MGT 18 Study Guide

Diversity and Smarts

Phillips, K. “How diversity makes us smarter”

Anticipation: Social differences lead to anticipation of differing opinions, increasing cognitive and social effort for consensus.

Informational Diversity: Diverse groups outperform homogeneous groups by bringing different information, opinions, and perspectives to problem-solving.

Causal connections: Homogeneous groups agree easily, while diverse groups anticipate differences, jolting cognitive action.

Logic of Diversity

Page, S. E. “Making the Difference: Applying a Logic of Diversity”

Superadditivity: 1 + 1 = 3. Diverse perspectives lead to innovative solutions.

Heuristics: Methods or tools to find solutions, ranging from simple rules of thumb to complex algorithms (e.g., "do the opposite of what you think").

Conditions for diversity to trump ability:

1. Problem difficulty: No single solver finds the best solution.

2. Calculus condition: Local optima of all solvers can be listed.

3. Diversity condition: Non-optimal solutions aren't local optima for all solvers.

4. Team size: Large initial pool of solvers and teams of more than a few members.

8 Lessons:

• Promote interactions beyond portfolio analogy.

• Contain multitudes.

• Consult dissenters.

• Create prediction markets.

• Focus on relevant diversity.

• Samuel Paul Bowie caveat: Balance diversity with ability.

• Avoid lumping by identity and stereotyping.

• Maintain humility in the face of mystery.

Ethics and Bias

Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. “How (Un)Ethical are you?”

Vigilance: Ethical managers are aware of potential dangers, collect data, shape environments, and broaden decision-making.

Implicit Bias: Unconscious prejudice from learned associations.

In-group favoritism: Bias favoring one's own group, leading to discrimination against those who are different.

Overclaiming Credit: Overrating individual contributions to groups.

Conflict of Interest: Bias favoring those who can benefit you.

3 Suggestions to guard against bias:

• Collect data.

• Shape your environment.

• Broaden your decision making.

Individual Experience at Work

Sucher “Differences at work: the individual experience”

Social categorization: Categorizing self and others by race, gender, and age.

Increases stereotyping, leading to individuals evoking behavior in others that match expectations.

Stereotypes are social constructs, not necessarily true.

Implicit Biases: Unconscious attitudes and stereotypes influencing understanding, actions, and decisions.

Stereotype threat: Fear of confirming negative stereotypes, impairing performance.

Multiple identities: People act differently at work to avoid stereotypes.

Growing Managers

Ellington-Booth, B. & Cates, K. L. “Growing managers: moving from team member to team leader”

Case Study Details:
Location: Chicago, Illinois → Phoenix, Arizona
Company: Colortech Greenhouses, Inc
Premium grower/distributor of flowers.
Known for patented hybrid plants and high-tech operations.
Located in Phoenix, San Diego, and Columbia.
Characters: Alex Hoffman, Gregorio Torres, Sarah Vega, Chelsea Peterson, Nick Ruiz, Campbell (Regional Manager).
Vega: Sporadic, late.
Hoffman: Dismissive, highest seller, rude.
Torres: Uninterested in sales, enthusiastic about ideas.
Ruiz: Wanted sales position, energetic.
Peterson: Hostile, jealous of Ruiz.
Key problems: Case about Richardson (from Chicago to Phoenix).

Teamwork Misperceptions

Hackman, J. “Six common misperceptions about teamwork”

(1) Conflict can be beneficial: Well-managed conflict focused on objectives can generate more creative solutions.

(2) Longevity improves performance: The longer members stay together, the better they perform.

(3) Smaller is better: Larger groups lead to social loafing; small teams are more efficient.

(4) Face-to-face interaction matters: Remote teams are at a disadvantage; face-to-face interaction is beneficial.

(5) Leadership fostering self-management: Leaders should create conditions for members to manage themselves competently.

(6) Preparation is key: Leaders should provide clear objectives, resources, and support.

Discipline of Teams

Katzenbach, Jon R., Smith, Douglas K. “The Discipline of Teams”

Working Group vs. Team:
Team: Small group with complementary skills, common purpose, performance goals, and mutual accountability.
Working Group: Strong leader, individual accountability, broader organizational mission, individual work products, efficient meetings, indirect effectiveness measures, discusses, decides, and delegates.
Team: Shared leadership, individual and mutual accountability, specific team purpose, collective work products, open discussion, direct performance measures, discusses, decides, and does real work together.

