Using students to keep current on research

I know I have not posted anything in a while (and probably won't after this post). However, I currently am buried in grading papers from two different classes, trying to get final grades in as it is the end of the semester.

As I was reading through my student papers, I realized they had a wealth of research that I could use both in my dissertation and in my classes next semester. I have decided that texts don't have what I am looking for in my classes. I have begun to tailor the readings to my classes and assign readings from journals and academic websites. To do this, however, I need to stay current with the research. This is difficult at times, especially when I have pressing family, work, and academic responsibilities.

I have begun to cull promising articles from the resources my students used to write their final papers, an expanded reflection on a topic (or topics) of their choice within the course. I use these papers to help direct changes to the course (areas of interest to the students and areas that I might see as lacking, that perhaps I did not address in the class).

Based on my evaluation of their papers, I will then try to find new resources to address those areas I feel my course needs improvement in and come up with new activities that I can use in my class.

One area many of my students wrote about was virtual teams. Many also wrote about social loafing (always a big topic for groups used in education) and decision making. With this in mind I have decided on trying to integrate two new activities in my class next semester:

1) The virtual/online class I teach often is difficult for the students. I have been dissatisfied about the task I give them to work on. It seems unorganized and students are often confused (although that is part of the task that I want them to learn from). I have decided to expand their task from one of "introductions" to one of sharing information. After reading Jenny Luca's newest post, I decided I would have each group search for a specific item/information and then combine their findings online. This way I can have them work together using a wiki or googledocs, and hopefully see how search engines filter results depending on individual preferences. Hopefully, the groups will be diverse enough that their results will be different. If not, we can address the idea of groupthink.

2) I am going to include a peer review grade in one of the projects. The two projects I set up for my group communication are different tasks with different communication requirements. One is a very structured task in which group members are assigned specific tasks and are given an individual grade for their work within the group. The second task is ill-structured, using a student generated code of conduct, student determined project, and meeting minutes or other written form of communication to document the group work. The first is teacher directed whereas the second is student generated. The two projects overlap with the intention being that students experience two different types of groups and the communication needs that different environments require. Because the second project does not have an individual part to it, there is a lot of social loafing to the project. I have tried to get students to create a code of conduct in which they generate some form of evaluation, but students do not perceive that they have the ability to enforce their code through grades, etc... So I have decided that their code of conduct will have a peer review piece that they will then review at the end of the semester and hand it for grading individual members.


I have no qualms of using my students to do some of the leg work needed to make my classes better. This is the type of student feedback that I feel is important and much better than anonymous questionnaires asking students "how do you like the class".

Knowledge creation in distributed group collaborative writing projects: Methodology

As promised, below is an outline of the methodology I used to study indepth a distributed group as they worked on two collaborative writing projects.

METHODOLOGY

The original data collection was based on the research questions: How do individual members interpret the experience of a collaborative writing process within distrubted workplace groups? What factors influence the interpretation of experience that individuals take with them outside of the group as a result of participating in the collaborative writing process? The purpose in answering these questions was to gain a deeper understanding of what the individual perspective is and the various factors, including group dynamics, context, the role of writing and technology, culture, organizational structure (including agency and power structures), and types of learning, that influence the individual in creating his or her own knowledge, contributing to the group’s shared knowledge, and contributing to organizational knowledge and learning.

Due to the complexity of each of these factors that might influence the individual, it was necessary to have a deeper understanding of the individual, group, and organizational processes and contexts in which collaborative writing takes place. Therefore, qualitative methods, specifically grounded theory and ethnomethodology, were used (Charmaz, 2006; Clancey, 2006; Garfinkel, 1967; Patten, 2002).

After the data was collected, it was apparent that there were many directions in which the data could be analyzed. There were three areas that could be analyzed based on the literature review: the effect of group communication, the impact of organizational structures, and/or the effects and affects of written formats on the collaborative writing process. As a result, as often happens in grounded theory research (Charmaz, 2006), the research questions were rewritten to address the emerging themes and concepts found in the data. I decided to focus on the impact of the collaborative writing process from an organizational learning perspective. The questions still were used to gain a deeper understanding of what the individual perspective is and the various factors, including group dynamics, context, the role of writing and technology, culture, organizational structure (including agency and power structures), and types of learning, that influence the individual in creating his or her own knowledge, contributing to the group’s shared knowledge, and contributing to organizational knowledge and learning. However, the questions were more focused on the methods of common understanding created through individual and group practices located within the organizational social and knowledge structures (Garfinkel, 1967).

