MGMT 300 University of San Diego Virtual Teamwork Scenario Discussion Please read the 4 short articles attached, then open the attached file called “MGMT 3

MGMT 300 University of San Diego Virtual Teamwork Scenario Discussion Please read the 4 short articles attached, then open the attached file called “MGMT 300 Virtual Teamwork Scenario” and answer the 5 questions. Very straight forward questions, and you can write short answers. Insight into Action
Will Your Teams Offer
Competitive Advantage?
By Marc Sokol
S
ome teams are effective; some
are fun; some are both; some are
simply a pain. The real question
is how can they make enough of a difference to help your company succeed?
This issue of People + Strategy provides
a wealth of insights to enhance the
capacity of teams to make a difference.
Here are a few of the ideas I took away
from reading the articles.
Context and culture sets the stage
for what type of teaming occurs. Several contributors echo what guest editor
Dave Winsborough shares at outset of
this issue: if you want team-oriented
behavior, design talent and reward
systems to support that aspiration. You
70
PEOPLE + STRATEGY
probably take steps to coach people
who don’t function well on teams and
remove those who are toxic, but that is
about limiting dysfunction, not elevating those who help teams succeed. Take
that one step further: Imagine the impact across your company if succession
criteria and high-potential programs
were heavily weighted toward being an
effective member, leader, and sponsor
of teams.
Build psychological safety and risk
taking. Several contributors noted the
importance of psychological safety. The
paradox1 is that until you take a risk,
you never know for sure if the team is
safe; you just increasingly wonder if it
isn’t. When several people simultaneously wait for someone else to take a
risk, it seems “proof” that isn’t safe to
take a risk (because no else will). The
implication for team leaders, members,
and consultants is to orchestrate and
acknowledge risk taking sooner than
later, even if these are just small risks to
gradually build a sense of safety.
Technology support for teams is on
the rise. Dispersed knowledge-based
teams will increasingly need to leverage
technology to perform. This includes
coordination, file sharing, and relationship-building technologies. Nascent
forms of coordination software have
been around since the 1980s; file sharing capacity and ease of use continue
to improve, making these more natural
team assets. Online gamified apps
to foster team member cohesion are
more recent, but they risk becoming
shiny objects that foster the illusion of
relationships if not supplemented by
substantive team development. Alison
Bloom-Feshbach and Marie Poyet offer
thoughtful commentary on evolving
trends in this area. What is safe to
assume is an ongoing need for team
members to have conversations about
what is working well and what can be
better. Debriefing technology such as
the one described by Denise Reyes and
co-authors holds particular promise.
Analytics can be applied to teams
just like other HR practices. Another
aspect of digital teaming on the rise
is the capacity to obtain data about
naturally forming groups; social network analysis, described in our Spring
2016 issue, captures the informal
network of relationships and invisible
teaming across the workplace. Just
as powerful is the growing ability to
anticipate team dysfunction due to
configuration of member personality
attributes; for more on this, go back
to the interview with Suzanne Bell or
Reece Akhtar and Uri Ort’s article on
entrepreneurial teams.
Have a model to guide your focus.
This may be one of the most important insights to act upon: a model or
framework about teams will help you
know what to focus on, enable you to
assess the team on various dimensions,
and allow you to tailor support to what
will really add value. Dianne Nilsen and
Gordon Curphy provide one with their
Rocket ModelTM; Winsborough does
with his hard, soft, and deep design
rules; Darko Lovric and co-authors do
as well for ignition teams. Several of the
sports leaders featured in our executive
roundtable referred to a “system” that
guides their action without forcing rigid team leadership. Whatever language
you use, a well-thought-out framework
is essential; you might even have more
than one and flip between them for
different circumstances. Having no
model, however, increases likelihood
you will waste your time and that of the
teams you wish to assist.
Learn to see team dynamics with a
more powerful lens. Do you remember the first time you looked through
a microscope and saw a world that was
previously invisible? Jean Brittain Leslie and her co-authors offer a lens into
virtual team dynamics just as powerful.
They see team dynamics as the inevitable interplay of competing values (for
example, formal vs. informal rules).
