HOW DIFFERENT WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES AFFECT DIFFERENT WORKER VALUES Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 21, 1994 121 HOW DIFFERENT WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES AFFECT DIFFERENT WORKER VALUES Nancy S. Sampson and Carroll C. Halterman, University of Denver ABSTRACT Members of Competitive (N = 79). Creative (N = 295) and Productive (N = 185) team members differ in their perceptions of the importance of a team’s workplace characteristics. Each team category views “a challenging goal” as its most important requirement, and “outside support and recognition” as its least important one. Each of the three team categories differs in the importance given to members’ “knowing their jobs, and to “designing the team for results.” Creative team members attach less importance to performance expectations” than do members of either Productive or Competitive teams. Competitive team members attach more importance to members’ “knowing their jobs” and “doing whatever is necessary” than do members of the other two groups. Female and male team members in the combined sample differ. Females see both members’ “liking and trusting” each other and a “competent, respected, and fair leader” as more important than do males. Males of Competitive, Creative, and Productive teams differ on six of the eight scales used for assessment. TODAY’S TRAINING FOCUSES ON TEAMS Today, understanding the context of team performance and development is of primary importance (See Sims, D. 1979; Manz & Sims Jr., 1987; Bottger & Yetton, 1987; Pearce and Ravlin (1987), Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990; Hoerr & Zellner, 1989; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; and Coleman, 1991). Such groups are the basic building blocks of organizations. say Woodman and Sherwood (1980). Robert Keidel (1989) extends the range of such groups to include sports teams. We Already Know a Lot About Teams.--Researchers have patiently explored the effects on teams of (a) different training methods (Sampson, Spagnola, and Halterman, 1991; Becker, 1992; Specht and Sandlin, 1991); (b) the gender of team-members (Halterman, Dutkiewicz, and Halterman,1991); (c) their nationality (Sims & Dennehey, 1992); and (d) their personality (Patz, (1992). All of these investigators find significantly prominent relationships. Differences exist between teams in different types of operations--depending on their tasks, their backgrounds, and the kinds of problems they solve (cf. Sundstrom, De Meuse. and Futrell; Coleman; Halterman & Sampson. 1992; and Patz. Why is this so? Katz and Kahn (1 978) explain that people achieve self-identity with their work, and that work activities play a critical role in shaping their norms, beliefs and values. Since teams differ in the types of tasks they perform, a key determinant of their characteristics and organizational norms is the type of (sustained) activity in which they are involved (pp.389, 394). Day-to-day occupational activity is a robust learning experience. This research focuses on the different workplace values of teams, which regularly solve three kinds of problems: productive, creative, or competitive. THE THREE DIFFERENT ACTIVITY TYPES EXAMINED Type I: The Productive Teamwork Sample: N= 185.—Respondents from successful production and assembly businesses comprise the “Productive” team sample. The largest of these activities has experienced a long period of formal team-building and is very successful in meeting rigorous production specifications and deadlines. The company performs research, design, testing and production functions. The sample segment from this operation is from their Production division. The next largest of these activities is an a business skilled in meeting the demands of commercial customers. Its reputation for performance is well above average, and it is seen as a “growing” concern. Respondents are mostly mid-career and upward mobile. The third activity is a high tech design and production operation, nationally prominent in signage and allied products. The employees are craftspeople and skilled professionals. Type II: The Creative Teamwork Sample: N = 295.--Respondents from successful Odyssey of the Mind (OM) teams comprise the “Creative” team sample. OM is an excellent example of effective team building technology (Cf. Klimoski & Karol; Bigoness & Perrault Jr.; Basadur, Graen & Green; Bottger & Yetton; and Micklus & Micklus, 1989). Using an experientially based approach to developing creative and innovative teams, it prepares members to solve complex problems. All solutions must come from team members. Respondents are sampled while attending state, regional, and national meets. Type Ill: The Competitive Teamwork Sample: N=79.