This workshop will address a variety of topics to help participants polish their management skills. Among these topics will be group communication logistics, identity and register, tips for improving e-communication, the various roles of group leaders, the subtle art of delegation, and feedback and reflection. Participants will consider theoretical underpinnings of these topics and (in the spirit of this workshop) analyze salient points using group activities.
Class #1 - Groups, Leaders, and Other Dangerous Things (August 19)
What, good people, comprises a group? What groups are fortunate enough to embrace you as a member? The nature of these somewhat flexible entities is our first topic today, after which we'll consider the good people leading said groups.
Topic 1: Groups
First, an anecdote from a long-ago, mostly-forgotten class in my murky past ...
(in class, of course). After having heard that, you're welcome to ponder the minimum size of a
group with me. Just a few years ago, two fine academics argued opposite sides of the coin, with Moreland
(2010) maintaining that
dyads are not inherently groups
Abstract
Social scientists who study groups disagree about whether (and to what
extent) dyads ought to be included in their work. In this article, I argue
that dyads are not really groups because (a) dyads are more ephemeral
than groups, forming and dissolving more quickly; (b) people feel stronger
(and often different) emotions in dyads than in groups; (c) dyads are simpler
than groups - some group phenomena cannot occur in dyads, and those that
do may operate differently there; and (d) research on dyads is carried out
almost independently (by different people, applying different theories and
methods, and publishing their work in different outlets) from research on
groups. I also review some of the conceptual and methodological problems
that can arise when dyads are mistakenly viewed as groups.
; Williams (2010) took
the opposite stance
Abstract
Moreland eloquently argues for excluding dyads from group process research
and theory. Although dyads can have properties that do not lend themselves
to certain group process research (e.g., coalition formation) and have
properties that can go beyond typical group processes (e.g., intimate relations
and love), in most instances dyads are groups of two and operate under
the same principles and theories that explain group processes for groups of
three and larger. In this article, the author presents research and theory that
support the inclusion of dyads as groups.
.
Whom you agree with will be one of our points of discussion today.
Topic 2: Leaders & Leadership
From the good people at Psychology Today, we have a series of blog posts about leadership - thought-provoking, in my opinion.
An interesting and concise commentary on the roles of leaders, courtesy of Cara Good.
What effect, you might ask, does leadership have? In an interesting
study, Day, Sin, and Chen (2004) examined the
burden of leadership
Abstract
This study acopted a role-based perspective in examining whether
changes in performance over time (i.e., dynamic criteria) were a function of changes
in individual leadershiop role responsibilities. Longitudinal data from captains
in the modern era of the National Hockey League (N = 201) were used to test a
dynamic criterion hypothesis using multi-level growth modeling. Time (k = 10) was
modeled as a random effect, whereas captain status (i.e., leadership role responsibility)
was included as a time-varying covariate. Individual performance was measured as
the adjusted points (goals scored plus assists adjusted for individual and
historical effects). Results of a series of model-building steps that included
the examination of alternative complex error structures indicated an overall
negative performance trend. Those seasons in which a player assumed formal
leadership responsibilities (i.e., team captain) wree associated with better
performance compared to seasons in which the player had no leadership responsibilites.
These results were found to be robust even after controlling for individual performance
in the previous season. Results are discussed in terms of the possible positive
implications for individual performance and the motivation to lead through developing
a culture in which leadership positions are highly valued by the organization,
visible to others on the team, and where leadership responsibilities do not interfere
with task performance.
in a particular sports context.
For Tomorrow ...
Some homework for tomorrow: Wagner (2006) authored an
interesting piece that address "International collaboration in science and technology: Promises and
pitfalls". You'll find the
abstract here
Abstract
International collaborations represent a growing share of scientific and technical activities.
In contrast with national programmes and projects, connections at the international level are
systems of communication, facilitated by ICTs, that are often difficult to identify. Policy
makers are faced with the question of how to support, benefit from and exploit them. The
networks created by international collaboration in science and technology (ICST) offer
opportunities for developing countries to acquire knowledge for local development, but there
are few guidelines on how to manage such networked systems. The potential for missteps and
the obstacles to joining networks are significant. This chapter describes the dynamics of
ICST, and offers a framework for decision making about how to use the opportunities they
offer to provide the demand for development.
.
A second article for your consideration, folks... In a nod to the very
current state of much global communication, Webster and Wong (2008) examined groups and
specifically three types of project teams. A timely article, I think, for much of what we
do now is distributed. Here is the
abstract.
Abstract
This study compares three types of project teams in a global high-tech organization:
traditional (co-located), virtual (completely distributed), and esemi-virtualf or hybrid
(containing both local and remote members). We use in-group/out-group theories of
subgroups to help explain the findings. Specifically, local members of semi-virtual
teams report much more positive perceptions of their local than their remote members,
while traditional and virtual team members appear similar. We conclude by drawing
implications for practice, such as the avoidance of semi-virtual teams whenever possible
and the development of strong team identities.
