management of (research) teams - leadership and decision making

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier

PhD Program in Nanotechnology��

Management of (Research) Teams Trieste, June 25th 2014

FRANCESCO VENIER +39 040 9188 103 [email protected] www.twitter.com/checovenier www.linkedin.com/in/francescovenier

Slides of the lecture: ��www.bit.ly/nanoteams


•  The team member – Decision (cogni:ve) style – Leadership style

•  The Team – What is a team – Team Characteris:cs – Team Management – Team Pathologies

•  Are you fit to work in team?


TEST

Rowe & Boulgarides www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1691757


TEST: decision styles Standard reference values (means of more than 4.000 team manager) •  Direc:ve (dir) 75 •  Analy:c (anl) 90 •  Conceptual (con) 80 •  Behavioural (cmp) 55

•  Difference of +15 points indicate the dominant style •  Difference of -‐15 points indicate the irrelevant style/styles •  Lesser posi:ve differences indicate the backup style


Decision styles

Conceptual Analytic

Directive Practical

Low tolerance to ambiguity

High tolerance to ambiguity Abstract

uses the right cerebral hemisphere (intuitive) Inclined towards relations/people

uses the left cerebral hemisphere (rational)

Inclined towards task/goal

Behavioural


Direc:ve style

•  Main features –  Pragma:c –  prefers facts and structures –  looks for quickness, efficiency and results –  needs power and status to be efficient

•  Main weaknesses –  Rigid –  Reluctant to changes –  Impersonal –  o]en simplifies too much complex problems –  tends to create an “autocra:c” management style


Analy:c style •  Main features

–  tends to solve problems – Medium/long-‐term viewpoint –  prefers a “ra:onal” approach toward complex problems –  looks for control and a rigorous analysis

•  Main weaknesses –  Dogma:c –  looks for too much control –  O]en too abstracted –  can be too slow


Conceptual style •  Main features

–  promotes crea:vity –  adopts a wide perspec:ve –  easily gets on the same wave-‐length as others –  wants to share the power –  searches con:nually for alterna:ves

•  Main weaknesses –  Difficult to control –  can tend to risk too much –  never decides


Behavioural style

•  Main features –  Highly inclined towards people –  “feels” and listens –  interacts easily –  decides according to sensa:ons and intui:on –  emphasizes the nature of the group

•  Main weaknesses –  is seen as ineffectual –  can’t say no –  O]en too sensi:ve to others’ feelings –  wants to be appreciated more than finish the job


Distribu:on of the styles among European team managers

•  Junior Team Manager Analy:c + Behavioural

•  Middle Team Manager Analy:c + Conceptual

•  Senior Team Manager Direc:ve + Conceptual

The decision style changes with :me, but the change is almost inhibited when there is an unilateral dominance (right or le])


From personal decisional style to leadership style


Organizes Starts Off Manages

Completes Values

DEDICATED Examines Estimates Manages Controls Keeps up

DETACHED

INTEGRATED Participates

Interacts Motivates Integrates

Introduces innovations

Concern for People

Concern for Results

strong

strong weak

weak

Trusts Listens Accepts

Gives advice Encourages

CONNECTED

Leadership styles (adapted from Blake Mouton Managerial Grid)


Style effec:veness

•  There is no one correct leadership style for all occasions

•  Effec:veness of style depends on the task

•  Fitness between the task and the leadership style is essen:al


AUTOCRAT DESERTER

INCONCLUSIVE

Concern for People

Concern for Results

strong

strong weak

weak

MISSIONARY

MISFIT Leadership Styles (adapted from Blake Mouton Managerial Grid)