--Respondents from top-tier WCHA/NCAA teams comprise the “Competitive” team sample. Hockey players develop skill on the ice in their sixteen years. Teamwork begins early under coaches who mold youngsters into articulated competitive units. Hockey players work very closely together. There are endless new team experiences--many competitions--many teammates--and continuous striving. By 17 or 18 years of age, the best are experts in their sport. Teams compete hard--and their battle cry is “Win!” Researcher Keidel claims different athletic units run the gamut of organizational behavior patterns. THE ASSESSMENT METHOD Management characteristics critical to the performance of successful teams are expressed as behavioral aphorisms. This approach to capturing work- group members’ values and beliefs has been streng EXHIBIT 1. EFFECTIVE WORKPLACE CHARACTERISTICS. A. Team members know the project’s goals, and are challenged by them. B. The team is designed to get results. C. Team members know their jobs, and how to get them done. D. Members will do whatever is needed for the project’s success. E. Members like, trust, and help each other. F. Team members have high performance standards, and expect high performance from each other. G. The project gets outside support, resources, and recognition. H. The team leader is seen as competent, respected, and fair. Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 21, 1994 122 TABLE 1. STATISTICS FOR THE THREE GROUPS Hock 79 Mn (odsy) 295 Mn (prod) 185 Mn (Hock) 79 Mn F GOAL 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 .31 .74 JOBS *1.4 *1.8 *1.6 1.4 7.6 #.001 TRUST 1.6 *1.6 *1.9 1.6 7.1 #.001 LEAD 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 .44 .64 EXPCT *1.6 *1.9 1.7 1.6 4.6 #.011 DO *1.4 2.0 *2.0 1.4 12.1 #.000 DESGN *1.9 *2.3 *1.6 1.9 19.0 #.000 SUPPT 2.5 *2.5 *2.1 2.5 8.1 #.000 •Sign @ .05 with MANOVA F for 3 adjacent column. grps—6.97. p = .000. thened by other investigators (Larson & LaFasto; Menzel. 1991; Neslund. 1991; and Sampson, Spagnola & Halterman) Importantly, it has been found that different kinds of work-groups differ in how they place importance on different workplace characteristics (Hal TABLE 2. ALL MALES AND FEMALES COMPARED. TOTAL MALES FEMS F SIG ITEM Mean Mean Mean F p GOAL 1.48 1.52 1.44 1.36 .24 JOBS 1.68 1.70 1.65 .40 .53 TRUST 1.70 1.79 1.57 8.16 .004 * LEAD 1.73 1.86 1.56 11.27 .001 * EXPECT 1.81 1.86 1.74 1.77 .184 DO 1.89 1.96 1.78 3.64 .06 DESIGN 2.01 1.97 2.07 .98 .32 SUPPOR 2.36 2.36 2.32 .18 .674 *=Significant ANOVA at .05 MANOVA F=2.68; p= .008 (for 3 groups) terman, 1 992). The instrument itself proposes eight specific statements to be evaluated (see Exhibit 1). Respondents are asked to indicate “the extent to which you believe (the particular statements is necessary for an effective team “ They reply on a 5- point Likert scale, where “1” represents “very important” and “5” represents “not very important.” Cochran’s alpha equals .72. From the three categories of team members sampled, 546 usable responses are obtained. Two null hypotheses order the analysis. Hypothesis1 There are no differences in the way team members assess the importance of workplace characteristics, when responses from Creative, Competitive, and Productive teams are compared. Hypothesis2 There are no differences in the way team members assess the importance of workplace characteristics, when responses from males end females are compared. THE STATISTICAL APPROACH AND RESULTS. Data are processed by SPSSX. Mean scores, variation, and F scores are reported. Tables 1 and 2 display results. Hypothesis1 is rejected (see Table 1). The multivariate F of 6.97 indicates that the three samples are each from a different population. Specifically they differ (ANOVA) on six of the scales! Hypothesis2 is rejected (see Table 2). The multivariate F of 2.58 indicates that females and males differ. Females see both liking and TRUSTING each other, and a competent and fair LEADER as more important than do males. Table 3 shows how males of the three types of teams compare. A MANOVA F of 5.71 indicates that males of the three-team types differ. ANOVA results show them differing on 6 of the eight scales! (see Figure 3). DISCUSSION [See Table 1] The univariate F’s of 7.6 (JOBS); 7.1 (TRUST); 4.6 (EXPECT); 12.1(DO); 19.0 (DESIGN); and 8.1 (SUPPORT); indicate that real differences exist between respondents for each of the three teams. (See Figure 1.) Data have been transformed in the figures, so FIGURE 2. ALL MALES & FEMALES COMPARED Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 21, 1994 123 that the highest values are conventionally furthest from the X-origin. Table 1 and figure 1 reveal the following: (a) all of the teams differ in their perceptions of the importance of “knowing their jobs…” and FIGURE 3. HOW THE THREE MALE GROUPS DIFFER. WORK COMPETI PRODUC CREA Mean Mean Mean F sig. GOAL 1.51 1.56 1.47 .39 .677 JOBS 1.41 1.68 1.90 7.13 .001 TRUST 1.63 1.95 1.73 3.42 .034 LEAD 1.78 1.85 1.89 .24 .790 