We can do this together, as a team!

15.1 FORMING DESIGN TEAMS

Design is an activity that is increasingly done by teams rather than by individuals acting alone. For example, product development teams include designers, manufacturing engineers, and marketing experts. These teams are assembled to bring together the diverse skills, experiences, and viewpoints needed to design, manufacture, and sell new products successfully. This dependence on teams is not surprising if we reflect on the design process (and its various stages) and design tools we have discussed in this book: Many of the activities and methods are devoted to achieving and acting on a common understanding of a design issue. Consider, for example, the difference between testing a structure in a laboratory and analyzing it with a computer model. While both activities require knowledge of structural mechanics, years of investment are required to master either the specific testing and laboratory skills or the right analysis and computer skills. We can achieve a lot when we assemble teams whose members bring their individual skills to work together successfully. We now briefly describe how teams form and perform, and how we can use this understanding to help with the design process.

15.1.1 Stages of Group Formation

Groups and teams are such an important element of human enterprise that they have been extensively studied and modeled. One of the most useful models of group formation suggests that groups undergo five stages of development that have been memorably named as:

• forming;
• storming;
• norming;
• performing; and
• adjourning.

We will use this five-stage model to describe some of the elements of group dynamics that are often encountered in engineering design projects.

Forming: Most of us experience a number of feelings simultaneously when we are initially assigned to a team or group. These feelings range from excitement and anticipation to anxiety and concern. We may worry about our ability—or that of our teammates—to perform the tasks asked of us. We may be concerned about who will show the leadership needed to accomplish the job. We may be so eager to get started that we rush into assignments and activities before we are really ready to begin. Each of these feelings and concerns are elements of the forming stage of group development, which has been characterized by a number of aspects and behaviors, such as:

• becoming oriented to the (design) task at hand;
• becoming acquainted with the other members of the team;
• testing group behaviors in an attempt to determine if there are common viewpoints and values;
• depending upon whoever is believed to be “in charge” of the project or task; and
• attempting to define some initial ground rules, usually by reference to explicitly stated or externally imposed rules.

In this stage, the team members may often do or say things that reflect their uncertainties and anxieties. It is important to recognize this because judgments made in the forming stage may not prove to be valid over the life of a project.

Storming: After the initial or forming stage, most groups come to understand that they will have to take an active role in defining the project and the tasks needed to complete it. At this point the team may resist or even resent the assignment, and it may challenge established roles and norms. This period of group development is known as the storming phase and is often marked by intense conflict as team members decide for themselves where the leadership and power of the team will lie, and what roles they must individually play. At the same time, the team will usually be redefining the project and tasks, and discussing opinions about the directions the team should explore. Some characteristics of the storming phase are:

• resistance to externally imposed task demands;
• interpersonal conflict;
• disagreement, often without apparent resolution; and
• a struggle for group leadership.

The storming phase is particularly important for the design team because there is often already a high level of uncertainty and ambiguity about client and user needs. Some team members may want to rush to solutions and will consider a more thoughtful exploration of the design space simply as a waste of time. At the same time, most design teams will not have as clear a leadership structure as, for example, a construction, manufacturing, or even a research project. It is important for effective teams to recognize when the team is spending too long in the storming phase and to encourage all team members to move to the next phases, norming and performing.

Norming: At some point, most groups do agree on ways of working together and on acceptable behaviors, or norms, for the group. This important period in the group's formation defines whether, for example, the group will insist that all members attend meetings, whether insulting or other disrespectful remarks will be tolerated, and whether or not team members will be held to high or low standards for acceptable work. It is particularly important that team members understand and agree to the outcome of this so-called norming phase because it may well determine both the tone and the quality of subsequent work. Some indicators of the norming phase include:

• roles in the group are clarified;
• informal leadership emerges;
• a consensus on group behaviors and norms develops; and
• a consensus on the group's activities and purpose emerges.

Significantly, norming is often the stage at which members decide just how seriously they are going to take the project. As such, it is important for team members who want a successful outcome to recognize that simply ignoring unacceptable behavior or poor work products will not be productive. For many teams, the norms of behavior that are established during the norming stage become the basis for the remainder of the project.

Many organizations use the team charter discussed in Chapter 16 to document or formalize the norms of the team, and to also articulate the overall scope and time scale of the project.

Performing: After the team has passed through the forming, storming, and norming stages, it reaches the stage of actively working on its project. This is the performing phase—the stage that most teams hope to reach. Here team members focus their energies on the tasks themselves, conduct themselves in accordance with the established norms of the group, and generate useful solutions to the problems they face. Attributes of the performing phase include:

• clearly understood roles and tasks;
• well-defined norms that support the overall goals of the project;
• sufficient interest and energy to accomplish tasks; and
• the development of solutions and results.