Teams get stuck, even polarized,
when some members can only see the
upside of one value and the downside
of the opposing value. To get unstuck
we must address these polarities and
see them, map them, tap them—be
ready to recognize naturally occurring
competing values as they surface; map
or list the upside of each opposing
value as well as the downside when
you have too much of one to exclusion
of the opposing value; tap the energy
that emerges when we simultaneously
address the upside of both values and
surface early warning signals that one
value is overshadowing the opposing
one.2 A lens like this can guide your
attention and choice of action, allowing you to mediate what previously
seemed like paralyzing team issues.
Develop helpful routines. Plan,
do, check, and act is a time-honored
process improvement approach. Such
thinking also applies to teams, as
ongoing improvement is guided by
intentional action and reflection. The
five balancing acts described by Lovric
for ignition teams are actually mental
and behavioral practices your team can
readily adopt. Reyes and her co-authors’ focus on debriefing meetings
is another great example. These are
all examples of what Bell refers to as
healthy patterns of team dynamics. I
think of this as “teaming,” not just being a team. Given the great many teams
we all seem to be on at any one time,
wouldn’t you want members who are
experienced and skilled at such types
of teaming?
Think beyond your own team. Much
of the real work of teams occurs on and
across the team boundary: this is visible
in how the team works with its sponsor and with other teams. As Akhtar
and Ort illustrate for entrepreneurial
teams, more effective ones discover
how to leverage their social capital to
acquire knowledge on how to operate
effectively and overcome obstacles
outside the team. My hunch is that we
devote disproportionate time focusing
on dynamics within the team, and too
little time focusing on how the team
and its members can be more effective
across team boundaries.
Adapt your team EQ to different
types of teams. Beyond having a
diagnostic framework to assess team
dynamics, it helps to recognize there
are many team configurations; some
are appropriate for one context but
disastrous for another. Not all teams
should look or act the same. Most of
us simultaneously belong to multiple
teams, with different roles, structure
and dynamics. Our use of emotional
intelligence (EQ) can help us within
and across teams. Several participants
of the executive roundtable actively
employ such concepts (but not this
same language) as they assess and develop world-class sports teams. I suspect
many readers can quickly think of at
least one colleague who excels applying
emotional intelligence to teams; the
opportunity is to codify that and apply
it across a wide range of team configurations.
One final thought about the team
mindset: readers may be familiar with
Carol Dweck’s distinction between a
fixed vs. growth mindset.3 Now imagine the actions of a team with a fixed
mindset vs. one that has a growth
mindset. The former will simply assess
themselves as a great, not-so-great,
or ineffective team; they may assume
success or failure is inevitable, restrict
effort to certain opportunities, and play
the blame game when things don’t go
well. The team with a growth mindset,
in contrast, will constantly evaluate
itself against the effort applied and how
they consciously work to improve their
collective performance. Which mindset
do you want to foster among the teams
in your organization?
You can see descriptions of this in Kenwyn
Smith and David Berg’s classic book,
Paradoxes of Group Life. 1987. Jossey-Bass.
2
In addition to the article in this issue, see
Barry Johnson’s book, Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. 1992. Human Resource
Development.
3
Dweck, Carol. Mindset: The New Psychology
of Success. 2007. Ballatine Books.
1
VOLUME 41 | ISSUE 2 | SPRING 2018
71
Copyright of People & Strategy is the property of HR People & Strategy and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Viewpoints
PT in Motion welcomes your opinions. We will consider
letters, email, and social media posts that relate to specific
articles in the magazine and those of general interest to
the physical therapy profession.
Letter
Virtual Meetings: 10% Technology, 90% Psychology
The world of rehabilitation is experiencing a digital revolution. Cloudbased technology has empowered
PTs to interact and communicate with
peers, colleagues, and patients in
a digital world. This has led us into
uncharted waters.
A growing number of organizations
and their leadership teams are embracing a virtual meeting and engagement model in which team members
remotely share ideas and insights using
apps such as Zoom Video, GoToMeeting, Skype, and Google Hangouts.
Team members find themselves part of
an expanding business that’s opening
new clinics in different locations. PTs
are making home visits. Interprofessional collaboration is taking place
inside of larger organizations to ensure
good patient outcomes.
