Team autonomy, groupthink, and performance at Advert agency

¶ … team to be autonomous in decision-making provides a more open atmosphere for problem discussion and solution, Advert's team was far too autonomous. While the members of the team were bright, experienced hard workers, they were not equally versed in the company for whom they would be producing the commercial. Clearly, Advert had not even bothered to brief them on the company's history and desires. While the team should have been given enough autonomy to make a decision, checkpoints should have been in place. This could have saved Advert, the client, and the team quite a bit of distress in the long run. If Advert had asked to see preliminary ideas before allowing the group to hire a company to shoot the commercial and actors, then the top managers could have gently steered the group in the right direction, without a financial loss. Other ways that Advert could have limited autonomy while still allowing the team to make enough personal decisions to keep them creative would have been to implement a series of rules on the team. For instance, they could have suggested that Derek be made the team leader since he had worked with the client more than any other team member. If Advert had wanted to avoid making this decision in order to foster team camaraderie, they could have required team members to look at each other's bios before beginning to work together, mentioning Derek's experience in the bio.

In addition to being too autonomous, other factors that influenced the team's poor performance included personality types, and the psychological concept known as group think. Clearly the dominant personality type in this group was Conner. Like any savvy businessperson should be, he was bright, confident, and ready to take a risk with a new idea, but the problem lay in the fact that this team had only one Conner. Although Alexis initially spoke up, her personality types favored compatibility over conflict, and she eventually relented. Advert could have responded to this problem through making the group more evenly matched in personality types that were likely to contribute to the debate. Also, once a few people agreed with Conner's decision, the rest of the group, including Derek who had better information, did not want to raise an opposing point. This can be seen as group think, or the group atmosphere being dominant over members thinking patterns. Advert could have best handled this problem by requesting groups members to write down their ideas ahead of time and having each member read and vote on what they thought would be the best idea before the first group meeting.

Question Two

The high level of autonomy that this group was given was probably the primary factor that contributed to the degree of groupthink displayed by the group members. While high levels of autonomy help inspire creativity and innovative solutions because a lack of boundaries, they also open themselves up to self-imposed boundaries. Conner's confident personality and idea development exemplify some of those self-imposed boundaries. Because the group had no other, management-produced boundaries to keep them working in a focused manner, they adopted Conner's boundaries and his ideas, even though more than one of the team members knew it would not satisfy the customer. In this example, autonomy allowed for a play among value systems. Conner did not do anything wrong. He valued a successful, "out of the box" project development, which is what he thought would most satisfy the client, while Alexis and Derek both valued cohesion, knowing that a divided group could not stand. By imposing their own boundaries, though not rigid ones, these conflicting value systems would not have arisen, as the group members would have been more cohesively focused on a value that Advert supplied. Furthermore, by taking measures that allowed group members to share ideas before the first meeting, in addition to placing checks on the groups in order to steer them in the right direction if they were going off of the path, as mentioned in the previous question, could have removed the impetus for groupthink while still allowing enough autonomy to solve the problem.

Question Four

Because Conner seemed to control the group, group decision-making procedures that would have reduced the amount of groupthink in the group would have centered on individual contributions. For instance, as previously mentioned, each group member should have been tasked with looking at the problem and coming up with several solutions before the group ever met as a team. This would have allowed each member to decide where he or she stood, even if an over-confident personality such as Conner attempted to pressure him or her into another idea. One of the reasons groupthink is so effective is that it prevents others from having to do their homework. Giving the group sufficient time to think about the problem, as individuals would have allowed them to come up with unique ideas. Similarly, the group could have employed certain secretive decision making skills that would have allowed each member to make his or her contribution anonymously. Like a jury, the group could have had each member write his or her solution on a piece of paper. When it came time to decide among solutions, a similar method could have been used for voting. Finally, one of the most important group decision-making skills that this group failed to use was the democratic process. Conner simply established himself as the leader of the group. In the best scenario, the group would have elected a leader, and possibly officers, as well as demonstrated a democratic levying of the work. Had a leader been elected democratically, the group could have been freer to express themselves, as the popularly elected leader probably would not have been so forceful about his or her idea being put into place, as he or she would have been put in power by the people.

Question Five

When it came time to discuss and chose an idea to implement, Conner obviously controlled the communication. He asked questions that seemed like accusations, and made statements like, "everyone else agrees with me." This sort of communication is intimidating, and most group members would probably feel afraid to speak up in this type of environment. In order to inspire better creativity, therefore, new communication methods should have been used. One of those methods of communication is having a moderated discussion. This would involve an elected leader moderating the discussion among other members of the group, asking each for his or her input. This scenario can function much like a college classroom type discussion, though an informal background is encouraged. Other methods of communication include written communication, such as e-mails, memos, and letters, which are less threatening than speaking, and small group meetings, which encourage each person to add to the discussion in a less hostile environment. These methods of communication would have been much more open than the method that was chosen, featuring Conner in control. By using these forms of open communication, members of the group would have felt less frightened or intimidated to speak up with their ideas.

Question Six

Conner's leadership style was very authoritarian. He thought he knew best, was confident about that fact, and wanted to make sure everything got done the right way -- his way. His style consisted of his making assumptions and asking for input without wanting honest feedback. Also, as a self-appointed leader, he did not ask the group whether or not they wanted to choose a different leader or operate in a more democratic fashion. This leadership style was not effective because the group was tasked with coming up with a creative product. An authoritarian leadership style does not breed creativity. In fact, just the opposite, it inspires others to do just what they did, fall in line. As previously mentioned, however, Conner's leadership style did boost performance levels. Because of this, one can determine that an authoritarian leadership style is not necessarily corrupting in every circumstance. For instance, in a military situation or emergency situation, Conner's leadership style would be the best possible option. In this scenario, others would be inspired to act, not question, which is what is needed when dealing with an emergency.