Recognize the Deserter •  Observes strictly the rules / minimizes

the output / gives up easily •  Avoids to get involved and to take

responsibility •  Rarely gives his/her opinions or useful

sugges:ons to others •  Is not crea:ve / has no originality / is

narrow-‐minded •  Hinders the others / complicates things

for no reason •  Holds out against changes/ does not

cooperate •  Pays scarce a0en:on to mistakes and

usually does nothing to prevent them

Not appropriate styles


Recognize the Missionary •  Avoids conflicts •  Pleasant / Kind / Calm •  Wants to be welcome •  Depends on others •  Makes things easier for the others •  Avoids to start / Passive / doesn’t

give direc:on •  Doesn’t care about results and

standards •  Tends to defuse conflicts in the bud



How to recognize the Autocrat •  Takes decisions •  Unpleasant, causes fear •  Cri:cal and menacing •  Acts without advising with anyone •  Communicates only top-‐down •  Requires obedience/ suppresses the

conflicts •  Expects ac:ons and results

immediately •  Is more interested in everyday

produc:vity than in long-‐term one •  Holds the levels of performance by

means of a slightly threatening situa:on



How to recognize the Inconclusive •  Uses the par:cipa:on too o]en

•  Reluctant and weak •  Idealist and ambiguous •  Tries to avoid decisions •  Takes drab, acceptable decisions

•  Some:mes encourages new ideas but rarely carries them out



DECISION MAKER

ORGANIZATION MAN

EXECUTIVE

Concern for People

Concern for Results

strong

strong weak

weak

DEVELOPER

FIT Leadership Styles (adapted from Blake Mouton Managerial Grid)


How to recognize the organiza:on man •  Reliable •  Fair, just, impar:al •  Follows the orders, the rules

and the procedures •  Always takes care of the

correct func:oning of the system

•  Alert in details •  Efficient •  Ra:onal, logical, self-‐controlled •  Prefers to communicate with

others in wri:ng

Appropriate styles


How to recognize the “decision maker”

•  Achieves results •  Ingenious, firm •  Aware of costs, profit and results •  Resolute, has spirit of enterprise •  Able to es:mate quan:ty, quality

and :me •  Carries out his/her task, gets

down to work •  Develops and suggest many new

ideas •  Makes clear that efficiency and

produc:vity are appreciated

Appropriate styles


How to recognize the Developer •  Understands the others and

helps them •  Develops the talents of the

others and trains them •  Works well with others,

cooperates •  Keeps the communica:on

channels open •  Others have faith in him/her,

trusts and listens •  When has to plan something,

involves many other people

Appropriate styles


How to recognize the Execu:ve •  Makes use of the team resources to take decisions

•  Uses par:cipa:on in a proper way

•  Inspires others to reach the goals

•  Promotes higher performances

•  Coordinates others’ work

Appropriate styles


•  A team

•  is a group of individuals who cooperate and work together to achieve a given set of objec:ves or goals (Horodyski, 1995).

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier •  is close coopera:on between cross-‐trained colleagues who are

familiar with a wide range of competences in their organiza:on

Teamwork


•  Team-‐building •  is high interac:on among group members to increase trust and openness


The miracle of Teams

•  The team can turn a sum of individual incompetences into a collec<ve competence

(e.g. survival on the moon experiment )


The comparison •  This “miracle” is made possible by the comparison

process that gives great cogni:ve advantages

–  Instead of reducing the informa:on needs, it increases the calcula:on power

–  It reduces the percep:on distor:ons that are typical of individual cogni:ve styles

•  A greater number and variety of ideas •  Less framing problems •  A greater number of alterna:ves are analysed

–  It increases mo:va:on and commitment of the par:cipants towards the goals (e.g. lo0ery experiment)


Common Characteristics of High Performing Teams


The ideal team

– Total network of communica:on

– Balanced capabili:es of influence

– Team behaviour (not-‐conflic:ng interests)


•  Project Team Size

•  Performance is based on balance of members carrying out roles and mee:ng social and emo:onal needs


Communication Networks

•  Star – hub & spokes

•  Y – specialized

•  Total communication –  team


•  Why Project teams of 5 to 12 members work best?


