Conflict Solution – Why the project team didn’t work smoothly?

                                                             The Case Introduction

The RGB Group works very well for Collaboration course, so we don't think it’s a good study case for conflict solution analysis. We chose other project team from another course, which didn’t run very well so far. Following is the brief introduction of the case.

 

There are six group members in this project team, each with much diversified backgrounds. As for gender, there are three male and three female. As for nationality, two came from two different European countries of Norway and France, one came from US, and the left three are from different parts of China. They all majored in different disciplines in their undergraduate education, and they have different working experiences, one worked for many years, two of them had worked about one year, and three of them had no working experiences at all.

 

Judging from some incidents, we could know that the project team didn’t work smoothly. For example, meetings were run in ineffectively way from the very beginning. There were always some members from China being late or the one from France failed to present in the discussion meeting; there were always someone asked same questions that had been discussed and settled in last meeting. Then the one worked for many years created a meeting agenda and minutes as standard format, and suggested all team members to keep it in turn, so to try to improve the situation from the way of running a meeting, it only got response from one of member who worked about a year. All others kept silence and so nothing changed with respecting to running the meetings.

 

It got worse later. The team seemed to lack of motivation and passion to move on. When someone posted a new idea in wechat, few members had interests to give feedbacks or response it very lately. The team missed the deadline for one of assignment for the project work, because the one from France who see to part of file preparation couldn't be connected via phone or wechat. Once, the other one who came from Norway said to team that he had very low expectations about the course, and the whole team echoed same voice with him soon.     

 

In this assignment, our team, RGB team will analyse the above case from three aspects of background conflict, personality conflict and communication conflict to elaborate the conflict solutions. Please refer to each individual's blog for more details for each aspect.

  

MGT6209_RGB_Complaint Letter-why I am not the Miyoshi Student candidate?

Part I: why we chose this case

We exchanged in our discussion some incidents, which we thought we had been treated unfairly in the past. But we finally chose this one from Alice as our study case. For reasons as below:

Unlike other cases we brought up that happened in our adult age, which were usually related to business or conflict interest issues, this case has a very clear and concise background about a girl failed to be honoured as the Miyoshi Student as she wanted. It happened in teenage stage, and it arouses us that each of us has similar experience. So, it simply triggers our curiosity to check what a teenage world look likes from an adult’s eyes; and to discover the proper communication way between the adult and teenage.

Part II: the Complaint Letter

Dear Mr. Xu,

I am writing to you to complaint about being treated unfairly by you.

Two other students with me went to the Teacher’s Office this morning, and we heard by accidently from Teacher Li and Teacher Liang, who saying that you decided to choose student Wang Hu instead of me, as the Miyoshi Student candidate to represent our class to compete for the Miyoshi Student honor of the whole city. 

As you have announced before that to be a Miyoshi Student candidate, according to the qualification requirement from the Education Bureau, one has to rank to top 3 in the academic grades, and he or she has to win most of votes in the whole class’s voting process. As you well know that I usually ranked before or the 3^rd place in all examinations, and I am the student who won most votes from classmates in the voting of last week. So, to be short, as the fact I perceived that I have met all qualifications announced by you to be the Miyoshi Student, so I should be the Miyoshi Student candidate.

To be honest with you, I feel so angry and disappointing with you now. I don’t understand why you do like this. For that you always teach us to be honest with others and ourselves. I believe that you should keep your own words, means, to elect the one who ranked top 3 in grades and won most votes from classmates to be the Miyoshi Student candidate. But you ate your own words now. I believe that you should remember well that Wang Hu got 8 votes less than me during the voting last week, although he always rank top one in the academic grades. So, I really don’t understand why you chose him instead of me as the Miyoshi Student candidate.

And I am angry with you that you even didn’t tell me about such result. I don’t know how to face with my friends and parents now. Because I have told them that I was elected by the whole class as Miyoshi Student candidate. Now, you changed the result individually without informing me timely, I am going to lose face in front of them. What a shame!

