Introduction
Almost all engineering projects of any significant size are managed by teams of engineers working together. It is important, therefore, to understand how to build and lead a successful team.
Objective
The student will learn key elements to consider when building and leading a team on an engineering design project.
Study Time: 4.0 hours
Overview
Most engineering design projects of any significant size are performed by teams of engineers. What constitutes a team? Katzenback and Smith (2003), in their book, The Wisdom of Teams, say “A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.” Let us break this down into bits.
The members of a team must have complementary skills. The key here, is that the ability of the team to perform successfully as a single unit is stronger than the ability of the individual members to achieve the same results acting independently. They must be acting in unison to move themselves closer to a common purpose and goals, such as the success of their design project. And it is important that they hold themselves, both individually and as a unit, accountable to meeting the goals of their project.
"The strength of the team is each individual member. The strength of each member is the team."
Phil Jackson, American basketball coach
The Advantage of Multiple Individuals With Complementary Skills Working Together
What are the advantages of working on a team ?
- With more members working on the same project, more can get done
- A team with members comprising a diverse set of skills has more total skill sets and experiences to draw on when addressing a problem
- Others usually catch our mistakes more effectively than we catch our own
- In an effective team, the value of the team is greater than the sum of the value of the individual members
A team is smarter than its members. Do we know this to be true? The following exercise will shed some insight into this issue.
Application
The following activity helps to demonstrate the benefit of working as a team (The Personality; Development Café, 2010). NOTE: If students are starting this module at different dates, this activity will have to be conducted once multiple members have joined the discussion. The activity will be conducted via the VLE discussion forum tool.
Scenario: It is 10:00 am on an August day and your small aeroplane has just crash landed in the middle of the Sonora Desert in America’s great south-west. Temperatures there often go to 130oF (54oC) during the day. You are all dressed business casual. The pilot has died from his injuries, but before he died, he indicated that the plane had been blown about 65 miles off the path of the flight plan which was filed with air control before take-off, thus making it unlikely that you will be quickly found. He believed that the nearest habitation was a mining facility 70 miles north-northeast of your crash site. Before the wreckage burned, you were able to salvage 15 items, all in good condition, from the plane.
They were:
- Torch & 4 D batteries
- Jackknife
- Sectional air map of the area
- One plastic raincoat (size XL)
- Magnetic compass
- Compress kit with gauze
- A .45 calibre pistol (loaded)
- Parachute (red & white)
- Bottle of 1000 salt tablets
- One quart of water per person
- Book: “Edible Animals of the Desert”
- One pair sunglasses per person
- Two quarts of 180 proof vodka
- One topcoat per person
- Cosmetic mirror
Each student should now individually rank the 15 items in what you believe is their order of importance for you to have with you in this situation. (1 = most important, 15 = least important)
Then, using the VLE discussion forum, the student group should add up the numbers that they individually assigned to each item, and re-rank them based on the results, so as to obtain the team’s order of importance (lowest number will be most important).
Your tutor will provide the rankings as provided by a survival expert. For each item, individual students should determine the numerical difference between your individual ranking and the ranking of the expert. Add all of the differences for all 15 items.
Repeat the previous step using the numerical difference between the team’s ranking and the ranking of the expert. Use the VLE discussion forum to discuss your findings.
In the vast majority of cases, the team ranking from the activity described above will come closer to the expert’s ranking (i.e. have a smaller sum of the differences) than most, if not all, of the individual team members. This shows that, even on a subject for which you have little expertise, the team is smarter, and makes better decisions, than the individual members.
You will use this data in Coursework 1.
The Disadvantages of Working on a Team
Are there disadvantages to working on a Team?
- Inequitable effort by individual members
- Have you ever had someone ride your coat-tails?
- Have you ever had to cover for a missing teammate?
- Have you ever had one cover for you?
- Inequitable rewards
- You Win as a Team and You Lose as a Team
- Even when you have personally done everything right
- You do not necessarily get to do it your way
- There are negative aspects of “team-think”
- When everyone thinks the same way on a team it can be a bad thing
- This will be discussed more, later in the section.