•  There are problems you encounter as size increases


1.  It gets more difficult to interact with and influence the group

2.  Individuals get less sa:sfac:on from their involvement in the team

3.  People end up with less commitment to the team goals

4.  It requires more centralized decision making

5.  There is lesser feeling as being part of team


Fred Brooks The Mythical Man-Month

Total Communication Network Nr. of Channel Formula n(n − 1) / 2



Group Intercommunication Formula n(n − 1) / 2 Examples



Group Intercommunication Formula n(n − 1) / 2 Examples 5 members -> 5(5 − 1) / 2 = 10 channels of communication



Group Intercommunication Formula n(n − 1) / 2 Examples 5 developers -> 5(5 − 1) / 2 = 10 channels of communication 10 developers -> 10(10 − 1) / 2 = 45 channels of communication



Group Intercommunication Formula n(n − 1) / 2 Examples 5 members -> 5(5 − 1) / 2 = 10 channels of communication 10 members -> 10(10 − 1) / 2 = 45 channels of communication 50 members -> 50(50 − 1) / 2 = 1225 channels of communication


Assigning more people to a project running behind schedule will make it even later, due to the time required for the new people to learn about the project, as well as the increased communication overhead.

- Fred Brooks


Other characteris:cs of Effec:ve Teams


•  Goals are clearly defined and matched with measurable outcomes

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier •  Accurate effec:ve 2-‐way communica:on

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier •  Leadership is shared and par:cipa:on encouraged

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier •  Effec:ve decision making and problem solving

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier •  Team iden:ty and cohesiveness

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier Diverse backgrounds and experience

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier •  Coopera:on and collabora:on

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier •  They share a common iden:ty


•  Research Project Teams usually come together for a project and then disband. What challenges does this create?

Project Team


Tuckman (1965, 2010) formalized the fundamental model of team development


Life cycle of a team (Tuckman)


Managing the life cycle of a team (Tuckman)

0 TIME

CREATION DECISION EVALUATION INDUCTIVE

INFORMATION

STATUS MANAGEMENT

RESOURCES AND CONFLICTS MANAGEMENT

RESOURCES CENSUS

AUTHENTICITY ’

TERRITORY APPROPRIATION

BELONGING CONFRONTATION EXPOSITION INSECURITY

FASE DI MATURITA’

PERFORMING STAGE

FASE DI COAGULO NORMING

STAGE FASE DI

IDENTIFICAZIONE STORMING

STAGE FASE

COSTITUENTE FORMING

STAGE

TIPI DI COMPITI

SUGGERIBILI

STATI PREMINENTI

DI GRUPPO

STATI SOGGETTIVI PREMINENTI

IDEAL TASKS

MAIN GROUP STATES

MAIN SUBJECTIVE

STATES


Team leadership

Forming storming norming performing

•  NB: not all groups go through all phases

Freedom for team members

Use of authority


•  Implica:ons for teams:

•  A team project leader needs to devote ini:al a0en:on to helping the group evolve quickly to the (performing phase).

•  This model provides a framework for the group to understand its own development.

•  It stresses the importance of the norming phase which contributes to the level of produc:vity.


But there is room for other pa0erns of group development. An interes:ng one focuses on performances and shows us a way how to boost them...


•  Punctuated Equilibrium Model

•  (1988) Gersick found that there are natural transi:on points during the life of teams in which the group is recep:ve to change and that such a moment naturally occurs at the scheduled midpoint of a project

Francesco Venier – www.twi0er.com/checovenier Figure 11.2 The Punctuated Equilibrium Model of Group Development (Gray & Larson, 2006, p346)

Drawing upon Gersick work, Gray and Larson (2006) observe that by imposing a series of deadlines, with milestones, it is possible to create multiple transition points for natural group development


Socializa:on and pressure to conformism •  Social rules

•  Pressure –  Reason –  Seduc:on –  Iron hand –  Amputa:on

•  Asch experiment –  1% standard error –  3% error if the previous one is wrong –  13 % error if the two previous ones are wrong –  33% error if the three or more previous ones are wrong –  47% error if a group prize is involved and the others are wrong

a b c d e


Obedience to the authority •  Individuals are “trained to obey”. In a group

context this tendency can cause behaviours that, outside the group, would be considered cruel or immoral.