Considering what you said before, and what you have done with me, I want you to explain publicly why you didn’t choose me as the Miyoshi Student candidate. I feel that I can build trust on you only in this way, and continue the study in your class in future.

Thank you,

Alice

 

Part Ⅲ: Analysis- Why this complaint arisen

To begin with, let’s conclude the reality and facts as follows.

1. A student should be chose from the class to participate the competition for the Miyoshi Student honor of the whole city.

2. According to the qualification requirement from the Education Bureau, Miyoshi Student candidate should rank to top 3 in the academic grades, and he or she has to win most of votes in the whole class’s voting process.

3. Alice was the top 3 student in academic grades, and she also won the most of votes from her classmates.

4. Wang Hu was the top 1 student in academic grades, and he got 8 votes less than Alice during the voting.

5. Alice heard by accidently from other teachers that Mr. Xu already determined Wang Hu as the Miyoshi student candidate.

 

Then, according to the Ladder of Inference theory, let’s have a look at why this conflict arisen based on the analysis of the different perspectives from Mr. Xu and Alice.

From Alice’s perspective:

Selected reality

Mr. Wu determined to choose Wang Hu instead of Alice to be the Miyoshi student candidate without telling Alice. And Alice was the only student in the class who met the qualification requirements from the Education Bureau.

Interpreted Reality

Mr. Wu wanted to change the voting result secretly without informing the students.

Assumptions

Mr. Wu would eat his own words.

Conclusion

Alice was going to lose face in front of her classmates and parents.

Beliefs

Mr. Wu might dislike Alice. And Mr. Wu couldn’t be trusted.

 

From Mr Wu’s perspective:

Selected reality

Wang Hu was the top one student of the class. He only got 8 votes less than Alice during the voting.

Interpreted Reality

Wang Hu would have more possibility to win the Miyoshi Student honor in the whole city, since he had better academic record than Alice.

Assumptions

Alice had very small chance to win the Miyoshi Student honor, so this opportunity was not that important for her.

Conclusion

Mr. Wu could confirm the Miyoshi Student first and then find an opportunity to explain to Alice and other students.

Beliefs

The students would agree with him that the only chance should not be wasted. And Alice would understand this too.

As a consequence, because of the different values and perceptions of Mr. Xu and Alice, Alice thought she was offended by Mr. Xu and Mr. Xu may don’t think so.

 

Part IV: How to walk down the ladder of inference

 

1.      Speak up your mind

For Mr. Wu, he should have explained to Alice his reasons why he changed the result, instead of changing it without telling her. Alice was a considerate student, if he explained to her based on the benefit of the school, we believe that she would understand it. However, because of his action, the incident turned into a disrespecting behavior. To Alice, whether to be a Miyoshi Student candidate was not that important any more, what she needed was respect and dignity. So, we should not just climb up the ladder and make conclusion by ourselves, instead, we should speak up and explain our thoughts to others. Otherwise, it will cause some conflicts you even never expect, as the other people will have their own reasoning process.

 

2.      Slow your inference process down

We always could not be aware of how quickly we climb up the ladder, and make our conclusion. Thus, sometimes we make wrong conclusion not because we are unreasonable people, just because we climb up the ladder so quick that we don’t have enough time to think it through. If we slow the process down a little bit, maybe you will have better interpretation of the fact, and the conclusion will be more reasonable. By the same token, our actions will not hurt anyone.

For Mr. Wu, when he interpreted to himself that Alice would understand his decision and he would find a chance to explain to her. He selected one fact Alice would understand his decision, but neglected the fact that Alice was a person need respect. Therefore, if Mr. Wu didn’t interpreted the fact so quick and think about another fact he ignored, maybe Alice would not be so angry.

For Alice, if she could control the disappointment for a while, and didn’t just focus on the fact Mr. Wu changed the decision. Furthermore, took a minute to think about the intention of changing the decision, maybe she would not interpreted it as disrespecting. Consequently, we should slow down when climbing up the ladder, then think about every step of the ladder of inference and think about that of others. 

