CH6 Collaborative Climate Organization Management and Communication HW Please read the attached document and reflect on what you have learned and understoo

CH6 Collaborative Climate Organization Management and Communication HW Please read the attached document and reflect on what
you have learned and understood and state your opinions regarding the below question
(How do you value these roles?). I
three scorers
lir,iate
C
having a pla~er a:0~~49-53 Yankee~, w y
·thout once
same with t e
he league an an
n times, w1 was much the
s who never Jed t
as Boston’s
co//abora
!
1
6
Collaborative Climate
The essence of teams is teamwork. If a team is a
.
“fi
..&
group of peo I
pursumg a spec1 c peuormance objective, the achieve
e
.
d”
d
.
ment of which
reqmres coor mate action, then teamwork must be
• .
· d
· ·
,
a significant
success.
Teamwork
is
the
.
factor m etermmmg a teams
,
cumu1ative
result of all
the
factors
we
ve
talked
about
so
far:
Teamwork
·
b
· fl
.
1s, a ove
all else, m uenced by the clanty and the significance of the 1
-r.
. h”m a structure that either facilitatesgoaor.
.1eamwork ta kes p1ace wit
impedes effective coordination of effort. Teamwork is more likely to
succeed if members are both competent in the technical knowledge
and skills associated with the performance objective and able to collaborate effectively with one other. And teamwork succeeds most
dramatically when team members are enthusiastically unified in pursuit of a common objective rather than individual agendas.
In accounting for the success of collective efforts, however, teamwork even goes beyond these factors-existing as a factor in its own
right. Often, when the team exceeds what could be reasonably pre·
dieted from a knowledge of the member’s abilities, such unusu~I
outcomes are frequently explained in terms of some internal dynami~
operating either within the team or between the team members an
the leader.
f
entlY
Triumphs of teamwork occur everywhere b~t a~e mo:~ ::~~omes
documented in sports, where performance obJecuves a h t 3 …, and
•
· · of bot e ‘”
are very clear cut and where extensive momtonng . 10
. the sports
individual performance levels is commonplace. It is
.., of the
.
th n the s0 1 ”
arena where the adage “the whole 1s greater a
(l 9B2) offers
parts” can be most easily demonstrated. Stanley Cohen
the following impressive examples:
aoston
. .
· O wned by the
1·
The most imposing winning skem m sports is
A ChaI11Pionsh P
Celtics. From 1957 to 1969, the Celtics won the NB
84
~~e;:e Jea~;;1 seoes w;i~!:{~~eup never ;~~:::t;;:!s they beat
wo~ fiV:tting departrne:ad the punch of the
d’s, never ( 20)
013ior b
or c1evetan_ that span. P·
·meslO
. t am
three u
tal ingredient tn e
” . such a fundamen
. nificant
.
ll wgether is
interviewees as a s1g
.
“working ~e s mentioned by ou! .
t ams they had expertthat it wa
· I functiomng e
d’ t d
success . ·c of the effective y
.
and intricately coor ma e
charactenstt the incredibly spe~1fic .
teams. to the sharing of
d from
.
f
untaineenng
,
•
en:y~related activities ?. mo .udgments, and data of highly creat1~e
~:foonati~n, opinions, v1ts1lo~nst,eJrdependence, individual accountabil.
• to the to a 1
.
”
k’ng well
roiect teams,
·b·t1·t1·es of mihtary teams, wor t
P
. 1 king respons1 1
.
ity, and .mter oc
. db everyone as something important.
togethe(‘_was r~cogn:,ze kf g well together” was typically characterIn our mterv1ews, wor m
l
. d•
ft · ways First it was sometimes attributed to structura
12e moneo w0
·
‘
“bT ·
features of teams, such as clearly differentiated roles, responst t 1t_1es,
and accountabilities, or clear lines of communication, record keepmg,
and documentation. Second, it was often characterized as a feeling or
climate that described relationships among members of the team or
between the team and its leader. It was usually a climate that fostered
col!aboration, and interviewees, when pushed, almost always explame_d ~his climate by referring, in one way or another, to “trust.”
·
·
• the commerce of mankind.
It isTrust
th 1s
b one of those mamstay
vutues
m
betwee: poe:d ith at allows any kind of significant relationship to exist
· Our content
Pe. 0 nee. broken ‘ it 1·s no t easi·1y-1’f ever-recovered.