The questions were then changed to: What knowledge do members of a distributed workplace group identify as being important when creating a group product? What factors influence the choice of what knowledge is important?
The subquestions included:

• How do individuals define “knowledge”?

• What process or processes does a distributed group in the workplace use to create shared meaning and understanding during collaborative writing projects? What factors do they identify as shaping that process or processes?

• What patterns of work activity are maintained and changed at the individual, group, and organizational level within a distributed group? Who do workers identify with in maintaining or changing work patterns in different contexts?

Methodology Framework

While there are many qualitative methods from which to choose, ethnomethodology allows researchers to look at how the individual and social system (the collaborative writing group, organization, clients, and sponsers in this case) influence each other (Brandt, 2005; Schneider, 2002). Ethnomethodology, with its roots in sociology, looks at the effect that a social system has on individual behavior, which behavior in turn informs the development of the social system either by modifying the structure or reinforcing the social dynamics, assumptions, and power structures (Brandt; Schnieder). Researchers using ethnomethodology (as opposed to ethnography) look at everyday practices as coconstructed social activities based on the perspective of the individual (Clancey, 2006; Garfinkel, 1967). Thus, data is analyzed through the lens of both the individual and the organization through the interaction ritual chains (Hilbert, 1992).

According to Brandt, who has looked at workplace literacy practices using ethnomethodology, this approach not only looks at how an individual’s writing is influenced by the social context in which the writing takes place, but also how the individual then becomes the part of the social context by justifying his or her choices and helping to reinforce organizational writing formats. The context and the individual cannot be separated since the internal processes of the individual helps to create the social context.

Therefore, ethnomethodology will require that I look at the individual as a co-creator of the context for the group and the organization. However, rather than looking at it from an organizational or group perspective (thus separating the individual from the context), ethnomethodology allows me to look at it from the individual’s perspective through the interaction with the social context, however complex that might be (Clancey, 2006). In using this methodology, therefore, the influences on individual and distributed group outcomes in a collaborative writing project in the workplace may be both internal and external to the individual, but their location will not be as important as the impact on the individual’s perception of the collaborative writing process and outcomes.

It is important, therefore, that this study includes:
• a complete description of the perceived contexts by group members at the organizational, individual, and group level;

• individual member epistemologies;

• the perceived social structures and discourse communities in which individuals and the group as a whole work;

• a description of the process the group uses to achieve their task and understanding of each other’s position in order to describe the context of their work;

• individual perceptions of what they should and what they actually bring into the collaborative writing process;

• individual perceptions of the effect members have on the collaborative writing process and their group members, and how they themselves are affected by the collaborative writing process and the other group members;

• perceived learning and knowledge creation due to the collaborative writing process; and

• perceived value of the collaboration at the individual, group, and organizational level.

While ethnomethodology will help inform the type of data that is collected and impact how data is analyzed, grounded theory, especially constructed grounded theory, will guide the research process. Constructed grounded theory uses the identified themes emerging from the data to construct theory. It differs from classic grounded theory in that it interprets the data in developing theory rather than looking for explicit codes initially (Charmaz, 2006).

Group Selection

A major criticism of research on group dynamics and processes in the past is that studies created groups and group tasks in an artificial environment, therefore, minimizing the complexities of group work. More recently, research on groups have studied naturally occurring groups in their own environment, so as to look at the relationship between members in a more authentic environment and capture the dynamics that are the result of organizational structure, shared culture, organizational politics, and shared past experience (Gersick, 1988; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999; McGrath et al., 2000). As I am trying to understand the external, as well as the internal factors that influence an individual’s experience, it was important that the group I study is a naturally occurring group that would normally collaborate together on a written document.

