Learning Group Formation Process

Transcription

1 Learning Group Formation Process RATIONALE The methodology suggested in this paper was designed to encourage success within the three categories of group issues documented by Edgar Schein in Facilitative Process Interventions (page 287): 1. Group boundary management: Determining who is in and who is not 2. Group task accomplishment: How best to fulfill the task at hand 3. Interpersonal and group management: Ensuring emotional needs are met While considering these three areas, we have also factored in the learning group s objectives: To act as a source of support, growth and development in OD and provide accountability for completion of the SLC and thesis. Group Boundary Management The group formation process must ensure that individual needs are accounted for by considering each concept within the SCARF model: Status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, fairness (D. Rock, 2009). The focus in this selection process is to remain at all times on the task and process at hand rather than on individual and personal attributes. Each step is designed to maintain equal status, provide process transparency and clarity of goals which will minimize any potential relationship conflicts. Group Task Accomplishment To be set up for success, each group should include diversity in a range of categories including demographics, learning styles, communication style, behavior, skill sets and geographic location.

2 Groups should not be selected purely based on formed friendships and past experiences. The qualities that tend to make for good friendships are not the same as those that go towards good group work, and the danger is that the groups might be ineffective and that friendships might fall apart. (1) In addition, by sorting individuals from a variety of categories within the Belbin group roles model, we have attempted to ensure each team is designed to be highly functional. Interpersonal and Group Management In order to manage the interpersonal dynamics once the group is formed, members with a range of strengths within SPINE (spiritual, physical, intellectual, intuitive, emotional) and FIRO-B will encourage healthy group functioning and support of emotional needs. METHODOLOGY Step One (10 minutes): Take time to compile your learning group profile which consists of your SPINE Assessment results, FIRO-B results, SLC goals and your thesis topic. In addition, consider which of the following Belbin Group Roles reflect your style the most. Role Strengths Weaknesses Extroverted, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities and develops contacts who can help the project Resource Investigator Team Worker Coordinator Shaper Implementer Cooperative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts friction and calms the waters Mature, confident and a good team leader. Clarifies goals, promotes decision- making and delegates well. Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Drive and courage to overcome obstacles. Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient. Turns ideas into practical actions. Over- optimistic. Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed. Indecisive in crunch situations. Avoids confrontation. Can be seen as manipulative. Offloads own share of work. Prone to provocation. Offends people's feelings. Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities.

3 Completer- Finisher Plant Specialist Monitor- Evaluator Painstaking, conscientious. Seeks errors and omissions. Delivers on time. Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Able to solve difficult problems. Single- minded, self- starting, dedicated. Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply. Sober, strategic, discerning. Sees and evaluates options. Judges accurately. Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate. Ignores incidentals. Too preoccupied to communicate effectively. Contributes only on a narrow front. Dwells on technicalities. Lacks drive and ability to inspire others. Can be overly critical. Step Two (10 minutes): Students are asked to form a line based on certain criteria. Each person joins the line once they fit the category announced: 1. If you speak more than one language 2. If you are male 3. If you are a Generation X 4. If you are currently in HR/OD 5. If you have more than two siblings 6. If you are a parent 7. If you are married 8. If you are single The cohort will then be divided into 8, 4-member groups and 1, 3-member group by numbering each person 1-9 in order of the line (refer to Appendix 1 for a visual). Step Three (10 minutes): In every group, the members will share and discuss their individual learning group profiles, their goals for their learning group, and how they feel they will contribute to the groups growth and development and not just their own. Here are some dialogue questions each member can use during your sessions to help direct the conversation: 1. What is your greatest strength? 2. What irritates you about other people and how do you handle it? 3. What is your typical way of dealing with conflict? 4. What kind of personalities do you work best with and why?

4 Step Four (5 minutes): Members within each group are given another set of random numbers (1-9). All members given the same number are to form a new group. Step Five (40 minutes): Repeat steps 3 and 4 until each person has met with 3 groups of people. Step Six (5 minutes): Fill out the group assessment form (Appendix 2) and place the completed form in the Complete Form pile. Step Seven (20 minutes): A sorting committee made up of 3 members is randomly selected. Each person will draw a card from a modified deck of cards. The individuals who have drawn a specific card will make up the committee. Step Eight (24 hour turn-around): The sorting committee will receive the individual assessments and map out the final teams utilizing the Team Formation Model based on the Hungarian Algorithm (Appendix 3) and each students group assessment form. The sorting committee will receive training on the team formation model by The Best Team Ever experts. Step Nine: Final teams are posted. Optional Step: If results are unsatisfactory to any member, a bereavement process is set in place to resolve such issues by the same committee (Appendix 4). Bereaving members have 2 hours after the announcement of the learning groups to submit an official bereavement to the committee indicating which group they would prefer. If 5 or more bereavements are received by the committee, the entire process will be revisited and the member preferences will be taken into consideration once again. COHORT SELECTION OF METHODOLOGY The best way to select a methodology is to have all the cohort members:

