COMPOSING A TEAM Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 25, 1998 COMPOSING A TEAM Sonia M. Goltz, Michigan Technological University ABSTRACT Teams and groups are an important aspect of organizations today; thus the current emphasis on teams in the classroom. Research suggests several aspects of the composition of a group can influence its performance. However, students are rarely provided with effective strategies for composing groups in classroom exercises involving groups and teams. This article describes an exercise that teaches students what issues to consider when putting together a group or team for some specific purpose. INTRODUCTION It appears that in today’s world, work teams, rather than individual employees, dominate industry (e.g., Thurow, 1983). Further, it has been suggested that the increasing use of groups in organizations will continue well into the future (Reich, 1983). The business community’s increased need for employees who are well prepared to work in groups has stimulated many schools of business to emphasize teamwork. For example, group projects are now found in a number of business classes. They are also common in a number of other fields, such as engineering. In an informal poll I took of one Principles of Management class made up largely of engineering, business, and science majors, students estimated that they work in 3 to 4 project groups per quarter for their classes. Thus, over four-year period, these students can expect to work in approximately 35 to 50 project groups! In addition to using group projects to teach students how to work in groups, some instructors rely on experiential techniques that help students understand the complexities of teamwork. Some techniques have been around for a time, such as the use of T-groups for sensitivity training (see Schor & Sabiers, 1995 for a review). In addition, a number of new techniques have been developed. For example, exercises have been proposed for introducing group processes to students (Manning & Schmidt, 1995), understanding problematic behaviors of group members (Lerner, 1995), and stimulating emergent behavior in groups (Reynolds, 1995). However, most exercises focus on interactions after the group has been formed. Exercise instructions often simply ask instructors to form groups of a certain size, with little attention given to who is in the group. These groups are often formed randomly or expediently by instructors, such as by having students count off by five or by forming groups of students that sit close together in the classroom. When students are asked to form the groups themselves, they tend to form groups based on their friendships with other class members. This can result in the instructor having to combine students left out of the friendship groups. While the need to form groups expediently for certain exercises is understandable, instructors should be careful not to send the wrong message to students. These methods of forming groups don’t reflect real- world conditions. Forming groups of random individuals for performing a task is rarely done in organizations because it could be disastrous. Research and theory suggest that group composition can have a large impact on group performance (for a review, see Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Thus, the challenge in organizations is to compose an effective group within the constraints of organizational politics or policies (e.g., a representative from each department must be on the team). 194 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 25, 1998 Strategies for Forming Effective Groups There are a number of useful strategies for composing groups that can be derived from the research literature. Most of the literature suggests that groups should be made up of members with the greatest task-relevant expertise (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1980). In addition, research suggests that homogenous groups initially perform better than groups with diverse members. However, in the long term, heterogenous groups are more effective at tasks requiring problem solving and creativity, such as in generating alternative solutions (e.g., Hoffman, 1959; Stein, 1982; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen., 1993). Heterogenous groups also should be more likely to avoid group think (Janis, 1982). Further, management texts often recommend that groups contain both task-oriented and relationship- oriented members (e.g., Whetten & Cameron, 1995; Bateman & Snell, 1996). Groups made up entirely of task-oriented members often can’t resolve conflicts and groups made up entirely of relationship-oriented members have difficulty accomplishing the task. Recent research indicates that the extraversion of members is an important consideration as well, with the most effective groups having 20% to 40% high-extraversion members (Barry & Stewart, 1997). A person who has the task of composing a group or team should also consider the size of the group. Most experts agree that groups should not have too many members (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Guzzo, 1988), one reason being that larger groups run a higher risk of social loafing occurring (Latane, 1986; Steiner, 1972). However, groups that are too small for the size and complexity of the task are likely to be ineffective as well. It should be noted here that some instructors do consider these factors, particularly when putting together more permanent project groups in their classes. For example, Barry & Stewart (1997) describe a study of processes in self-managed groups in an MBA course. In this study, they state that “The basis of group formation was essentially random, with intervention by the researchers to ensure an even distribution across groups of demographic minorities in the study population” (p. 67). However, often instructors who conscientiously put together groups so they have characteristics that will enhance their effectiveness fail to communicate what they did to the students, so the students do not learn the techniques for building effective teams. Therefore, teaching methods are needed for students to learn strategies for building a team. Although this could be done indirectly through instructors’ descriptions of their own use of these techniques in the