•  Milgram experiment –  Sample of 40 adult males who answered an adver:sement to take part in an experiment inves:ga:ng learning (pay: 4,50 $/h)

•  Learning word pairs •  Punishment: electroshock with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts

h0p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w


Milgram experiment (results)

–  65% (26 out of 40) of the volunteers administered the maximum shock voltage

–  Most part of the volunteers, ordered to go on by the experimenters, grew nervous but con:nued because they didn’t want the experiment to fail

–  Nobody stopped before 300 volt –  The very high percentage of conformity to

orders proves that people obey to someone they consider reliable and responsible.


Group-‐think •  Even in groups working well together o]en take place situa:ons that undermine the quality of the decisions. The most famous is the Groupthink, a pathology with the following symptoms:

–  Illusion of invulnerability (excessive op:mism and undertaking of high risks) –  Collec:ve morality of the group (the morality of the group is undisputed) –  Stereotypes about people outside the group (who opposes the group is stupid

or weak or an enemy) –  Pressure on dissen:ents –  Self-‐censorship –  Illusion of unanimity (silence took as assent) h0p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYpbStMyz_I


Groupthink: Factors and remedies •  The group-‐think is encouraged by:

–  high cohesion among the members –  isola:on of the group –  execu:ve management –  High outside pressure

•  Possible remedies: –  Delaying the consent (the leader should remain impar:al un:l the

end) –  Spreading the power (e.g. by crea:ng specialized subgroups) –  S:mula:ng more inputs (e.g. by simula:ng the reac:ons of the

external compe:tors) –  Encouraging exchanges of views (e.g. by invi:ng external experts)


Conclusion: TEAMWORK DOESN’T FIT ALL! Effec:ve condi:ons for using teams

•  Influences on the group: –  the degree of differen:a:on of informa:on hold by the members –  the degree of differen:a:on of the cogni:ve styles and percep:ve

pa0erns of the members –  the degree of cohesion about the interests of the group –  the degree of :me pressure –  the degree of outside pressure for the results –  the degree of compe::on among the groups

Efficacy (actions quality)

low Internal cognitive differentiation high high Pressure on results low

MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS AREA

AREA OF INFORMATION IMPASSE AND

PROCESS INEFFICIENCY

GROUP-THINK

AREA

Relation among group features + decisional context and decisional efficacy of the group


MBTI

Myers Briggs Type Inventory

ARE YOU FIT FOR WORKING IN A TEAM?h0p://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html h0p://www.maxwideman.com/papers/profiles/profiles.pdf


extrovert introvert

sensation intuition

thinking feeling

judgement perception

e

s

t

j

i

n

f

p


extrovert introvert e i


sensation intuition s n


thinking feeling t f


judgement perception j p


extrovert introvert

sensation intuition

thinking feeling

judgement perception

e

s

t

j

i

n

f

p

e

n

t

j

me


The Max Wideman MTBI ar:cle

“Do we have enough of the right kind of people?”

•  R. Max Wideman, (1998) Project Teamwork, Personality Profiles and the Popula<on at Large: Do we have enough of the right kind of people? FPMI, AEW Services, Vancouver, BC, Canada. h0p://www.maxwideman.com/papers/profiles/profiles.pdf


What is your suitability to Team Work?

Wideman, R. Max. “Project Teamwork, Personality Profiles and the Population at Large: Do we have enough of the right kind of people?” (http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/profiles/profiles.pdf ).


PhD Program in Nanotechnology��

Thank you for your attention.

FRANCESCO VENIER +39 040 9188 103 [email protected] www.twitter.com/checovenier www.linkedin.com/in/francescovenier

Slides of the lecture: ��www.bit.ly/nanoteams

management of (research) teams - leadership and decision making

Education

comchecovenier analy

comchecovenier direc

comchecovenier styleeec

comchecovenier distribu

comchecovenier phd program

vestyle mainfeatures

appropriate styles

blake mouton managerial