February 20

Lesson 4 Blog: Understanding Your Emotional Intelligence.

Based on the outcome of your Vocational Personality Radar Test:

    • What was the most revealing outcome of the assessment?
    • What are your areas of strengths in regards to EI?
    • What are your areas for improvement in regards to your EI results?

This assessment was difficult to complete accurately. The first time I did it, I was thinking of pandemic life, In my condo with my husband and nine-year-old, and my trusty laptop serving up zoom calls. All. Day. Long. I’ve found that to recharge, I need to find a room, some noise-canceling headphones, and a good audiobook so I can shut out the world. But, pre-pandemic, I would go out with friends, grab a quick coffee, or wander the halls at work to see who I’d bump into.

The results from the first attempt were very balanced around the center.

I took it a second time, shaking off the pandemic setting, and remembered who I was last year at this time. The results were in line with how I perceive myself and the areas I need to work on.

Areas of Strength

The second result said that I’m a Giver, maximizing everyone’s potential. Ranked the following order of attributes from greatest to least.
Extrovert
iNtuition
Feeling
Judging

Area for improvement

The area that I need to work on the most is self-awareness. I’m working hard at trying to be more aware of the way I come across to others. Zoom has been a big help in this area- I can see my facial expressions when I talk and listen. It’s made me aware of some of my tendencies. For example, when I’m listening, I tend to look bored when I’m just trying to pay as much attention to the speaker as possible. Or when I’m concentrating on an idea or forming a thought, I look angry, but it’s just me trying to piece pictures together in my head before I speak. I’ve tried to soften the way I look when I’m listening. The last thing I want is for people to think that I’m unapproachable.

Pre-pandemic, I would get comments like this often, “I was always intimidated by you, I don’t know why – you’re so easy to talk to” or “you seemed a little stand-offish, but then I got to know you, and you’re the easiest person to talk to.” After watching myself on zoom, I wonder if it’s because of how I look when I’m not talking or actively engaged in dialogue?

Category: communication, Facilitator, WFED 880 | LEAVE A COMMENT
February 11

WFED 880: Lesson 3 Blog: Facilitating Team Development

In what phase do you feel the team facilitator role is most critical?
Many development models mention a stage just after the introduction stage when conflict emerges due to individuals trying to find their place in the group. Levi writes, “early process conflict not only helps a team develop better work processes and strategies but it teachers the theme how to manage conflicts… which is why early process conflict is a predictor of later success for project teams.” (p. 48).
The stage that follows the initial introduction stage is crucial for facilitators to be aware of its importance in future performance. It’s the time when teams figure out their group identity and how they will all fit together. This stage is also when the team may feel the frustration in the slow progress towards its goals. If the group can successfully break down the goals into small chunks and develop a set of norms, they will be more successful in the future.

What developmental stage do you think poses the most significant challenge for teams?
The inception phase appears to be the most straightforward phase of a group, but it’s not. After introductions, it’s relatively easy to move into breaking up the goal into smaller tasks so that the group can move forward towards its destination. A great deal of work needs to be done during the inception phase to ensure that all group members understand the end goal and that they all have the same vision and understanding of what defines success. If the group does not spend time here, articulating the purpose and ensuring a shared vision, conflict cause confusion to appear later in the project. Taking the time to discuss the goals, how tasks will be accomplished, creating team norms, and the process will help fortify the team, align the definition of success, and build a solid foundation for the team to progress in unison towards their goal.

What can the team facilitator do to help teams overcome this challenge?
There are two areas where the facilitator can assist. The facilitator can guide the team in establishing their norms and work with them to ensure that they understand the project that brought them together in the first place. Do they agree on the end goal? Do they agree on what the end goal looks like? Do they know how each other’s strengths can move them in that direction? Do they have a group process for how the frequency and manner they meet or communicate? Levi (2017) writes that teams “should spend time developing a performance strategy or plan about how team members will work together… developing performance strategies that outline performance objectives and tactics help direct the team’s actions and create a shared mental model of how the team should operate” (p. 57). A facilitator who can help the team navigate its early stages and ensure a clear understanding of the problem will help support the team on its track to success.

Until three years ago, I’d never heard of the stages that a group goes through. I was at InBound (a marketing conference put on by HubSpot). I attended a breakout session led by a leader at Facebook.

At the beginning of the talk, he mentioned “storming, norming, conforming, and performing,” which I know now is a process coined by Tuckman in 1965. After explaining briefly what it meant, I turned to Google to learn more and spent the rest of his talk learning about the process.