class, students may more effectively learn these techniques through the experiential exercise described here. COMPOSING A TEAM EXERCISE Objectives This exercise demonstrates important concepts in composing a team or group. The objectives of the exercise are to 1) have students experience the difficulties of composing a group; 2) have them reflect on likely effects of the composition of the groups they put together; and 3) have students learn some strategies for composing effective work groups. Scheduling the Exercise I have conducted this exercise in Principles of Management classes and in a course called “Leadership of Groups”. However, it could be used for any course containing group work, whether in accounting, marketing, finance or other courses. I conduct the exercise during class. It usually takes about 40 minutes for each part (20 minutes for composing the groups, 15-20 minutes for examining group composition). I use this exercise to demonstrate the tendencies people have to create groups of convenience or groups with people similar to them. I also use it to introduce the topic of composing groups for team 195 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 25, 1998 Strategies for Forming Effective Groups There are a number of useful strategies for composing groups that can be derived from the research literature. Most of the literature suggests that groups should be made up of members with the greatest task-relevant expertise (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1980). In addition, research suggests that homogenous groups initially perform better than groups with diverse members. However, in the long term, heterogenous groups are more effective at tasks requiring problem solving and creativity, such as in generating alternative solutions (e.g., Hoffman, 1959; Stein, 1982; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen., 1993). Heterogenous groups also should be more likely to avoid group think (Janis, 1982). Further, management texts often recommend that groups contain both task-oriented and relationship- oriented members (e.g., Whetten & Cameron, 1995; Bateman & Snell, 1996). Groups made up entirely of task-oriented members often can’t resolve conflicts and groups made up entirely of relationship-oriented members have difficulty accomplishing the task. Recent research indicates that the extraversion of members is an important consideration as well, with the most effective groups having 20% to 40% high-extraversion members (Barry & Stewart, 1997). A person who has the task of composing a group or team should also consider the size of the group. Most experts agree that groups should not have too many members (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Guzzo, 1988), one reason being that larger groups run a higher risk of social loafing occurring (Latane, 1986; Steiner, 1972). However, groups that are too small for the size and complexity of the task are likely to be ineffective as well. It should be noted here that some instructors do consider these factors, particularly when putting together more permanent project groups in their classes. For example, Barry & Stewart (1997) describe a study of processes in self-managed groups in an MBA course. In this study, they state that “The basis of group formation was essentially random, with intervention by the researchers to ensure an even distribution across groups of demographic minorities in the study population” (p. 67). However, often instructors who conscientiously put together groups so they have characteristics that will enhance their effectiveness fail to communicate what they did to the students, so the students do not learn the techniques for building effective teams. Therefore, teaching methods are needed for students to learn strategies for building a team. Although this could be done indirectly through instructors’ descriptions of their own use of these techniques in the class, students may more effectively learn these techniques through the experiential exercise described here. COMPOSING A TEAM EXERCISE Objectives This exercise demonstrates important concepts in composing a team or group. The objectives of the exercise are to 1) have students experience the difficulties of composing a group; 2) have them reflect on likely effects of the composition of the groups they put together; and 3) have students learn some strategies for composing effective work groups. Scheduling the Exercise I have conducted this exercise in Principles of Management classes and in a course called “Leadership of Groups”. However, it could be used for any course containing group work, whether in accounting, marketing, finance or other courses. I conduct the exercise during class. It usually takes about 40 minutes for each part (20 minutes for composing the groups, 15-20 minutes for examining group composition). I use this exercise to demonstrate the tendencies people have to create groups of convenience or groups with people similar to them. I also use it to introduce the topic of composing groups for team 196 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 25, 1998 done quickly and avoid further interviews. I then assign a team purpose or task to each of these students. While I do this randomly, instructors might prefer to assign students to tasks they are likely to know little about in order to test their abilities a little more or to demonstrate that composing groups when you are not an expert at the task can be more difficult. I then ask the students to form their teams by selecting members from the remaining students. To do this, the students forming the teams interview various students in the class to see if they have the characteristics wanted for the team, taking notes, and keeping track of the students they have selected. Teams can overlap in membership; in other words, a member of one team might also be a member of another team. I leave the size of the teams up to the discretion of the students putting them together. This allows the class to discuss later whether the chosen size of the team seemed appropriate for the task. To examine the composition of the groups, I have those who formed the teams write on the board the purpose of their groups and the students they chose for their groups. One by one, I have them explain why they