1
aclimate that i:~aJs1
of the data indicates that trust is produced in
~o exaggerations· (2)s our elements: (1) honesty-integrity no lies
tivit~ to info~ati openness-~ willingness to share’ and’ a rece :
:~;:1c~ab!e behavior
r!erceptions, ideas; (3) consistency~
Thd1gn1ty and fairness.
ponses; and (4) respect-treating people
· eproblem
is so fra .
, according to
1
even on~~~hat
if any one of t~:r sample of_interviewees, is that trust
~:d
lost. In fact a relationship is apt e:embents hsted above is breachedconfict
‘ our resea h
o e severely co
.
F ence once at r~ shows a predictable
mprom1sed, even
or example: If rustmg relationship is v· tattern of diminishing
someone with who
Io ated (see Figure 6 1)
m you hav
· ·
e a relationship (at
i
~. e curnate
87
cotfaborativ
I
I
I
…
s
,—….::~.s
C
Q)
0″1
8:
cu
U)
·-
ociallY) lies to you, yo~ir trust in that person collapses t0
wor1′ or
s
a catastrophic
JostaotlY· Jt is, in effect,
.
. event · What’s more, a
zero: . is born-promptmg you to review and reevaluate eve t
p1c100
h
th
1 . h’
ns
susfll the past-that pber’ldaps le ~e athi~ns ip had never been honest.
ro
maY try to re Ul a re ations ip after the initial breach b
foeople
.
.
. . ll
, ut
i
rarely restore it to its ongma ust_er. And if the same pe
tbeY caO
d .
h
.
.
rson
.
you a secon time, t e re1atlonship stands little chance f
11es .toi·ng. At best, it
. b ecomes cl oud ed by hesitancy and doubts beo
survrv
.
1
.
‘
•ng barely functiona.
·
C()flll
. ct·i~i·ctuals, teams have little hope of
With trust gone b etw_e~n m
functioning well and reahzmg their true potential.
our research further _e mphasizes the significance of trust by
eludicating what it allows teams to ~e, to do, and to accomplish.
Q
COLLABORATION.FLOURISHES IN A CUMATE OF TRUST
Anthony Rucci was one of the team leaders who expressed a special appreciation for the value of trust:
If there is one thing in my mind that characterizes the really effective
teams I’ve been involved with, it’s trust. It’s trust at a couple of levels.
You need to clearly define the expectations, leaving people with the
sense that you trust them enough to do things on their own, that you
trust their judgment enough to let them take some personal initiative,
that you are not looking over their shoulder. That is the quickest way
that I know of for the manager of a team to demonstrate trus~ and tot
t
build a climate for trust. Beyond that, I think truS comes thmoS
clearly in honesty, a sense of integrity in the way people deal Wl one
another within the team.
.
f the American Leadership
Joe Jaworski, founder and chairm~n
k d to identify key
Forum ‘ has reached a similar conclusion.
When
as
.
· · teamse he has expencharacteristics of the effectively funcuomng
°
3
0
-J
86
enced, Jaworski replied:
.
.
Trust and communication is really
15
I think one of the key thmgs trulk~t. about where you really trust a
rm .tad 1ngf trust where you may be w1.11mg
.
t he same thing for me.
to
person to lay it all out-th e kin
your deepest feelings. This kind of
sit down ·and talk to a person abOU
I
89
88
1’ea~
llorJc
trust does not normally exist. It builds as a result of th·
· each ot her. Good communication
·
experience with
gr ings th at PeopJ
. . 1s
. what you will ows
kind of trust, and good commumcatton
alwa out
s o~ thate
effective teams.
Y notiee in
In our examination of effectively communicating
themes emerged to help explain why a climate of trust f teams, four
osters tea
R~.
J. Trust allows team members to stay problem-focused
sence of trust diverts the mental concentration and energy. fTbe ab.
. . an d onto other issues Tb
o a tea Ill
away from its perfonnance o bJect1ve
becomes ~liticized. Communication b~comes guarded an~ te~rn
torted. Alliances and personal agenda begm to take preceden dis.