Team Values
- To be successful, a team must have common values
- This goes beyond shared ethics and morals (although it does include these)
- It includes shared commitment as to what you are willing to do in order to succeed as a team
- There needs to be a “we are all in this together” attitude
- Listening to each other is of paramount importance
- To work well as a team, you must have empathy for each other
- No secrets – no hiding
- Mutual responsibility – mutual accountability
- No subordinates – no superiors – everyone has an equal share
- Even if there are differing levels of responsibility – there must be only one level of attitude
- A good team must have good communication
- A good team must share all information
- All team members must be committed to a common purpose
The Four Stages of Team Development
- Forming
- Meeting, forming a Team, and getting to know each other
- Learning to depend on each other and support each other
- Learning what is expected and starting to organise themselves
- Create a mission statement that articulates the Team’s purpose
- Storming
- Things don’t usually get going as well as hoped, leading to a stormy start
- Leads to a wee bit of flailing
- Competencies developing
- Organizing and figuring out how to work together effectively
- Norming
- Members now know each other, their roles, and norms
- Trust each other
- Resistance diminishes, and progress begins to be made
- Performing
- Members are now working together effectively and can start performing
- Things start to get accomplished
Personality Differences
There are a number of keys to team success:
- Mutual respect between different people
- Communication of different viewpoints
- Synergy of skills from different members
- Common goals and objectives over-riding differences
- A merging of different ways of doing things
- A melding of different personalities
It is necessary to recognize that different team members will have different personalities. These differences will affect how the members view situations and address problems.
Let us examine one approach for evaluating team member personalities (Honey & Mumford, 1982). Personal characteristics are determined based on a series of questions. The answers are used to score the individual on whether they tend to be Action Based or Theory Based and whether they tend to be Pragmatic versus Reflective. The results are then plotted on the following chart:
A chart plotting Action Based or Theory Based (vertical) and Pragmatic versus Reflective (horizontal).
Psychologists say that if you show a tendency toward the extreme of any axis, then you tend to have the characteristics indicated below:
Action Based:
- Fully involved and unbiased in new experiences
- Prefer immediate experiences
- Open minded - not sceptical - enthusiastic about new ideas
- Active - gregarious - involved with others
- Desire to be at the centre of all activity
- “Act First, Think Later” – “I’ll try anything once”
Theory Based:
- Integrate observations and facts into logical, sound theories
- Solve problems in a logical, sequential fashion
- Need to assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories
- Won’t rest until things fit a tidy form and a logical theory
- Analyse and synthesize using basic principles, models and systematic thinking
- “Does this make sense” – “Does this fit?” – “What assumptions led to this?”
Pragmatic:
- Keen to try out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice
- Seek out new ideas and look for the first opportunity to apply them
- Return from new experiences with new ideas, enthused to try them
- Act quickly and confidently
- Impatient with prolonged discussion or examination
- “Let’s do it”
Reflective:
- Stand back and ponder – observe all perspectives
- Collect and analyse data, because that is what indicates results
- Postpone decision making as long as possible
- Listen to all points before deciding
- Low profile, aloof, distant – tend to take a back seat in discussions
- “Look at the Big Picture” - “Be cautious”
Your tutor will supply a list of statements. Read each item. If you agree more than you disagree with a given statement, place a check mark next to the statement. If you disagree more than you agree, leave it blank.
Using the chart that will be provided by your tutor, circle the numbers that you put a check mark by. Total the number of circles in each column, and plot your results on the two axis, Action-Theory-Pragmatic-Reflective chart.
Consider how you feel you compare against the characteristics which psychologists have predicted you will have based on your scores.
You will use this data in Coursework 1.
The Myers-Briggs Personality Survey
Another personality study which is quite widely used in all types of settings is the Myers-Briggs Survey. It is used to measure individual personality traits and to evaluate differences and synergies within teams.
You can take the Myers-Briggs Personality Survey free and on-line at: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm .
The Myers-Briggs Parameters
The Myers-Briggs Survey scores you on 4 pairs of parameters, which are associated with where you draw your mental energy, how you prefer to gather information, how you make decisions and how you manage your life situations. The parameters are given below:
Energy - E versus I (where do you draw your energy from?)
- Extraversion
- Action over reflection
- Talks out solutions
- Prefer oral communication
- Enjoy working in groups
- Solves problems in a group
- Shares ideas
- Introversion
- Reflection over action
- Thinks through solutions
- Prefer written communication
- Prefer working alone
- Solves problems thinking internally
- Guards ideas and thoughts
Information Gathering - S versus N (how do you gather your information?)
- Sensing
- Prefers specific examples
- Prefer sticking to a plan of agenda
- Pragmatic
- Seeks the predictable
- Focus on immediate applications of a situation
- Focuses on what is
- iNtuition
- Likes general concepts
- Readily leaves the plan
- Theoretical
- Desires change
- Focuses on future possibilities
- Looks to what could be
Decision Making - T versus F (how do you decide things?)