chose each student for their team. Often, as they explain their choices, it becomes apparent that they chose group members primarily according to 1) whether they seem willing or available to do the task, 2) whether they sat near the student forming the group, or 3) whether they are similar to the student forming the group. I discuss each of these with the class in turn. A commonly expressed reason for including certain students is that they were interested in the task or available (i.e., had time) to do it. The instructor should ask students whether this should be the sole or primary factor in composing a team. What would happen, for example, if members were willing, but did not have the expertise needed for the task? Some students who do this exercise do not move from their seats. They interview the people surrounding them and do not move to other areas of the classroom to interview additional students. Since this reason of convenience is observable, but not usually expressed by students when they present their groups, the instructor needs to watch for this behavior and point it out to students when it happens. Students should discuss why it occurs and what effects it might have on team effectiveness. For example, will people who are near each other physically be likely to think alike (a tendency that makes group think likely)? Will they be likely to all be the best people for the task in terms of expertise? The instructor should also watch for the tendency to put together groups of individuals who are similar to the person forming the group (e.g., all male or all female groups or groups with students in the same major or on the same athletic team). Since people often do this without realizing it, the instructor should point it out to students when it happens. Students should discuss why it occurs and what effects it might have on team effectiveness. For example, will groups that are highly homogenous be likely to fall into group think? Part II: Using Effective Strategies Following a brief lecture concerning how to compose groups to increase group effectiveness, Part H of the exercise is done. Students do the same task as in Part I, except they are instructed to try to create groups that follow the strategies presented in class. Groups should contain demographically heterogenous members with task-relevant expertise, groups that have the right mix of task-oriented and relationship-oriented members, groups of the appropriate size, and groups with an appropriate mix of extraverts and introverts (see Table 1). Once again, to examine the composition of the groups, those who formed the teams should write 197 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 25, 1998 Their group’s purpo and explain their forming a group ha the class examine looking for the dim in class as strategi looking for the dim in class as strategi (see Table 1). Foll should be considere Does it have memb it is a long-term pr diverse members, s characteristics (e.g. Does it have both members? Does it extraverts and intr should be asked w understanding of t students have filled dimensions, such Questionnaire foun (Burton, 1990).] An Additional issu underscore the im strategies when com students rarely think about, but that the recruitment and selection literature considers to be a decision- making error (e.g., see Cascio, 1991): What happens to those who would have made a great contributions to the groups effectiveness (for example, because of their expertise or their unique life experiences) but who were overlooked in the selection process? Erroneous rejections can hurt the group or organization in two ways, not only through the loss of talent within the group, but also through the loss of talent to other groups. Individuals who were erroneously rejected often get jobs with competing groups or organizations, so their good ideas are being used to help the opposition. When I ask class members to consider what people were overlooked when the teams were composed, we often find that students who had worked in tourism were left off Desired Dimensions Accountability with group Creative problem solving Task focus Conflict Manageme Expertise Group interaction TABLE 1 Strategy in A group not too large for the task A group with diverse experiences and viewpoints A group with task-oriented members nt A group with relationship- oriented members A group with members with task-relevant expertise A group with 20-40% high se and membership on the board choices. After each student s presented his/her team, I have the composition of the team, ensions that have been presented es for forming effective team, ensions that have been presented es for forming effective teams owing are some questions that d: Is it of the appropriate size? ers with the needed expertise? If oblem-solving task, does it have uch as in terms of demographic , age, ethnic origin, and sex)? task- and relationship-oriented have the right combination of overts? [the last two questions hen the class already has an hese different orientations and out self-assessments of these as the T-P Leadership d in Exercises in Management e that I like to discuss helps portance of using effective posing groups. It is an issue that the tourism team and that nobody put on the team had worked in tourism. This outcome is often a direct result of the methods of those composing the teams. For example, it will be likely to occur if those putting together the teams chose mainly people that they already knew or people that were most similar to themselves (e.g., same sex, same nationality). Three of the seven members of the team of a student in one class were students who sat next to the student (in a class of nearly 60 Students). (In fact, for the first five minutes of the exercise, she never moved from her chair.) In our discussion, this student found that she had missed three people in the class who had tourism experience. Further, only one member of her group of seven had tourism experience. It is useful to discuss how missing these potential members can limit the effectiveness of the group. extraversion members I sometimes bring up group-related issues that are not necessarily directly related to the strategies for composing groups previously discussed, but that have come up in the course of performing the activity. For