5 1. Rank methodologies by preference (1-3) with 1 being the most preferred. MSOD 614 Assignment 1 2. Sorting committee will tally the scores and identify the top three methodologies. 3. Re-rank the top three methodologies by preference (1-3). 4. Sorting committee will tally the scores. 5. The methodology with the most votes will then be used. Anticipated dynamics surrounding this decision process are as follows: Roles and Leadership: At various times, members of the cohort will take on one of two roles as described in the Belbin Group Roles model. These will likely include a task role (behaviors related to the facilitation and coordination of group problem solving activity) and a group building role (behaviors that build and maintain group centered attitudes and orientation). Several, but not all, of the Belbin Group Roles will emerge, in particular one or more Coordinators will help clarify the goals and promote decision making as well as Team Workers who will listen, build and calm the environment when necessary Decision Making: The decision making process will run smoothly if uncertainty is minimized. The amount of transparency that exists as well as overall control participants possess over the methodology and outcome will affect the decision making process. Conflict: Conflict will occur if: A group member does not agree with the process. Inconsistency exists between the behavior and role expectation (Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, Pitariu, 2008). For example, once the methodology is decided upon, most members must act as "Team Workers due to the size of the cohort and nature of the task. If too many people take on a Coordinator role, conflict will arise.

6 Group members perceive their aspirations or objectives might not be met. For example, a member wishes for a specific outcome but the methodology does not allow this to occur. MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS As a measure for the success and effectiveness of the suggested methodology, a bereavement process will be put in place. In addition to the bereavement process, the following factors can also be indicators on the effectiveness of our methodology: The diversity attained within the formed groups The verbal feedback during a check-in meeting with the cohort after the end of the process Professor feedback CHALLENGES As participants, we anticipate this methodology will present the following challenges: Addressing individual concerns as they arise. Ensuring those that are not happy with the process are cooperative. Motivating and influencing individuals to engage, especially those who are not completely satisfied with the formation. Addressing any unexpected change in our environment (i.e. professors introducing unforeseen rules). Staying engaged, present and aware as we proceed through three cycles of dialogue. Having the distraction of facilitating and participating. If we allow our attention to constantly shift focus, our level of engagement will suffer. Looking beyond what is comfortable and familiar and open ourselves to vulnerability.

7 Filling different roles within the team structure; to fill in the gaps we see missing. To be more successful throughout the formation process, we will employ the following practices: Open, thorough and authentic communication of our motivations and desires o Why we have chosen this methodology, what we hope it will achieve, understanding not everyone will be satisfied with it and being respectful of time. Thoroughly consider each group s methodology Respect others opinions Encourage input from every person Have compassion for oneself and for others Instill humor into the entire formation process

8 Appendix 1: Group Formation Visual

9 Appendix 2: Group Assessment Form Instructions List and rank the individuals whose learning style is least conducive to yours with 6 being the least conducive. Reminders as you fill out the assessment: - Your Insight Group and SPINE Buddy will always be resources and support available to you. - Be open and honest on what you re looking for; call upon your wise-self. - Assess based on their skills, style and values and how that fits into your view of the group you are forming Names Rank (1-6)

10 Appendix 3: Team Formation Model Here is a snapshot of the Hungarian Algorithm applied as our team formation model. Cohort Alejandro Alice Amanda Avonlie Bryan Cynthia Dan Daphne Dima Hans Heather Irena Jason Jordan Jose Karen Kristina row Mins count 0 Alejandro Alice Amanda Avonlie Bryan Cynthia Dan Daphne Dima Hans Heather Irena Jason Jordan Jose Karen Kristina Kristyn Linda Luis Michael Monica Pam Paula Rachel Ruth Sahar Sally Sarah Sikin Tami Terra Tiffany Vikki Wendy count STEP 2 Cohort Alejandro Alice Amanda Avonlie Bryan Cynthia Dan Daphne Dima Hans Heather Irena Jason Jordan Jose Karen Kristina Marked Assigned 0 value? count 0 Alejandro C A na Alice C Amanda C Avonlie C Bryan C Cynthia C Dan C Daphne C Dima C Hans C Heather C Irena C Jason C Jordan C Jose C Karen C Kristina C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C na Kristyn C Linda C Luis C Michael C Monica C Pam C Paula C Rachel C Ruth C Sahar C Sally C Sarah C Sikin C Tami C Terra C Tiffany C Vikki C Wendy C op Marked Assigned Max 33

11 Appendix 4: Bereavement Form Name Team Currently Assigned Desired Team For clarification purposes: Please list the reason(s) you are unsatisfied with your current assigned team. Reason 1 Reason 4 Reason 2 Reason 5 Reason 3 Reason This section to be completed by the Sorting Committee: Date/Time Appeal Received Accepted or Overruled? Date Decision Sent to Student

12 References: (1) (2) (3) (4) Schein, Edward, Facilitative Process Interventions Revisited, (5) Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, Pitariu, A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict, (6) Rock, David, Your Brain at Work, 2009 (7)