. 1oss o f .1ocus
”
ce over
the team goal. The resu Itmg
on the common goal
.
critical factor. It wounds the team and often renders it ineffect a
. present, a coJJ aborative climate is mo
IVe.
Conversely, when trust 1s
readily fostered-allowing team members to stay focused on th~;
common problem or goal. There is no suspicion or conflict to divert
their attention. The clearer the goal, and the more team members are
free to concentrate on it, the greater the likelihood they will succeed.
Dr. Michael Gregg, speaking of teams associated with the Centers
for Disease Control, spoke of trust as the first and most visible feature
of effectively functioning teams:
Probably
the most important element is mutual trust, where you feel
th
at there are no other ulterior motives in your team effort than to
solve the problem …. You are all in the same room. You may have
been doing different things for the last two or three days in an overall
effort, but ~hen you come together, there before you is the problem. If
your attention goe II . h
.
. h .
.
a m t · e same .direction ‘ it develops a umty t at isf
very important
T s st
ideas w· h · ru provides a climate conducive to the exchange 0
somet.hingtt yout h~utual . trust, you may be embarrassed to bring up
OU t tnk . t . .
Id
11
know• “o
nvial, although it is something people shou· h
u may be. unis ·Ir
something . “iou may beWt Img to admit you’re having a problem wit
and so because 1,m afraid
~e uctant to say to someone “Watch out for· so
fr
om him.”
you are not going to get good information
~Iearly, team problem so .
information and com – ~v1n? relies on the unhampered exchange of
mun1cation th .
at is born of trust.
1
w
l,,,fJo'”‘
Cu,nate
product-development team inthe
team to a
d S
idemiolog~
ct of trust is the same. Bu
wee~ey,
t ·m for McDonald’s Corporation,
0 tP ao ep t~ the mtpa
fr d iodus J,
McNugget ea
foO
chicken
rast of the . wn way:
1eadef
it in htS o
ressed
reement Our agreement was the
e~P
that I selected bad an agour rule
two of us agreed on
0 Pie
That was
·
,
I
fhe pe
t of·three. .
w·n
lose
or
draw.
It wasn t persona te ou
y 1t flew. · 1 ‘
‘
·
Ik
i,est vo_
that’s the wa
. to the success of the proJect. new
sotlletb1ng~be complete devot~on
arable to mine. I had no problem
itY, ‘it was ose was singular .an corymcopmfortable in saying, “My God, I
·r purp
b t I was ve
h
thet . J lost some, u
.
“Three heads are better t an one.
with it.
1 e this pro1ect.
, want to os
.
d.
don t
.
mmunication and coor mare efficient co
•d .
Trust promotes mo
le to stay problem-focuse ‘ it pro. 2. rust not only allows peop
. me and energy devoted to the
non. T more efficient use of theht1 U S Navy Strike Warfare Ceomotes a
p her of t e · ·
f
problem. Captain Joe l rue f cand~r and honesty on the part o team
ter talked about the va ue o
members:
co””
·u
. exchange of communicatio_n. Often
You have to have a frank, candid
in a short period of time. You
you’ve got to get some!hing d~ficult !o::e out what someone is real~
don’t want to spend time trym~ to g
You need to have mutu
.
• this process.
saying or how he is gammg
. te well
confidence so people can commumca
.
f
the effectiveness o
that influence
· · g canIn his review of climate_ facto~~88) identified commumc;tl; ess as
organizational teams, Sulhvan (
h other’s resource u O •
d
·
ng
eac
didly, confronting issues, an . usi e the likelihood Of tea ms attam- .
. t and mcreas
factors that affect c11ma e . .
b ·n observed
.
. .
d bJect1ves.
h t have ee
mg m1ss1ons, goals, an
•ncidentally,
t
a
ance
(Gavin &
1
These are the sam~ ~actor~, rove its own performof this research
to impact a team’s ab1hty to im~ences in phase_
fticiency of comMcPhail, 1978). Our own expest is associated ‘:1~ti·e: directed toward
. that tru
·n acuv1
Wh
support the conclus1o~ .on especially _1 own performance.
en
munication and coordmatl t’ anding of its_
t team discloses that
.
