NO PLAGIARISM…At least 150 words each response…please do not just say “good job”…please go in depth on the content of their post and cite all references used. At least 1 reference required.
Working in a group can be very challenging and has always been my least favorite thing to do in undergrad. After watching Creative Teams and Creative Conflicts I realized that this group struggled to get their ideas moving because they didn’t identify roles for each member and they failed to actively listen to each other. I immediately noticed the different characteristics and styles when approaching a project. I felt like this was the biggest set back for the group. I would suggest that they task everyone a specific role. For example, Marco was very detailed oriented, therefore, he could be the reviewer of the group; to ensure that they completed all tasks and didn’t miss steps. Anna who has a vivid imagination and enjoyed reading could’ve been assigned the role of turning the groups plan into something more creative and/or reader friendly. To implement this suggestion I would have a list of roles prefixed and I would allow the team to pick who they believe should work in each role. Another suggestion is that the team get clearer directions. This team differs psychologically. Puccio (2011) stated that psychological diversity is the difference in how people organize and process information as an expression of their thinking styles and personality traits. While psychological diversity can be beneficial to the group because they’ll constantly have different ideas being formed it can also hinder them as seen in the media. Marco had a lot of questions that needed clarification before he felt comfortable moving on and some of the other team members like Max could’ve benefited from some more concrete instructions before he jumped into starting something without knowing if thats the direction he should have taken. To fix this problem I believe they should schedule a meeting with the manager overseeing the project to have all of their questions answered before moving forward. A third suggestion would be to actively listen to each other. At one point it seemed as though everyone was trying to prove why another person’s idea wouldn’t work. Instead I think they should actively listen and not just listen to reply. By doing this they would be able to properly build on each others ideas and eventually come to an agreement on what they would like to do. To implement this I would allow each person to first write a draft of how they would like to take on the project and then allow them to share their plan with the group without interruptions.
If I were asked to lead this team I would provide them with structure. I like the fact that this group is so diverse. Puccio (2012) stated that the more diverse the workforce the the more likely it would be to be innovative. I believe that to be true and the required media proves it to be true. Each member of the group had great suggestions that would allow the team to propel into a great digital cookbook. However, they had no structure and was left to figure things out on their own which caused frustration and doubt. If they had things such as deadlines and what the company was looking for with each idea it would help guide their thinking.
Laurete Education (Producer).(2012f). creative teams and creative conflicts.
Puccio, G.J., Mance,M., Murdock, M.C., (2011). Psychological Diversity: Leading people with different styles. In Puccio, Mance, and Murdock, creative leadership: skills that drive change.(pp 241-264).
The team in this week’s media piece exemplified the four creative thinking styles from Pritchard’s work stating, “Research showed four distinct styles of creative thinking: Clarifying, Ideating, Developing and Implementing” (Prichard, 2013). I deem this true because of the many parallels that lie between the manner in which I related to the individual approaches toward creativity from the team in this week’s media when compared to Prichard’s research in creative thinking. Max the implementer and his creative style were closely related to the Ideating creative thinking style mentioned in Prichard’s work. Catrin the developer was similar to Prichard’s Developing style. Marco the Clarifier and Ann the Ideator matched in verbiage mentioned by Prichard. In Prichard’s article it states, “Outline the four stages of problem solving clarifying the situation, generating ideas, developing solutions, and implementing the plan” (Prichard, 2013). This was not the case for the team in this week’s media. Instead, each member enacted their characteristics, as described during the presentation, which created an imbalance, loss of direction, and misalignment within the group’s dynamic. As Pritchard points out it is important to find structure and order to reinforce the direction and stages of problem solving. Each team member provided great ideas in their own regard to solving the e-book situation individually, but as a group they clashed and butted heads in many different ways. This is all attributed to the lack of leadership within the team dynamic to promote, “Risk tolerance, fostering debate and communication, allowing time for playing with ideas, encouraging a mix of diversity of thought and experience when putting together teams, and managing organizational change ““that”” are all key building blocks in creating a positive culture for innovation” (Prichard, 2013). Without these building blocks in place we encounter problems similar to our team example in this week’s media piece where good ideas within conflicting creative styles can create havoc within the group. Lastly, I would like to make mention that the group was not able to reach a consensus toward innovative creativity because they were not able to utilize the 4-Power Innovation strategy. This strategy is described as, “Clarify- Pinpoint the problem to solve, Ideate- Come up with new ideas, Develop- Refine ideas into strong solutions, and Implement- Put the plan into action” (Puccio, 2013). I believe the problem stemmed from the group’s inability to clarify and pinpoint exactly which problem the team needed to solve. I do not find this coincidental due to the fact that I, myself, related more toward Marco the Clarifier and his approach to innovative and creative thinking.
If I were to lead the group, I would implement better means of communication for the team. It is important to remember that we, as leaders, “Should be aware that cognitive style differences can impact effective communication in teams” (Puccio, 2011, p.14). Also, as leaders, we must, “recognize that the cognitive style differences, not misguided motives, may be the cause of the communication problems” (Puccio, 2011, p.14). This means of better communication and leadership would enable the usage of outlining the four stages of problem solving to provide better and more positive communication toward reaching our goal. By locating the structure and order within the group, we reinforce the direction and stages of problem solving which will be also be implemented and moderated through means of higher level communication. Finally, utilization of the 4-Power Innovation strategy will also be implemented with better communication. Even though I stated that communication will be key in successfully implementing and adopting these three techniques, I also would like to mention that, “The more a leader lets go of the illusion of command and control to get into the trenches and adopt a facilitative, collaborative style emphasizing diversity of thought and shared-ownership, the more likely he or she is to have a positive culture of engaged, enthusiastic team members committed to success” (Prichard, 2013). This is the reason why we, as leaders, must “Get into the trenches,” as stated by Pritchard to create the positive cultural balance and side that was lacking from the team from this week’s media.
I would utilize the strategies from Creative leadership: Skills that drive change by enabling, “Individuals to identify the degree of energy they have for four different process preferences” (Puccio, 2011, p.15). Puccio mentions that the Clarifiers are more focused, Ideators are playful, Developers are perfectionists, and that Implementers are persistent. I believe the way that I would manage the team in our media this week would be by allowing Ann the Ideator to run wild in with her imagination to come up with innovative and fresh ideas without any pushback. As a check and balance system Marco would be in charge of risk-assessment to make the team aware of all potential pitfalls that we might encounter as a team. Carin would be an ideal candidate to use her logic and developmental skills to systematically put the pieces of our e-book project together. Max would also be a great piece of the puzzle to work with every team member throughout the course of the project and to help expedite each stage of the process with his “Just do it” creativity and mentality. By assigning pieces of the project to each team member, we provide a better climate in which roles and duties are established and each team member can work to their fullest potential and maximize their individual contributions to the team. It is still very important to recall the words of wisdom from Prichard which I mentioned earlier stating, “The more a leader lets go of the illusion of command and control to get into the trenches and adopt a facilitative, collaborative style emphasizing diversity of thought and shared-ownership, the more likely he or she is to have a positive culture of engaged, enthusiastic team members committed to success” (Prichard, 2013).
Manuel Adrian Barbosa
Prichard, S. (n.d.) What creative style are you? Retrieved October 5, 2013, from http://www.skipprichard.com/which-creative-style-a…
Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2011). Psychological diversity: Leading people with different styles. In Puccio, Mance, & Murdock, Creative leadership: Skills that drive change (pp. 241–264). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.