The first step in recruiting a natural occurring distributed work group was to identify organizations that would allow the study to be conducted, as required by research protocols laid out by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Groups were chosen from organizations dealing in “knowledge” as part of their business. Brandt (2005) identifies this knowledge as the intangible tacit knowledge that adds to the value of a product. Because a large part of services are the intangible product, capturing knowledge and codifying it through writing to make it more tangible is very important to service organizations. There may also be strong external pressures to a group collaborative writing process such as government regulations, organizational quality control to standardize processes, and the demand for knowledge in a tangible format (such as a book, webpage, prototype, or software). As a result, sites were chosen from organizations whose products do not fall into the first three categories of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS product codes for: 1. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, 2. Mining, and 3. Manufacturing). Possible service industries included government organizations, economic development, advertising, education, consulting, financial services, transportation and travel, retail, healthcare services, legal services, or software development (United States Census Bureau, 2002).

Organizations were identified through trade organizations (i.e. Capital District Trade Organization), listservs (Communication Faculty listserv), and other professional groups and contacts. I made contact with management within the organization, gave them an overview of the project (based on the application made to the Institutional Review Board) and identified two organizations that worked with distributed work teams.

I then needed to work with an organization in identifying pre-existing distributed groups that would be interested in participating in this study. The group as a whole would need to agree to the study, meaning that if one member did not want to participate, the group would be excluded, rather than replacing that member with someone new that would agree to participate.

In identifying possible groups, potential teams needed to meet the following criteria:

• the group or team should be distributed during some part of the process,

• use technology to support their collaboration,

• and have a core group of between 3 and 7 members.

Groups that are “distributed” do not work within the same physical space on a daily basis. They may be distributed by department, by location (e.g. field office and home office, US based and foreign based) or by speciality (e.g. sales, support, management). The group or team may include face-to-face interaction, but part of the collaboration process should include interaction supported by technology (i.e. telecommunications, internet or e-mail, video conferencing, or shareware). This would help inform the study as to how enforced structure (including the limitations technology might place on interaction) and conflicting contexts (local and group due to distributed team) might affect the collaborative writing process. Finally, research has identified the optimal size of groups at 3-7 members (Moreland & Levine, 2001).

In order to limit the effect that group size might have on the collaborative process, optimal size of the study group would have been 3-5 members. However, in many naturally occurring groups, there are peripheral members that would also have an effect on the group process and at any given time more than 5 members may have been working on the project. It was important, therefore, to include these peripheral members in the study. As a result, the group studied was a core group of 4-5 members working on the collaborative writing project, with the input of 2-3 additional members at any given time during the study, all of which gave their consent for the study.

The first site organization was chosen because of its international distributed work teams. Two groups were identified as potential study participants and I contacted each group member directly with an overview of the project. It soon became clear that because of cultural differences and work pressures, that international members of the group were reluctant to participate. So I changed the site (and organization) of the study. The recruitment of the participants for the second site was modified somewhat. I gave a presentation that was an overview of the study to potential participants. They then gave feedback as to whether they would be willing to participate in the project. Based on this, groups were identified as potential study subjects.

I chose the group that met the criteria for the study. Many of the groups had been working together for a while. The final group chosen had never worked together, was at the beginning of their project, and were distributed in three different locations. In addition, the group used email and a project management software, Basecamp, to communicate.

Initially, I monitored the group’s work through Basecamp, after receiving their signed consent to participate forms. I identified two collaborative writing projects that the core group was working on simultaneously and decided to include both projects in the study. Because of the complexity of the phenomenon of collaborative writing, it is important that in-depth data be collected on both individual perceptions and group perceptions. Since one of the things that I would like to understand is how the dynamics of individuals and groups affect the creation of knowledge at the individual level, the question of agency and enforced structure (from the context) is very important. In order to understand the contexts, group dynamics, and individual perceptions, I studied the one group in-depth before, during, and after collaborating on these common documents. Looking at the two documents gave two contexts in which to study the same group.

Data Collection

This study was divided into three phases. The first phase, pre-task and collaboration consisted of a group of interviews looking at what an individual perceives he or she brings into the collaborative writing process and the perceived context in which he or she was collaborating. In addition to the interviews, data was collected on group interaction in Basecamp, meetings through meeting minutes, and additional documents such as email, document drafts, and planning documents.

