Written on Friday, April 24, 2009 by Eva
In this May's issue of HBR, there is an article called Why Teams Don't Work, which sort of caught me by surprise with the negativity. Because I know a good amount of teams that DO work. But as I read through, I realized I've been part of more failed teams than I originally thought.
Two brains are better than one. Unless the two brains can't communicate. Says the article, "research consistently shows that teams underperform, despite all the extra resources they have. That's because problems with coordination and motivation typically chip away at the benefits of collaboration."
5 Basic Conditions of Effective Teams (from Leading Teams)
- TEAMS MUST BE REAL - Know who is on the team and who is not
- TEAMS NEED A COMPELLING DIRECTION - Leader must provide direction and inspire members to agree on the mission
- TEAMS NEED ENABLING STRUCTURES - Well-designed tasks, productive norms, the right members
- TEAMS NEED A SUPPORTIVE CONTEXT - Reward system, HR policies, and IT tools must facilitate, not inhibit collaboration
- TEAMS NEED EXPERT COACHING - A focus on individual performance is not enough to improve team performance
I think the simplest (yet most difficult) thing to do from the list above to ensure greatest impact is to have the right people on the team and make it clear who's in and who's not. Just because people will feel left out is not a good enough reason to include them on the team if you want results.
Another quote to think about…
How good are companies at providing a supportive context for teams?
Perversely, the organizations with the best human resource departments often do things that are completely at odds with good team behavior. That’s because HR departments tend to put in place systems that are really good at guiding, directing, and correcting individual behavior. Take a personnel system that has been honed by industrial psychologists to identify the skills of a particular job and test individual employees on those skills. In such a system, the HR department will set up training to develop the “right” people in the “right” way. The problem is this is all about the individual.
The entire time I was reading the article I couldn't help but interchange the word "team" with "company." In fact, the book I've been reading has similar principles, applied to organizations:
- LEVEL 5 LEADERSHIP - Magic combo of personal humility and professional will
- FIRST WHO, THEN WHAT - People are not your most important asset, the right people are
- CONFRONT THE BRUTAL FACTS - Be realistic about your situation, yet optimistic about your future
- THE HEDGEHOG CONCEPT - The intersection of your passion, your talent, your economy
- A CULTURE OF DISCIPLINE - Rigor and structure that enables entrepreneurial spirit and creativity (aka, manage the system not the people)
- TECHNOLOGY - Accelerates (rather than creates) success
Who, What, How.... People, Thought, Action.... Leadership, Strategy, Process - how many times can this be repackaged?
Read more...
Posted in
Organizations,
Teams
|
Written on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 by Eva
What is the difference between Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior? Not much, but a recent question on
LinkedIn inspired me to do some research and get to the details of it. I thought to throw the info up on here as well just in case any students decidining on grad school might find it useful. Oh yeah, and also to help with that whole
I-O visibility thing, too.
As far as practitioners go, they do pretty much the same thing. Both IO and OB have a mission to enhance individual performance for a result of improved organizational effectiveness. When it comes to researchers, the strength of OBM is its practical significance and focus on applied issues. I-O psychology, on the other hand, has variety and complexity of organizational research topics on its side. A compare and contrast is in the image below:
A key take-away? If you want to know how to effect behavioral change at work, go read Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. If you want to explore reasons behind behavior at work, go read Journal of Applied Psychology.
A Brief History
OBM was inspired by Skinner and behaviorism while I-O psychology is a little more complex.
First there was Psychology. Hugo Munsterberg, a German guy, studied under Wilhelm Wundt ("father of psychology") at Harvard in the late 1800s. He then went on to be the first to measure abilities in workers and tie them to performance. Something that seems kinda obvious to us as something important now, but was considered weird then.
Then there was Industrial Psychology. The Stanford-Binet test was adapted to make the Army Alpha to select soldiers during World War I. Principles of Scientific Management were applied by time and motion specialists.
Then we realized people mattered too. The Hawthorne studies show that if you pay attention to them, they'll perform better, sparking the Human Relations Movement.
Standards are good. When organizations realized that interests, attitudes, and personality contribute to performance all the Bobs started selling them crap so Title VII, etc. came along.
Today, we like the interdisciplinary approach. No matter what you call it, nothing is in its own bubble. Our genetics determine our neurochemical makeup which composes our traits which predispose our behavior which then drives performance but not without the influence of your motivation, your choices, your past, your boss, or the @$$hole that cut you off this morning. Mulitply that by a few hundred or thousand and you have a formula for your organizational performance [figuratively speaking].
