Have you ever been part of a team or group? Have you noticed how the group might have progressed through stages as it formed? One researcher, by the name of Bruce Tuckman, studied this same phenomenon.
This video provides a great summary of Tuckman’s work. How can you apply the stages of small-group development to the teams in your organization?
Additional References
Maples, M. F. (1988). Group development: Extending Tuckman's theory. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13(1), 17-23.
Runkel, P. J., Lawrence, M., Oldfield, S., Rider, M., & Clark, C. (1971). Stages of group development: An empirical test of Tuckman's hypothesis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(2), 180-193.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (2010). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, 10, 43-48.
I ran across some interesting content the other day.It reminded me of a rather innovative process,
“paving the cow paths”.I had first
heard of this while attending the University of Maryland.I used to think it was only applicable to
design and engineering, but I now see that it has potential in other fields as
well.This short and rather enlightening
video shows how this concept is being used in IT and social media.How can this be applied to leadership?If you listen, will those you lead actually
tell you how to best lead them?What are
the pros and cons of utilizing this approach?
Groupthink Video (3:02): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USJ8OSIjhvk
This video shows a theatrical representation of groupthink based on the events surrounding the Challenger disaster. Significant cultural change at NASA occurred following this tragic incident. One of those changes was creating a culture of safety.
Safety Culture Video (3:59): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9DIKZqB24
Does your organizational culture encourage or discourage groupthink? Are you free to or encouraged to express your thoughts in your organization? What are your organization's main priorities? Is conflict seen as something to be avoided or something that should be celebrated? How does this relate to leadership?
Short Challenger Documentary (6:57): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYX35Z_L-dw
Additional References:
Dimitroff, R. D., Schmidt, L. A., & Bond, T. D. (2005). Organizational behavior and disaster: A study of conflict at NASA. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 28-38.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Group decision making: The potential for groupthink. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 13(1), 1-6.
\Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539-550.
Teitel, A. S. (2018, January 25). How Groupthink Led to 7 Lives Lost in the Challenger Explosion. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/news/how-the-challenger-disaster-changed-nasa
So, this is a fun one. Many have seen this before. If you have seen the original video, look at the alternate video. If you have seen that one, look at follow-up video. If you are feeling frisky, watch all three.
How might this relate to leadership? What are you looking for that you missed? What did you miss because you were looking for something else? How do you determine or communicate task-level focus in your work center?
The Stanford Prison Experiment, as controversial as it was, offers us a
cautionary view into the complexities of human behavior.From psychology, to sociology, to criminal
justice, and leading others, this experiment still offers many lessons.
What do the findings from this experiment mean for those in leadership?
Do you and your people own your actions/behaviors?Are you a positive influence on others?Are you positively influenced by others?Does your organizational culture promote a
healthy environment for all?Are toxic
leaders just good people in bad environments?
French and Raven provide us a framework to examine and
leverage power.At times, and in
different situations, we may have differing degrees of power with respect to
each power base.It takes a self-aware
and humble leader to recognize the right time and the right need for the proper
application of power.Overuse is just as
bad as abuse and lessens a leader’s credibility.
How have you seen power used in your workplace?Have you seen it abused?With the addition of information power and
the internet, what challenges do you think these two variables present for
leaders?
Be sure to check out the video notes for links to additional
content and references to original works.
Many of us are familiar with the Milgram Experiment that
suggested humans will go to very far lengths to obey a person of perceived
authority.Haslam provided a new look at
the same experiments and extracted some interesting findings.
Why is it important for leaders to understand both Milgram’s
and Haslam’s work?Do your employees
blindly obey?Are they engaged
followers?Are they free to
question?Are there other checks on
behavior?
This video discusses Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.This is a rather foundational concept in
traditional psychology and organizational psychology specific to the topics of
motivation and leadership.In fact, this
concept has ties to many of the other concepts recently discussed.
How does understanding Maslow’s hierarchy of needs help you
as an organizational leader?How can you
assist in meeting the needs of your employees?What benefits might you see meeting the needs of your employees?How do you align personal and organizational
needs?What conceptual linkages can you
make to the work of Deci and Ryan, Herzberg, or McGregor?