The second set of individual interviews were conducted 3 months after the first set of interviews and the group interview. This had the unanticipated advantage of being able to collect examples of other documents, work, and group processes that were the result of those documents created during the collaborative process in the first set of interviews. In addition, it allowed me to explore group member perceptions of the organization, project, group, and knowledge creation over a longer time period.

I personally transcribed all interviews. The average length of these interviews was 45 minutes, the shortest being 38 minutes and the longest being 72 minutes long. In total, 15 interviews were conducted. With one exception, all transcriptions were verbatim from the audio taped recording. The one exception, due to malfunction of the recording equipment, had to be pieced together with partial recordings and notes from the interview. In addition, 40 documents were collected, including background information on the project, postings by group members on basecamp, drafts and final copies of documents studied, and additional documents that were the result of the documents studied.

Data Analysis

Using Charmaz’s (2006) process for coding in constructed grounded theory, each transcribed interview was initially coded at the line level using action words. Starting with an interview from each department, initial codes interpreting the interviews were developed using action words. After the fourth interview, codes were reviewed and common terms were written on index cards. Using constant comparison within the interviews and between interviews some codes were combined, others were dropped, and new ones were created (Glasser & Strass as quoted in Charmaz, 2006, p. 54) based on the analysis of the remaining interview transcripts. Once it was obvious that there was a theoretical saturation in coding the data (Charmaz, Patten, 2002), these codes were then used to develop themes.

Looking at each question, codes were combined that developed themes/concepts or “relational statements” (Glasser & Strass as quoted in Patten, 2002, p. 490) that could be used to analyze the data and begin to develop theory.

References

Brandt, D. (2005). Writing for a living: Literacy and the knowledge economy. Written Communication, 22(2), 166-197.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Clancy, W. (2006) Observation of Work Practices in Natural Settings. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook on Expertise and Expert Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-145. Available at http://homepage.mac.com/wjclancey/~WJClancey/
WJCWorkPracticeObsCUP.pdf

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-31.

Hilbert, R. (1992). The classical roots of Ethnomethodology. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251.

Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.

McGrath, J., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 95-105.

Moreland, R., & Levine, J. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

Patten, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Schneider, B. (2002). Theorizing structure and agency in workplace writing: An ethnomethodological approach. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16, 196-214.

United States Census Bureau. (2002). North American industry classification system (NAICS): United States Government.

Study on knowledge creation in distributed groups

I currently am in the process of identifying emerging themes for my dissertation. However, recently, the blogsphere has been ripe with discussion on communities of practice and working with groups. This might be the result of the publication of Wenger, White, and Smith's book, "Digital Habitats".

In reading these posts and comments, I realized that my dissertation topic may in fact be relevant! Sometimes I think it is just a matter of finding the correct community in which to place research and ideas. With that in mind, I have decided to make my work in progress available on this blog. As this is a grounded theory based study, I will write my research memos (Charmaz, 2006; Maxwell, 2005) on a blog (research blog posts?). I hope I can get some feedback as I am finding the process of writing my dissertation very lonely.

My next post will outline the research methodology.

Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Maxwell, j (2005) Qualitative Research Design. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Professions and expertise

My current research has made it obvious that in the workplace expertise in the profession is equated with "knowledgeable" or "intelligent." A specialist often is hired over a generalist. However, is this truly the best use of organizational resources?

My husband was complaining that the last 3 consultants (specialists) that his department had hired have not worked out. Why? Because they are not able to take initiative and see the big picture. They can do their small piece as long as they receive direction outside of their specialization. They don't take the time to figure out what is needed outside of their small scope of work.

In looking at cross specialization, I have found that there is a long time frame for those from different professions and specialties to create shared knowledge. The reason is that initially each person comes in with their own sense of what is viable knowledge, often based on their profession. Even if these divergent ideas can be combined, there is also a need to create a shared understanding of the task and knowledge from the various departments.

It would seem to me that the first step in any group work should be to create a shared understanding of knowledge, standards, and group processes. This means that any use of a wiki or google docs for example, should begin with some discussion as to what and whose standards for knowledge will be used. This may take some time, but I would think the outcome would be a much deeper understanding and creation of knowledge.

