4 Tips for getting the most from diverse teams
0 likes658 views
The document discusses how to improve team performance through diversity by overcoming status hierarchies and factions that typically form. It proposes interventions like establishing leader reputations based on inclusiveness, introducing team members based on task qualifications rather than attributes, assigning initial individual tasks, and using anonymous brainstorming to minimize cultural and status differences. The goal is to prioritize task-relevant contributions and relationships over non-task attributes that divide teams.
4 Tips for getting the most from diverse teams
- 1. Diversity in Teams Improve Team Performance by Overcoming Status and Factions on Teams
- 2. Overview A diversity of ideas and perspectives can create tremendous value in work teams However, it rarely does
- 3. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams.
- 4. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Diversity
- 5. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Diversity
- 6. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Ideas/ Diversity
- 7. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Ideas/ Diversity Perspectives
- 8. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Ideas/ Diversity Perspectives
- 9. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Ideas/ Diversity Creativity Perspectives
- 10. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Ideas/ Diversity Creativity Perspectives
- 11. Overview Desired state for diverse work teams. Ideas/ Diversity Creativity Perspectives High Performance
- 12. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results
- 13. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results Diversity
- 14. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results Diversity
- 15. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results Factions/ Diversity Hierarchies
- 16. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results Factions/ Diversity Hierarchies
- 17. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results Factions/ Diversity Marginalization Hierarchies
- 18. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results Factions/ Diversity Marginalization Hierarchies
- 19. Overview Teams are diverse, but diversity is typically not conducive of good results Factions/ Diversity Marginalization Hierarchies Process Loss (poor performance)
- 20. Status Hierarchies • Ample research demonstrates that status hierarchies develop within minutes • Hierarchies are typically based on work- irrelevant traits • Gender • Race • Age • Teams may fracture along these task- irrelevant ‘fault lines’ • Factions within teams leads to process loss
- 21. Cultural Differences • Cultures have different norms for participating in groups • Deference • Confrontation • Volume
- 22. To Do 1. Establish incentives for group leaders to encourage the participation of (potentially) low status team members
- 23. To Do The Intervention: Reputational Threat
- 24. To Do The Intervention: Reputational Threat • Concern for reputation is universal and powerful
- 25. To Do The Intervention: Reputational Threat • Concern for reputation is universal and powerful • In economic games, people who are reminded of the possibility of developing a bad reputation give away more money than they keep
- 26. To Do The Intervention: Reputational Threat • Concern for reputation is universal and powerful • In economic games, people who are reminded of the possibility of developing a bad reputation give away more money than they keep • Use people’s concern for reputation
- 27. To Do The Intervention: Reputational Threat • Concern for reputation is universal and powerful • In economic games, people who are reminded of the possibility of developing a bad reputation give away more money than they keep • Use people’s concern for reputation • Base leader reputation (in part) on inclusiveness
- 28. To Do The Intervention: Reputational Threat • Concern for reputation is universal and powerful • In economic games, people who are reminded of the possibility of developing a bad reputation give away more money than they keep • Use people’s concern for reputation • Base leader reputation (in part) on inclusiveness • eBay style leader inclusiveness rating
- 29. To Do 2. Establish team member status based on expected (or actual) contribution to the team goals
- 30. To Do The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues
- 31. To Do The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues • Before groups are introduced personally, introduce the team members’ qualifications • Create/ deliver to the team profiles that do not identify people by irrelevant characteristics, but rather only by task-relevant characteristics • Qualifications • Intended contributions
- 32. To Do The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues • Before groups are introduced personally, introduce the team members’ qualifications • Create/ deliver to the team profiles that do not identify people by irrelevant characteristics, but rather only by task-relevant characteristics • Qualifications • Intended contributions • Conduct first interactions through reductive technologies
- 33. To Do The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues • Before groups are introduced personally, introduce the team members’ qualifications • Create/ deliver to the team profiles that do not identify people by irrelevant characteristics, but rather only by task-relevant characteristics • Qualifications • Intended contributions • Conduct first interactions through reductive www.designcontest.com technologies • Reductive = those that do not communicate social queues, such as email or IM
- 34. To Do 3. Establish working relationships based on task-relevant input
- 35. To Do The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues
- 36. To Do The Intervention: Prioritize Task-relevant queues • Before groups are introduced personally, assign first task • Conduct first interactions through reductive technologies • Assign the team and each member a task to be completed “off-line” to establish intra-team reputation based on work product
- 37. To Do 4. Establish methods of contributing that minimize cultural and status differences
- 38. To Do The Intervention: Anonymous brainstorming, ideation
- 39. To Do The Intervention: Anonymous brainstorming, ideation • Public brainstorming sessions typically discourage the contribution of low-status, culturally deferential members • Use anonymous brainstorming techniques • Reductive technologies - Virtual environments/ Sticky notes • All contributions are made public but not identified
- 40. To Do The Intervention: Anonymous brainstorming, ideation • Public brainstorming sessions typically discourage the contribution of low-status, culturally deferential members • Use anonymous brainstorming techniques • Reductive technologies - Virtual environments/ Sticky notes • All contributions are made public but not identified • Discussion of ideas only after all have been displayed
Editor's Notes
- #2: \n
- #3: Overarching purpose of the studies proposed\n
- #4: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #5: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #6: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #7: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #8: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #9: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #10: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #11: To begin, it has been hoped that diversity on teams would lead to a profusion of ideas, resulting in creativity and, ultimately, high performing teams\n
- #12: Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
- #13: Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
- #14: Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
- #15: Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
- #16: Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
- #17: Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
- #18: Reality, however, is different. Diversity in the form of demographic differences typically gives rise to factions and hierarchies in teams, which results in the marginalization of team members, and, ultimately, to process loss - or poor performance\n
- #19: To investigate ways of overcoming this, I make use of a survival simulation game. What is that?\nSurvival simulation games pit the players as survivors of a disaster. In this case, a plane crash in northern canada.\nit is important to note two things about these games. 1) there is a right answer, and 2) they are content free, which is to say that it is unlikely that anyone on the team will have relevant knowledge and experience\nAs a result, teams that consider more ideas and perspectives do better. Teams do better than individuals.\nand we experienced this in one of our classes a couple weeks ago\n
- #20: To investigate ways of overcoming this, I make use of a survival simulation game. What is that?\nSurvival simulation games pit the players as survivors of a disaster. In this case, a plane crash in northern canada.\nit is important to note two things about these games. 1) there is a right answer, and 2) they are content free, which is to say that it is unlikely that anyone on the team will have relevant knowledge and experience\nAs a result, teams that consider more ideas and perspectives do better. Teams do better than individuals.\nand we experienced this in one of our classes a couple weeks ago\n
- #21: With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n
- #22: The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
- #23: The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
- #24: The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
- #25: The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
- #26: The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
- #27: The intervention being tested involves a threat to reputation. Reputational threat is exactly what it sounds like. A threat to one’s reputation.\nReputational threat is widely studied in economics, and we are all probably familiar with one use of this manipulation - eBay.\n- Subjects under reputational threat for fairness have been shown to give away more money than they keep in a sharing game\n
- #28: With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n
- #29: \n
- #30: \n
- #31: \n
- #32: \n
- #33: \n
- #34: \n
- #35: \n
- #36: \n
- #37: With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n
- #38: \n
- #39: \n
- #40: \n
- #41: With my Study 1, I test an intervention designed to cause the team leader to override the instinct to dismiss the low status team member and thereby improve team performance\n
- #42: \n
- #43: \n
- #44: \n
- #45: \n
- #46: \n