This video discusses McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y - not to be confused with Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (TVLL 010). McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y describe how beliefs about employee motivation can lead to certain supervisory behaviors.
Do you identify more with theory X or theory Y? Does your organizational culture tend more towards the assumption that employees behave more like the theory X or theory Y examples? Have you observed controlling practices within your organization? Have you observed resistive counterforces resulting from controlling practices within your organization? What effect might this have on productivity and profitability? How can you better meet the higher-level needs of your workforce?
In this video we are introduced to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation. Herzberg identified several factors that contributed to happiness and motivation at work. He discusses two generalized groupings of these factors – one he identified as hygiene factors and the other as motivational factors. As discussed in the video, the hygiene factors do not motivate, they only prevent people from being unhappy. Herzberg gives an example of why attempting to motivate using hygiene factors would likely be costly and ineffective.
Does your organization provide adequate support with respect to hygiene factors? How can you best utilize motivational factors in increasing workforce motivation? How do you make the work interesting and rewarding? How is achievement recognized in your organization? How does this theory relate to Self-Determination Theory (TVLL 009)?
This video introduces some fundamental concepts in
leadership - autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that motivation
is contingent on several internal and external factors that modify one’s
motivational state.SDT suggests that motivation
can be though of as a continuum ranging from amotivation, to extrinsic
motivation, and intrinsic motivation.
Are you, as a leader, meeting the needs of your
workforce?How can you increase autonomy
in your workforce?What can you do to
help develop competence in your workforce?How can you increase relatedness in your workforce?What does it mean for the individual if one
or more of these needs are left unmet?How
can you use the tenets of self-determination theory to increase intrinsic motivation
within your workforce?
Note: This video was created by Laura Kriegel.The audio excerpt is from the opening keynote
at The Self-Determination Theory Conference 2013 by Dr. Richard Ryan.The original keynote presentation can be
found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4E10e8zIkw
Many successful individuals would admit that they did not
become successful in isolation.They had
help.Success is a team sport.Whatever their title, you probably had help
in getting to where you are today.I am
thankful for the many people in my life that took time out of their schedule to
mentor me.I know I would not be where I
am if it weren’t for a few key individuals.
How do we help those around us become better versions of
themselves?How do we help others span
self-imposed boundaries?How do we help
those around us develop as leaders?How
do we develop a bias for action and an ability to seek out the yes in each
situation?
Video (8:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZDdxYBaFsw
I am fortunate to have not one but two careers where
leadership development is valued. Indeed, it is my passion. I have learned a
lot from each but from very different perspectives.
As we examine the Peter Principle in this post, I offer my
perspective on two different promotion systems. I am both a
firefighter/paramedic and an Air Force Reservist. I am fairly junior in
Fire/EMS and more senior in the Air Force enlisted ranks. These competing
perspectives keep me grounded and offer insights that might be lost if I did
not co-exist in each of these worlds.
In Fire/EMS, one can spend their entire career at a level
they choose. Want to drive fire trucks for 25 years? Awesome, be the best
driver/operator out there. Want to be a Fire Chief some day? Awesome, you’ve
got some work to do. There are choices here. There are opportunities to carve
out your niche or promote. You can plant your flag and declare this is where I
will establish my base of experience or start my developmental journey to the
top.
In contrast, the military (more so active duty than the
National Guard or Reserve) has an up-or-out style promotion system. Standards
set high-year-tenure dates for enlisted members and officers are looked at for
retention after 2-3 promotion cycles if they were not selected for advancement.
If you are an excellent technician or company officer, you might not be allowed
to keep “turning wrenches” for the entirety of your career. At some point,
you’ll be asked to promote past that level and “fly a desk”. What if your
passions and skills align at the tactical level and not the operational or
strategic levels? What does this mean for the organization? Are highly skilled
technical experts or subordinate leaders being lost to policies that do not
value their skill sets for the balance of their careers?
Both systems offer incremental/developmental
education/training to help those wanting to promote. Neither system eliminates
complications relating to the Peter Principle and there are exceptions to every
rule. Nonetheless, it is interesting to compare these two systems.
Understandably, there may not be a right or wrong answer.
