# data[].attributes.body
[Open and download to use links]

# data[].attributes.body
Please listen
to this overview
of the padlet.

# data[].attributes.body
Link

# data[].attributes.body
Link

# data[].attributes.body
Link

# data[].attributes.body
Link

# data[].attributes.body
Link

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Remember The Titans - Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mary Shapiro, author of the HBR Guide to Leading Teams and professor at Simmons, on dealing with conflict and other issues.
Download this podcast
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Sarah Green Carmichael. I'm talking today with Mary Shapiro, professor at the Simmons School of Management and author of the HBR Guide to Leading Teams. Mary, thank you so much for talking with us today.

MARY SHAPIRO: Great to be here.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So I'm excited to get a chance to talk to you today about teams, because this is something that I think is so influential on how happy we are at work, whether we're part of a team or leading a team, and it's one of those things that I think can also be a source of endless concern and frustration for us if it's not going well. And I thought I would just start by asking you, I know very few of us actually get to design our own teams from scratch. You know, we're entering an existing team or taking over an existing team often. But if you could design the ideal team from scratch, what would it look like?

MARY SHAPIRO: Well, I would say kind of a couple things you need to keep in mind when you're designing your own team. One is trying to make it as small as possible, because everyone who has ever tried to get a meeting planned knows that if you have five people's calendars you're juggling, it's just much easier than trying to juggle 10 people's calendars. But in terms of who those people are, you really need to think about what is the task, what are the task skills or competencies or knowledge or expertise that's needed. But also what kind of skills and competencies are needed for working well together as people on a team.

I think most team leaders tend to spend most of their time thinking about what those task competencies are, because obviously, you've got to get the task done, so you need people that can do that well. But what they don't tend to do is it's almost really like thinking about, who are people that play well together? And whether you call it emotional intelligence or all the different kind of language that's being kind of bantered about today, but it fundamentally comes down to who are people that have skills to collaborate, negotiate, communicate well, handle conflict well, and so really thinking about members populating your team with people that can do those skills as well.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So that's interesting, because that seems to start to speak to something else you talked about in the book, which was that every team needs two kinds of goals. On the one hand, you need the task goals, but you also need process goals. And I thought maybe this would be a good point for you just to talk a little bit about the distinction there and why it's so important to have both.

MARY SHAPIRO: Absolutely. And again, what we're used to, because what we tend to get rewarded in our careers is for the task output that we create and they were hired to generate certain outcomes. And so when we have a team that's been put together, it's usually because there's an outcome that one person is incapable of doing by themself because of capacity or the diverse expertise that's needed.

So what we wind up doing is when we get a team together, we tend to think about and talk about what is it that we want to accomplish. What are those metrics of success that are focused around what the outcome's going to look like? And we think about what the deadlines are, and we kind of create this whole plan, task plan around what is it that we want to accomplish.

What we tend to not think about is the how are we going to accomplish those task goals. So the task goals are absolutely critical, but the second conversation needs to be, how are we going to work together to meet those task goals? So process goals are oftentimes getting people to really think about, how do we want to describe working together? How do we want to describe the types of relationships that we're going to have with each other? How are we going to think about what we want to be able to do as people together?

So for example, some process goals might be things like we want to be able to cross train each other. We want to learn from each other's experience. We want to be able to grow each of our skills through the exposure and the kind of side by side work that we might be doing together on these task goals. So that's a process goal that unless you have a conversation about it, it may or may not happen.

Another kind of process goal is let's all get on the same page. Are we intending to work collaboratively? That's not necessarily a given for a team. But what we do know is that if some people are working competitively on a team, while other people are expecting collaboration, you're setting up potential for conflict down the road. So a big part of the process goals is how to avoid or preempt those interpersonal conflicts that can happen when people have different expectations of each other.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So I'm glad you mentioned that, because one of my questions that was coming up as you were talking was, what if you sort of missed the boat? You didn't have this conversation when you should have, and now you're in a team where there is conflict or there is a lack of trust. How can you address that without having to do something like trust falls, which are sort of horrible?