EXPECT 1.58 1.86 2.02 4.97 .008 DO 1.36 2.16 2.14 17.62 .000 DESIGN 1.92 1.76 2.21 6.15 .002 SUPPOR 2.56 1.98 2.61 10.18 .000 PILLAIS F (MANOVA) – 5.71; p - .000 INDICATES ANOVA RESULTS “Work group Design”: (b) Creative teams attach less importance to “Performance expectations...” than do Production teams (Table 11; Cc) the Competitive group sees knowing JOBS; performance EXPECTATIONS; and DOING whatever is necessary as having more importance than do the other two. (d) the Production group places the most importance on workgroup DESIGN, and on outside SUPPORT. (5) Competitive teams attach more importance to team members’ “Knowing their jobs...”; and “Doing whatever is necessary...” than do either of the other two teams! Finally, (6) all teams closely agree on the specific level of importance to attach to “Goals” and to the “Leader.” CONCLUSIONS This research finds differences in the workplace values of Competitive. Creative and Productive teams. It also finds that female team members differ from males. FIGURE 3. HOW THREE MALE GROUPS DIFFER All three categories differ on “knowing their jobs…” and “work team design.” Competitive and Creative team members differ on members’ “doing whatever is necessary,” and on “high performance standards....” Creative and Productive teams differ on members’ “liking and trusting...” each other, and on “high performance standards.... Productive and Competitive teams differ on members’ “doing whatever is necessary...,” and on “liking and trusting...” each other. Male and female respondents differ in “liking and trusting...” each other, and on a “competent, respected and fair leader.” While male team members don’t disagree on “...a challenging goat” and a “competent, respected and fair leader,” they differ on all other characteristics. Our findings suggest to us that a student brings with her or him specific job- related values. A careful understanding of these experience-related preferences land their relationships with the new workplace or training culture] is probably critical if each trainee’s schooling and development is to be pragmatic, cost efficient and effective. REFERENCES Basadur, M., Graen, G.B. & Green, S.G. (1982) Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 30, 41-70 Bigoness, W.J., & Perreault Jr., W.D. (1981) A conceptual paradigm and approach for the study of innovators. Academy ~j Management Journal, 24, 68-82. Bottger, P.C., & Yetton, P.W. (1987) Improving group performance by training in individual problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 651-657 Becker, S. W. (1992) Experiential learning and TQM principles: Teaching behavioral science in a business school, in Jerry Gosenpud and Steven Gold (Eds.) Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises. (Proceedings, 1992 ABSEL Conference Las Vegas, Nev.], 19 11-16. Coleman, R. W. (1991) Law Enforcement Tactical Teams: A Substantive Theory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Communication, University of Denver, p.1 58. Halterman, C., Dutkiewicz, J., and Halterman, E. (1991) Men and women on the job: Gender bias in work teams. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 54: 468-481 Halterman, C. (1992) Reducing diversity among graduate business students.” The Journal of the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science XXIV 1, (24 April 1992), 24. Hoerr, J. & Zellner, W. (1989) Go team! Business Week, July 10: 56-62. Katz, D & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ad.) New York: John Wiley & Sons. Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 21, 1994 124 Keidel, R. W. (1987) Team sports models as a generic organizational framework Human Relations, 40.9, 591-61 2. Klimoski, R.J., & Karol, B.L. (1976) The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 61, 630-633. Larson, C.E. & LaFasto, F.M.J. (1989) Teamwork (Newbury Park California: Sage Publications, 26. Manz, C.C. & Sims Jr., H.P.(1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32; 106-129. Menzel, K. E. (1991) Teams and organizational communication Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, Dept. of Communication Micklus, C. S. & Micklus, C. (1989) Odyssey of the Mind Program Handbook. IBM, 31 pp Neslund, R. E. (199 1).Team excellence on large teams unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Denver, Colorado Patz A. (1992) Personality bias in total enterprise situations. Simulation & Gaming, 23 1 (March), 45-76. Pearce, J. A. II, & Raylin, E.C. (1987) The design and activation of self- regulation work groups. Human Relations, 40: 751-782 Sampson N. 5, Spagnola, R. D. & Halterman, C.C. (1991) techniques and technologies for building creative teams Proceedings. 33rd Mountain Plains Management Conference Colorado State University Oct. (unnumb) Sims, D. (1979) A framework for understanding the definition of problems in teams. Human Relations, 32: 909-921 Sims, R. & Dennehy R. (1992) Power and Ethnicity: An experiential learning exercise (How to sensitize students to diversity). In Jerry and Gosenpud and Steven Gold (Eds.) Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises. [Proceedings, 1992 ABSEL Conference Las Vegas Nev.] 19, 155-158 Specht L., & Sandlin, P.K. (1991) The differential effects of experiential learning activities and traditional lectures in accounting Simulation & Gaming, 22 2 (June)-196-210. Sundstrom E. De Meuse, K.P. & Futrell, D. (1990) Work teams application and effectiveness. American Psychologist 45.2 1 20-33. Woodman, R.W., & Sherwood, J.J. (1980) The role of team development in organizational effectiveness: A critical review,” Psychological Bulletin 88, 1, 166-186. Table of Contents Volume 21, 1994 ABSEL: The Way We Were and Need to Be The Intellectual Structure of ABSEL: A Bibliometeic Study of Author Cocitatons Over Time Activity-Driven Time in Computerized Gaming Simulations An Assessment Framework for Determing the Effectiveness of Total Enterprise Simulations Attributes of Learning Organizations: Simulating the Relationships Business Policy/Strategy Case Extension using Pro-Forma Planning: A Computer Based Model Complexity: Is it really that Simple? A Random-Strategy Criterion for Validity of Simulation Game Participation Enhancing a Computer Simulation with a Structured Reporting Environment Experiencing a Foreign Culture: A Cross-Cultural Simulation Group Cognitive Style and Computerphobia in Functional Business Simulations Human Issues in Technology Implementation Management Simulator Incorporating Advertising Strategy into Computer-Based Business Simulations: A Validation Study Increasing the Effectiveness of Performance Evaluation Through the Design and Development of Realistic Finance Algorithms The Packer-Feeder Game: A Commodity Market Simulator Relationships Between R&D and Profitability: An Exploratory Comparison of Two Business Simulations with Two Real-World, Technology Intensive Industries Simulation of the Predictive Value of Mammography Simulation Performance and Learning Revisited Strange Bedfellows: Competency Models and ACBSP Accreditation Standards Using a Business Simulation to Study the Determinants of Ethical Behavior What Simulation Users Think Players Should be Learning from the Simulations ADA and its Implications for Experiential Training Boss/ Subordinate Perceptions of Instrumental and Supportive Leadership Behaviors in Relation to Myers-Briggs Thinking Type Cluster Analyses of American Universities' Business Core Curricula Structures Utilized to Satisfy Fifteen Curriculum Areas Cooperative Learning or Learning to Cooperate Experiential Learning: Constraining Students with Time Budgets How Different Workplace Experiences Affect Different Worker Values Implications of the Trend Toward Relationship Marketing for Experiential Learning The Increasing Cultural Diversity of the American Workforce: Management's Challenge of the 21st Century Information and Uncertainty as Strange Bedfellows: A Model and Experiential Exercises Leadership as a Medium: It's Emergence and Effect on Performance in Small Leaderless Groups Speed, Depth, and Breadth: Assessing Learning in Learning Organizations Teaching Strategic Planning, Problem Solving, and Decision Making with Envisionary Experiential Exercises Validating an Instrument for Student Evaluation of Teachers: Some Noteworthy By-Products Don't Teach Ethics to Business Students Emotional Reactions Toward a Simulated Layoff: Before and After the Manipulation Enhancing Communication Using a Presentation Package Implementing Marketing Policies through a Business Management Simulation Integrating Action-Based Learning into Executive Development Programs On the validity of using the Microsegmentation Principle in Media Simulationsm Participatory Systems Analysis Some Relationships between Cultural, Organizational, and Educational Experience and Perceptions of Influence The Use of Decision Support Systems with a Marketing Simulation: The Future is Now Astute Business Policy: A Simulation of the Automobile Industry The Business Policy Game CEO II: A Gaming Simulation for Assessment Computer Paced Project Management Simulation Computerized Tutor Support Systems DEAL & GEO: Progressively Integrating Gaming Simulations for Entrepreneurship and International Business An Interactive Simulation Game for Competitive Decision-Making International Operations Simulation/Mark 2000 (INTOPIA) Multimedia Simulation Cuts Training Costs for Anderson Consulting Concepts of Total Quality Management: An Active Learning Exercise Cooperative Learning: The Extended Jigsaw Managing Diversity--Values and Attitudes: An Experiential Exercise in Awareness Navigating the Shoals of International Management Development Evaluating Student Performance in the Use of Computer Simulation Entrepreneurial Simulation Program