|
|
|
|
Team efforts: Collaboration and confrontations work side-by-sideA Review Essay Rashmi Kumar, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA rashmik@comcast.net To the readers of IASCE’s Newsletter words and connotations of "collaboration", "cooperation", and "team-effort" will not come as unexpected reading; but what might be delightful is the wide variety in the implementation and the implications of these very ideas. As I discover more about cooperative learning, I find myself constantly revising and challenging my perceptions. The four articles from Harvard Business Review [http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/products/hbr/] reviewed here are among those that have guided me. The complete reference for each article is available at the end of this review. The Sandberg article, Understanding Competence at Work, is included in "Forethought", the front section of each issue of Harvard Business Review. While the article is brief, its message is profound. The author has done a great job in connecting the theoretical advantages of cooperative efforts to practical usage in the everyday workforce. Sandberg advocates that as people in the workplace strive to fulfill their own goals, they need to develop the foresight to anticipate and appreciate the goals of their team members. The challenge, according to Sandberg, is in developing an understanding of the differences in individual goals among team players. The author argues that perspective-taking skills can and need to be developed. He explains by giving actual examples from a study conducted at the Volvo Car Corporation in Sweden and describes three different competencies of working together. The first group—"Sequential Optimizers" work on their own goals, the second group—"Interactive Optimizers" cooperate with other members of the same group, and the third group—"Customer Optimizers" cooperate with all colleagues interested in working towards satisfying the customers’ needs. Not surprisingly, the last group has well-developed perspective-taking skills; they also excel at their work. Interestingly, those in the first group, with least developed perspective taking skills, are not able to account for their lesser developed "work competence". I wish this study had extended its findings. I would have liked to know if the group deficient in perspective-taking skills was ever given help in developing them, and if so, how? We have come to understand that people with higher levels of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligences (Gardner, 1983), and those with well-developed Emotional Intelligence (EQ) (Goleman, 1995) have greater success in life and at work. In the article, Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups, Druskatt and Wolff describe their research on group emotional intelligence: "Individual emotional intelligence has a group analog, and it is just as critical to groups’ effectiveness. Teams can develop greater emotional intelligence and, in so doing, boost their overall performance" (p.82).The authors state that even though we have a tendency to quantify individual performance, most of the work done in any kind of organization is accomplished by teams. It therefore becomes imperative for progressive managers to make concerted efforts to develop team EQ. The authors quote Goleman: "Personal competence comes from being aware of and regulating one’s own emotions; social competence is awareness and regulation of others’ emotions" (p. 82). For effective group work to take place, a higher and more complex level of awareness is required—an understanding of the emotions of one’s own group as well as those of other groups within and outside of the immediate boundaries. A group which works well together will develop many characteristics—trust, a sense of group identity, and a sense of group efficacy. The authors lay out the foundations and the norms for developing group EQ: Group intelligence is about the small acts that make a big difference. It is not about a team member working all night to meet a deadline; it is about saying thank you for doing so. It is not about in-depth discussion of ideas; it is about asking a quiet member for his thoughts. It is not about harmony, lack of tension, and all members liking each other; it is about acknowledging when harmony is false, tension unexpressed, and treating others with respect (p. 86). Druskatt and Wolff have put together a graphic organizer which is worth hanging near coffee machines and water coolers, in board rooms, classrooms, and teachers’ lounges, and wherever else people get together to collaborate. A concerned reader might ask: "Will the ride to developing such sophisticated team effectiveness be a smooth one?" The authors honestly concede that confrontations and heated discussions are natural outcomes of group dynamics. However, they need not be avoided. An ambitious manager with foresight uses confrontation as a tool. The article brilliantly describes the circumstances and the consequences of group discussions where arguments become the foreplay to higher levels of creativity and productivity. Figure 1 portrays this.
The last two articles, Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve, and Speeding up Team Learning are somewhat similar; they both describe the "paradoxes and challenges" of effective group leadership. Interestingly, in a very subtle way, they both point out that there is nothing contradictory about needing both—a team leader and the democratic principles of equality in a group. According to both articles, team leaders can motivate their people by affecting team learning, by successfully implementing new methodologies with everyone’s consent, and by creating an atmosphere of psychological safety. All of the above attributes are highly coveted in any organization. Yet, the burden to create them is not insignificant. What makes up the profile of group leaders who are able to do so? The article, Speeding up Team Learning, defines three necessary characteristics to become a "Learning Leader". Collins’ description of effective team leadership is not as straightforward. He has summarized his five years of research about what makes some companies great. From Collin’s perspective, the answer often focuses on the CEOs. He describes a wide range of CEOs—from successful, yet uncelebrated ones to celebrated, yet dysfunctional ones. Collins tends to frame his findings in terms of personality. For those of us who might think more in terms of interpersonal skills and collaboration, it is easy to interpret his descriptions of the most successful CEOs as those who operate consistently at extraordinarily high levels of "task" commitment and skill while, simultaneously, focusing on "maintenance" issues with a level of skill that stems from deep emotional intelligence. o is research:
Eventually, such exemplary leadership creates value, honor, and psychological safety among the employees. And, as the article by Druskatt and Wolff indicates, such leadership increases productivity and creativity. A common theme regarding the benefits of collaborative work resonates in all these articles. Each, in its own way, builds a strong case for the value of collaboration and presents a complex picture of the skills needed for highly successful collaboration. Read by educators, these articles help build a strong case for the value of collaborative work that takes the time to teach good interpersonal skills and to reflect on the use of these skills to both get the task done and to build and maintain relationships with peers. Each of the above articles has its merits. However, if you have the time and the inclination to read only one, I urge you to read Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups by Druskatt and Wolff. It is simple and powerful. Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66-76. Druskat, V.U. & Wolff, S.B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 80-90. Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R. & Pisano, G. (2001). Speeding up team learning. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 125-132. Sandberg, J. (2001). Understanding competence at work. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 24-28. References: Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic. I would like to thank Lynda Baloche for her help in writing this review.
|