MARY SHAPIRO: Right. I don't trust anyone to do a trust fall. I don't want anyone to try to catch me as I fall. It is never too late to go back to what I would call the infrastructure building of a team that you may have not thought of that you needed to do. It might not have that on your radar screen, and/or you've just picked up the book and you go, wow, we really need to do some of this work. So it's never too late.

Just like it's never too late when you're working on a task to take a pause and go, OK, we've done this work. What have we done well, and what do we need to change? How close is our task on that project plan? Where have we had slippage? How do we need to get back on board? So just as you do that, most people would feel pretty comfortable, especially if the task does seem to be kind of falling off the metrics for quality or for the time or whatever. They feel pretty comfortable kind of interrupting and taking a pause and doing evaluation.

You can do the same with your process work, that whole people side of the team by saying, we're going to just take time out, and let's talk about the how are we working together, and have the same question. What do we do in terms of our working together that really seems to promote good work on our task? And/or are there things that we need to change going forward? So that can get to both your people process goals and/or the other thing that's also part of that infrastructure are the kind of the rules for engagement, the specific norms or expected behaviors that we're going to have with each other.

And so in those kinds of conversations, it might be, yeah, what seems to not be working is we don't give each other enough of a heads up when we as an individual know we're not going to meet a deadline. So we need to change that. Going forward, let's commit to as soon as you know the deadline's not going to be met, we communicate to the team, and then the team figures out how are we going to adjust the timeline.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So that seems to all make sense, and that seems reasonable. Say you've done that. There's a person on the team still not really working out. You may ultimately have to fire that person. See, if there is a situation like that where it really- the dysfunction or the conflict on the team really can't be addressed through those kinds of efforts, if you have to fire someone, how do you make the team OK again? Like how do you heal the rift? How do you get people over the sort of, oh, my god, one of us is gone now?

MARY SHAPIRO: Right. One of us got voted off the island. Really interesting question, because one is it implies, and I would agree, that as a team leader, you ideally want to be able to have control and authority over who stays on the team and who doesn't. And unfortunately, some of us don't have that authority. We are just made team leaders, and these are people that might report up to you, or they might even not even report to you. They might report to your manager, but you're just the team lead on a particular project.

And so if you can't negotiate firing that person, at the very least trying to negotiate upfront with whoever is giving you the position of team leader to be able to remove them from the team. And/or one of the things that I talk about in my book is that at the very least, you might need to figure out how to isolate that person's negative impact on the rest of the team members.

And one of the ways that you can do that is just by saying, you know what, George? You are now officially an independent contributor. You don't come to team meetings. You don't participate in team decisions. The team, specifically through me, will allocate work to you, and you do that work, and you report to me individually.

So that way you kind of isolate that person's negative impact. Even that kind of a step requires exactly what you were asking about is that how do you make that OK with the remaining team members? And it's even more fraught if you have had to remove somebody from a team.

I think one of the most important things for a team leader would be is to have an explicit conversation about that. And it's not to hash out all the terrible things that George did, and this is why we're so glad we've gotten rid of him, but to be explicit to say, as a team, we all agreed that here is our task goals, and here's our process goals. And while I recognize that it's pretty disconcerting when we've had to let George off the team, I want to repeat, and let's revisit what we see as our task goals and our process goals, because we all know we have to be fully committed to them.

Most likely, everyone on the team is going, thank god George is gone. And so even though as a team leader, you're thinking, oh, my gosh, it's going to be all this emotional upheaval, I think by explicitly acknowledging it and then giving people a chance to talk about, what do we want to do going forward, as opposed to hashing back all the disruption that George caused and all the pain and agony that we've all gone through. Let's look at the future, and let's talk about what we want to be able to rely on each other to do and to contribute so that we're all on the same page. And I think that explicit conversation can go a long way to recognizing and dealing with those emotions.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, I think you brought up a good point in your response there, which is that a lot of us are leading teams where we don't actually have a significant bottom line level of authority. We're leading the team as a project. We're leading the team in a sort of ad hoc way, and we don't necessarily- we have responsibility but not authority.

MARY SHAPIRO: Exactly.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: How does that sort of dynamic change what you have to do as a leader?