What are the similarities or differences in your promotion
system? What priorities are set by your promotion system? How can you ensure
you are promoting the right people to the right positions? How can you ensure
you aren’t promoting them past their last level of competence? More than
technical/tactical performance, does your organization consider leadership as a
competency that is factored into your promotion system?
In this video, Dr. Leah Georges presents us with an interesting perspective on “navigating the multigenerational workplace”. She questions whether these generational divides are even real and challenges us to “meet people where they are”.
Have you encountered generational issues in your workplace? Were they truly generational issues or were they attributable to some other unexplored factor? How can you seek to better understand the differences and similarities in those around you? How can you individualize and not generalize your leadership approach?
In this rather funny video, we are exposed to the idea of
fairness - the idea that each monkey is doing the same work with one rejecting
an inferior reward.If monkeys can
observe and act on an unfair situation, you can bet that the members of your
organization can.Leaders need to understand
the difference between equality and fairness.How do you explain equality?How
do you explain fairness? Are there any
absolutes with these terms or are they situational?Is it fair to reward extra effort if outcomes
are the same?Where do you encounter issues
of equality and fairness in your organization?
In TVLL 003, we talked about conformity.This post is about humility and ownership.As a desirable characteristic of leadership,
humility is critical for success.This
video shows The Blue Angels debriefing process.In the debrief, you see that all team members are equal.They all own their mistakes and commit to
improving themselves for the team.Team
members are aligned with their mission and their egos take a back seat to the
overall goal.They take true ownership
in their spot on the team.
Have you ever been faced with a similar opportunity to
debrief your group’s performance?How do
the debriefings typically go?Are you in
a position to change the format?Who speaks
first?How can you demonstrate humility
and increase ownership in your next debrief?
I’m glad to be here and I am very appreciative
of your support.I hope you find this
content beneficial for your own development.If you do, please feel free to recommend this page to your peers.
In this post, we examine the Asch Conformity Experiment and how members of a group respond to in-group pressures. Whatever we do in our vocation or avocation, we usually do it in a group setting. After watching the video, I wondered what the findings from this experiment might have to do with leadership and group decision-making. The more I thought about it, the more relevant is became. To me, this experiment communicates the need for leaders to be well educated and trained in their craft. It also suggests how important integrity and humility are in leadership. Often, it is the leader who speaks first, the one providing direction, or setting the tone. What happens if that person is wrong? Will others blindly follow? This experiment shows us just how bad that can be. Subordinate members of the group may be reluctant to speak up. This type of blind conformity could lead to some very bad outcomes if not understood.
Have you ever been in a situation where you were sure you knew better but felt like you couldn’t speak up? Does your organizational culture (i.e., military/para-military rank structure) make communication difficult? What risks might you encounter if your junior members aren’t allowed/encouraged to speak their own thoughts?
Imposter syndrome is the false notion that you are somehow not equipped to provide meaningful contributions in your line of work. This is both an individual and a leadership concern. From the individual perspective, are you limiting your potential based on a perceived lack of knowledge or confidence? How can you overcome this? From a leadership perspective, how many of your subordinates are self-limiting based on their perceived lack of knowledge or confidence? What can you do to help them thrive in their position and grow in your organization? In addition to the above, think how this might apply to job descriptions, applications, interviews, and promotions? Line versus officer, enlisted versus commissioned, degreed versus experienced, manager versus specialist/technician, does your organizational culture perpetuate this self-limiting notion?
Often, we hear that leadership is somehow associated with a position or a rank. In truth, anyone can be a leader, at any level, within a given organization or group.
It is somewhat fitting that I start off with this
video.In this experiment, Volkswagen
engineers wanted to see if they could get more people to take the stairs by
making it fun to do so.Think how the
results of this rather simple experiment can be applied to leadership and learning.What can you do to make your work/academic
environment more fun?Can you remove
barriers to fun?Slight improvements in
working/academic environments can have huge impacts in employee/student
engagement and productivity.
It is my intention to make learning, psychology, and
leadership fun.Many of my posts will
follow this format – some sort of content and some reflective questions.I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but
I am willing to start a discussion with some interesting questions.