 

3.      Reflect on your own interpretation thought

When we are interpreting the information, sometimes we just interpret based on the hypothesis rather than the fact. The hypothesis is usually affected by our experience and value, sometimes they become some kinds of potential consciousness and we even don’t realize we are influenced by them. So, before we interpret the information, we should reflect whether we interpret on the basis of the fact; if it doesn’t, we should stop climbing up the ladder and reinterpret the information. If not, we will definitely have a wrong conclusion. Like Alice’s interpretation, when she knew the news from other teachers before Mr. Wu’s explanation, she just climbed up the ladder and interpreted the information as Mr. Wu was going to change the decision secretly without telling her. Actually, Mr. Wu was going to tell her. So, sometimes we are not offended by other people, but by ourselves.

 

4.      Ask other people to help you point out problems of your inference process.

As some hypothesis and value become our potential consciousness, it is hard for us to realize our mistake, so it is necessary to ask help from other people who we can count on. We need to display our mind and reasoning process without concealing any information, let them diagnose that. For instance, if Mr. Wu communicated with another teacher who was more experienced first about his decision, he maybe was aware of that even though Alice was considerate, it would still hurt her dignity without telling her timely.

In conclusion, every step we climb up the ladder, we should take a while to reconsider whether it is right, whether is based on full facts. What’s more, we should take a look at the other party’s reference process, trying to understand their intentions behind actions. Good intention is not enough to avoid conflict, reasonable reference will be better to prevent conflict happening.

 

-end.

Innovating a New Kitchenware in a Team Setting_Revised

-A discovery journey of how trust, teamwork and creativity work together & influence work outcome?

 

To discover how trust, teamwork and creativity work together and how that influence our work consequences, our team firstly did two exercises guided by different rules. The roles of we three members in both exercises are product development team in a kitchenware company. Objectives of both exercises were aiming at developing a product pitch that could be presented to high management team formed by the CEO, Chief Operating Office and Marketing Director.

 

In exercise 1, team setting environment was depressing for one had to be chosen as supervisor and there were other rules stipulated like: no laugh allowed; one had to get supervisor’s approval before he brought up an idea; supervisor had to point out two negative aspects of each idea; and only the supervisor would go to present the pitch. Fanny acted as supervisor in this exercise.

 

In exercise 2, team setting environment was more relaxing and encouraging for each member had freedom to communicate; it was safe for each to offer ideas; and it was the whole team to go to present before the management team.

 

We had no idea of what kind of experiences we would have before we started, so we didn’t try to make any assumption or hypotheses. We just followed strictly the rules to start and to move on. But we did have great findings and experiences when we finished, of which we will illustrate more lately on how the group discussion process looked like. In short, we mainly arrived at the conclusions like that: trust is a basis of good teamwork; trust can guarantee high creativity in a team; Vice versus good teamwork reinforces trust and helps generate creativity.

 

Let’s look at the pitches we finally developed from these two exercises now.

Product pitch 1: "A type of multi-functional pot that could fry, boil, steam and stew food in a short time. This product is made especially for young white collars, and will be launched to market in 2^nd quarter of 2015." This is an ordinary and common pot we could see often. It’s not special, as there are many similar products existing in the market. In other words, it failed to differentiate itself from others. So, it’s far from a remarkable pitch.

Product pitch 2: "The cheap, small size, easily washing and storing auto-cutting-fish-tool will not only benefit those who working in canteen and restaurant, it also enables people like you to cook delicious spicy shui-zhu-yu-pian at home easily." This is a unique kitchenware we invented. As we did research online, there is no similar product in the market. It is a tool widely needed by many people, and could help them slice fish fast and easily. So, we think it’s a more remarkable pitch than the first one.

We organized two exercises within same time period of 30 minutes. But why have such big differences? By reviewing how we went through our discussions, we found the things that are not helpful in producing the first pitch.