Mutual Accountability: Shared responsibility for commitments.
Performance Goals: Define work products distinct from organizational mission and individual objectives.
Facilitate communication and constructive conflict.
Enable small wins to maintain focus.
Interpersonal Skills: Risk-taking, criticism, objectivity, active listening, giving benefit of the doubt, recognizing others' interests.
Building Team Performance:

• Establish urgency, demanding standards, and direction.

• Select members for skill and potential.

• Pay attention to first meetings.

• Set clear rules of behavior.

• Set immediate performance-oriented tasks.

• Challenge the group with fresh information.

• Spend time together.

• Exploit positive feedback and reward.

Leadership in Work Teams

Cardon, P. & Miller, Paddy “Leadership in Work teams”

Chemistry: Result of team dynamics, not the cause.

Tuckman Model: Forming, storming, norming, performing cycle.
Forming: Getting to know each other.
Storming: Responding with different viewpoints; bids for power.
Norming: Establishing rules and norms.
Performing: Collaborative work.
Coalitions: Appear when leaders don't control communication, leading to confrontation.
Constructive vs. Destructive Cycles:
Constructive: Trust building, communication, organization, and collaboration.
Destructive: Individual objectives prioritized over shared ones, leading to disorganization and disinterest.

Constructive Roles:

• Contributor: Provides technical information.

• Communicator: Facilitates discussion.

• Questioner: Questions objectives and methods.

• Collaborator: Works and shares successes.
  Destructive Roles:

• Doubter: Indecisive.

• Distracted: Leaps over schedule.

• Diplomat: Avoids arguments for consensus.

• Dominator: Imposes views.

• Defeatist: Pessimistic.

Leadership Styles:

• Transcendent: Unites around objectives with extrinsic, intrinsic, and transcendent goals.
  Generates structural cohesion.

• Transforming: Unites around extrinsic and intrinsic objectives.
  Generates emotional cohesion.

• Transactional: Unites around extrinsic objectives.
  Generates instrumental cohesion.

Confrontation vs. Disagreement:
Conformity: Deceptive state; members appear to agree but are not committed.
Confrontation: Discussion colored by personal judgments.
Disagreement: Respectful differing opinions.
Unity: Consensus and commitment.

Google's Perfect Team

Duhigg, C. “what google learned from its quest to build the perfect team”

Team A vs. Team B:
Team A: Smart, efficient, no side comments.
Team B: Mixed execs and managers, inclusive, free-flowing discussion.
Team B Preferred: Free-flowing and inclusive.
Sakaguchi: Used story as a method to provide a safe environment to show humanity.
Voice/Trust/Safety: Sakaguchi shared his cancer story to build trust and psychological safety, encouraging others to be themselves.

Key characteristics of effective teams?

Fearless Organization

Christensen, Karen “the fearless organization: thought leader interview with amy edmondson”

Psychological Safety: Belief that environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking; voices welcomed/expected without penalty.
BAD: Silence creates safety risks and lost improvement opportunities.

Leadership Suggestions:

• Humble listening: Absorb what others say with interest.

• Framing: Alert workers to catch deviations.

• Emphasize purpose: Why it matters and for whom.

• Practice inquiry: Ask good questions, model learning.

• Express appreciation.

• Destigmatize failure: Offer help, discuss next steps.

Team Emotional Intelligence

Greaves, Jean and Watkins, Evan “team emotional intelligence 2.0: Peak Performance”

Situational Background: Cathedral Peak climb in Yosemite.
Characters and Moments:
Alicia: Seasoned climber, confident.
Rob and Amir: Less experienced.
Amir forgot food, frustrating Alicia.
Ignored missing weather report, storm approached.
Alicia continued due to Amir's departure; Amir embarrassed to object.
Alicia struck by lightning.

Case Studies

1. Growing Managers

   • Location: Chicago, Illinois to Phoenix, Arizona.

   • Company: Colortech Greenhouses, Inc.

   • Key Characters: Alex Hoffman, Gregorio Torres, Sarah Vega, Chelsea Peterson, Nick Ruiz, Campbell (Regional Manager).

   • Key Issues: Team dynamics and challenges in transitioning management from one location to another.

2. Teamwork Misperceptions

   • Addressing common myths about teamwork and effective collaboration strategies through various case studies.

3. Google's Perfect Team

   • Analysis of team dynamics and effective communication as learned from Google's diverse teams.

4. Fearless Organization

   • Exploration of psychological safety in teams and how it impacts performance and innovation.

5. Team Emotional Intelligence

   • A case study on the dynamics of team performance during a high-pressure situation in a climbing expedition, highlighting emotional intelligence and decision-making under stress.