example one question I often ask is why certain people appeared on many of the team rosters--what aspects of these people were those composing the groups focusing on? In one class that performed this exercise, two women appeared on every team. After some discussion, it became 198 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 25, 1998 apparent that they had been selected because one woman was perceived as being very task-focused and the other woman was perceived as being very relationship-focused. Thus, they had been selected repeatedly to provide the teams with both task and relationship-oriented members. Another interesting aspect in the same class was that women were represented on the teams in a greater proportion than they were found in the class. (In another class, foreign students appeared in the teams in a greater proportion than in the class.) The class discussed possible reasons for this not only in the class activity but in actual organizations (e.g., a “token” woman is needed to present an image of having a representative team, or women are perceived as being less likely to say “no”). Next, it is useful to explore the implications of selecting members of a group for these reasons. For example, this can introduce a discussion concerning how women and minorities sometimes get more of their share of certain committee and service-type tasks in organizations, which can limit their effectiveness in other aspects of their positions. Variations and Additional Applications Instructors can have each student in the class form a group made up of class members to allow all students to experience the difficulties inherent in the task. If it is too time-consuming for the class to provide feedback on all the formed groups, instructors can ask students to turn in the lists of the members they chose for their groups (along with the reasons for the choices) for feedback from the instructor. Instructors can provide students with a longer time to form their groups so they can collect more information about potential group members and more carefully compose their groups. The exercise could be assigned as homework, with interviews of potential group members to occur outside of class. To allow students to see actual effects of their group compositions, instructors can use this exercise to compose groups that will actually interact to perform a group project during the semester or quarter. The primary disadvantage of this variation is that the composed groups would then have to be mutually exclusive and every student in the class would have to be assigned to one of the groups. It is a considerably more difficult task to form mutually exclusive groups that are all effective. With this format, class members with certain characteristics that would enhance group effectiveness can only be assigned to one group. This exercise can be performed to illustrate some aspects of recruitment and selection of personnel in general, as alluded to earlier. It is particularly suitable for illustrating how biases can operate-for example, the tendency to pay greater attention to candidates one already knows or who are convenient to interview or the tendency to overlook relevant information (e.g., restaurant experience). It is also a good exercise for practicing interviewing skills-especially asking the right questions to obtain critical information about a variety of aspects of an applicant. For example, students can be taught to look for the two types of employability recruiters have been found to look for--objective work qualifications and applicant “fit” to the organization (Rynes & Gerhart, 1990). One limitation of this exercise is that it is somewhat difficult to simulate some of the political considerations organizations face when putting together groups. However, instructors can impose constraints when assigning the group purpose (e.g., “To make certain groups in the organization happy, you must include one person in your group who has ‘X’ characteristic, while still trying to follow strategies for composing effective groups”). Students can be asked to discuss when these political considerations can help increase group effectiveness and when they can hinder them. For example, when politics 199 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 25, 1998 require that the group include one person from each functional grouping and when the task is a problem solving task requiring diverse viewpoints, the political considerations are congruent with strategies for composing an effective group. In conclusion, this paper suggests that instructors teaching teamwork incorporate techniques for teaching students how to compose effective work groups. An exercise was described that can be used to generate discussion about a number of topics pertaining to creating groups, including demographic and psychological factors and issues dealing with recruitment and selection. REFERENCES Barry, B., & Stewart, G.L. (1997). Composition, Process, and Performance in Self-Managed Groups: The Role of Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82. 62-78. Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S.A. (1996). Management: Building competitive advantage. Chicago: Irwin. Burton, G.E. (1990). Exercises in Management. Boston: Houghton Muffin Co. Cascio, W.F. (1991). Applied Psychology in Personnel Management (4th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Guzzo, R.A., (1988). Financial incentives and their varying effects on productivity. In P. Whitney & R.B. Ochsman (Eds.), Psychology and productivity. New York: Plenum, 8 1-92. Guzzo, R.A., & Shea, G.P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology (2nd Ed.). Vol.3. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 288-290. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hoffman, L.R. (1959). Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem- solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 58, 27-32. Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Latane, B. (1986). Responsibility and effort in organizations. In P.S. Goodman and associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lemer, L.D. (1995). Making student groups work. Journal of Management Education. 19(1). 123- 125. Manning, M.R., & Schmidt, P.J. (1995). Building effective work teams: A quick exercise based on a scavenger hunt. Journal of Management Education. 