This is the stage of team development in which it becomes possible for the goals of the team to be fully realized.

Adjourning: The last phase that teams typically pass through is referred to as adjourning. This stage is reached when the group has accomplished its tasks and is preparing to disband. Depending on the extent to which the group has forged its own identity, this stage may be marked by members feeling regret that they will no longer be working together. Some team members may act out some of these concerns in ways that are not consistent with the group's prior norms. These feelings of regret typically emerge after teams (or any groups) have been working together for a very long time.

One final point about these stages of group formation should be made. Teams will typically pass through each of them at least once. If the team undertakes significant changes in composition or structure, such as a change in membership, or a change in team leadership, it is likely that the team will revisit the storming and norming phases again.

15.1.2 Team Dynamics and Design Process Activities

Our discussion of group formation helps us to understand how teams operate during the overall design process; it also provides insight into why some activities seem to succeed while others fail. Consider two activities that almost all design teams undertake: idea generation and report writing.

Teams that understand group dynamics are better equipped to choose good times to do team activities (e.g., the structured brainstorming we described in Chapter 2). In the forming and storming phases of team formation, members are likely still developing trust and confidence in each other. Indeed, the team as a whole may be trying to define the purpose of the project, while individual team members are worrying about their own roles in achieving that common purpose. The team may not yet agree on how seriously to take the project's initial goals, so it is likely not yet time to generate ideas as a group. On the other hand, during the norming stage, the team is developing a consensus about appropriate behavior, which makes respect-based techniques such as brainstorming possible. But perhaps the best time for a team to engage successfully in idea generation is during the performing stage.

Understanding team dynamics can also have a significant effect when the team is writing reports or preparing other documentation. In school and in practice, most engineers have had considerable experience in writing papers by themselves: We have all written term papers, technical memoranda, and lab reports. Documenting a design in a team setting is fundamentally different than writing a paper or lab report alone, because of our dependence on coauthors, on the technical demands, and on the need to ensure a uniform style. And, remember, final reports and other documents and presentations now reflect on the team as a whole and on each team member.

When writing as a team, we can only be sure what others are writing if all of our writing assignments and their associated content are explicit. Every team member should be involved in preparing outlines and rough drafts because they are essential to a team's success. Outline making in particular should be a team activity to ensure that every team member understands the overall flow of the paper, no matter how much each will write. It clarifies responsibilities and needs for cooperation that don't occur when individuals write alone.

Allocating work fairly doesn't guarantee the ultimate quality of a team's work products. Each team member should read draft reports carefully, and each team member must be allowed sufficient time to read and process draft materials at his own speed. No one on the team should be exempt from reading the final report drafts. The lead editor must listen to the individual needs of the team members, and they in turn need to speak up if they require time or any other resource to work on the report. This is clearly easier in an atmosphere of respect and trust. Equally important, the team must maintain an atmosphere in which the comments and suggestions of others are treated with respect and consideration. Given the pressure under which teams prepare final deliverables, the atmosphere tests the team's culture and attitudes. Teams need to closely monitor and carefully manage their interpersonal relationships.

Oral presentations also depend on successful team dynamics. Teams need to divide up work fairly, allowing every member to share in both the work and the glory. Team members should recognize that other members may be presenting their work. In some cases, the presenter of a particular piece of the project may have had little to do with the element of the work being presented, or may even have opposed that approach. Once again, then, the central issues here are: the need for every member to be familiar with everything the team has done; and team members must act appropriately and with mutual respect. Fortunately, final presentations come as projects end, by which time the team should have been in the performing stage for some time.

15.2 CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT: ENJOYING A GOOD FIGHT

Some degree of conflict is an inevitable by-product of people working together to accomplish tasks. Much of this conflict is healthy, a necessary part of exchanging ideas, comparing alternatives, and resolving differences of opinion. Conflict can, however, be unpleasant and unhealthy to a group, and it can result in some team members feeling shut out or unwanted by the rest of the group. A solid understanding of the ideas of constructive and destructive conflict is an essential starting point for team-based projects. Even in those cases where team members have been exposed to conflict management skills and tools, it is useful to review them at the start of every project.