The real challenge in conducting
virtual meetings is not the enabling
technology but the underpinning team
dynamics that must be acknowledged
and addressed. For example, there
are some generally accepted communication barriers associated with both
intraprofessional and interprofessional
communication in rehab, such as:
\
Perceived hierarchy related to
positions in an organization.
\
Gender and generational
differences.
colleagues within a virtual meeting
room. For example, body language is
often missing in a virtual meeting. By
necessity, this requires people to interpret the meaning behind conversations
using only the words and the tone in
which they’re delivered. This can lead
to miscommunication.
One paradigm that thought leaders can
use to enhance meeting interactions
and outcomes is “psychological safety.”
This involves a shared belief that the
team is safe for interpersonal risktaking. It’s having a sense of confidence
that the team will not embarrass, reject,
or punish a member for speaking up,
asking a question, offering a new idea,
or admitting a mistake. Psychological
safety underscores and supports the
need for mutual respect—especially for
the knowledge and skills held by peers
and colleagues from other disciplines
and professions.
There’s increased interest in psychological safety among health care professionals in general, as people become
more aware of the role it plays in team
effectiveness. Research suggests
that psychological safety is a critical
element in high-performing teams. In
health care, it not only contributes to
the well-being of health care providers, but it also is crucial to organizational efforts to reduce medical
errors, enhance care coordination, and
increase cost-effectiveness.1
\
Jargon.
\
Differences in qualifications.
Here are some core, shared beliefs
related to the concept of psychological
safety:
\
Historical professional rivalries.
\
The setting is safe for interpersonal
risk-taking.
\
Participants feel accepted and
respected.
\
There’s mutual respect and trust
among participants.
Creating a successful atmosphere to
address these kinds of challenges in
a bricks-and-mortar meeting room is
hard enough. These same challenges
are exacerbated when using devices
to connect and communicate with
6
PTinMOTIONmag.org / November 2019
\
Team members respect each other’s
competencies.
\
Members have positive intentions.
Have you ever been in a meeting where
you’re reluctant to speak up because
of the potential threat associated with
bringing up a point or taking a stand on
an issue? People tend to withdraw and
keep their ideas to themselves in any
meeting where there’s a perceived risk
of negative consequences related to
interacting with other participants. The
result? Team members will be reluctant to share information or ideas if the
repercussions are (in their minds) not
worth the risk.
Creating an organizational culture
that supports the principles behind
psychological safety is often a longterm effort. However, embracing and
promoting psychological safety in the
context of virtual meetings is something that can begin with your very
next meeting.
For example:
\
Model the behavior you want to
encourage.
\
Acknowledge and appreciate a
team member who takes a risk,
offers a new idea, admits an error,
or asks a question. It’s a powerful
tactic for inspiring others to follow.
\
Demonstrate engagement. Be
an information seeker, giver, and
encourager.
\
Ask questions with the intention of
learning from your teammates.
\
Offer input, be interactive, and
show that you’re listening.
\
Express gratitude for contributions
from the team or individuals.
MAIL PT IN MOTION
1111 North Fairfax Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1488
FACEBOOK WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/APTAFANS
TWITTER @APTATWEETS
EMAIL PTINMOTIONMAG@APTA.ORG
In all correspondence, please include
your full name, city, and state.
Letters and posts may be edited for clarity,
style, and space. Published letters and comments do not necessarily reflect the positions
or opinions of PT in Motion or the American
Physical Therapy Association.
Online Comments
One of the most effective phrases
you can use to help you interact in a
meeting and take care of your own
psychological safety is to ask “What
if…?” The phrase will enable you
to engage with others to provide
you with a sense of safety. It’s easy
to remember, extremely powerful,
and creates a zone of psychological
safety within which you can operate.
Here are the key words:
\
What if I do…?
\
What if you do…?
\
What if we do…?
These phrases signal that ideas are
still open for discussion, and they
indicate that you simply are making a
suggestion. They open the dialogue
for safe collaboration.