Related Research:
- Bucklin, B.R., & Alvero, A.M. (2000). Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior Management: An Objective Comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20(2), 27.
- Geller, E.S. Organizational Behavior Management and Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Achieving Synergy by Valuing Differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 111-130.
Posted in
I/O Psychology
|
Written on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 by Eva
I have had this post in draft for a while but a
recent article claiming it is disingenuous and irresponsible to use psychology at work made the completion of it urgent. Because I am convinced of exactly the opposite. I am convinced it is irresponsible to disregard a large and growing body of knowledge that can help your organization be better at business, operations, sales, marketing, and especially management. Not only that but employees are beneficiaries of the application of such research as well.
I can't really blame the logic behind the post though. You see it in nearly every profession; the jerks that can't do their job well give the rest a bad name. With respect to the intersection of business and psychology, I can tell the difference between the latter and the former within a few seconds. But I shouldn't expect everyone else to do the same. Just like I don't know the difference between an authentic car mechanic and a crook (true story).
Some things Industrial/Organizational Psychologists (Practitioners) do:
Job Analysis/Evaluation
Scientifically analyze duties, tasks, and jobs performed to accurately write an accurate job description, develop appropriate recruiting communications, design a valid selection system, assign relevant training, determine fair compensation, assess performance using appropriate metrics, and restructure the organization for efficiency. Leader in this field? Morris Viteles way back in 1922. Today, we have O*NET and competency models.
Performance Measurement/Management
Developing performance evaluation systems that incorporate supervisory, peer, subordinate, self, and/or customer ratings on task performance, contextual performance, and/or counterproductive performance using graphic rating scales, checklists, weighted checklists, forced choice format, behaviorally-anchored rating scales, mixed rating scales, or behavior observation scales to rank, pair, or otherwise compare the performance of employees to make decisions about selection, development, rewards, transfer, promotion, or layoff of employees all while avoiding halo, leniency, severity, and modesty biases but yet adhering to a common frame-of-reference among raters. Today we have 360-degree feedback and fair employment practices.
Leadership
Before this word appeared on everyone's resume, it was heavily debated whether leadership was an inborn trait or a learned skill. Before taking a contingency approach there was discussion of the benefits of a task-orientation vs. a relationship-orientation. Leaders in this field? Blanchard, Yukl, Fiedler, and Graen. Today, we talk about leadership ethics, gender differences in leaders, leader emergence, and the role of charisma.
Quant and Qual Research Methods and Data Analysis Techniques to Enhance Decisions
Correlation, multivariate analysis of variance, hierarchical regression, structural equation modeling, classical test theory, item response theory, generalizability theory, content analysis, predictive validity, inter-rater agreement, the Likert scale, and our favorite, meta-analysis. Leaders here? Hunter and Schmidt. Today, we have assessments that carry more weight than online quizzes.
That's all common sense, though - right?
Some things Industrial/Organizational Psychologists (Practitioners) don't do:
read minds (don't laugh I get this a lot) organize things (incidentally, I'm very good at this) counseling whatever Dr. Phil says mental health dream analysis listen to your personal issues employee assistance program counseling hypnosis brainwash employees psychoanalysis pop-psychology and self-help clichés follow disproven 19th century theories (ahem Freud) use the MBTI for selection and/or assessment
Since I love research so much, let's take a look at what the Journal of Applied Psychology, the most rigorous journal in the field, is contributing to the workplace this past month (in VERY broad language):
Who cares... just irrelevant pseudo-science, right?
If you question the validity or reliability of the results, you are more than welcome to read the full text version and pick out the methodological flaws and suggest a better process [insert evil laughter here, those who went to grad school know what I mean].
Sarcasm aside, the main issues are the good stuff gets lost in translation between the journal and your boss (or between the professor and the guy with the MBA). Not only that, there is a temporal lag between published data and applied buzzword. Hence, why I still see the Maslow hierarchy on PowerPoint slides.
Related posts:
- Is Psychology a Science? Yes!
"Part of the reason that people still think of psychologists as old guys with beards, pipes and couches is because we have not done a good job of popularizing our discipline."
- Another Rebuttal Post
"I must ask, if psychological constructs like leadership potential, dominance, empathy, independence, tolerance, and self-control aren't important, then on what are you basing your hiring decisions?"
Posted in
I/O Psychology,
Research
|
