Extra Page

Ethical frameworks

• perceptual - gut feel
  
• ideological - accepted norm
  
• Theoretical - steering principles  (teleological- ethical egoism (only self interest), utiliatarianism (greatest good)) (deontological - ethical formalism (based on what is universally culturally acceptable)- KANT)
  

Ground Rules for Effective groups

1. test assumptions and inferences- I have inferred by this action that __, am I correct?
2. share relevant info -help each other solve
3. focus on interests, not positions - if you all take a EE position to meet interest - no consensus - what is most important interests?
4. be specific (use examples)- 
5. agree on important words - red v purple
6. explain reasons - 
7. disagree openly 
8. make statements, then ask for FAQ
9. jointly design ways to test disagreements/solutions
10. discuss the undiscussable - dont be defensive!
11. keep discussion focused - discuss until all understand
12. no distracting/cheap shots
13. all members participate in all phases
14. exchange relevant info w/ non group members
15. consensus 
16. self critiques - invite others to disagree and listen to their opinions

Readings 

ch 1 (p 2-8)

explain 

pp 635-636

explain 

ch 15, pp 510-527 

explain

Date: 23 February 2009
TPC: Decision Making and Problem Solving Day 2
Writer: Jackie Cremer (A-Team)
Present: Devanada(PF), John (Spk), Clark(Scr), Jono(DA), Chris(Time), Geoff(SF)
Our team goal for the day was to make sure everyone's voice is heard and opinion is considered. The team was structured differently, with the roles in the Vanatin case, which helped us to reach this goal, since interdependence was necessary. I think this step will help us to continue having more sessions where everyone in the group is more equally contributing.
We ultimately decided we would cut advertising of Vanatin in order to fund more research and possibly develop a safer version. Many member's roles had very strong opinions concerning the drug and this kept us from reaching a decision easily. John, who was playing Cyrus Booth, Chairman at Booth, reminded us of the ethics of the company and comparing the profits to lives lost. Devanada, the consumer advocate, worked as our DA and made sure we were considering all of our publics, including our customers. And Clark, the doctor, reminded us that he had not seen any side effects from Vanatin and would prefer to keep prescribing it.
We also helped each other to understand the differences between Utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and ethical formalism. To do this, we used the Vanatin case as an example and talked about the motives behind using each method to use each type of ethical decision making.
The A-team decided early on that attendance was critical. This high expectation for each other, along with our general enjoyment of working together, has helped us to avoid problems with attendance by knowing we keep each other accountable.

5 (pp. 163-168
CREATIVITY is good ideas, innovation is using them. .

C.process.

1. recog of problem
   
2. info gathering (is prob too narrow, too broad?)
3. produce ideas
4. select best
5. implement ideas.

Samsung 'VIP' creative building

individual

personality traits good for creativity :

locus of control

internal v external

self esteem

individual differences

task relevant knowledge (dr. arthritis)

intrinsic motivation

Organization

level of autonomy

form of eval (willy shakespeare example)

reward system

importance of task

15 (pp.498-510)
barbie v bratz- mattel v mga - changing lifestyle - view of women - mattel didnt change babie and was forced to make quick changes when bratz outsold it. need to stay up to datte - ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

programmed v nonprogrammed decision making - has it happened before, is there a havitual response?

Classical decision making model - how we should - prescriptive model

1. look at alternatives
2. list consequences n- assumes that we know all consequences
3. consider preferences and consequences
4. choose

administrative decision making model - how people actually make decisions

satisficing - search and choose a solution - not always best

bounded rationality

heuristics and bias

availability/representative heuristic

base rate

anchoring and adjustment heuristic - make decisions on adjustments from nsome inital amount

escalation of commitment

sunk costs

buyers remorse

SAPs ERP system

mgmt notes 2.16.09

Principles of Supportive Communication
Excerpted from Whetton, D.A. & Cameron, K.S. Developing Management Skills, 4th Edition. Reading: Addison Wesley, 1998.

Supportive Communication is...
1.  problem-oriented, not person-oriented. - "you are dictatorial" v.  "I am not involved in decisions" – be specific ("You made several sarcastic comments in the meeting today").
2. based on congruence, not incongruence.
Rogers (1961) argues that the best interpersonal communications, and the best relationships, are based on congruence, that is, exactly matching the communication, verbally and nonverbally, to what an individual is thinking and feeling.
3. descriptive, not evaluative.
An alternative to evaluation is descriptive communication. Descriptive communication reduces the tendency to evaluate and perpetuate a defensive interaction. It involves three steps:
Step 1: Describe objectively the event, behavior, or circumstance.Step 2: Focus on the behavior and your reaction, not the other person's attributes.Step 3: Focus on solutions.

