Constructive Conflict Team Training: Demo and Empirical Evidence

1. Presented By: Tom O’Neill, phd Genevieve Hoffart Collaborators: Matt McLarnon, msc MarjanEggermont, ba, mfa William Rosehart, phd Robert Brennan, phd Constructive Conflict Team Training: Demo and Empirical Evidence

2. - Industrial and Organizational Psychology - Specialize in team effectiveness - Director of the Individual and Team Performance Lab - With such a big lab, we are able to take on large projects within the ENG department. Individual & Team Performance Lab 2013-2014

3. Acknowledgements Social sciences and humanities research council of canada (SSHRC) awarded to o’neill Suncor design chair awarded to rosehart& brennan Individual and Team performance lab Dept of psychology

4. Workshop Overview Team Training Empirical Findings Widespread Implementation

5. INTRO to TEAMS Presented by Dr. Tom O’Neill Department of Psychology With HELP FROM the Individual and Team Performance Lab

6. Why should I pay attention? • Higher team performance • Development of your skills as a team player • You will be evaluating your team members as a part of your lab grade

7. One way or another, teamwork will find you…

8. …and you won’t be able to avoid it

9. What are we covering today? WELCOME TO Population: You Intro to Teams Team Conflict Team Dynamics Constructive Controversy Peer Evaluation

10. The Up Side The Dark Side • Work distribution • Social loafing • Personal Conflict • Personality clashes • Unique information • Unique ideas = innovation! • Extended resources • Shared workload

11. 2. Types of Conflict: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

12. TASK CONFLICT during decision-making:“The Good” Disagreements about: Viewpoints Ideas Opinions Perspectives Related to the CONTENT of the TASK

13. PROCESS CONFLICT:“The Bad” “Being on the same page about how the work will get done and who will do it” Disagreements about: Deciding on plans for task execution, timelines Assigning member roles and responsibilities

14. RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT:“The Ugly” I can’t work like this! You’re impossible! Interpersonal: Tension Friction Annoyance Animosity Resentment …among team members

15. HIGHEST GRADES LOWEST GRADES You want to be HERE!

16. The “Ideal”

17. The “Runner Up”

18. The “Could Be Worse”

19. The “Ineffective”

20. We want to see more teams move away from the Ineffective

21. CONSTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSY Getting closer to the ideal

22. Stages of Constructive Controversy Rip off Pages 1-4 of your training packages

24. “S.U.I.T.” Up Share Understand Integrate Team Decision

25. 1. SHARE INFORMATION • Throw ALLyour ideas out for consideration during brainstorming sessions • Develop multiple, unique ideas • Express different ideas, especially when they are againstthe majority

26. 2. UNDERSTAND IDEAS • Explore all the presented ideas in detail • Questionand analyze all the ideas and opinions • Make sure you fully understand and that the team has fully consideredeach other’s views and ideas

27. 3. INTEGRATE VIEWS • Make an effort to integratedistinct ideas to create new and innovative solutions • Remember it is not a competition of ideas • Put aside your feelings in order to integrate views for the best possible solution

28. 4. TEAM DECISION • Make sure everyoneis in agreement • Commit to and implementthe decision • Revisit step 1 or 2 to make sure the best decision is being made if needed

29. “S.U.I.T.” Up Share Understand Integrate Team Decision

30. Role Play • Scenario 2 – C/D • Team members with Role C and Role D will be in the 2nd role play • Team members with Role A and Role B will just observe Scenario 1 – A/B Team members with Role A and Role B will be in the 1st role play Team members with Role C and Role D will just observe

31. Role Play 1. READ your Character It says SUIT up next to your role if you are managing the conflict 2. EXPLAIN your Character Tell the observers about your character background 3. TAKE TURNS reading your scripts It states who starts each role play IMPORTANT! If you are assigned the role with the 4th step – Team Decision, you will need to work through that dialogue alone.

32. “S.U.I.T.” Up Share Understand Integrate Team Decision

33. Empirical Evidence Our research program

34. Working with Engineering Students… Actual response we received on one of the surveys While it has it’s challenges… Engineering students offer an ideal situation to study team dynamics

35. Background

36. Background The Runner Up The Ideal The Could Be Worse The Ineffective

37. We want to see more teams move away from the Ineffective

38. What did we do? In September 2013, the ITP Lab created and administered team training to first year engineering students from the Schulich School of Engineering.

39. What did we do? Following the training, a sample of 629 ENG 200 students completed team dynamics survey Resulted in 177 useable TEAMS for analysis.

41. More Results

42. More Results

43. Summary The profiles are real… …And the training works!

44. Next Steps WIDESPREAD APPLICATION AND ONGOING KNOWLEDGE GENERATION

45. Simplifying As much as Genevieve loved sorting and organizing all these training and survey packages… Creation of online training materials, team assessment and feedback forms, etc.

46. Distributed Team Effectiveness

47. Distributed Team Communication • Communication mode/media choice • Communication norms • Meeting management Team 1 Class Avg LowModerateHigh

48. Mailing List Sign Up! Receive updates and access to our team assessment and training materials! Contact us: itplcalgary@gmail.com

49. Thank You. Questions?