MARY SHAPIRO: Well, one is you've been asked, hey, Sarah, can you take on this new project, and here's a group of people that I have allocated work capacity to to this project? So sometimes we have to say yes, but we can say yes and this is what I need in order to most effectively generate the outcome that you, boss, wants me to generate. And you might not be able to do it in the moment, because it's just such a quick, hey, I've got this project. Here's some people. How does that sound? It's to take a moment and say, happy to do it. Let me get back to you about what I'm going to need in order to make sure we're successful.

And then for you to go back in and say, here are kind of some of the basic parameters that I need in order to make sure I hit the task target that you're asking me to hit. And one of them could be the ability to be able to remove somebody that's not working out on a team and/or the ability to move them into that individual contributor role. So part of that is the upfront negotiation.

Once you're in the team, and you've got somebody that clearly you would like to remove, and you weren't able to get the authority to do that, then one of the things is to try to harness the power of the team to get that person to comply. And by that, that's all part of just what I call a continuous improvement process. When you've been given people, there is a really good chance that you know who's going to be a pain in the neck and who's going to be a real committed team player.

And rather than waiting for the pain in the neck to start exhibiting the disruptive behaviors, it's by having immediate conversations about what type of behavior are we going to expect from each other so that that person hears very clearly upfront and is actually part of the conversation of formulating how are we going to operate together. What are our rules going to be in operating together and whether it's- how we're going to make decisions, and this person doesn't get to unilaterally make the decisions or change the decisions on their own.

So it's having those upfront conversations to be really clear about what the expectations are and then constantly giving check and feedback of, how are we doing? Are we all upholding this? If not, who's not, and how are we going to pull them in, and how are we going to remind them of, or how are we going to make it easier for them to be the type of team person that we want.

But that's really hard, and unfortunately, a lot of times, team leaders are given responsibility but not sufficient authority. So they really have to do it by trying to pull people, get them involved, give them a lot of feedback, give them a lot of coaching, which just takes up a huge amount of time.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, holding the group accountable for results seems like that's something where if you are ultimately not the place where the buck stops as a manager, that could be difficult.

MARY SHAPIRO: Yes, but team leaders oftentimes feel like they are the only person that's tasked with holding people accountability, and what I tried to do, and this goes back to what Katzenbach and Smith in a previous HBS publication, their wisdom of teams. What they really talk about is this whole idea around mutual accountability and the idea being that people fundamentally have a couple underlying deep needs, and one of them is to be part of the group.

So I mean, certainly we see that way over the top in terms of adolescent behavior in terms of wanting to fit in, but that holds true through adult life, that need to feel part of a group and that the more affinity and the more you feel part of a group, the harder you're going to work as a way of maintaining your position in that group, that you're valued and appreciated position in the group.

So what that means for a team leader is rather than you being the only one saying, George, you're not doing what we need you to do, is to create these conversation opportunities, and you need to start way early before conflict starts, where the team members hold each other accountable. So when there's a conversation around how well are each of us following these agreed upon rules, it's not just you as the team leader saying, well, everyone's following them except George. It's the group talks about that, and there's all kinds of different kind of structure conversations to make that happen.

One of the most powerful ones that engages team members is for each team member to ahead of time think of and then verbally share for each of the other people, what have you done this last week or on this project that I have really appreciated that helped me do my job. And is there a behavior, if I could ask you to think about one behavior to change that would allow me to be more participative or be able to contribute more fully to the task, here's what it would be.

So each team member hears from each other what they need to do in order to be more valued and appreciated by each other. And that's a really psychologically powerful motivator to get people to change.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So I'm wondering, we've been talking a lot about the dark side of teams or preventing problems. I'm wondering now, is it ever possible for a team to like each other so much and have so much fun working together that they get sort of distracted or chat too much? Does that actually- could you go the other extreme and then lose productivity because of that?

MARY SHAPIRO: Yes, you absolutely can. And although that tends to not be the time that I get called in to work with the team to kind of get itself together so it can be productive again, I tend to do get called in more for the dark side, and that's why I think my orientation is, what are all the things that we can do to prevent that decrease in productivity because of the relationships.

But yes, and I have actually been on a couple teams where I thought, we are having way too much fun together, and we're really not getting the job done, which is kind of a nice opposite piece. But in that case, again, it always goes back to, all right, really value and appreciate each other. What have we done that has really enabled us to build our relationship so strongly? But what do we need to tweak, change, modify so that we do get to the task?

