work environment.
-Exercise A1 presentation/product tended to be marketable
Low trust
The management types,
the supervisor instruct the rest of the team on what is the next direction to
proceed with the script writing process.” and “No team member is allowed to
talk without the permission to speak from the supervisor.” This means the team
members of this company can only receive information or idea from one
supervisor. What’s more, this information or idea will be filtered by
supervisor firstly. Poor and indirect communication creates suspicion and
information loss.
Because of the
existing of the supervisor role and the bureaucratic reporting and feedback
system, group members are not motivated for brainstorming. Especially due to
the criticism every time after speaking, group members are less willing to
speak out their own idea and thoughts. It seems the supervisor is the only one
who can make decisions.
Low teamwork spirit
The subordinates never
know what next direction that they are going to involve. They feel difficulty
to achieve the group’s goal with ambiguous vision. Group members not allowed laughing during
working hours, everyone just focuses on his/her own responsibility without
interaction, information is passed to team members strictly on a need to know
basis, team environment eventually becomes silence with low creativity, since
subordinates can’t develop themselves by giving the opportunities to contribute
and build on ideas from the team. Furthermore, the leader decides to present
individually that may not be able to reflect the team effectively attract
audiences.
-Exercise A2
presentation/product tended to be creativeHigh trust
“Everyone must have the freedom
to communicate with everyone.” When employee knows they have the right and the
opportunity to communicate with colleagues and boss exactly, they can receive
the feeling of supportive and comfortable and thus been motivated from company.
High creativity
Each group member
has the equal rights to speak out, to challenge and to be involved in final
dictions. In this kind of democratic atmosphere, group members showed their
great activity and motivation in brainstorming. After the collision of thought,
it was the best idea that decided the final decision.
High teamwork
spirit
There is high trust in group
goals among all team members. Everyone has freedom to communicate with each
other to generate different ideas as possible.
They are encouraged to bring out their own ideas via the brainstorming,
not only actively and openly share their knowledge and ideas around the whole
team, but also accept the criticism from others when proposing the ideas.
Letting each member to have high participation by greater clarity in expressing
ideas through group discussion can help developing of team goals with
creativity.
Conclusion
Successful teams are characterized by a team spirit based
around trust, mutual respect that bringing people together work effectively as
a team or make appropriates decisions. It also can help improve participants’
confidence, attitudes, motivation and personal satisfaction. To streamline team
forces by taking pooling experience and expertise to achieve goal in more
efficient use of resources.
References
- Sanduo Zhou, Chuanming Chen, Minghong Lu. Management Principle and Method. 4th Edition. Shanghai: Fudan University Press; 2008.
- Xueming Yang, Talking about the trust management of staff in a corporate. http://wenku.baidu.com/view/40ce251dfad6195f312ba63f.html (accessed 06 Jan 2011)
- Robert F. Hurley, The Decision to Trust. Harvard Business Review Article, 2009, R0609B: 55-62.
- Constructing excellence Company. Effective Teamwork: A Best Practice Guide for the Construction Industry. Http://212.69.36.161/pdf/document/Teamwork_Guide.pdf?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (accessed Mar 2004)
- Teresa M. Amabile, How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review Article, 1998
I like your paper very much especially the title "teamwork=creativity+trust", seems that your view is so close to our RGB group's conclusion; and it was organized in a very good format and looks so clean.
ReplyDeleteBut I am curious about what kinds of kitchenware product pitches your team finally developed? And how you reflect your conclusions from your discussion experience? If you could elaborate more on this, that's perfect. Tks.
ReplyDeleteDear Group 2 (Three Idiots),
It’s teacher Frank here. I have a fun time reading this as you are bold and clear in setting up a nice framework to engage your analysis. You have a nice introduction that clearly explains what contribute to the features differences in decision contexts that you think would impact group innovation outcomes and processes. Your position is that Exercise A1 and A2 reveal two completely different trust management types: one is characterized by low levels of trust while the other is high-trust work environment. Not a bad premise at all. While this is a strong thesis statement, you have assumed this, not proved these to have contributed. What might be other differences between these two decision contexts? What if there are other differences in decision contexts that are more important in proving their impact effects on other context features on group innovation processes and dynamics during your group processes, which you did not mention as data nor information to prove.
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. Some nice but disjointed insights are made throughout the writing, but they are not building on each other to make more sophisticated arguments that can lead to a culminating final concluding point that impacts and influences your reader’s perception about certain issues, or position on moral debates, or even future decision going forward.
This 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:
ReplyDeleteNice pictures that show your ideas. You can add more pictures and video to make it more impressive and vivid. I love your team name, and the spirit behind the movie.
Your position is that Teamwork=Creativity + Trust. It’s an original position, but you didn’t prove nor support it to allow it to be the assumptive framework before you start your analysis.
INSIGHT AND PROVOCATION:
Your group has nicely employed a range of different critical thinking techniques that allows the group to further extend their reflection; you have done some well.
A. Categorizing (1ikes and dislikes; same as or different from): Categorizing is the beginning step in developing critical thinking skills. The simplest form of analysis is to place information into categories. The most difficult of this exercise is deciding on what the categories should be and framing the ideas that form the categories. You quickly at the beginning differentiate decision contexts based on the following dimensions: (1) low vs. lost trust on which group communication is performed, (2) high vs. low team spirit on which group creativity is based, (3) high vs. low creativity that stems from group processes in the two decision contexts.
