Skip to main content

Module 3: Decisions, Decisions...........

Team Decision Making

Reflecting on Module 3 Readings  

Personal Takeaways & Key Insights:

  • MAU for complex decision-making assists in removing biases
  • Sensitivity analysis provides mechanisms for challenging and thus optimizing decisions
  • Face-to-face vs. virtual meetings:  The key is for people to feel connected, engaged, and able to freely communicate
  • Hybrid approaches to meetings (Face-to-face vs. virtual) is advisable.  It is not a one-size-fits all approach and face-to-face meetings should be reserved for complex decision-making. 

Summary of Reflection: 

In this module, we explored models for complex decision-making, specifically the Multi-Attribute Utility model, and how these tools assist in removing biases and optimizing decision-making among teams. We had the opportunity to put this model into practice with our teams in evaluating alternatives for our team assessment project. This module also emphasized the importance of sensitivity analysis to challenge teams to think and enhance decision-making outcomes.  

Additionally, we explored the evolution of virtual meetings compared to face-to-face and how COVID has impacted this dynamic. Studies suggest that the impacts of face-to-face meetings continue to lead virtual meetings; however, they share common characteristics necessary for either modality to be successful. The key ultimately lies in how effectively each approach achieves team cohesion, allows members to feel connected and engaged, and how teams resolve conflict within each approach. While a hybrid approach is desirable, reserving face-to-face meetings for complex decision-making is preferred. 

Journal Entry Archive: 

Elaboration 

The MAU (Multi-Attribute Utility) model is a structured tool to facilitate complex decision-making. In using this tool, I was reminded of how the various steps assist in removing individual biases and force communication amongst team members to understand perspectives and achieve consensus concerning performance scores and relative weights. In addition, the sensitivity analysis step is critical to enhancing this decision-making process as it provides a mechanism to challenge the team's thinking, refining the decision outcome.  


Concrete Examples

Given that the study we read this week compared instant messaging as the medium of comparison to face-to-face meetings, I decided to expand upon the research to understand better how virtual meeting platforms have influenced the comparison. In our recent experience with the COVID pandemic, the reliance on virtual meetings became an imperative out of necessity. Organizations needed to pivot to understand how to ensure virtual team effectiveness and address team gaps that would typically be easier to resolve face-to-face, such as trust, cohesion, and conflict resolution. A more recent study analyzed virtual meeting platforms as the medium of comparison. While face-to-face meetings still came in slightly ahead, there is compelling data on the effectiveness of virtual meetings today. The key is how leaders and teams utilize the platforms to achieve trust and team cohesion. A book released following the first year of the pandemic titled 'Cracking Complexity Now' tackles this exact subject. The re-release came in response to the shift to virtual meeting reliance brought about by COVID. In the book, the author states that people must 'be in close conversation together' and that what is most important is "to make people feel connected and engaged—whether in-person or virtually—so they can jointly focus and drive to get important work done" (Benjamin & Komlos, 2021).


Benjamin, D. and Komlos, D.(2021, December 27). Do People Still Interact Better When In-Person? Virtual Meetings Are Catching Up. Retrieved November 13, 2022, from Forbes website:https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminkomlos/2021/12/27/do-people-still-interact-better-when-in-person-virtual-meetings-are-catching-up/?sh=5aad39486f6f


Front. Psychol., 17 February 2021

Sec. Organizational Psychology

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624637


Dual Coding 

This image outlines key differences between virtual and face-to-face meetings. The top of the image outlines gaps to consider when determining which medium will best meet the group's needs and suggests that there is more than a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, considering hybrid approaches may benefit teams, reserving face-to-face meetings for very complex decision-making. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Module1: Team Forming ......Naturally!

The Foundations of High-Performing Teams  A Reflection on Module 1 Readings Personal Takeaways & Key Insights:  Clarity and alignment of goals Establishing an organizational culture that fosters natural team-forming Mutual Accountability Trust Summarizing my key takeaways from this module, I touch on the importance of goal setting, mutual accountability, supportive leadership, and most importantly TRUST amongst team members.   Elaboration This week's readings set the stage for understanding the foundations of high-performing teams. The example of the naturally developed team was interesting to me and reinforced the need for clarity and alignment around performance goals and mutual accountability. How do teams form naturally? When team members have their eyes set on achieving a common goal, they have an individual incentive to work with team members of varying skill sets to achieve that goal. The goals become more significant than their individual needs for succes...
Post a Comment
Read more

Getting Started: Anchor's Away!

Module 1  Reflecting on Personal Experience: During the first week of this course, we were asked to document our initial understanding of high-performance teams by reflecting on past experiences.  As I am sure everyone can relate, not all team experiences are positive.  It is much easier to recall bad examples (particularly during our MBA pursuit) than it is to recall positive experiences; however, this exercise forced us to dig deeper to differentiate the two experiences by reflecting on influencers of high-performing teams.   For example, reflecting on my past experiences, I provided three characteristics of high-performing and low-performing teams.  High Performing Teams:  Alignment and adoption of shared goals and objectives Clearly defined roles and responsibilities Trust and Accountability Low Performing Teams: Siloed work-streams  Poor Communication Lack of clarity around the team’s purpose Following this exercise to reflect on strong and w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Summarizing My Experience In this Course

 Understanding Effective Teams A Personal Reflection of this Journey:  Thank you for a fun and informative semester.  I would like to personally thank our TA as well for always providing thoughtful and insightful feedback to each and every item submitted.  Not only was the feedback helpful, but it was also always delivered in a positive and motivating tone.  Reflecting back on the journey this semester I revisited questions I entered into the course hoping to better understand.  My Key Questions:  As a leader, how do I foster an organizational culture that breads natural teaming? How does a leader influence a team when one or more members does not seem to be committed to the team's goas and objectives? How does the leader keep the team on track?  Personal Growth Opportunities:  To identify opportunities to grow as a leader in understanding how to influence my organization to naturally develop teams.  Knowing when to step away and let the...
Post a Comment
Read more