So it's always this kind of like forward thinking of what needs to happen differently going forward. And so coming up with what might we need to change so that we can make sure that we get the task done. Again, what I find, and kind of a final word would be that so often the team leader feels like they can't be explicit in terms of saying, here's what I'm observing, and here's what I propose we do differently. And I would just like to encourage team leaders to both be more transparent in terms of what they want, what they see, what they hope for, what changes need to happen, be more transparent in giving positive feedback.

So often we just forget to do all those kinds of positive things, because we're so focused on getting the task done, and we're so overloaded, and we're on three or four teams, and they're all screaming deadlines. So it's that take time to explicitly talk about your team with your team in terms of what's working, and that's great, and what's not working as well, and what are we going to change.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Mary, this has been really helpful. Thank you again for talking with us today.

MARY SHAPIRO: Oh, pleasure to be here.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's Mary Shapiro, professor at the Simmons School of Management and author of the HBR Guide to Leading Teams. For much more on this topic, visit hbr.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mary Shapiro, author of the HBR Guide to Leading Teams and professor at Simmons, on dealing with conflict and other issues. Download this podcast SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Sarah Green Carmichael.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Build A Winning Team - 5 Best Team Building Practices | Robin Sharma

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building a winning team is essential to success.

# data[].attributes.body
Sasikumar, Parimala Fathima, and Mohan (2016) suggest that neurocognitive intervention strategies improve teaching competencies. Tactics such as refining and simplifying information, explaining content, using suitable learning activities, and guided practice are helpful and will be incorporated into this course.

According to Kolb (1984), “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p. 38). His learning cycle explains that people progress through four stages when absorbing information:

1. Doing something/having a tangible experience;

2. Observing and reflecting on that experience;

3. Drawing from the observation and reflection to form abstract concepts through analysis and generalizations through conclusions; and

4. Applying this learning to future situations, testing the conclusions, resulting in new experiences.

In this class, students will observe team meetings, participate in team activities, conduct research, and make recommendations for teams in the workplace based on these experiences.

Universal design principles will be incorporated to reflect the requirements and capabilities of all students, make the course material accessible, and prevent any unwarranted obstacles to their learning.  These will include:

Options for Perception – Information will be presented in multiple ways, for example, transcripts of audio files will be provided.

Options for Expression – Students will have multiple ways to demonstrate their learning, for example, an assignment may be satisfied with either an oral or written report.

Options for Comprehension – Because students’ learning motivations differ, students will have opportunities to work independently and, due to the course’s content, quite a few of the activities will be performed in teams (Cornell University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2017).

Adult learners have some unique learning characteristics. Among other things, they want to:

Understand why they need to know material;

Control their own learning processes;

Share their personal experiences; and

Apply what they are learning in their work or personal lives (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2011).

To address these characteristics and increase engagement and memory, the instructor will:

Provide choices of tasks or reporting formats that achieve the same learning objectives where appropriate.

Maintain a positive attitude, enthusiasm for the subject, and build relationships with the students. Additionally, assist students in building relationships with their team members.

Determine and try to build students’ interest in the topic by explaining how it relates to their jobs. According to Marzano (2017), “If the information presented is not considered interesting, the working memory will not process it” (para. 6).

Monitor the pace of the class to insure that it is not too fast or slow (Marzano, 2017).

# data[].attributes.headline
Strategies to Support Inclusion and Self-Efficacy

# data[].attributes.subject
Strategies to Support Inclusion and Self-Efficacy

# data[].attributes.body
All audio/video will have written transcripts

Alternative assignments will be available, as needed

Course objectives, learning outcomes, and expectations will be stated clearly and aligned with student goals

Rubrics for assignments will be included and used to provide specific feedback on all assignments

Feedback will be returned within 72 hours of assignment submission; it will be constructive and encouraging

Students will be involved in evaluating their team members’ performance

Active learning behaviors will be included. Because the class takes place in the evening, students may be tired from a full workday, so opportunities to move around and change will be incorporated into each class (Cornell University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2016).