B. Analysis (contextual)
The categories established by the group form the basis for discussion and how they fit together to support an idea becomes the analysis part of making sense out of the experience. Analysis can determine if the steps or facts used provide a logical sequence to the final idea. If such logical arguments exist, are there any important contradictions of fact left unconsidered? Do those in the reflection session agree with the analysis or is more information needed? If so, who will get the information and share it with the group?
Your analysis incomplete and underdeveloped at the moment and rather exploratory with no clear strategy of attack nor points you desire to make by introducing a thesis statement at the beginning and proving the concluding point and insight at the end through developing and connecting arguments.
C. Inferencing
Inferencing is the ability to use the categories that have been analyzed and make predictions about future trends. Since guessing is involved in inferencing it is at best an unpredictable and risky technique, though your group relies heavily and primarily on this reflective technique in arriving at categorizing and contextual analysis. You could have applied more concepts and knowledge base in the readings and lectures as assumptions and supporting arguments in engaging in differentiating the decision context features that affect group processes and outcomes.
D. Synthesis
Synthesis is the ability of putting idea strands together from isolated information. Categories, analysis, inferences and consideration of the severity of the conclusion are all parts of a critical thinking model outcome. The synthesis, if done correctly, should point to a conclusion. In your blog, you have very clear and short arguments which attract my attention and make your points and insights. But, your synthesis is at best fragmented and descriptive. You can motivate readers to think by bringing them through synthesis by integrating arguments, paving logical steps, providing evidence and support to arrive at a nice concluding point at the synthesis.
SUPPORT AND EVIDENCE:
ReplyDeleteYou can further analyze and reflect on your group processes and individual experiences in the group by examining the feelings and perceptions surrounded the group and individual experience? How do feelings and perceptions relate to each other? What do you do when they are in contradiction? How do the different decision contexts create anticipation and expectation of your roles that affect the feelings and perceptions surrounded the group and individual experience? What might this experience mean in the context of your course?
You can cite specific details of what actually occurred during the group processes as support, or literature or concepts taught or read in the readings; rather, you often make sweeping generalizations without citing or proving in your content.
MASTERY AND UNDERSTANDING:
Four activities are central to critical reflection (Brookfield 1988) that your group can further develop to show your understanding of your group processes during innovation: you have done some hints of these analyses but they are underdeveloped:
(1) ASSUMPTION ANALYSIS - This is the first step in the critical reflection process. It involves thinking in such a manner that it challenges our beliefs, values, cultural practices, and social structures in order to assess their impact on our daily proceedings. Assumptions are our way of seeing reality and to aid us in describing how the order of relationships. Analyze the assumptions you base on your analysis, and even challenge them to provide alternative interpretations.
(2) CONTEXTUAL AWARENESS - Realizing that our assumptions are socially and personally created in a specific historical and cultural context. You do so through categorizing mentioned earlier by assuming it but not proving it.
(3) IMAGINATIVE SPECULATION - Imagining alternative ways of thinking about phenomena in order to provide an opportunity to challenge our prevailing ways of knowing and acting; Analyze the assumptions you base on your analysis, and even challenge them to provide alternative interpretations.
(4) REFLECTIVE SKEPTICISM - Questioning of universal truth claims or unexamined patterns of interaction through the prior three activities - assumption analysis, contextual awareness, and imaginative speculation. It is the ability to think about a subject so that the available evidence from that subject's field is suspended or temporarily rejected in order to establish the truth or viability of a proposition or action.
There are plenty of generalizations mentioned in supporting and extending the arguments. What you need is to add more concepts and theoretical bases to fill the gaps in logics and reasoning as well show that your assumptions have veracity based on past research and findings. For instance, you mentioned low trust in scenario1, you can use the concept about little communication leads to low trust. With using such concept, the logical link is completed.
CLARITY AND COHERENCE:
This structure is clear. But it seems that there is no relationship between scenario 1 and 2. You can make comparison and contrast between them. You might want to cover both sides of the story: by covering just disadvantages or advantage is “biased” selective attention to data, information, or categories in your case based on ladder of inference that jumps to conclusions without going through the steps of necessary rungs up the ladder.
the blog is very spirit. and the formula is really a spotlight of this blog.
ReplyDeleteThe structure is very clear: 2 scenarios with analysis behind. I like the background which is very blight. The whole blog is talking about trust which is very necessary but if there can be more analysis about other factors will be more helpful to readers
ReplyDeleteYour blog used a clearly structure to compare and contrast two kinds of organization atmosphere's effects on the collaboration of a team, which gives me a good reading and learning experience. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHere are some feelings from me after reading.
For your mentioned "information loss" due the first kind of highly supervised team culture, I think it also affect the creativity by setting bias and challenges manually even though unconsciously. At such atmosphere, the organization culture is negative for the whole knowledge management process. When each employee can only express their opinion to the leader and get information from those supervisors, it limits the chance that each other share and learn from the others. Even though there is a very good opinion, after it pass to the others via the supervisors, it both lose some information and miss the timeliness. Sometimes, some creation came from the enlightenment of other people or things. At such atmosphere that people cannot implement the knowledge sharing, how can they make it to knowledge discovery, knowledge capturing even knowledge implementation? When the whole team lack the chance to communicate (maybe people feel respect and admire to some others due to the discussion of some topic) with others, how can they form such an spirit atmosphere which will be very positive not only for the creativity but also for the entire working process? Strict organization structure do guarantee the operation order, but its limitation towards the knowledge management and further more the creativity and spirits of a team is beyond imagination.
Thanks for your enlightenment that makes me think of these links between the organizational cultures, knowledge management, and teams' creativity and spirits.