. co nse1mproving
the team ‘ s unders•toring of an mtaced that certam
d
111001
h
ve
learn
our measurement an
t tearn, we a . down with that team to
.
f O r tha
·· we st1
.
rf
nee the
trust 1s a problem
likely. When ·rnproving its pe orma
‘
1
quences are extreme Y k ways of i
· discuss its profile an d see
°
t:o
Yl
90
1’ea,n
communication is likely to be guarded , very amb·
IVork
to understand. There appears to be a lot of ma
igu~us, and d’1
erable amount of denial and defensiven ess. Cons
neuvenng and a con
fficu1t
•
constant need to refocus the issue at hand T . .equently, ther ~Idp~ocess than typically emerges when the. m his Is a far less effie _1s a
high .level of trust.
Thus ‘ trust not on1y char
easurement
ind·icate
c1ent
8
.
t .
nct1ons
effectively
in
pursuit
of
its
go
.
ac
enzes
a
tea
a
fu
1
that is self-correcting, better at exa
‘. It also c~aracterizes m that
processes.
mmmg and improving . a team
3•
~
.
1 rust improves the quali
n
theme _contains an important re of collaborative_ outcomes. .
laborative climate is and wh t . y to understandmg what This
understanding how two
a It accomplishes. The key . a lcolvery subtle
d
.
mvo ves
~orms can be maintained simultaneous~n . potentially antagonistic
mg team.
Y 10 an effectively fu nct’10n-
. The first norm involves bein h.
.
tion openly, especially when tl~at ~ghly d1s~losi~e and sharing informathe following statem t f
mformatton IS “negative ” Co ‘d
en d
. .
en rom Joe M dd
.
ns1 er
ce proJect team leaders w k
a en’ one of the most experie now:
t~·
you have to have
mg fun r
good communicat’
w·tthout communication nothend of ctns. I would spend a lot
0
back· “tThis
e_day, chatting with p
time, when work was done at the
1
•
eopeWh
out that
ki gu·
Y1~driving me nuts ,, ;,
en you do that you get feedprogram nd of input you can’t · Well, why, what’s wrong?” With·
or pro·Ject that I work even be aware of problems. In every
that everyb
That’s humody runs into probl on, 1 always make it clear to the team
Ptobem is tn. But what you ~ms, and that people make mistakes.
You solve / ~11 somebody abo
to do if you think you’ve got a
~h~o~em ~hate on~y way you’r~ it _so we can all get together and h~lp
wh~;hs no way t!;~;e got, so th!~i~g to scr~w up is if you try to hid~
d ;., people are . ighten it out Yi Y th e time we find out about it
0 ~,g that ·
Willing to brin · ou ha veto create an atmosphere in
·
g problems to you and feel secure in
·
l
.
“lb.n as11n·11 ar v .
e Worst f . ~1n, Joe S
doesn’t 1·
a1hnnc. is
. a teUtter, leader of h
a~d thenISten
d . to his
p arn lead
t e Boeing 747 team stated’
big · 0 ing
eopte
er Who’
‘
bO
mIStakes ,, Whatever -and that d s a nonlistener. A guythw
the hen he oesn’t mean listening to eJJlf
·
Wants t 0 do-can make a 10 to
collaborative
curnate
t am norm that’s supported by trust is that members of
t
fbe firS u:t be willing to share information with each other, espet~e tea~ : that information is negative. If a team member is having
aaU~ w efiguring something out or making a decision, this is the kind
pr~bfe~ation that must be shared. Hiding negative information and
of in o,…
.
. . &
•
h
not being willing to hsten to negative m,ormat10n are norms t at can
b ruinous to team outcomes.
eThe second norm that must be promoted is for team members to
take risks and be permitted to fail. Charles F. Knight, CEO of Emerson Electric, talks about a climate within which people are likely to
make good decisions:
The person who is trying to create this environment must permit people
to fail. You must find a way to permit failure because without that
you’re not going to get innovation or change. You are not going to get a
rethinking process that is so vital. You are going to have to Jet·some
people try some things that you are not too certain about. Hopefully,
this is controlled because when it is uncontrolled, you get yourself in
deep trouble. But the challenge is to let people reach out, let people
make mistakes in a controlled fashion and get the job done.