19(3), 392-398. Reich, R.B. (1983). The next American frontier. New York: Times Books. Reynolds, PA. (1995). FANTASY: Group development through requiring an emergent system?! Journal of Management Education. 19(1), 126-137. Rynes, S., & Gerhart, B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant “fit”: An exploratory investigation. Personnel Psychology, 43. 13-34. Schor, S.M., & Sabiers, M. (1995). T-groups in the classroom: Some examples of current practice. Journal of Management Education. 19(4).523-539. Stein, M.I. (1982). Creativity, groups, and management. In R. A. Guzzo (Ed.), Improving group decision making in organizations. New York: Academic Press. Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Thurow, L.C. (1983). Dangerous currents. New York: Random House. Watson, W.E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal. 36. 590-602. Whetten, D.A. & Cameron, K.S. (1995). Developing management skills. New York: Harper Collins. 200 Table of Contents Volume 25, 1998 Marketing Goes to the Movies Bringing Experiential Learning to a Principles of Marketing Course Investment Analysis Application Using In-house Spreadsheet Models SugarCoated Statistics: An Exercise for the First Day of Class Improving Undergraduate Student Involvement in Management Science and Business Writing Courses Using the Seven Principles in Action Establishment and Funding for Interuniversity / Multidisciplinary Student experiences The Prospects of Creative Teaching: A Discussion with Patricia Sanders The Simulation and Classroom Assessment Techniques Developments of Management Skill Assessment Games as Instruments of Assessment: A Framework for Evaluation The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Business Curricula Threshold Solo Competitor: A Management Simulation (V1.0) a Windows-Based. Play Alone, Total Enterprise Simulation and Assessment Instrument Toward An Understanding of One's self-concept Total Enterprise Simulations and the Internet: Improving Student Perceptions and Simplifying Administrative Workloads The Expatriate an Assignment Orientation Game An Expatriate's Nightmare: An Experiential Exercise in Coping with Overseas Assignments Analyzing Experiential Exercise: Using the Scientific Method for Problem Solving The Second Component to Experiential Learning: A Look Back at How ABSEL has handled the Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Learning Predictive Models of Learning: Participant Satisfaction of Experiential Exercises in Business Education Accelerating Moral Development through Use of Experiential Ethical Dilemmas Ethical Dilemmas to use with Business Simulations to Teach Ethics The Class Approach in Behavioral Simulation in a Business Policy/Strategic Management course: A Progression toward Greater Realism An Exploration of the Emergence of Process Prototypes in a Management Course Utilizing a Total Enterprise Simulation How Organizations Are Improving Their Performance Utilizing Electronic Commerce: Examples From The Internet The Market Access Planning System (Maps): A Computer-Based Decision Support System For Facilitating Experiential Learning In International Business An Excel Workbook For Student Planning And Interface With A Simulation Game Design Of Multi-Media Based Pedagogy For Leadership Training Panel Discussion On Using The Internet For Courses Valuing And Enhancing Teaching: Sharing Tips Via The Web The Buddy Project: A Semester Long Project Aimed At Developing An Appreciation For Diversity Enhancing The Excitement And Learning Retention In The Classroom: The Power Of Magic The Supervised Management Internship: A Job Or Learning Experience Team Ware™ An Online Moderated Class Discussion Facility And Beyond A Neophyte Distance Educator's Experience Learning Management By Practicing Management: A Report Of Significant Student Service In 1997 Integration Of Academic And Service Learning: Students' Perceptions About Its Effects And Outcomes The Value Of Incorporating A Service Learning Component Into Course Content: A Presentation And Roundtable Discussion Business Games Teach: Thoughts on the Sources of Conflicting Conclusions on their Effectiveness Antecedents Of Learning In The Simulation: A Replication Using Student Journals To Enhance Learning From Simulations Technological Change And Intertemporal Movements In Consumer Preferences In The Design Of Computerized Business Simulations With Market Segmentation Integrating The Marketing Curriculum Using Collaborative Learning Teaching Time Management In A Sales Program: The Application Of A Computer Simulation Game Adapting Interactive Computer Simulations For Content Based Esl Instruction Multimedia And Student Expectations Synthesizing Data For Media Simulations Composing A Team Health Promoting Behaviors-A Decision Making Exercise Does it really Work? An Application of the Group Interaction Framework Administering the MIT Beer Game: Lessons Learned A Paperless Economy? Instructing Students on the Aspects of Successful Electronic Commerce Maximizing Learning Gains in Simulations: Lessons from the Training Literature Observing General Ability in a Total Enterprise Gaming Simulation FReach Teach: A Computer-Based System for Teaching Advertising Media Planning An Integrated Business Instruction System An Experiential Exercise you can Tinker With Experiential Exercises or Computer Simulations? Cash Flow Statements: Are They Important in Business Simulations? Holistic Cognitive Strategy in a Computer-Based Marketing Simulation Game: An Investigation of Attitudes Towards the Decision-Making Process Barnga: A Game on Cultural Clashes The Many Faces of Culture: Understanding Country and Corporate Culture Students' View of the Use of Business Gaming in Hong Kong Assessing General Management Interest What is the Future of Business Gaming? Starting a Small Music Trivia Business Exercise and Other Innovative Icebreakers An Integrated Approach to Behavioral Skill Development Career Focus: A Student and Business Learning Experience The Use of Concept Mapping in Teaching Strategic Management An Experiential Approach to Developing Mission Statements Business Games in Brazil-Learning or Satisfaction A Simulation within a Simulation: Job Layoff's and Emotional Reactions