The notion of constructive conflict had its origins in research on management conducted by Mary Parker Follett in the 1920s. She observed that the essential element underlying all conflict is a set of differences: differences of opinion, differences of interests, differences of underlying desires, and so on. Conflict is unavoidable in interpersonal settings, so it should be understood and used to increase the effectiveness of all of the people involved. To be useful, however, conflict must be constructive. Constructive conflict is usually based in the realm of ideas or values. On the other hand, destructive conflict is usually based on the personalities of the people involved. If we were to list situations where conflict is useful or healthy, we might find such items as “generating new ideas” or “exposing alternative viewpoints.” A similar list of situations in which conflict reduces a team's effectiveness would likely include items such as “hurting feelings” or “reducing respect for others.”

Teams ought to recognize and understand the difference between destructive, personality-based conflict and constructive, idea-based conflict. While a team is establishing norms—and even before these have been formalized or agreed to in the “norming” phase—it should establish some basic ground rules that prohibit destructive conflict and enforce them by responding if these rules are violated. Effective teams do not permit destructive conflict, including insults, personally denigrating remarks, or other such behaviors. If a team doesn't address this from the outset, it invites destructive conflict to become part of the team's culture.

Once we note this difference between constructive and destructive conflict, it is useful to recognize various ways that people react to and resolve conflict. Five basic strategies for resolving conflicts have been identified:

• avoidance: ignoring the conflict and hoping it will go away;
• smoothing: allowing the desires of the other party to win out in der to avoid the conflict;
• forcing: imposing a solution on the other party;
• compromise: attempting to meet the other party “halfway”; and
• constructive engagement: determining the underlying desire of all the parties and then seeking ways to realize them.

The first three of these strategies—avoidance, smoothing, and forcing—turn on the notion of somehow making the conflict “go away.” Avoidance rarely works, and serves to undercut the other party's respect for the person who is hiding from the conflict. Smoothing may be appropriate for matters where one or both of the parties in conflict really don't care about the issue at hand, but it will not work if the dispute is over serious, important matters. Once again, the respect of the person “giving in” may become lost over time. Forcing is only likely to be effective if the power relationships are clear, such as in a “boss-subordinate” situation, and even then, the effects on morale and future participation may be very negative. Compromise, which is a first choice for many people, is actually a very risky strategy for teams and groups. At its core, it assumes that the dispute is over the “amount” or “degree” of something, rather than on a true underlying principle or difference. While this may work in cases such as labor rates or times allocated for something, it is not likely to be effective in matters such as choosing between two competing design alternatives. (We cannot, for example, compromise between a tunnel and bridge by building a suspension tunnel.) Even in those cases where compromise is possible, we should expect that the conflict is likely to reoccur after some period of time. Labor and management, for example, often compromise on wages, only to find themselves revisiting that same ground as soon as the next contract opens up. Thus, constructive conflict is the only idea that holds the possibility of stable solutions to important conflicts.

Constructive conflict takes the notion of identifying “the underlying desire” as its starting point. Each side must reflect on what it truly wants from a conflict and honestly report that to the other parties. Each side must also listen carefully to what the other party really wants. In many cases, the conflict is based not on the seeming problem, but rather on the fact that each party's underlying desires are different.

Follett told the following anecdote. She was working in a library at Harvard on a wintry day, with the windows closed. Another person came into the room and immediately opened one of the windows. This set the stage for a conflict—and for finding a way to resolve that conflict. Each of the five resolution alternatives outlined above was available, but most of them were unacceptable. Doing nothing or smoothing would have left Ms. Follett uncomfortably cold. Compromising by opening the window halfway did not appear to be a viable alternative. Instead, she chose to speak with the other person and express her desire to keep the window closed in order to avoid the chill and draft. The other party agreed that this was a good thing, but noted that the room was very stuffy, which in turn bothered his sinuses. Both agreed to look for a reasonable solution to their underlying desires. They were fortunate to find that an adjacent work area also had windows that could be opened, thus allowing fresh air to enter indirectly without creating a draft. Obviously, this solution was possible only because the configuration of the library allowed it. Nevertheless, they would not have even looked for this outcome except for their willingness to discuss their underlying desires. There are many cases where this will not work, such as when two people wish to each marry the same third person. There are, however, many cases where constructive engagement can succeed in enlarging the solution space available to the parties in conflict and heightening the understanding and respect of the other party. Even if a team is forced to revert to one of the “win–lose” strategies, it should always start by considering constructive engagement for resolving important conflicts.

15.3 LEADING DESIGN TEAMS

Most teams specify individuals as leaders at some point. Leadership roles can range from being the overall leader of the design effort to holding responsibility for a particular task, such as sanding the prototype in time for a major presentation. In this section, we look first at some key concepts associated with effective leadership. We will see that the concepts of team leadership and team membership are very closely tied together and can be understood using the notion of roles. We then look at some of the key roles that team members play in a successful team, and at how these roles are themselves leadership positions.

