-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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st 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 2nd 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.