 

In exercise 1, Fanny who acted as the supervisor controlled discussion from the beginning in a negative way. Firstly, she started the meeting saying like “As your supervisor, I NEED to present a new pitch to boss for launching a new kitchenware by end of first quarter of 2015. Do you have any ideas? Yoyo, start with you first”. Then Yoyo was unprepared and replied reluctantly like “I think to have a good pot is important for housewives, a good pot that can cook in many different ways”. Then Yoyo stopped with silence. Fanny turned to other teammate Alice to seek her opinion, by saying like “So what’s your opinion, Alice? Do you agree with Yoyo?” Alice said she agreed with Yoyo but she specified the pot should target at young white collars, who didn’t have much time to cook. Fanny pointed out that was a good idea, but she challenged Alice how she would define the target group as young white collars, and how she should set the price. Yoyo kept silence so the discussion was limited to other members only. In the review section later on, Yoyo said that she was reluctant to share ideas, for she thought it was supervisor’s work to do the present.

 

Secondly, Fanny’s approach to manage the meeting inhibited active engagement of team members. According to principles settled for Exercise 1, every member has to get Fanny’s approval before they speak up. And every opinion would be challenged by her. That obviously prohibited members’ participation in discussion. With low participation, few ideas with high quality were brought up, which caused the low quality of the final first pitch.

 

While by reviewing exercise 2, we also defined good things that were helpful in producing the 2^nd pitch. According to the principles of exercise 2, the team will go to present the pitch to bosses and everyone is equal to communicate their ideas, so Fanny opened the meeting saying like “We need to propose a new kitchenware product to our bosses by end of 1^st quarter. Let’s work together to get some good idea, and get it approved by our bosses”. That short opening aroused different reactions fast, with one member asked “what do we have currently in our kitchen?” and the other asked “what do we lack in our kitchen?” Then the team made a hot discussion and brought up abundant ideas. We came up rich ideas to solve pain-points of those who cook in kitchen. For example, we thought about making a new tool to peel the onion easily, and a new tool to mash the garlic without flying everywhere in kitchen. But finally, we decided to make an auto-cutting-fish-tool that would facilitate people to cook dishes like shui-zhu-yu-pian. Though we had many different opinions, there was no conflict or quarrel. And it seemed every member was just eager to contribute to create a pitch that could be approved by boss. Later, we judged that such free communication climate ensured full participation of team and finally brought up a remarkable pitch.

 

By reviewing concepts from collaboration course, we further found that the teamwork, trust and creativity played very important roles in producing the 2^nd pitch. We will discuss more in following part of this paper.

 

Just as Ed Catmull mentioned, Creativity involves a large number of people from different disciplines working effectively together to solve a great many problems. (Ed, 2008). That means, only effective teamwork could unleash binds to people’s creativity. However, what is teamwork? According to Eclipse Research Consultants’ study of 2003, there are 6 key aspects of effective teamwork. They are Team identity, shared vision, communication, collaboration and participation, issue negotiation and resolution, reflection and self-assessment (Eclipse Research Consultants, 2004). They also created a matrix with 5 different levels of practice of teamwork for each aspect. We find that in exercise 1, we did so bad that we could only rank the lowest level for every aspect. For example, as a team, we lacked Team Identity and Shared Vision, because we had team member showed reluctance to share ideas and avoid being involved into communication.

 

Why this happened? Because there was no trust built among team members. “Trust is the act of placing yourself in the vulnerable position of relying on others to treat you in a fair, supportive, honest way.” (Frank, 2015) Yet, we were put in a stressful climate that we could not even laugh. We had to check in with the supervisor when we had an idea to speak. What’s worse, no matter what idea we offered, we would be challenged and criticized by the supervisor. We lacked of security and so we chose not to express too much to avoid being challenged. So, we can see that without trust as team’s base, there was bad teamwork demonstrated, and not to mention there could be any creative ideas being generated in exercise 1.