Recruiting Tomorrow’s PTs & PTAs
August 2019
We’ve seen the rise of a number of trends in the 2010s: frozen yogurt,
urgent care facilities, and now—in the physical therapy world—“mentorship.” I hear students of all levels and career focuses saying “I want a
mentor,” “I’m looking for strong mentorship,” and “I want a place that can
support me in a long-term mentorship program.”
I have seen great successes, with new graduates being afforded
mentorships that guide them in many domains of life—spanning
personal, home, relationship, and clinical goals. To counteract the
risk of burnout, supporting our newest
colleagues in all facets has a way of
creating long-term sustainable
employees. Not merely for their
retention, but for improved
patient outcomes and
consistent providers to the
same patients and families
for decades to come.
Matt Calendrillo PT, DPT
These phrases also can provide you
with a subtle, nondictatorial way to
solicit agreement. They are much
more collaborative in nature than, for
example, “Why don’t you do this…?”—
which almost begs for disagreement.
The technology related to conducting a virtual meeting is simply
a conduit or vehicle for facilitating
communication. It’s the 10% factor.
On the other hand, the 90% factor is
the psychological safety associated
with that communication, and its
power to foster the free exchange of
ideas on which best practice thrives.
John Spencer
Rehab Village
REFERENCE
1.
Edmondson AC, Higgins M, Singer S, Weiner
J. Understanding psychological safety in
health care and education organizations:
a comparative perspective. Res Hum Dev.
2016;13(1):65-83.
Defining Moment: Community Service
May 2019
[The author described her efforts to establish the first
bilingual and bicultural physical therapy outpatient
clinic in Milwaukee and the 4 keys she found to
thrive in today’s competitive marketplace.]
Inspiring!
Mark Sala
PTinMOTIONmag.org / November 2019
7
Copyright of PT in Motion is the property of American Physical Therapy Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
How to Lead an Effective Virtual Team
How to Lead an Effective Virtual Team
By Rick Lepsinger and Darleen DeRosa
Thanks to the ever-increasing deployment of virtual teams, the modern office is increasingly
defined by time zones, rather than walls. According to a survey conducted by the Society for
Human Resource Management (SHRM), 66 per cent of multinationals, not to mention almost
half of all organizations, use virtual teams, which can boost productivity and employee flexibility
while reducing the time and cost of travel.
When it comes to brainstorming, project planning and setting goals, SHRM research suggests
that virtual teams can be more effective than in-person teams. Virtual teams, however, are still
considered inferior in some key areas. Traditional teams, for example, receive higher marks
when it comes to developing trust, maintaining morale, monitoring performance and managing
conflict. Furthermore, as the SHRM survey illustrated, virtual managers have a harder time
monitoring individual and team performance and the absence of visual cues can make
developing a shared understanding more difficult than in a physical meeting. Different time
zones and cultural and technology barriers can also make collaboration more difficult.
These challenges, of course, can be addressed by promoting strong leadership behaviours and
training virtual teams in skills to build relationships and trust while implementing processes and
systems that allow them to collaborate more effectively. Unfortunately, according to our own
research, these things aren’t happening, at least not at most companies. Simply put, best practices
aren’t being implemented (or even clearly defined) enough. In fact, research indicates that less
than 20 per cent of virtual teams receive training on how to work effectively as a virtual team,
leaving most virtual leaders and their team members operating in unproductive ways. As a result,
one-quarter of virtual teams fail to meet expectations.
To help better define the best practices that lead to success in a virtual setting, we studied 48
virtual teams across a range of industries. Our research included a survey of 427 virtual team
members and leaders as well as data collected from 99 stakeholders familiar with the teams in
our study, such as internal customers or team leaders’ managers. We also conducted an
additional survey of 304 individuals who worked on separate virtual teams. We found several
troubling statistics:
• When evaluated by third-party stakeholders, 27 per cent of the 48 teams studied had
overall performance rated as adequate or below adequate
• When team members and leaders were asked to assess their own effectiveness, 17 per
cent rated their own performance as adequate or less than adequate
• Twenty-five per cent of the 304 people surveyed said their teams were not fully effective
Our follow-up research included interviews with 35 high-performing virtual leaders. And
although the tactics and technology used by these successful virtual team leaders varied, we
found that they all shared the ability to do four things exceptionally well: build trust and
2
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment