Assignment One Learning Group Formation Process

MSOD 614
Ana Laura Villarreal
Pepperdine University

February 6, 2013


2
Methodology for Forming Learning Groups
I recommend implementing a learning group formation process in which the outcome
results in having the most diverse groups as possible. The learning groups need to support
personal and professional growth, hold members accountable for learning goals, and allow
people to work together and deepen their learning; therefore, I advise groups be comprised of
individuals with diverse professional and personal backgrounds and a variety of technical and
interpersonal skills.
In order to maximize the learning experience, creating groups based on pre-existing
cohesive groups or having members pick their own team should be avoided. I propose the first
step be for all 34 members of the cohort to self-assess in the following four categories:
professional background, personal background, technical skills and interpersonal skills. Once the
self-assessments have been done, a sorting team should be created. The size of this group should
be no smaller than four people but no larger than six, taking into consideration that the team
should be as small as possible to allow the team to maximize its efficiency at accomplishing its
mission while still including as many voices as possible in the decision-making process(Dyer et
al., 2007).
The purpose of the sorting team is to divide the cohort population into four groups
according to peoples self-assessments: one group for each of the categories, and each group
must be formed by the people who self-assessed as possessing the highest rating on each of the
assessed areas. The groups should be about the same size each (two groups of eight and two
groups of nine). Then, each member should be labeled in a way that he or she can remain
anonymous for the next step, yet identifying the category groups assigned.
3
Once the four groups have been formed and members have been labeled, another team,
the grouping team, should be formed with the purpose of grouping the members into the five
learning groups (LGs). The size of the grouping team should be no bigger than four members.
The grouping team will ensure each LG is as balanced and as diverse as possible by
including members from each of the four categories. In order for this process to be unbiased, it
is important for the grouping team to not know the identity of the members they are grouping
(i.e., team members should be anonymous except for their category group information).
One last team, the discovery team, will be assigned the task to uncover the members of
each LG by assembling information from the sorting and grouping teams. The discovery team
will announce the members belonging to each learning group. The size of the discovery team
should be no larger than three members.
In order for these steps to work well, the following actions must be taken beforehand:
1. Set time frames and deadlines for each step.
2. Assess features for each of the categories (e.g., professional background may or may
not include years of experience, industry, work in profit vs. non-profit organizations,
consultant experience, etc.)
3. Create a scale to measure each category.
4. Determine the forming process for each of the participating teams: sorting team,
grouping team, and discovery team.
I recommend these decisions be made during a first meeting at which the whole cohort should be
present. See Figure 1 for a summary of the recommended steps for LG group formation.
4