(If you believe that your team will for sure catch you when you fall down, then it's likely that your body is relaxed and form straight; when your body is straight it's easier for your team to catch you. But if you are nervous to curl up, most weight of your body is in the hip, then it will easily hurt team members who catch most of your weight)

 

While, things got be better in exercises 2. We can rank the highest level for every aspect within the matrix since we did so well. By stating and emphasizing “WE NEED to propose a new product to our bosses”, the team identity and shared vision were created. To achieve this common goal, all team members were moving towards the same direction. Unlike in exercise 1, team members were encouraged to share their ideas openly and fully with others, and no need worrying about being criticized. Meanwhile, everyone’s opinions were fully considered in the team. Team members became more creative under such circumstance, for we noticed that one idea raised by one member soon aroused one more idea from another team member. And as more ideas generated, more likely the team would reach an agreeable result. That kind of small achievement of team finally reinforced confidence of the team, leading its members believing in that “We can do it together”, and “We are a great team, each of us is important to the team and can make contribution to it”. Once team members put trust on each other, they would be more willing to share their ideas and receive opinions from others, thus being more collaborating with each other. It then ensured a good environment for more creativity; And for better issue negotiation and resolution.

(Trust is the basis of teamwork, but once trust is established, relationship among trust, teamwork and creativity are bounded to each other, just like with each other hand in hand)

 

Overall, by finishing the two exercises mentioned as above, we concluded from our observations that trust is a basis of good teamwork, which guarantee high creativity in a team; meanwhile, good teamwork helps to reinforce trust and also helps to generate creativity.

 

References

 

1. Ed Catmull, (2008). Week 5. How Pixar Fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business Review

2. Eclipse Research Consultants, (2004). Effective Teamwork: A Best Practice Guide for the Construction Industry. Constructing Excellence

3. Frank, (2015). Week 3 Lecture Trust in Collaborations.

 

 

Innovating a New Kitchenware in a Team Setting

(RGB Group: members including Alice, Fanny, Yoyo)

 

We have developed two different scripts about two types of kitchenware products from two exercises, as below.

 

Product pitch 1: "A type of multi-functional pot that could fry, boil, steam and stew food in a short time. This product is made especially for young white collars, and will be launched to market in 2^nd quarter of 2015." This is an ordinary and common pot we could see often. It’s not special, as there are many similar products existing in the market. In other words, it failed to differentiate itself from others. So, it’s far from a remarkable pitch.

Product pitch 2: "The cheap, small size, easily washing and storing auto-cutting-fish-tool will not only benefit those who working in canteen and restaurant, it also enables people like you to cook delicious spicy shui-zhu-yu-pian at home easily." This is a unique kitchenware we invented. As we did research online, there is no similar product in the market. It is a tool widely needed by many people, and could help them slice fish fast and easily. So, we think it’s a more remarkable pitch than the first one.

We organized two exercises within same time period of 30 minutes. But why have such big differences? By reviewing how we went through our discussions, we found the things that are not helpful in producing the first pitch.

 

In exercise 1, Fanny who acted as the supervisor controlled discussion from the beginning in a negative way. Firstly, she started the meeting saying like “As your supervisor, I NEED to present a new pitch to boss for launching a new kitchenware by end of first quarter of 2015. Do you have any ideas? Yoyo, start with you first”. Then Yoyo was unprepared and replied reluctantly like “I think to have a good pot is important for housewives, a good pot that can cook in many different ways”. Then Yoyo stopped with silence. Fanny turned to other teammate Alice to seek her opinion, by saying like “So what’s your opinion, Alice? Do you agree with Yoyo?” Alice said she agreed with Yoyo but she specified the pot should target at young white collars, who didn’t have much time to cook. Fanny pointed out that was a good idea, but she challenged Alice how she would define the target group as young white collars, and how she should set the price. Yoyo kept silence so the discussion was limited to other members only. In the review section later on, Yoyo said that she was reluctant to share ideas, for she thought it was supervisor’s work to do the present.

 

Secondly, Fanny’s approach to manage the meeting inhibited active engagement of team members. According to principles settled for Exercise 1, every member has to get Fanny’s approval before they speak up. And every opinion would be challenged by her. That obviously prohibited members’ participation in discussion. With low participation, few ideas with high quality were brought up, which caused the low quality of the final first pitch.

