I found my scores on the cognitive style assessment very interesting. In the following post, I will discuss my analysis of my scores.
On the extrovert/introvert continuum, I scored very high on the extrovert category. This is consistent with how I view myself. I love meeting new people and can usually have a conversation with almost anyone. However, the few points I scored on the introvert side probably reflect my tendency to be uncomfortable with people who lack self-confidence. When people are awkward being themselves, it makes me feel uncomfortable.
As for generating information, I scored evenly between sensing and intuition. I find value in both of these dimensions of information generation. I tend to be logical and very detail oriented. I like to base many of my decisions on facts. However, over the past few years, I have worked on developing my creative side which is why this is reflected in my intuitive score. I think creativity is very closely tied to innovation.
Very close to my score on sensing and intuition is my score on thinking vs. feeling. Although I did not fall directly in the center, I was very close, leaning only slightly to the thinking side of the continuum. I tend to draw upon both my analysis of a situation and previous personal experience when making decisions. I believe personal experience has a lot of merit in the work place, but it will not dictate exactly how a situation will unfold. Analysis is still an important component.
I was also not surprised to see that I fell more on the judgemental side than the perceptive side of the continuum. I tend to make judgements rather quickly instead of waiting to take everything in. I believe this is the reason that I tend to interpret things slightly differently than others. Once I hear something I start making a series of judgements that lead me to a decision which is different than the one that I may have come to if I had waited to take everything in. While I appreciate the fact that I can think quickly and start making connections, I think to improve the way I work in groups I need to learn to slow down and let others catch up.
I look forward to making more connections regarding my cognitive style in the future.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Group Trust
As an employee, being able to trust management is a key component of job satisfaction and success. When employees become wary of management, can they ever believe in that organization again? Right now, the automotive industry has made drastic employee cuts in Michigan. How can the remaining employees carry out their job responsibilities effectively and work together in this type of distrusting environment? Many feel that the wealth of management is not being shared fairly among the companies' many workers.
I believe it will take a great deal of time for Michigan workers to begin to trust this industry enough to aspire to join it again. While cutting jobs will temporarily ease financial burdens, what these companies have ultimately lost is much more costly. The have sacrificed the morale of the very people who believed in these companies and who, through innovation and collaboration, could have potentially helped them move forward.
One way to measure organizational satisfaction is by designing assessments. Our group was given the task of creating a method for evaluating our satisfaction with our colleagues as well as our product. We decided that having a rating system as well as an open-ended comment area allowed us to both quantify our success and draw upon specific examples to cite successfulness as well as failure. In order for these types of results to be helpful, team members must be honest. Their answers should not differ whether the survey is anonymous or not. While anonymity can sometimes ensure honesty, I think it is best for each team member to take ownership of his or her opinions and observations. We should establish a safe space so that team members feel comfortable openly expressing their individual group observations. It is only through this type of interpersonal communication that a group can begin to become a team. It can also foster the type of collaboration and innovation that could possibly save an entire industry.
I believe it will take a great deal of time for Michigan workers to begin to trust this industry enough to aspire to join it again. While cutting jobs will temporarily ease financial burdens, what these companies have ultimately lost is much more costly. The have sacrificed the morale of the very people who believed in these companies and who, through innovation and collaboration, could have potentially helped them move forward.
One way to measure organizational satisfaction is by designing assessments. Our group was given the task of creating a method for evaluating our satisfaction with our colleagues as well as our product. We decided that having a rating system as well as an open-ended comment area allowed us to both quantify our success and draw upon specific examples to cite successfulness as well as failure. In order for these types of results to be helpful, team members must be honest. Their answers should not differ whether the survey is anonymous or not. While anonymity can sometimes ensure honesty, I think it is best for each team member to take ownership of his or her opinions and observations. We should establish a safe space so that team members feel comfortable openly expressing their individual group observations. It is only through this type of interpersonal communication that a group can begin to become a team. It can also foster the type of collaboration and innovation that could possibly save an entire industry.
Log Goals and Mission
This term log will explore many different topics. These will include, but are not limited to, leadership, group dynamics, communication and course material analysis. At this time, I find it difficult to commit to any one particular theme. My mission to to reflect, analyze and understand how my group and I work within teams and to apply these findings to future experiences.
Monday, February 5, 2007
The Bake-Off
While reading Malcolm Gladwell's "The Bake-Off," I recognized many different points that will be important for me to consider while working in teams. Some of them will also help me to become a better individual member. In this post, I will discuss the aspects of Gladwell's article that I found to be the most critical to team performance.
One of these points is that technical skill should not be the only component considered when building a successful team. When we did our interviews to submit to the class employers, our team may have put too much emphasis on the experiences we had. In light of reading Gladwell’s article, I believe we should have explored how each individual functions in a group environment. For example, we could have asked a potential member to describe his or her worst group experience.
In addition, Gladwell touches on the innate thought that more expertise is the best way to solve a problem. Too much expertise means that there may be tension between group members that will create chaos. Many times "we tend to overestimate the importance of expertise and underestimate the problem of friction" (Gladwell, 2005). I thought that this was one of the most important points Gladwell made in this piece. When building teams, the possible friction between members should be considered. How the members relate to one another will be important for the group to succeed.
Another interesting point that Gladwell explores, although not to a significant extent, is the question "Where do ideas come from?" While Gladwell does not provide a definitive answer on whether they are products of teams, committees or individuals it is still an interesting idea to explore. Ideas and innovations are the reason many organizations emphasize the importance of working in groups. Exploring their origins can be beneficial to recognizing how to continue being a productive group member. Learning to make connections between different ideas is a great way to improve group productivity.
Participation within the group is also critical. As one of the Dream Team members commented, "How much true input can any one person have when you are lost in a crowd" (Gladwell, 2005). Extra chaos and confusion diminish the value of additional expertise. Clear procedures can help clarify confusion, but groups may find it difficult to determine one way to operate. Some sort of group consensus will increase productivity.
These are just a few of the points that I found useful in Gladwell’s article. I believe they will help me improve the way I think about teams and the way I analyze my individual participation.
One of these points is that technical skill should not be the only component considered when building a successful team. When we did our interviews to submit to the class employers, our team may have put too much emphasis on the experiences we had. In light of reading Gladwell’s article, I believe we should have explored how each individual functions in a group environment. For example, we could have asked a potential member to describe his or her worst group experience.
In addition, Gladwell touches on the innate thought that more expertise is the best way to solve a problem. Too much expertise means that there may be tension between group members that will create chaos. Many times "we tend to overestimate the importance of expertise and underestimate the problem of friction" (Gladwell, 2005). I thought that this was one of the most important points Gladwell made in this piece. When building teams, the possible friction between members should be considered. How the members relate to one another will be important for the group to succeed.
Another interesting point that Gladwell explores, although not to a significant extent, is the question "Where do ideas come from?" While Gladwell does not provide a definitive answer on whether they are products of teams, committees or individuals it is still an interesting idea to explore. Ideas and innovations are the reason many organizations emphasize the importance of working in groups. Exploring their origins can be beneficial to recognizing how to continue being a productive group member. Learning to make connections between different ideas is a great way to improve group productivity.
Participation within the group is also critical. As one of the Dream Team members commented, "How much true input can any one person have when you are lost in a crowd" (Gladwell, 2005). Extra chaos and confusion diminish the value of additional expertise. Clear procedures can help clarify confusion, but groups may find it difficult to determine one way to operate. Some sort of group consensus will increase productivity.
These are just a few of the points that I found useful in Gladwell’s article. I believe they will help me improve the way I think about teams and the way I analyze my individual participation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)