Figure 1. The recommended steps for the learning group formation process.
Trust in the process is vital to accomplish results. Lack of trust will result in behaviors
that distance the team from the mission, wasting time and energy (Lencioni, 2002). I have broken
the proposed process down into phases in which the most number of people can participate in
separate tasks because involvement in a process increases participation, thereby increasing
peoples commitment and level of trust (Dyer et al., 2007).Therefore, I suggest the following
principles:(a) avoid pre-existing cohesive groups, (b) avoid members picking their own teams,
and (c) get as many people as possible involved in the formation process.
Recommendations for Deciding the Methodology for Forming a Learning Group
I find the decision of which methodology to use to be far more important than the process
of forming the LGs. My perspective is that success will be reached if all 34 members of our
cohort can agree in an efficient and inclusive manner on which methodology to choose, while
Initial Meeting
Full cohort participation
Decide on time frames for each step
Decide on features to be assessed
under each category
Set scale to measure categories
Decide how sorting, grouping and
discovery team will be formed
Form each team
Self-Assessment
Cohort members should self-
assess
Assessments should be handed-
in to sorting team
Sorting
The sorting team should divide
the population into the four
category groups
Grouping
The grouping team will distribute
the members into 5 groups,
attempting to ensure each
category is equally represented
in each group
Discovery
The discovery group will uncover
who belongs to each learning
group
5
ensuring we bring all ideas together by sharing information, perspectives, and insights, and
entering into healthy debate, discussion, and decision-making processes (Katzenbach & Smith,
1991).
The first step in the decision process should be to separate the cohort into the six initial
groups in Yammer in which each of the papers were originally posted. This will provide
continuation or carryover of any previous discussions. The assignment will be for each group to
propose one methodology to the cohort. The proposal could be one of the previously submitted
methodologies, a new one or a combinationit is up to the group to decide.
Once each group has chosen a methodology to put forward, all six teams should present
their proposal to the full cohort, highlighting the benefits and possible pitfalls, and allowing time
for discussion and to answer questions from other members of the cohort. This approach will
help the group choose an appropriate decision-making process (Schein, 1999).
All cohort members should then cast an anonymous vote in paper for their preferred
methodology. Presenters should count the votes. In the case of a tie or a win of 40% percent or
less, the cohort should vote again to decide over the three finalists. Presenters should be allowed
to again present their group selection methodology with the objective of reviewing, explaining,
and clarifying any part of the processes. This should allow the minority members a second
chance of being heard by creating the opportunity of choosing an alternative.
The group dynamics around the decision-making process will certainly be complex. I
foresee dynamics being present under two situations. First, conflict may arise when the six
groups decide which methodology to present, and the second conflict develop around the voting
process. The dynamics might be similar, yet independent from each other, since they would be
acting over different groupsthe six smaller groups and the cohort as a whole.
6
Some dynamics that may develop within the groups may include a leader, or self-
proclaimed leader dominating others within the group; unequal participation; confusion and
disorder; a climate of defensiveness; some people not being given the opportunity to speak; and
avoidance of possible disagreements (Dyer et al., 2007). I believe some of the underlying
grounds of these dynamics may include a sense of ownership that may raise the desire to defend
ones own proposal, cultural differences in communication, diversity in working methods, and
past experience in work groups or teams. These dynamics may occur when the group is placed in
an environment where few boundaries are set, there is a lack of norms, and there is no formal or
official authority to manage the group. Schein (1999) suggested that an additional dynamic that
is likely to rise within this process is the sense of a win-lose competition. This might happen due
to the fact that the cohort will be selecting among choices that came from inside the cohort.
Furthermore, introducing a voting process in which people will have to publicly represent their
own proposals, which are then voted upon, may add to the competition feeling. The sense of
ownership that the six teams (and each of the teams members) will have over their suggestions
may arise due to the passion, time, and enthusiasm they have put into putting forward their
recommendation. All these together may create a competition among members within the small
groups, but an even bigger competition may result among teams once groups put forward their
ideas.
Specifically, in the big group, there is a possibility of a rebel group arising. Warring
groups may be a symptom of lack of trust, which will result in inefficiencies in both task and
relationship activities, preventing the team from working together to collectively solve problems
(Dyer et al., 2007)
As for the small group, I see two options. The first is to fast track through Pecks (1993)
phases, which will enable the group to create a sense of community and also help group
7
members to come to an agreement regarding the proposal that the team will bring forward. The
second one is for the group to remain a pseudo-community (Peck, 1993), reflecting total
agreement even though some of the members of the group do not, in fact, agree with the group
decision (Dyer et al., 2007).
How Will This Challenge Me?
I think the whole experience will be challenging for me since I tend to avoid conflict. I
confront conflict very well when I know I can manage the situation, the data, and the outcome.
However, when the situation is unknown, I tend to step back, observe, analyze, and reflect.
In the beginning, I will be challenged to fully participate in the decision-making process.
I tend to not fight for leadership positions, nor do I speak the loudest. To others, this may appear
to be passive participation. Putting this in my inner-committee context, when Ana-in-Charge is
not in charge, then she tends to disengage from the task at hand and finds a better one, such as
analyzing whats going on and accepting the analytical role of an observer turning into Ana-
Why.
To benefit the most from this assignment, I should actually let a third committee member
be the participant: Me-Cloud. Me-Cloud is just the focused relaxed Ana who gets things done
and enjoys the process. Me-Cloud fully participates, raises her voice, and benefits from any task
by having an open mind to learning and exposing herself to new perspectives. Me-Cloud is Ana
being efficient, motivated, straightforward, and still relaxed.
8
References
Dyer, W.G., Dyer, W.G, & Dyer, J.H. (2007). Team building: Proven strategies for improving
team performance(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Katzenbach, J.R.,& Smith, D.K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business
Review,71,111120.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Peck, S. (1993). A world waiting to be born: Civility rediscovered. New York, NY: Bantam.
Schein, E.H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.