Unfortunately, I am finding in our fast paced world, this is not considered good use of time. It is hard to measure "outcomes" especially if the group will not stay together. Of course, if an instrument were developed to measure the impact the knowledge would have on company production (like the multiplying effect in economics), then this time spent would have some economic basis.

Expertise

As I have been working on my dissertation, one of the "emerging" ideas (using grounded theory) has to do with expertise and how it is accessed within an organization. I have identified three "expertise" concepts that effect distributed teams (teams that are not located in the same place or department): identifying expertise, lack of expertise, and no expertise.

Identifying expertise

In identifying expertise, distributed teams may find an expert internal or external to the group or identifying the communal expertise. In other words, individuals may not hold the expertise, but the group together may possess expertise for their work by combining human capital and resources.

The factors that go into identifying expertise, however, may include the willingness of individuals to share their expertise, having an expertise that is needed or recognized by individuals, the group and/or the organization, or defining or identifying expertise that is important within the team or organization's power structure. For example, someone might have an expertise that is not considered relevant by decision makers. As a result this expertise is either ignored or a person with this expertise will not share it because it is not politically advantageous.

Withholding expertise effects teams and how they work. Often the withholding of expertise is dependent on the level of trust that team members have within their group, but also within a department or the organization as a whole.

Lack of expertise

Lack of expertise differs from no expertise in that there is some knowledge, but perhaps it is not relevant for the situation, it is distributed among group members so no one person has the expertise (each individual lacks expertise) or the expertise cannot be accessed as a group (perhaps it rests within a department that hoards the expertise or it is not recognized within the power structure of the organization).

There are three options when a group lacks expertise. They can either go outside to access an expert, they can bring in a new team member with the expertise they need, or they can train or develop the expertise within their group. The choice they make depends on scheduling, resources, the power structure of the organization and where the team fits, and goals. A forth option is to deal with lack of expertise the best they can, making up for the lack in other areas of the project where there is a high level of expertise.

No expertise

More often than not, no expertise will be met with a disruption in the group. Like the lack of expertise, no expertise can result in accessing outside consultants, putting a project on hold until new team members with the expertise are brought into the group, or training one or more of the group members in that expertise.

Of course, it is rare that there is no expertise. Often there is the expertise within the group, but that expertise is overlooked because of organizational politics or withheld by group members because of the organizational power structure. An individual may also not recognize their level of expertise, so be unwilling to share their limited expertise for fear of failure with the group or organization (thus creating a lower level of cognitive trust within the group).

The "expertise grid" or the "social grid for knowledge"

What I am working on now is how expertise is accessed within an organization and/or distributed group. How do groups identify expertise that they need to accomplish their work? How do they maximize the pathways so there is not a bottle neck to expertise in a timely manner? How do groups manage the need of expertise?

I look at it as similar to how power companies use a grid to route power through its structures as demand ebs and flows or how companies develop structures for communication (communication grid) during emergency situations.

Critical questions we should be asking about team work

The picture above was taken last year at the annual life guard's challenge on Fire Island, NY. Teams of life guards compete in life saving, relay races, and swimming competitions after a day of work. These teams are made up of life guards from 5 communities and one National Park. What is interesting is to see the level of interaction needed, especially in the life saving competition. Fire Island is a barrier Island off the coast of Long Island, commuting distance from New York City. I have been going down since I was born, and my mother has been going down for 80 years, spending her childhood summers down there. I (as I am sure many) take for granted the abilities of these lifeguards. However, a visitor to the beach before it opens in the morning will see the team training which makes these life guard teams function.

Tom Haskins has had a good series of posts on collaborative/group learning. My daughter's summer project was to interview 2 adults about team work. And I have been working on my dissertation looking at collaborative writing in the work place. I thought it might be good to post the questions both my daughter and I have been asking those in the workplace about team work.

