MSOD Pi Prime 614

Kristina Petro
Sikin Samji
Hans Van Order
Learning Group Formation: A Suggested Methodology
In forming our methodology, we considered many different approaches and interventions.
Ultimately, we developed our methodology around the idea of creating high performing teams
rather than simple working groups. As referenced in The Discipline of Teams, teams work
together towards a common goal and groups work in tandem without relying on each
individual. With this distinction in mind, we developed a method that would challenge each
individual while creating a high-energy, productive and fun environment for the entire group.
As Patrick Lencioni states in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Trust lies at the heart of
a functioning cohesive team. Without it, teamwork is all but impossible. (Lencioni, 195). He
illustrates that the absence of trust is the catalyst to four other dysfunctions: fear of conflict, lack
of commitment, avoidance of accountability and inattention to results, which stems from [team
members] unwillingness to be vulnerable with one another. He says, it is only when team
members are truly comfortable being exposed to one another that they begin to act without
concern for protecting themselves. (Lencioni, 196).
Just as important to the performance and cohesion of a team is clarity of purpose. The
essence of a team is common commitment. Without it, groups perform as individuals; with it,
they become a powerful unit of collective performance. This kind of commitment requires a
purpose in which team members can believe. (Katzenbach and Smith, 112) A commitment to
the shared goals of the group provides a cohesive framework and togetherness. Without this
cohesiveness, the group fragments into individuals laboring to accomplish their own respective
goals rather than achieving the shared purpose of the team (Stogdill, 1972). The Conflicts
Prezi (Pi Prime Resource) defines conflict as a disagreement through which the parties involved
perceived a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. With trust, cohesion, and clarity of
purpose, team members are more sensitive to the needs of other team members and more likely
to assist them if necessary (Schachter, Ellertson, McBride, & Gregory, 1951).
Variety in skills, experiences, perspectives and knowledge serve to enhance a teams
value. Most notably, diversity encourages innovation. Womens tendency towards a democratic
Page 1

leadership style, contrasted against mens more autocratic leanings can create dynamic shifts.
(See reference in Roles Prezi-Sakai). Understanding the value of group diversity as well as the
need for trust, cohesiveness and a shared purpose, we suggest a combination of interventions and
methodologies to assist our cohort in forming our learning groups.
Since the group members have existing personal and working relationships, we
recommend a self-selection methodology for forming groups to yield the highest level of trust
and the healthiest form of conflict within the established groups. A few benefits of conflict are
engaging discussion, positive debate and the chance to adopt a new perspective (See Conflict
Prezi- Sakai). However, a free for all form of self-selection is not recommended. This would
be detrimental to diversity and may also prove insensitive to a minority of the group. Our
suggested approach maximizes the potential for diversity and protects the sensitivities of group
members that may not have established psychological safety with others. A self-selection
process contains a level of ambiguity, which may give rise to certain risk scenarios such as:
- Alienation of group members in the decision making process for group selection and in
the actual process of group selection
- Current nature of relationships and existing conflict
- Uneven distribution of strengths and/or skills within formed groups
- Groups being formed by the process of elimination
These risks may be compounded by the rising level of anxiety for some individuals leading
up to the learning group formation experience. With this criticism and the specific risks in mind,
we recommend that the suggested methodology include a set of rules and guidelines to be used
while groups are self-selecting. Once established by the overall cohort, the set of rules and
guidelines would form the basis for group formation. While self-forming groups, rules must be
followed while guidelines are merely strong suggestions based on empirical research, (as
referenced in our cohorts group dynamics resources) as well as the cohorts combined desires.
In this way, group members may choose to use their own discretion with regard to
conflicting guidelines. For example, the presence of psychological safety may be given more
weight than a guideline suggesting the diversity of a specific personality trait. The self-selection
element provides members autonomy and therefore accountability, while ensuring peoples
values and preferences are represented. This criterion seeks to reduce alienation and encourage
diversity within the groups.
-

Potential Rules:
o No more than X males per group
Page 2

o At least X people from different group dynamics project topics

o Someone who currently works or has worked in a consulting role
o At least X people who work in different industries or roles
o Leave ego at the door
Potential Guidelines:
o A mix of spoken languages, (English, French, Spanish, Chinese)
o A mix of generational diversity
o A mix of introverts and extroverts
o A consideration of FIRO B compatibilities
o International students diversified among groups
o A mix of people that prefer certainty vs. ambiguity (i.e. MBTI P or J)
Specifically, we suggest six separate interventions preceding and following learning

group formation, with the fourth intervention being actual group formation.
1. Working session with the cohort to fully comprehend the purpose of the learning groups.
This will enable us to agree on what the ultimate goals are/are not. This clarity should
help us get in touch with our wise selves as we journey through this process.
2. A second working session to decide on the rules and guidelines to be used during selfselection. The group will create rules (that must be followed) and guidelines (strongly
recommended but not mandatory). During this intervention, we should also discuss the
specific behaviors that will display compassion during actual group formation.
3. Directly following our second intervention above, we recommend a cohort check in to
ensure any minority opinions that may not have been voiced during the general session
are heard. This may be the catalyst toward an innovative idea. (Power & Influence)
Rules and guidelines may be edited during this check in process.
4. To prepare for actual learning group formation, we self select into trios/quads with people
that know us best. During this intervention, we explore and capture each of our top
three (or more) skills as they apply to the MSOD program as well as the top three areas
that we feel are our largest gaps. Each individual creates a data card indicating these as
well as any other key data points based on our previous interventions.
5. Lets all do the Dougie just to break things up and have some fun. (Dima, 2013) It also
wouldnt be a bad idea to have a little coordination together as a group, Hung Dung!
(Alejandro, 2013)
6. Now that we clearly understand the purpose of the learning groups, have established as a
group what the rules and guidelines are for group formation, and created data cards for