Oh, why not? We're having so much fun thinking about homework that I've
decided to give you yet ANOTHER article to ponder. This one deals with so-called "mutual knowledge",
courtesy of Catherine Durnell Cramton (2001).
Yet again, this is a timely article, I think, for much of what we
do now is distributed (perhaps you've heard that before?). Here is the
abstract.
Abstract
This paper proposes that maintaining "mutual knowledge" is a central
problem of geographically dispersed collaboration and traces the
consequences of failure to do so. It presents a model of these
processes which is grounded in study of thirteen geo- graphically
dispersed teams. Five types of problems constitut- ing failures of
mutual knowledge are identified: failure to com- municate and retain
contextual information, unevenly distributed information, difficulty
communicating and understanding the salience of information,
differences in speed of access to infor- mation, and difficulty
interpreting the meaning of silence. The frequency of occurrence
and severity of each problem in the teams are analyzed. Attribution
theory, the concept of cognitive load, and feedback dynamics are
harnessed to explain how dis- persed partners are likely to
interpret failures of mutual knowl- edge and the consequences of
these interpretations for the integrity of the effort. In particular,
it is suggested that unrecognized differences in the situations,
contexts, and constraints of dis- persed collaborators constitute
"hidden profiles" that can in- crease the likelihood of dispositional
rather than situational attribution, with consequences for cohesion
and learning. Mod- erators and accelerators of these dynamics are
identified, and implications for both dispersed and collocated
collaboration are discussed.
.
Class #2 Collaboration, Thy Name is Good (August 20)
More fun stuff!
Determinants of delegation and consultation is the topic of an interesting
article by Gary Yukl and Ping Ping Fu (1999). You'll find the
abstract here
Abstract
Few studies have identifed determinants of delegation and consultation. To investigate
this question further, we surveyed managers and subordinates in two samples and
interviewed managers individually or in focus groups. The use of delegation and consultation
with individual subordinates was determined in part by characteristics of the
subordinates and the manager}subordinate relationship. More delegation was used for a
subordinate who was competent, shared the leader's task objectives, had worked
longer for the manager, was a supervisor also, and had a favorable exchange
relationship with the manager. Consultation with a subordinate was predicted
by goal congruence, subordinate job level, and quality of the leader}member
exchange relationship. The managers acknowledged that developing subordinates
and empowering them to do their work were important reasons for delegation,
but many managers were reluctant to give up control over important decisions
or assign an important task to an inexperienced subordinate.
This link is, I frankly admit, a teaser for those of you with
economic common sense, of which I have none. I'm quite sure the final two sentences
of the abstract are English, but I have no idea what they mean. Nonetheless,
the Fershtman, Judd, and Kalai (1991) dealt with
delegation and cooperation in
non-coooperative games
Abstract
The role of commitments in noncooperative games is well acknowledged
and documented. One way to achieve commitments is by letting delegates
represent the players of a game. In this paper we study a delegation game in
which the players can use agents strategically to play on their behalf and the
contracts they sign with them are common knowledge. We show that in such
cases every Pareto optimal outcome of the game can become the unique
subgame perfect Nash equilibrium of the delegation game. We demonstrate
this result by discussing the Cournot-type duopolistic game.
, which is germaine to our discussion. Enjoy at your own peril!
Class #3 The Delicate Art of Delegation (August 21)
More fun stuff!
The Coda Who Are We?
Although we likely will not treat it in any depth, any discussion of modern communication should include - I believe - at least a brief mention of the concept of identity on the Internet. Some years ago Markus and Nurius (1986) eloquently discussed the notion of possible selves, in which a person consists of not just a core persona (or self), but, rather, any number of other selves.
In a slightly dated piece, Michael Hardey (2002) examined how
on-line and off-line identities emerge and are negotiated within Internet contexts
Abstract
This paper explores on-line and off-line identities and how relationships are formed
and negotiated within internet environments that offer opportunities to meet
people on-line and move into relationships off-line. To do this it draws on an analysis
of users experiences of internet dating sites that are designed for those who wish
meet others in the hope of forming an intimate relationship. Locating analyses in
the context of the individualised sociability of late modernity, it is argued that
virtual interactions may be shaped by and grounded in the social, bodily and
cultural experiences of users. It is shown that disembodied anonymity that characterises
the internet acts as a foundation for the building of trust and establishing
real world relationships rather than the construction of fantasy selves. The paper
concludes with a discussion of the wider significance of this for understanding
disembodied identities and interactions and the impact of cyberspace on off-line
sociability.
. While
his piece deals with social relationships (i.e., dating), the issue of identity
remains one facet of group communication with other purposes.
Course Requirements
As you will know from class, an optional component of this course is to write a short (2-3 pages) summary and critique of one of the extra readings. The idea is, of course, for you to explore a bit more about one of our topics this week.
Writing
As you know from class, I require polite email. Recall, too, that if you send me a file, the filename has a certain form.
Here's an example of the report style that you should use.