My daughter had some guidelines for creating the questions (how to write good discussion questions, what factors about team work she should consider), but she had to develop her own questions (which will be part of her grade). In reviewing them, I thought they are important for teachers to address in developing any group assignment (begin the school year or semester with a discussion of these questions):

• In what way does your job demand teamwork?
• What traits do you look for in a person in order for them to work successfully in a team?
• What are some negative aspects of working in a team as opposed to working independently?
• What are some positive aspects of working in a group as opposed to working independently?
• What are some examples of when team work helped you in your job?
• What are some qualities you look for in a good team leader?
• While working on a team, how do you decide who has more say on certain matters?
• How do you make sure work is distributed evenly within a team?
• How do you handle a team member who is not handling their fair share of the work?
• How do you see yourself as a team leader; Do you take a passive role or a proactive role? Why is this?

I asked the following questions about group work for my dissertation:

• Where do you perceive your team or working group fits into the organization?
• What is your perception of how your team was created? In other words, who chose who would be on your team and why? What do you think was their basis for deciding on team members?
• When doing a written project as part of a group, what role or roles do you like to do? What role or roles do you usually do? Why?
• What, if anything, do you like about working in a group?
• What, if anything, do you dislike in working in a group?
• Can you describe to me your best experience in working in a group? Why do you consider this a good experience?
• Can you describe to me your worst experience in working in a group? Why do you consider this a poor experience?
• Have you ever worked with any of the other group members before?
• What are your perceptions of the other group members? What do you think they can contribute? What possible problems do you anticipate in working with them? who do you think will have the most influence on what goes into the quarterly report? Who do you think you will work best with and why? Who do you think you will learn the most from?
• Describe the best possible scenario of how you will be working with your group.
• Describe the worst possible scenario of how you will be working with your group.
• What other resources or expertise might you need outside of your group? Where would you get those resources/support?
• What other projects and project tasks will you be working on as you complete the group task?

Using Tom's guidelines, this would allow students the opportunity to discuss their expectations in working in a group. I also use group generated codes of conduct, based on the class discussions on expectations for group work. In a paper I coauthored a few years ago, we found that these codes made group work more acceptable for students, but did not necessarily improve the quality of the finished product.

Resources:
Yonkers, V., & Buff, C. (2005). A Matter of Trust: Using Student Designed Codes of Conduct in Face-to-Face and Virtual Group Environments. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics (JABE). Presented at the International Academy of Business and Economics-2005, October 18, 2005, Las Vegas NV.

Let's hear it for the worker bees!

My daughter graduated from eighth grade last week. Like her brother, she was the president of the student council, had the lead in the school play, was on the honor roll all 3 years of junior high school, and was active in all of the sports teams from the school. Like her brother, she worked very hard to improve on her weaker skills, both academically and socially. However, unlike her brother, she did not receive one single note of recognition. In fact, many did not know she was president of the student council, although she worked harder than her brother ever did at organizing fund raising events, student volunteering, and community building between the classes. Many in the lower grades knew her by name, coming up to her to hug her whenever they had the chance.

The difference? My son is a "Queen Bee". He often sat by and directed others to do things, but basked in the limelight. He is a person with a gregarious personality. He has a commanding, confident personality that gets people to do things. On the other hand, my daughter is a worker bee. She quietly works hard, behind the scenes, worrying about the details (my son lets others worry about them). She takes up the slack when others fall down, working hard and consistently, going out, coming back, and working/communicating with everyone involved.

Too many leaders, not enough followers

In management training, there is a focus on the "leader": the person that tells people what to do and how to do it. These people are not always in positions of power. For example, the best run offices often have a strong leader in the secretary or receptionist. They are command central. However, we don't look at the impact that a strong follower has on the office: someone who can take direction, read the social environment, and get things done by consistent, hard work.

This translates into teaching our students how to be leaders, but not how to be followers. As schools and businesses use the team approach more and more, it is important that we begin to train workers how to be both leaders and followers, depending on the situation. Interestingly enough, my daughter does very well in group work. She is willing to take on the leadership role when it is needed. However, when working with strong personalities, she also is able to take on the follower role.

How many of us have worked in groups where there is a power struggle between two strong "leader" personalities? This creates mixed messages and work can't get done. Many leaders leave the details to their "worker bees", assuming it will get done. But if there are no worker bees to do the work, the work does not get done.

What makes a good follower

According to Stewart Tubbs (2007), there are three types of followers. Dependent followers are those that will do as ordered without asking questions. This type of follower is important for vital jobs where the execution of a task as ordered is important (such as the military, nuclear power plant, or professional sports team). Often this type of group will have individual group members with vital information or expertise which must be coordinated for the team to work as a whole. Deviating from orders might weaken the team as a whole as each member may not have all the information they need as a team. Not everyone is a good dependent follower. There must be a high level of trust between the leader and follower and the follower must be able to understand and execute orders or be able to ask for clarification to ensure they are on the same page as other group members. "Taking initiative" might put other group members into peril.

The second type of follower is the counterdependent follower. This person is resistant to authority. For the most part, management will look at this type of follower as a negative role. However, the counterdependent follower can make a team stronger by ensuring all alternatives have been investigated. This also helps the team to avoid group think. My daughter often got herself in trouble by being this type of follower as she was very creative. I believe that this was one of the reasons she did not receive any awards as she was perceived as a trouble maker when she would bring up alternatives or questioned the way things were done, proposing alternatives that were fairer or more efficient. This is especially taboo in a Catholic School where there is a strong authoritative leadership style!

The third type of follower is the independent. This is the more traditional "worker bee" who takes the goals and accomplishes them with little direction. Of course, most management would prefer this type of follower as they need to interact with them less often, yet they can trust that the work will get done.

A good follower, like a good leader, needs to be flexible and be able to adapt to the circumstance, environment, and social dynamics of a group. A good follower also needs to know when they should be a follower and when they need to step up to the plate and give direction.

Who recognizes the worker bees?

Unfortunately, few awards and recognition are given to the worker bees. For every famous leader, there is a team of worker bees supporting them (Watch the report Brian Williams did on Obama's staff). We need to start recognizing the followers/worker bees in our country and schools. What about the kid that has consistently been attaining the 50% mark on standardized tests, never going down, but chugging away and learning quietly every year in school? I once read that this country was run by "B" students: those that did not "excel" at anything, but were consistent workers getting things accomplished without any fanfare. Where would the quarterbacks be without the guards (many of which we don't know their names) to protect them? How many of us know the names of the relief pitchers that come in when the starting pitcher begins to fail? How many of us know the names of the middle managers (plant managers, marketing and sales managers, customer service reps) who keep a company going, through break downs, complaints, and other daily problems that come up?

How about schools beginning to recognize the worker bees?

Tubbs, S. (2007) A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction, 9th Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Understanding a culture through its sports

Over the last few months I have justified my children's participation in sports as a good introduction to office politics. There are days when I just want to stop the fight. But then I think they will be better prepared for the real world if they learn how to handle the social relationships, politics, and yes, down right unfairness of organized sports.

A few months ago, Karyn Romeis wrote about her son's participation in athletics in Britain. Having "foreign" parents (South Africa and Sweden), her son was labeled by his classmates as being "too competitive." This reminded me of a documentary I had seen on Japanese baseball and doing business in Japan. In Japan, a professional baseball team will not have a "blowout" of a game in which they beat an opponant by a large amount. Likewise, the purpose of a business is not to put their competition out of business, but to do better than them. Karyn mentioned that secondary sports teams will play for the "game", not necessarily to win. To which her son asked, "Then why play?" I think the same is true for many in the US. I have always had the philosophy that a team is only as strong as their weakest player, so it is important that the team supports the weakest player. But in the US, most teams cut or do not play the weakest player (they are simply a spare, just in case). As a result, team members, while they are supposed to act like a team, will do anything not to be perceived as the weakest player.

So how does this play out in business? Many businesses have "teams" that in fact will look at the individual effort. Team members will want to be on teams where the other members will make them look good. In some cases, the team member is just a "spare". I am sure many have been on those teams where a worker can't be fired, but needs some "work." Usually what happens is they are given the job the least likely to effect the team adversely if it is done poorly. The team "leader" is the star of the team whether it is warrented or not. However, just like in sports, if the final outcome is negative, the "star" takes the heat for it.

My own philosophy of team work, I think was greatly influenced by my own work in Costa Rica. In work, we often worked in teams (I was an English teacher for business professionals). It was important to coordinate lessons and to ensure that the weakest teacher was given help in preparing lessons so the rest of the instruction would be at an appropriate level. Sometimes this meant taking up the slack in another class; sometimes it meant helping the teacher to prepare; other times it meant just giving a team member moral support and encouragement. It is interesting to see a Latin American soccer game as this team work is evident in the way the game is played. Those that appear the weakest become the strongest given different conditions.

What does this all mean? I think anyone working with international groups should use sports to analyze how a team will work. Not only is this a good team building activity, it is also a good way to develop team communication skills, processes, and identify team roles and how team members will work together.

Group Interaction Metacognition Assessment Framework

I am in the process of updating a paper on virtual group interaction and learning. I would appreciate any feedback as I try to update it for a business/management audience. This post will look at the overall framework.

Group Interaction Metacognition Assessment Framework

Many of the previous protocols used to analyze online interaction, look at the individual learning that has taken place or the group dynamics in an online learning environment that will facilitate or inhibit learning (Mazur, 2004). However, in previous research on group work using codes of conduct to improve group communication and processes, Yonkers & Buff (2005) found that improved group communication did not necessarily improve group learning outcomes. In addition, some members of groups that produced poor outcomes, improved substantially more on individual work than some members of groups that had produced above average outcomes. This leads to the question of whether individuals can learn from poor groups or can effective groups inhibit individual learning? In addition, what are the attributes of group interaction metacognition? Do students create different knowledge for the group than for their individual use? The literature on cognitive sharing would suggest this is so (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001; Mulder, Swaak, & Kessels, 2002; Olivera & Straus, 2004). In the rest of this paper, I will purpose a framework to assess online interaction in order to conduct future research on the influence of groups on individual learning, the influence of individuals on other group members’ learning, and the intersection between social and cognitive processes in creating knowledge.

The assessment of group interaction metacognition is divided into two parts: a) intragroup interaction, and b) group-individual interaction. The purpose of the intragroup assessment is to determine how things are becoming to be known by the group rather than what is known (Yakhlef, 2002). More specifically, it is important to assess the ways meaning is made so there is shared understanding. The assessment of the group-individual interaction focuses on the level of awareness between the individual and the group. The analysis will determine an individual’s common understanding with the group against the acceptance of group choices, and the level of the individual’s identification, both social and cognitive, with the group.

Intragroup assessment

The intragroup assessment can be broken down into three categories: type of group, creating meaning, and construction and reconstruction of knowledge. As discussed previously, groups can work in various ways, depending on their level of prior knowledge about other group members, the task, the group goals, and the context. The same group will approach an ill-structured problem differently than a highly structured instructor lead conversation (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Kates, 2000; Levesque, Wilson, & Wholey, 2001; Mohammed & Dunville, 2001; Waller, et al. 2001). Environmental factors such as time constraints, limited resources, proximity, and cultural differences will also have an effect on the level of interdependency needed to complete a group task (Henning & Van der Westhuizen, 2004). By identifying the type of group learning, group goals, and shared mental models, researchers will be able to give a context to the group interaction. In other words, the type of group will influence the structure of the intragroup interaction.

Group learning

The method of group learning can be divided into four categories: cooperative, collaborative, individual, and competitive (Prater, Bruhl, & Serna, 1998). While there has been an on-going debate in the literature as to whether there is a difference between cooperative or collaborative learning, many make the distinction between these two. Cooperative learning is when students learn together, contributing ideas, reviewing those ideas, working through the process, and developing the final product (including summarizing ideas, making decisions, and/or drawing conclusions) simultaneously. The task has a high level of interdependency and students learn from one another through the process of interaction. Collaborative learning is when each member has a different expertise that he or she brings to the group in order to accomplish a task. Learning is less uniform than in cooperative groups, since each member will have their own expertise (either assigned as in dividing up work tasks regardless of ability or innate as in dividing up work tasks according to student strengths). The quality of the learning is dependent upon how well an individual student can negotiate meaning with the group. In individual learning, students are responsible for their own learning but can access the expertise of group members in a number of ways, such as asking for help, discussing options, or observing others completion of the task. Competitive learning is similar to individual learning, except students are motivated by competing with group members for limited resources or rewards (i.e. grades). One way to assess which form of learning a group is using is to assess how tasks, resources, and responsibilities are distributed.