 

While by reviewing exercise 2, we also defined good things that were helpful in producing the 2^nd pitch. According to the principles of exercise 2, the team will go to present the pitch to bosses and everyone is equal to communicate their ideas, so Fanny opened the meeting saying like “We need to propose a new kitchenware product to our bosses by end of 1^st quarter. Let’s work together to get some good idea, and get it approved by our bosses”. That short opening aroused different reactions fast, with one member asked “what do we have currently in our kitchen?” and the other asked “what do we lack in our kitchen?” Then the team made a hot discussion and brought up abundant ideas. We came up rich ideas to solve pain-points of those who cook in kitchen. For example, we thought about making a new tool to peel the onion easily, and a new tool to mash the garlic without flying everywhere in kitchen. But finally, we decided to make an auto-cutting-fish-tool that would facilitate people to cook dishes like shui-zhu-yu-pian. Though we had many different opinions, there was no conflict or quarrel. And it seemed every member was just eager to contribute to create a pitch that could be approved by boss. Later, we judged that such free communication climate ensured full participation of team and finally brought up a remarkable pitch.

By reviewing concepts from collaboration course, we further found that the teamwork, trust and creativity played very important roles in producing the 2^nd pitch. We will discuss more in following part of this paper.

 

Just as Ed Catmull mentioned, Creativity involves a large number of people from different disciplines working effectively together to solve a great many problems. (Ed, 2008). That means, only effective teamwork could unleash binds to people’s creativity. However, what is teamwork? According to Eclipse Research Consultants’ study of 2003, there are 6 key aspects of effective teamwork. They are Team identity, shared vision, communication, collaboration and participation, issue negotiation and resolution, reflection and self-assessment (Eclipse Research Consultants, 2004). They also created a matrix with 5 different levels of practice of teamwork for each aspect. We find that in exercise 1, we did so bad that we could only rank the lowest level for every aspect. For example, as a team, we lacked Team Identity and Shared Vision, because we had team member showed reluctance to share ideas and avoid being involved into communication.

 

Why this happened? Because there was no trust built among team members. “Trust is the act of placing yourself in the vulnerable position of relying on others to treat you in a fair, supportive, honest way.” (Frank, 2015) Yet, we were put in a stressful climate that we could not even laugh. We had to check in with the supervisor when we had an idea to speak. What’s worse, no matter what idea we offered, we would be challenged and criticized by the supervisor. We lacked of security and so we chose not to express too much to avoid being challenged. So, we can see that without trust as team’s base, there was bad teamwork demonstrated, and not to mention there could be any creative ideas being generated in exercise 1.

 

While, things got be better in exercises 2. We can rank the highest level for every aspect within the matrix since we did so well. By stating and emphasizing “WE NEED to propose a new product to our bosses”, the team identity and shared vision were created. To achieve this common goal, all team members were moving towards the same direction. Unlike in exercise 1, team members were encouraged to share their ideas openly and fully with others, and no need worrying about being criticized. Meanwhile, everyone’s opinions were fully considered in the team. Team members became more creative under such circumstance, for we noticed that one idea raised by one member soon aroused one more idea from another team member. And as more ideas generated, more likely the team would reach an agreeable result. That kind of small achievement of team finally reinforced confidence of the team, leading its members believing in that “We can do it together”, and “We are a great team, each of us is important to the team and can make contribution to it”. Once team members put trust on each other, they would be more willing to share their ideas and receive opinions from others, thus being more collaborating with each other. It then ensured a good environment for more creativity; And for better issue negotiation and resolution.

 

Overall, by finishing the two exercises mentioned as above, we concluded from our observations that trust is a basis of good teamwork, which guarantee high creativity in a team; meanwhile, good teamwork helps to reinforce trust and also helps to generate creativity.

 

References

 

1. Ed Catmull, (2008). Week 5. How Pixar Fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business Review

2. Eclipse Research Consultants, (2004). Effective Teamwork: A Best Practice Guide for the Construction Industry. Constructing Excellence

3. Frank, (2015). Week 3 Lecture Trust in Collaborations.