It is relatively easy to make a mistake about what a good “team
:layer•: l_ooks like. For example, some people might question whether
in mdiv1~ual is a “team player” if_he persists m lay1~g _out n~gative
th
nformat10n; talking about a problem be needs help with, wannng e
1ea~ about a violation of its own standards; or pushing for
nd cJantython
an issue that most members of the team seem to understa . nd
Yet, e
f~cts might reveal that this person is committing his mental a emotional energy to the success of the team effort. On the othe~ hand,
Anthony .R
.· .
k f parti’cipation as not honoring the
.• ucc1 views 1ac o
responsiblities of a team player:
You t
.
one of the quickest ways to establish
alk about trust m a group. &
mbers of the group to
trust , beyond g1vmg
. . peopIe autonomy, is ,ormbers
me of a group who are
. k • When you’dhavetate
me their opinions openly in a
1 mg -to take a ns
be w·n·
very afr a1’d to take a ns
· k , ve ry
. afraI to s e disagreeing with them you
group situation
·
• an d run the nsk
. have ostensibly
,
. of
. someon
Even though you
neve r know what they are thinking. up as to what happened you can
reached an agree~en t among the
gro they agreed or disagreed,
• they
hether
never count on 1t because w
93
92
1’ea
ative curnate
0
wouId never say so anyway• v:
‘1tiv r11;,.
.1ou can’t
walked away sharing the vision that h count on the f
room_ with. That ~ssue of taking a ristt er people Walke~t that the
emotional level with people on th e team,
‘ a~d
mean
is aI real
i taki ng aout
riskof thye
mportant
at an
T
.
.~st improves the quality of collabo .
.
dec1s1ons are more in tune with w
. r~tive efforts be
are raised and dealt with instead hat _is m fact happeni cause With it
trous. People are willing to try of h1d~en until they bng. Problem~
th t · ·
somethm b
ecom .
it might work rather than remain .
g_ ecause there’s e d1sas.
fallure. And if something internal t mactive because of th chance
the team’s success, then that probl o t~e team itself is intert e1~ fear of
and resolved.
em Is more likely to be enng With
4. Trust leads to
confronted
compensat.
0
offered for why teams
. mg.
ne explanation
expectations for succes so~et1mes succeed-even be that has been
ing happens when o s-1s that “compensating” ari~ond reasonable
when another
ne team member picks u
es. Compensatwhole team . member falters. If a lot of c
p the. slack that occurs
performanceis capable of pulling itself c:i:p;ns:tmg occurs, then a
Com
·.
‘
c ive Y, to new levels of
pensatmg b “Id
cial scie
UI s confidence Wi
what yo:~~-research that demonstr;t e have already referred to soWhen a tea=~ you are capable of an;s a strong association between
same time
s clear about its goal ;ou_r actual performance level.
or being le:o one fears being left ba:. umfie~ in its effort, and at the
rnd
of reachin on one’s own witho t . e
‘ bemg criticized for failing,
If you’vg new heights and ar . u_ support, then that team is capable
over “supee .ever been a memb nvmg
f at th e goal as an intact unit.
nor”
.
er
o
t at overca
, an u n d erd og team that triumphed
0 ppos1tion ·f
1
h
together you
me great obstacles
• you ve ever b een a member of a team
In the realm of
could ‘ you have exp
on1Y. beea use you were convinced that
• e” enenced a rare form of exhilaration,
·
f requently wh co1laborative
Summanzing
. en team members
uorts, tho se tnumphs
·
occur much more
h
are
com
.
A ustraria, Belbinresea
(l grc on teams tha pensatmg for each other.
9 1) wrote ab
t took place in England and
To
su
out
the
va1ue of compensating:
stren rrn~arize abo
gth in tho
Ut Winn·
tearn·roles t se personal ing tearns th .
up the rest’or°gether With qua_lities and ab_e_i~ main feature was their
th e tearn. “l’La diversity of ihties associated with the keY
•11ere Was alway talent an d personality making
·
S~mP
.
.
b
co/labor
ven teams with something less than the ideal distribuE
uP· could compensate for shortcommgs
.
tbat ~me
f tents
by recognizing a
tion taakness and deciding to do something about it. (p. 99)
Jatent we
°
BUIWING TRUST AND COLLABORATION
}-laving identified why trust and the building of a collaborative
Jimate is so important, the question remains: How do you build a
~Jimate of trust arid collaborat…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment