Team building and leadership effectiveness

Team-building success: It's in the cards.

The following paper critiques the article "Team-building success: It's in the cards," by Scarfino (2009).

Team-building success: It's in the cards.

Scarfino and Roever's (2009) article in Business Communication Quarterly, entitled "Team-building success: It's in the cards" gives details on the author's use of an adaptation of Ned Hermann's 'whole brain model', to facilitate team formation in the classrooms. The authors surmise that proven techniques for managing a team's diverse strengths and styles is critical to a team's success. As such, they have adapted the whole brain model to the classroom setting and found using the Diversity Card Game to be of greater benefit than a traditional thinking style inventory.

Summary

Scarfino and Roever (2009) use Hermann's, an American physicist and scientist, whole brain model as the technique for the base of his adaptation, in regards to team building in the classroom setting. Scarfino and Roever note that Hermann theorized that there are four distinct quadrants in the brain, and that these relate to the individual's 'preferred modes of knowing'. Hermann developed this theory by integrating his own scientific knowledge and observations with Roger Sperry's left brain-right brain theory and Paul MacLean's triune brain theory. Although it's acknowledged that each individual is unique, Hermann concluded that each person has a primary preference for on of the four quadrants.

These quadrants are each associated with a specific thinking style and behavior. The four quadrants are: Quadrant A -- which favors analytical thinking and are rational, technical and direct communicators. Quadrant B -- which is a linear and organized individual who prefers 'to do' lists to help ensure things are done correctly and in a timely manner. Quadrant C -- includes those who are emotionally sensitive, according to Scarfino and Roever (2009), and have a tendency to respond with their heart, with a desire to keep all team members happy. Quadrant D -- these are risk takers and are spontaneous, with a tendency to be creative and a higher tolerance for ambiguity than other quadrants.

Hermann, as cited by Scarfino and Roever (2009), developed the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), as a means of identifying a person's thinking preference. Scarfino and Roever note there are some drawbacks to this process, however. The test requires a certified HBDI trainer and a processing cost for each 120-question test. Scarfino and Roever put forth that there is another way to benefit from this research, through the Diversity Card Game. There are a variety of benefits to using the card game, for students.

Scarfino and Roever (2009) note one of the primary benefits to the card game, for students, is that unlike the questionnaire, with the card game, students can begin to understand the theory behind the game. In addition, the game is fun and not nearly as intimidating as other inventories, like the Myers-Briggs. There is not the delay between completing the questionnaire and then waiting for a report to be provided and analyzed. Instead, students can begin to understand their own, as well as others', behaviors as the game is played. This helps give them the knowledge they need to manage strife within teams, to help ensure they are operating as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Scarfino and Roever's (2009) feedback from students who have used the game support this same conclusion. Thus, Scarfino and Roever's logical argument means the reader is also brought to the same conclusion. There is no other evidence presented in Scarfino and Roever's article that would support a counter-argument.

Review and Evaluation

Scarfino is an associate professor, at William Jewell College, in the Department of Business and Leadership. Roever is interim dean and associate professor, at Missouri Western State University, in the Steven L. Craig School of Business. Although both authors have appropriate academic credentials, applying these findings outside of the theoretical, academic environment is questionable, as neither list their practical, business credentials.

Appropriate methods were utilized to gather the evidence used to support the theory that the Diversity Card Game offered benefits not found with a traditional thinking style inventory. However, more background on Hermann's theory development would have helped support why his advancement was needed to take Sperry and MacLean's work one step further. An overview of these two base theories Hermann utilized would have been useful and would've helped ensure the authors were using the information accurately.