Page 3

ourselves to assist with identifying similarities and differences, we self-select our

learning groups.
7. An anonymous survey will be filled out directly following group formation. (See attached
for a sample of suggested survey questions) This will allow us to evaluate the short-term
effectiveness of this methodology.
Just before the self-selection process begins, each Pi Prime student will receive and fill
out a card with their name as well as any other identifying criteria that have been decided upon
during the Rules and Guidelines Intervention. From there, we will start the process of learning
group formation using the rules and guidelines to get people thinking about the importance
of diversity in their soon-to-be-formed groups.
This approach was created with the intention of building our learning groups based on the
true purpose and goals of the team while maximizing the potential for trust, diversity, personal
growth and individual enjoyment. We hope you find our methodology will be the catalyst
toward a greater understanding of, and an exceptional experience in, group dynamics.
Learning Group Formation: Choosing a Methodology
Our approach toward creating a single methodology for learning group formation intends
to help group members enter with an open and uninhibited mindset. Our interventions will
ensure that the group will be focused and present. We hope to develop trust through open
dialogue. The assignment to read the trio papers in our forums and post commonalities and
differences is our first intervention. With that particular assignment due by February 5 th, all other
interventions therefore must be during our on-site session.
We believe strongly that the purpose and goals of the learning groups, if properly
understood, will serve to assist all of us in bringing our wise selves to the process of learning
group formation. Additionally, we recognize that cohort members may be entering this process
with anxiety, insecurities, and stress. During the first meeting, the leader should seek to reduce
anxiety by activating the need for safety (See Group Dynamics deck-Sakai). For these reasons,
we propose these first two interventions:
1. Quick state of mind check-ins with regard to the learning group formation process.
This check in will allow each person to voice his or her thoughts regarding the process
and take the cohorts pulse. By sharing our thoughts, anxieties and other feelings, we
believe that the commonalities will serve to lower our cumulative stress levels. After a

Page 4

little labeling, Im just a little anxious and reappraising What do you mean were not
just going to be drinking buddies? (Rock, 2009) we should be able to create an
environment where we can be more vulnerable and compassionate with each other.
2. Full cohort working session to identify the purpose of the learning group formation. This
discussion will focus on what the goals are, what they are not and what we each hope to
gain by participating in our learning groups. We will capture our essential thoughts as a
group on a flipchart and post for reference.
With a bit of vulnerability and clarity of purpose, we will move to the next step in our
process. By examining the commonalities and differences as a group, we can condense, combine
and otherwise shrink the available methodologies and interventions. In addition, weve also
designed interventions that will expand the number of people each individual is connected to and
comfortable with. We propose the following interventions:
3. Self-select trios of people that have not yet worked together and share your inner
committee members to the extent that you feel comfortable.
4. An all-cohort review of the commonalities and differences among and between the
different Trio Proposals should be discussed at this point. The common ideas will be
extracted and categorized and the proposed list of methodologies from Sakai will be
posted. It is important not to judge the suggested methodologies and interventions,
only to extract all of the ideas intact. We will also solicit any brand new ideas for
methodologies or interventions that emerged during the discussion. The end-result of this
discussion should be a list of all the unique interventions and methods suggested.
5. Next, we will discuss the pros and cons of each methodology and intervention to
migrated as close to consensus as possible in s to which methodology and interventions
should take place. Both proponents and opponents of each methodology/intervention will
have a chance to state their case. We will capture the strengths and opportunities as
well as the concerns & weaknesses of each idea on a dotmocracy sheet (see attached
document in Sakai as well as www.dotmocracy.org). Each sheet will be distributed, and
each cohort member will indicate his or her level of agreement/disagreement regarding
this idea. This silent voting method will provide everyone with a voice and protect
against minority conformity (See reference in Power & Influence Group Resources
Sakai). Ultimately, we will have a list of all unique ideas and an understanding of which

Page 5

In self-selected trios who have not yet worked together, discuss your favorite and least
favorite ideas and the pros and cons of each.
6. As a cohort, discuss the different methodologies/interventions to grow consensus. Pay
special attention to those ideas that were NOT popular and encourage any supporters to
voice to their reasoning. Continue this discussion until one methodology has been chosen
with one set of interventions to be carried out.
7. Begin Learning Group Formation!
8. One word Check In.
Once learning groups are formed, we suggest each group create a team charter (Byrd &
Luthy, 2010) to establish the purpose, goals, and working parameters of the team. We also
suggest that surveys be used to evaluate the effectiveness of our chosen methodology:

Survey 1: 24 hours after learning group formation, we propose that all members fill
out a survey (see suggested survey in our Sakai forum).
Survey 2: We propose another survey (questions are TBD) in April 2015 to assess
if/how attitudes have shifted since group formation.

References:
Byrd, J. T., & Luthy, M. R. (2010). IMPROVING GROUP DYNAMICS: CREATING A TEAM CHARTER. Academy
Of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(1), 13-26.
Hamilton, E. A. (2007). Firm Friendship: Examining functions and outcomes of workplace friendship amount law firm
associates (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston College. Boston, MA.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). BEYOND RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY: TIME AND THE
EFFECTS OF SURFACE- AND DEEP-LEVEL DIVERSITY ON WORK GROUP COHESION. Academy Of
Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107. doi:10.2307/256901
Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (1993). The Discipline of Teams. HBR March-April, pp.111-120
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rock, D., Holsken, N., & Siegel, D. J. (2011). Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining
Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long. Harper Business.
Pi Prime Resources provided by MSOD students in our cohort

Page 6