- Thinking
- Question first
- Know when reason is needed
- Wants things to be logical
- Cool and impersonal
- Detached and task focused
- Do not express feelings
- Feeling
- Accept first
- Know when support is needed
- Wants things to be pleasant
- Warm and personal
- Personally involved and people focused
- Express feelings with enthusiasm
Lifestyle - J versus P (how do you function?)
- Judging
- Like things settled and ordered
- Finish tasks early
- Goal focused
- Hate surprises
- Conclusive
- Quickly commit to plans and decisions
- Perceiving
- Likes things flexible and open
- Finish right at deadline
- Process focused
- Love surprises
- Tentative
- Willing to change plans and decisions
Wide-ranging Myers-Briggs studies have indicated that the population is divided up as indicated below (Human Metrics, 2010).
|
INTJ 1% |
ENTP 5% |
|
INFJ 1% |
ENFP 5% |
|
ISFJ 6% |
ESFP 13% |
|
ISTJ 6% |
ESTP 13% |
|
INTP 1% |
ENTJ 5% |
|
INFP 1% |
ENFJ 5% |
|
ISFP 5% |
ESFJ 13% |
| ISTP 7% | ESTJ 13% |
Application
This story is told by a former engineer in the aerospace industry.
The results of the Myers-Briggs Survey can be plotted on a chart as indicated below. The circle corresponds to 100% for any of the parameters. Once, two different companies were partnered on a major design project. The design team was made up with half of the members coming from each business. The team seemed to argue all the time, make little progress, and consistently make bad decisions. The top level management from each company decided to send the entire team to a team-building exercise. One of the things that the facilitator for the exercise did was ask everyone to take the Myers-Briggs Survey. The chart below indicates where I fell on the chart.
A Myers-briggs survey result charted.
Two other engineers lay in a similar regime of the chart.
A Myers-briggs survey result charted for two engineering colleagues.
However, every other member of the team (a total of 14 engineers) fell on the opposite side of the chart and were grouped as shown below.
A Myers-briggs survey result charted for 14 other engineering colleagues.
The facilitator said that she had never seen a team so badly unbalanced. She pointed out that with a preponderance of team members all on one side of the chart, we were likely not considering all aspects of the problems and decisions that we were dealing with. She recommended to management that they reorganize the team and bring in new members. They declined NOT to follow her advice, and left things exactly the same. Within 6 months, the three of us who were on the unbalanced side of the chart were so frustrated that one retired, one left the company, and one demanded to be transferred to a different programme. Which only made things worse. In the end, the project was cancelled and the contract that could have been worth millions of pounds to the two companies, was terminated. While this was not exclusively due to personality conflict, it certainly played a role in how the team worked together to address their problems. Thus personality differences should NOT be ignored and SHOULD be accounted for when building a team.
Take the Myers-Briggs Personality Survey: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm.
Compare scores among your class members in the context of the attributes discussed for the different parameters. Assess how you think you collectively would function as a team. What areas of strength and weakness might the team have?
Assess your own personal Myers-Briggs score, and what it theoretically says about your personality. Do you agree or disagree? Assess whether this indicates any areas of strength or weakness for you personally. Are there any things you should be aware of or avoid that are pointed out by these results?
You will use this data in Coursework 1.
Putting Things in Perspective
A team member once made the following comments regarding the benefits of being on a team:
- On a team there is always somebody else to blame
- Working on a team means never having to be wrong alone
Do you agree or disagree that these truly are advantages to a team?
Summary
Evidence exists that the strength of a team is greater than the sum of the strengths of the individual members. Hopefully, the class activities that you performed demonstrated that this is true of your team.
Evidence also exists that the difference in personalities of team members can impact the likelihood of success on a team project. The opportunities to examine your personality in respect to your teammates will allow you to collectively address any issues that exist within your team.
References & Bibliography
Dym, C. & Little, P. (2009). Engineering Design, 3rd edition. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Heizer, J., Munson, C. & Render, B. (2017). Operations Management. New York: Pearson.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982). Manual of Learning Styles. London: P Honey
Horenstein, M. (2002). Design Concepts for Engineers, 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice.
Human Metrics (2010). Jung Typology Test. Accessed: 14 September 2015. Online <www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm>
Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (2003). The wisdom of Teams. New York, NY, USA: Harper-Collins.
Meredith, J. & Mantel, S. (2012). Project Management, 8th edition. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
The Personality Development Café (2013). Desert Survival Team Building Exercise. Accessed 14 September 2015. Online <http://www.thepersonaldevelopmentcafe.com>