15.3.1 Leadership and Membership in Teams

Most of us have had the experience of working with both very effective and very ineffective leaders. Whether in a school setting, sports, a workplace, or some social activity, we encounter people acting as leaders. Our personal experience helps us to identify the behaviors exhibited by successful leaders and by unsuccessful leaders. We can draw several important lessons by thinking carefully about these behaviors and characteristics, and perhaps the most important of these is this: Effective leaders are not so much the result of having the “right” attributes as behaving in the “right” way. We will return to this point later in this section.

If we were asked to make a list of the behaviors and characteristics of effective leaders we have experienced, we might identify items such as being:

• open to other viewpoints;
• dedicated to the team's success;
• respectful of others;
• decisive, but only after considering all points of view;
• willing to do their share of the work; and
• knowledgeable about the team's subject.

Similarly, on a list of the behaviors and characteristics of ineffective leaders we have encountered, we might include:

• being closed-minded;
• bullying;
• expecting others to do more than the leader is doing;
• exhibiting interest only in their own field or topics; and
• not being respectful of others.

We could easily produce much longer lists of effective and ineffective leadership behaviors, but even these very short lists allow us to make some important observations. First, notice that what we hope to encounter in effective leaders is related to things they do rather that who or what they are. This suggests that effective leaders are made rather than born: We can each learn and practice actions and behaviors that make our team more effective.

Note too that the behaviors on our short lists, while recognizing technical knowledge, are not limited to technical skills. To use an analogy from sports, the highest scorer may not be best team captain. At the same time, understanding the scope and skills needed to complete the project cannot be overlooked. Successful team leaders need to have deep enough knowledge to understand and advance the project, and be able to respect the knowledge of others on the team.

Which brings us to a third point to note: Both lists have elements about listening to, respecting, and considering the viewpoints of others on the team. This suggests that we need to develop and practice “people skills” to be effective leaders. These “people skills” are often referred to as the soft skills of good engineers and designers, and they are much sought by industry.

Finally, it is instructive to notice that the behaviors of ineffective team leaders are not the behaviors we would want team members to exhibit. It is hard to imagine saying that “A is an excellent team member because he is a closed-minded bully.” In fact, the behaviors we find in effective team leaders tend to be the same ones we find in effective team members. This suggests that some of the distinction between leadership and membership is artificial and related to team roles. If someone acts as the editor of the team's final report, is that person being a leader? The foregoing analysis would suggest that they are. One of the great opportunities provided by design projects in general, and student projects in particular, is that we can try out new roles and grow our leadership skills.

15.3.2 Personal Behavior and Roles in Team Settings

Because of the importance of teams in modern organizations, there are many formal models of roles and behaviors on teams. One approach that some engineering managers and educators have found useful is to focus on four behaviors that are critical to team success: communication, decision making, collaboration, and self-management. The importance of effective communication, for example, seems pretty obvious if we consider the need for each person to present to their teams and clients their problems, approaches, and solutions to the tasks for which they are responsible. Similarly, we need to be able to understand what other team members are working on and contribute to their activities. Nevertheless, most of us have personal experience with people who “just don't listen” or are so focused on their own contributions that they are planning their next remark while we are still speaking.

TABLE 15.1 Critical behaviors and roles individuals can perform in teams

From McGourty and DeMeuse (2001).

McGourty and DeMeuse have linked these critical behaviors to particular roles that individuals can play on the team, as shown in Table 15.1. Communication can be enhanced, for example, by taking on the role of active listener, in which we not only sit quietly while another person is speaking, but engage in actions that get them to clarify and explain their topic. Similarly, effective decision making requires people to analyze the situation, seek appropriate information to support the decision, and develop new ideas or alternatives. We have examined approaches to managing conflict earlier in this chapter, and we can see in this model a context for that discussion.

This approach to team behavior and roles raises an interesting opportunity for us as team members, even during the forming stage at the very beginning of a project. We can examine our own skills in light of the various roles and behaviors they support, determining what roles we like to play, which ones we are good at, and also which ones we want to improve upon. Going into a project with an open and honest personal appraisal makes us much likely to appreciate others, and gives us a framework to grow as a team member.

15.4 NOTES

Section 15.1: The model of group formation described here was initially developed by Tuckman (1965).

Section 15.2: Follett's essay introducing constructive engagement is reprinted in Graham (1996).

Section 15.3: Table 15.1 is taken from McGourty and DeMeuse (2001).