Team Dynamics & Ethics

If there is one thing I learned from my forbidden Island game experience with my teammates, it is what Phil Jackson said, ‘the strength of the team is each individual member. The strength of each member is the team.’ Our team dynamics during the game attests to the truth of that statement. Our team was simultaneously weakened, and strengthened by this principle.

Group Formation

In the first round of the game, although we had read the rules of the game, we were all unsure of how to execute the instructions, so the member who had previous exposure to the game, emerged as the natural leader of the group. During this team forming stage, members were mostly subdued, and compliant, as we were all trying to establish what the rules of engagement were.

Although we had worked together as a team before, group norms had not yet been established. During this round, we established some norms and values such as deciding how much we would stick to the game rules. It was determined that we would follow the rules of the game even if it meant that we lost the game. We adhered to these values for all consecutive plays, even when it meant that we were the worst performing team in the class by losing all 3 games.

Roles and responsibilities within the team were also cemented as people’s strengths and weaknesses became more apparent.

2nd Round
In the second round, when people had to play for points, people’s motivators became really evident. We had one self professed “coin operated” team member, who was driven to get as many points as possible, even if it meant that the choices they made were not strategic; and another member who advocated working for the team, even at the cost of earning points.

The differing attitudes, and actions within the team revealed McClelland’s theory of needs at play. One member had a need for achievement while the other had a need for power, and the rest of the members had a need for affiliation. The member with the need for power assumed the role of leader and scorekeeper for all rounds of the game, and continues to do so for all team interactions. The member with the need for achievement exhibited competitive behavior in all game plays. The other two members tend to go with the flow, and do whatever it takes to keep the peace.

During the second round, there was potential for group ‘storming’ as differences of opinion began to emerge. The member with the need for power was so vocal about their disapproval of those playing for points, until those members decided to comply. I believe that since most people knew we would have to work as a team for the rest of the semester, they decided team cohesion was more important than winning one game. The interesting part to this session was seeing how the group defaulted to the dominant member’s opinion, and eventually all members complied. At this point the group became one, uniting towards the common goal of keeping the peace, rather than winning the game. Everyone decided to play it safe, and not rock the boat. This set a precedent for all subsequent team interactions.

By the end of the second round, people were no longer expressing their true feelings. Everyone was just trying to get along. In one sense, the group had lost its power. The group had became one, stifling individual expression and creativity. I believe that if the team had fostered an environment that promoted individuality, we would have done better in the third round of the game. Instead of blending in to a less competitive culture, the ‘coin operated’ member who is driven by incentives and rewards would have pushed harder to earn us more points as a team.

In a recent article, James Turley, the Ernst & Young CEO commented on diversity, asking “Do you have a culture that brings the ideas to the center of the table from all these different perspectives? Or do have a culture that keeps the ideas bottled up? And if you have the former, where all the ideas come in, that’s where all the magic happens and innovation occurs. If you have the latter, there is where disaster occurs." Even though our group results were nowhere near disastrous, we did not create an environment that brought out the best in everyone by tapping into their individual motivators. I believe that the holy grail of teams is creating an environment that fosters both unique expression and group cohesion. When unique expression is stifled, the value of diversity is lost, and yet without cohesion, the value of having a team is lost.
Ethics within the group

Interestingly, having a homogenous group mentality resulted in a more favorable outcome where ethics were concerned. Since the group had decided to take the high road, and follow the game rules at all costs, the more competitive members, who would have been more inclined to cut corners, also adopted higher ethical standards. Establishing high ethical standards has created trust within the group. Knowing that team members hold themselves to high standards has instilled confidence in the team and fortified some form of group cohesion even outside the class.

Organizational culture, will therefore determine the ethics standards that individuals live up to. It is critical for leaders to set the standard in this area because organizational values and culture trickle down from the top. A Canadian company, SNC Lavalin was recently banned from World Bank projects because of unethical practices at the executive level. The company was banned from working on any bank projects because of high-level bribery. Lack of ethics in an organization can tarnish the company image, and create huge revenue losses, as exemplified by SNC-Lavalin’s high stakes project loss. It is highly likely that for this to occur, there must not have been high levels of ethics within the organization at large – at least not on the executive level.

3rd Round
By this time the group culture had been established. We were a united, ethical group working harmoniously towards being the best team in the class. Members were genuinely looking out for one another, and we were sharing strategies. However, I believe that since members felt that they could not freely express themselves, some members disengaged, and only showed superficial enthusiasm for the game. This resulted in an accelerated end to the game. Fools landing sunk before we seized all the treasure.

Conclusion
The key take away from the game for me, was the need for members to encourage genuine member engagement in teams in order to extract the most value from collaboration. There are some superordinate goals that can only be accomplished through collaboration, yet there is a need for effective team management in order to create the synergy needed to reach those goals. Knowing what I know now, I will now balance my need for affiliation, with a need for achievement, and not sacrifice effectiveness for the sake of getting along.

I realize that the different opinions within a group can be an asset , if well managed, and that it is every team member’s role to step up when they feel that goals are not being accomplished. In order to create a collaborative team, each member has to have an equal share of voice in determining the goals and culture of the team.
The group lost its strength when some members disengaged, and yet some members gained strength to do the right thing by being in the group.
Bibliography
* Johns, G., & Saks, A.M. (2011). Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life at Work (8th ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada Inc. * Ernst & Young CEO James Turley on diversity, women in biz, regulatory reform: John Burr; Michael Clinton; Jacksonville Business Journal Online; © 2013 American City Business Journals, Inc

* World Bank blacklists Canada's SNC-Lavalin; (April 2013) Agence France Presse; Copyright Agence France-Presse, 2013 * Successful Application of Organizational Behavior: Starbucks. (2009) .n.p. SeaZone. Retrieved 27/02/2013 from Yahoo Finance. http://voices.yahoo.com/successful-application-organizational-behavior-2435551.html?cat=3

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Ernst & Young CEO James Turley on diversity, women in biz, regulatory reform: John Burr; Michael Clinton; Jacksonville Business Journal Online; © 2013 American City Business Journals, Inc