4.... validates rather than invalidates individuals.
5.  specific (useful), not global (useless).
Specific statements avoid extremes and absolutes: 
6. conjunctive, not disjunctive.
7. owned, not disowned.
8. requires listening, not one-way message delivery.

Reading 

communication is sharing info toward a common goal/understanding 

- expresses feeling, motivates, provides knowledge, control and coordinates, 

communication networks

wheel 

chain - sequential task interdependence, assembly line 

circle

all channel - surgery team - recipricol task independence

info richness  - including linguistic style viewable

face to face, telephone, personal message, impersonal message

mgmt notes 2.10.09

Chapter 11
potential performance, process losses/gains, social loafing, sucker effect (some members reduce efforts when others are social loafing)
to reduce SL :

• reduce size of group (3-15 )
  
• make individuals feel valuable

1. interdependence - depend on each other - each ind has own job
2. sequential interdependence- specific behaviors in certain order

Cohesive group

• small size
• similarity v diversity (more cohesive v separate perspectives)
• competition bw groups - can be harmful as well
• success
• exclusiveness

consequences of CGs

1. level of participation / communication in group
2. level of conformity to group norms - do you agree w groundrules
3. group accomplishments 0- CGs are effective!
4. too cohesive= too much socializing

top management

self managed work teams

R+D teams

- sales, mktg engineering etc all surround and overlap a bit w/ rd

skunk works - mustang convert -

virtual teams

Facilitating and mgmt

COPING WITH HITCHHIKERS AND COUCH POTATOES ON TEAMS

BY BARBARA OAKLEY

hitchhikers - jack- doesnt do his fair share
couch potatoes-
absorber group - get job done no matter the cost - of giving someone work that doesnt deserve

FACILITATOR INTERVENTIONS
Excerpted from Schwarz, R.M. The Skilled Facilitator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
A General Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle

1. Observe a group
   
2. infer meaning of your observations
   
3. decide whether to intervene
   
4. describe Observations to group
5. Test inferences
6. help group decide how to change

General Types of Facilitator Interventions

1. identify groundrules being roken
2. exploring - poking around to find problems- understand
3. seeking specifics- get more specifics on problems
4. emphasizing process- go through process to find exact problems
5. diagnosing 
6. confronting and other feedback
7. managing group process/struture
8. make content suggestions
9. teaching concepts/methods
10. reframing

Choosing words Carefully 

• use words w/ one meaning 
  
• use descriptive words rather than evaluative- say i didnt see bob participate instead of bob refused to participate
  
• use proper nouns
  
• use active voice unless identify of actors is not clear
  
• use words that give equal recog to all members and tasks
  
• choose words that distinguish facilitaor from group pmembers
  
• avoid imperative - focus on cause/effect
  
• avoid facilitator jargon
  
• avoid negative humor

Facilitator. hmm.

Marketing Personal Points Project

JC
2-4-09
Explanation of Market Segmentation of Canon Cameras

except for not.

MGMT notes 2.4.09

Ground rules for effective groups - Schwarz
3 core values

1. Valid information
2. free and informed choice
3. internal commitment

1. Test assumptions- get valid info, make informed decisions- ie/hank and bob - Bob lightens workload for hank and hank misinterprets- "I have inferred that you were dissatisfied with my performance, am I correct?"
2. Share all relevant info - share if it could be helpful - "I am worried that if I tell you this, you will use it against me - but I want to be honest with you..."
3. Focus on interests, not positions- ask group to list criteria in order for member to accept that solution- figure out the interests that lead people to certain positions  (ie interest: safety  - position : get a honda civic) When a member offers solution - point out why  it meets interests
4. be specific - use examples 
5. Agree on what important words mean - ie/concensus, parking , red v purple
6. explain the reasons behind one's statements, ?s, and actions
7. Disagree openly w/ any member of the group 
8. Make statements, then invite FAQ
9. Jointly design ways to test disagreements and solutions
10. Discuss undiscussable issues- somtimes raises feelings of mistrust, inadequecy and defensiveness- "I realize this may be an undiscussable issue, but I feel like we would be more effective if we solved it" -
11. keep discussion focused- also means discussing until all members understand
12. don't take cheap shots or distract group
13. all members are expected to participate in all phases
14. exchange relevant info w/ nongroup members- who can help?
15. make decisions by consensus- more time, but then more are internally commited
16. do self-critique- giving neg. feedback can be hard - but easier if given in way that followes ground rules - like making a statement and then inviting for others to disagree - keep in mind that self critique is to improve groups performance

Tuckman's Team Development stages

1. Forming 
2. Storming 
3. Norming 
4. Performing 
5. Adjouning

Chapter 10 pg 322-344