The document discusses how to improve team performance through diversity by overcoming status hierarchies and factions that typically form. It proposes interventions like establishing leader reputations based on inclusiveness, introducing team members based on task qualifications rather than attributes, assigning initial individual tasks, and using anonymous brainstorming to minimize cultural and status differences. The goal is to prioritize task-relevant contributions and relationships over non-task attributes that divide teams.
15. Overview
Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not
conducive of good results
Factions/
Diversity Hierarchies
16. Overview
Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not
conducive of good results
Factions/
Diversity Hierarchies
17. Overview
Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not
conducive of good results
Factions/
Diversity Marginalization
Hierarchies
18. Overview
Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not
conducive of good results
Factions/
Diversity Marginalization
Hierarchies
19. Overview
Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not
conducive of good results
Factions/
Diversity Marginalization
Hierarchies
Process Loss
(poor performance)
20. Status Hierarchies
• Ample research demonstrates that status
hierarchies develop within minutes
• Hierarchies are typically based on work-
irrelevant traits
• Gender
• Race
• Age
• Teams may fracture along these task-
irrelevant ‘fault lines’
• Factions within teams leads to
process loss
24. To Do
The Intervention: Reputational Threat
• Concern for reputation is universal and powerful
25. To Do
The Intervention: Reputational Threat
• Concern for reputation is universal and powerful
• In economic games, people who are reminded of
the possibility of developing a bad reputation give
away more money than they keep
26. To Do
The Intervention: Reputational Threat
• Concern for reputation is universal and powerful
• In economic games, people who are reminded of
the possibility of developing a bad reputation give
away more money than they keep
• Use people’s concern for reputation
27. To Do
The Intervention: Reputational Threat
• Concern for reputation is universal and powerful
• In economic games, people who are reminded of
the possibility of developing a bad reputation give
away more money than they keep
• Use people’s concern for reputation
• Base leader reputation (in part) on inclusiveness
28. To Do
The Intervention: Reputational Threat
• Concern for reputation is universal and powerful
• In economic games, people who are reminded of
the possibility of developing a bad reputation give
away more money than they keep
• Use people’s concern for reputation
• Base leader reputation (in part) on inclusiveness
• eBay style leader inclusiveness rating
29. To Do
2. Establish team member status based on
expected (or actual) contribution to the
team goals
31. To Do
The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues
• Before groups are introduced personally,
introduce the team members’ qualifications
• Create/ deliver to the team profiles that do not
identify people by irrelevant characteristics,
but rather only by task-relevant characteristics
• Qualifications
• Intended contributions
32. To Do
The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues
• Before groups are introduced personally,
introduce the team members’ qualifications
• Create/ deliver to the team profiles that do not
identify people by irrelevant characteristics,
but rather only by task-relevant characteristics
• Qualifications
• Intended contributions
• Conduct first interactions through reductive
technologies
33. To Do
The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues
• Before groups are introduced personally,
introduce the team members’ qualifications
• Create/ deliver to the team profiles that do not
identify people by irrelevant characteristics,
but rather only by task-relevant characteristics
• Qualifications
• Intended contributions
• Conduct first interactions through reductive www.designcontest.com
technologies
• Reductive = those that do not communicate
social queues, such as email or IM
36. To Do
The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues
• Before groups are introduced
personally, assign first task
• Conduct first interactions
through reductive technologies
• Assign the team and each
member a task to be completed
“off-line” to establish intra-team
reputation based on work
product
37. To Do
4. Establish methods of contributing that
minimize cultural and status differences
39. To Do
The Intervention: Anonymous brainstorming, ideation
• Public brainstorming sessions typically
discourage the contribution of low-status,
culturally deferential members
• Use anonymous brainstorming techniques
• Reductive technologies - Virtual
environments/ Sticky notes
• All contributions are made public but not
identified
40. To Do
The Intervention: Anonymous brainstorming, ideation
• Public brainstorming sessions typically
discourage the contribution of low-status,
culturally deferential members
• Use anonymous brainstorming techniques
• Reductive technologies - Virtual
environments/ Sticky notes
• All contributions are made public but not
identified
• Discussion of ideas only after all have been
displayed
Hinweis der Redaktion
\n
Overarching purpose of the studies proposed\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
To investigate ways of overcoming this, I make use of a survival simulation game. What is that?\nSurvival simulation games pit the players as survivors of a disaster. In this case, a plane crash in northern canada.\nit is important to note two things about these games. 1) there is a right answer, and 2) they are content free, which is to say that it is unlikely that anyone on the team will have relevant knowledge and experience\nAs a result, teams that consider more ideas and perspectives do better. Teams do better than individuals.\nand we experienced this in one of our classes a couple weeks ago\n
To investigate ways of overcoming this, I make use of a survival simulation game. What is that?\nSurvival simulation games pit the players as survivors of a disaster. In this case, a plane crash in northern canada.\nit is important to note two things about these games. 1) there is a right answer, and 2) they are content free, which is to say that it is unlikely that anyone on the team will have relevant knowledge and experience\nAs a result, teams that consider more ideas and perspectives do better. Teams do better than individuals.\nand we experienced this in one of our classes a couple weeks ago\n
With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n
The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n
\n
\n
\n
With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n