Sunday, September 1, 2019

MSLD 635 Module 4 - Build a Tower, build a Team




Build a Tower, Build a Team



The leadership role is being transformed because of the increasing importance of team’s in today’s organization. Research on effective organizations shows that more and more organizations are relying on the team approach to managing (Brown, 2011).

Wujec (2010), on his short presentation, talk about the marshmallow challenge, created by Peter Skillman. The purpose of Wujec was to analyze the performance of different types of individual and teams in a simple activity that reveals a lot of aspects of a groups and teams. One of the Wujec’s conclusion is that kindergartners perform better than MBA students. The reason inferred by the author is that simplicity has a powerful note on teamwork. Partially I agree with Wujec because I believe that facing simple situations in a complex way tends to turn simplicity into complexity. The reason I agree partially is covered also by the author when he touches base on the preparation aspect. When a task is given in advance, allowing team to discuss and collaborative find solutions the outcome tends to change, and MBA students prove to be also great performers.

Another reason I believe kids perform better is because they get less distracted by external aspects when they have a task in hand. Kids at this age does not have ego; does not worry with status; and they have no agenda when an activity of this level is presented to them. It brings back that simplicity, not only in a technical scope but behavioral speaking, also plays a role on the positive outcome of a situation at hand.

Wujec’s mentions that group of CEOs alone has a lower performance in comparison of CEOs with an executive assistant, due to the assistant’s holistic perspective. Although I agree with Wujec, I also believe there are other aspects that influences the better results. One of them is the fact the assistant, in a situation like this, plays as mediator, due to the CEOs probable similar traits. When CEOs are alone there is a high probability of clash in personalities, agendas and leadership traits. Another aspect is the fact that the assistant probably has a simpler mind, which goes in liaise with the kindergartners results: simplicity is crucial for simple challenges. Last, but not least, the assistance brings the technical collaboration to the “table”. CEOs tend to think in larger scopes and far forward, while assistants deal with technicalities more often.

            If I were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, I would relate the balance of skills from the participants on the activities. For instance, I would initially put teams with same background and formal position to work together, and right afterwards I would separate them and build teams as diverse as possible. The purpose of this design would be to present to the participants how collaborative diversity is powerful and how all members contribute to the outcome of the results, independently on how high-skilled they are. This balance on the team’s structure would be brought up also on how systems and subsystem are interrelated as presented by Brown (2011), in the same way people are interdependent.

Jody Rogers (n.d.) presents follow-up questions to ask of the group to facilitate discussion and further learning, which I believe could be used if I were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop. The questions suggested by Rogers are:

  • Was there a leader on your team? Who was it and who decided who the leader would be?
  • If you had no leader, do you think having designated someone a leader would have helped?
  • If you had a leader, how did he/she do? Of the leadership practices we have learned so far, which did your leader use?
  • How helpful was everyone on your team in challenging the process of building the tallest structure? Did anyone appear to be an expert?
  • Did any team members tune out of the activity — out of frustration with other members or for some other reason? What could you have done to keep all members of the group fully engaged?
  • Did you feel everyone's ideas were well received during the activity?
  • How did you feel as the time limit was approaching? Did pressure increase? If yes, was that helpful or not?
  • In retrospect, what could you have done better to enhance your ability to Challenge the Process?
  • Did you practice outsight? Where might new ideas have come from given your time constraint?
  • Did you celebrate small wins? If yes, how did you do this?

            The main learning outcome of this exercise, for me, is how bottom-line employees can contribute to challenges. Their lack of knowledge and of broader perspective can, in fact, be a positive aspect to solve challenges. In my current job I can bring the team together more often to make basic decisions, empowering and delegating decision making. In my career, specially the one I intend to pursue, I can make use of the same or similar challenges to work on team building  and observe group tasks and maintenance task on individuals, not only to reinforce participants strengths but to assist on the diagnosis of team problem and potential, through observation.



References

Brown, D.R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rogers, J. (n.d.). Challenging the process with the Marshmallow Challenge. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/resource/challenging-the-process-with-the-marshmallow-challenge.aspx

Wujec, T. (2010, February). Build a tower, build a team. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower

No comments:

Post a Comment