Link to an assignment calculator will be provided

According to Marzano (2017), self-efficacy is an important factor in student engagement.  Students must feel good, be interested in the material, consider it important, and believe that they can learn and use it effectively. In addition to the items above, stories with examples of people who succeeded may assist in this effort.  They will also provide the basis for scaffolding, as they create interest and engagement, assist with comprehension, and support remembering and application of learning.
Lang (2013) suggests two strategies for increasing self-efficacy: student metacognition and faculty communication. Student metacognition can be improved through formative assessment, which is present throughout this course in the form of quizzes, which will provide students with a sense of their knowledge mastery. Threaded discussions will proved additional formative assessment in online and blended classes. Faculty communication will convey the instructor's enthusiasm for the class, expectations of students, and their ability to meet the challenges presented. Questions will be answered immediately (if in class or on the telephone) or within 24 hours (for online requests).

# data[].attributes.body
Link
Password = IPS553

# data[].attributes.body
A pre-test will be given at the beginning of the course based on the learning objectives. Its purpose is to determine students’ level of knowledge on course concepts and is based on the course objectives. This will allow the instructor to emphasize areas of greatest need, as well as provide a basis for assessing learning at the end of the course.

Formative assessment will be conducted through the course to monitor student learning and provide feedback for improving their performance. There will be a quiz in weeks 1-7; students will have multiple changes to complete these quizzes to build on their knowledge. Other assignments align with objectives. Sample Quiz

Summative assessment will be conducted at the end of the course through a comprehensive test in week 8, along with a cumulative individual and team assignment: Qualitative Feedback Exercise

# data[].attributes.body
Cornell University Center for Teaching Excellence. (2016, December 9). Increasing student participation. Retrieved from https://www.cte.cornell.edu/teaching-ideas/engaging-students/increasing-student-participation.html

Cornell University Center for Teaching Excellence. (2017, May 4). Universal design. Retrieved from https://www.cte.cornell.edu/teaching-ideas/designing-your-course/universal-design.html

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resources development (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2017). Tips from Dr. Marzano. Retrieved from https://www.marzanoresearch.com/resources/tips/hec_tips_archive#tip24

Sasikumar, N., Parimala Fathima, M., & Mohan, S. (2016). Effect of neurocognitive intervention strategies on enhancing teaching competency among graduate teacher trainees. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(11), 785-791. doi:10.12691/education-4-11-2

# data[].attributes.body
This course uses:

Moodle (Learning Management System)

Video (e.g., YouTube, TED talks)

Audio (e.g., podcasts)

# data[].attributes.body
Upon completion of this course, students should be able to:

1. Experience and describe the challenges in the formation teams

2. Explain how teams operate and the value they bring to organizations

3. Summarize the relationship of team leadership to team performance and effectiveness

4. Identify the skills, qualities, and behaviors required for successful team membership and management

5. Diagram the links between task design, team performance, and quality

6. Apply best practices for team decision-making and conflict management

7. Design and conduct team performance analyses

8. Assess and improve the value of team products and/or services

# data[].attributes.body
This undergraduate business course focuses on the execution of individual and team management concepts, utilizing a blend of management theories and experiential methods.  Topics include the allocation of subordinate workload, the design, organization, and implementation of processes, and the adherence to institutional procedures.

# data[].attributes.body
This course is offered in online, traditional face-to-face, and blended formats. The learning management system is used to post all course material, including the syllabus, links to materials (e.g., articles, videos), and threaded discussions.  Should weather prevent in-person classes, that week's session will include online discussions in place of class time. Four-credit courses require 150 hours.

Face-to-face classes include one 3.5 hour session per week for eight weeks, totaling 28 hours. The remainder (122 hours) is composed of reading, assignments, projects, etc.

Online classes have 150 hours of work. Assignments replicate those in face-to-face courses. The difference is composed of threaded discussions.

Blended classes have 3 or 4 online sessions and 5 or 4 classroom sessions.

# data[].attributes.body
Students enrolled in this course are adult undergraduate students, ranging in age from their early twenties through late fifties, with the majority in their thirties. Most are working full-time jobs and attending school at night or online.  They are almost equally divided between males and females, and they have a variety of different backgrounds and work experiences.  This is an upper-level course, so students have completed their introductory-level business courses prior to enrolling. It is in the Bachelor of Science in Business Administration Management concentration.