A few years ago, I was on a new team. To help break the ice and my team conducted the Clifton Strengths survey and had a facilitator work with us to understand the results and how we can work on each other’s strengths. Our team was relatively new, in that we’d been working together for about six months. After the session, the facilitator asked us to split up into smaller groups to build a Marshmellow Tower. I’m pretty sure that we all walked out of there swearing that we would never attempt to build a tower with the people on our team or anything else.

Some great things came out of the session, for as stressful as it was. We had a debrief to discuss what we learned, how we could have used each other’s strengths better, and how we should begin working with each other. The experience forced us to have a conversation about the best way to work together. If it hadn’t been for the marshmallow tower experience, I’m not sure that we would have grown as cohesive as we are today.

As a facilitator, it is essential to know how to observe how a group is working together. Are they a new group getting to know each other, are they a group working together for a while, have new members joined an established group? A facilitator who can match her interactions and interventions to the group’s particular stage or cycle will contribute positively to the group process.

 

Reference

Levi, D. (2017). Group dynamics for teams. (5th ed.)  SAGE Publications.

Category: communication, Facilitator, OD&L, WFED 880 | LEAVE A COMMENT
February 6

Create more conversation

The narrative of the product that Pentland and his team developed and how it worked blew me away. I was fascinated by the amount of information the small device can collect through in-person interactions. For example, tone of voice, body language, and frequency of communication. This information is collected by anyone who wears the device. The data is analyzed for patterns and then shared with the team.  Pentland (2012) explains that the “best predictors of productivity were a team’s energy and engagement outside formal meetings. Together, those two factors explained one-third of the variations in dollar productivity among groups.“ (p. 4).

Pentland then explains that productivity can be increased by simple acts, such as having entire teams eating at the same time or changing the configuration of the lunchroom to improve flow and increase the opportunity for interactions. Gavette (2012) discusses what happened when Steve Jobs moved the bathrooms at Pixar to the lobby, “to the annoyance of some employees who had to walk through the lobby to go to the bathroom, Pixar’s employees started to bump into each other. They shot the breeze. Sometimes, the chatter would yield something useful, and one of the participants would head back to her desk with a new idea.” (p. 1). He was aware of the importance of communication, particularly communication that happened outside of scheduled meetings. Pentland is suggesting the same thing. The frequency that people are communicating organically increases creativity, productivity, and profits.

He then presents very vivid data (I could have looked at just the images’ captions to understand the power of his argument). The images show the lines between people; the bolder the line, the greater communication. And, this is where I worry about his findings.

 

Team communication day 1

Team communication after 7 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although the data is anonymous (what is being said, and to whom, isn’t captured), it is possible to see the outliers, frequent communicators, and those who aren’t. I would hate to be pinpointed as the person who’s not doing enough talking. Would I suddenly be the scapegoat for a poorly functioning team? How easy would it be for this type of data to be included in my performance review?

Pentland mentions a two-hour adjustment period from when people are first provided with the badge, and then they assume their regular communication patterns. He presents data that show emerging trends in communication over the course of seven days. In the beginning, it is obvious who dominates, but after the data is shared, people are more aware of their patterns and make an effort to be more inclusive with their communication. My question is, how authentic is the communication? How long does it take to make it the norm? Or does it go back to the old way once the device is removed? Is there training to support the new communication structure?

These questions come to mind because there was a strong push to have daily check-ins with all team members when we went remote. This went for the team that reports directly to my boss and the team that reports to me. It. Was. Exhausting. By the end of the day, I would have spent well over half my time on zoom, trying to make up the conversation for the sake of having “face time.” It backfired, People were burning out and experiencing higher levels of stress. It took a long time to know how much was too much, how much was too little. Were we building relationships, or did it become more of a burden?

Pentland’s article shows the importance of communication and stresses to the OD practitioner that it can’t be overlooked. This is a great tool that could help diagnose potential issues in the organization or lie.

 

Reference

Gavett, G. (2013, July). Think carefully about where you put the office bathroom. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/07/think-carefully-about-where-yo

Pentland, A. S. (2012, April). The new science of building great teams.The Harvard Business Review.  Page 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.oliverfinlay.com/assets/pentland%20(2012)%20the%20new%20science%20of%20building%20great%20teams.pdf

Category: communication, OD&L, WFED 880 | LEAVE A COMMENT