Long article: Committees, Juries, Teams

The term group polarization came up in this article and I found it interesting.

It's saying that when placed in a group setting an individual will introduce a more radical course of action to a problem in order to gain group acceptance. Then they make whats called a risky or choice shift to that more extreme result and go from there. This is interesting because after further research I found some real life applications of this issue of group polarization.

First is the holocaust and Hitler brought together a group of people who disliked Jewish people. As this group came together they polarized to that hatred of the Jewish peoples and their way of dealing with them became much more extreme which we all know.

Another is in government, say the president (democrat) lays a new bill down in the senate. The republicans get together and discuss it. Someone speaks up saying why they disagree with the bill and then another and then another and then the group polarizes around their disapproval of the bill making radical changes that would not have originally taken place if not for the polarization.

Group Polarization is a crucial topic that can produce devastating results and while the understanding of this topic is not fully acquired it is still something that has been observed to have happened within teams and is something we should be aware of for the future.

Making Decisions

In class we talked about making decisions and what that entails. The case we went over talked about a race team and whether or not they should race given the circumstances. It seemed like a valid question, and the figures were all on paper. The emotional and instinctive response removed I decided not to race.

I saw this case as just a in class real world example that was just set up in order to be exercised in class. Honestly, I didn't have a real emotional feeling on whether or not they should race. It was only a difference in money that decided whether to race or not. Little did I know the reality of the situation.

On a cool morning in January the space shuttle Challenger took off for the last time. This data was questioning a part of the space shuttle that was dysfunctional at certain times. This data now holds a whole new meaning.When you have 7 american astronauts lives at risk knowing what that data entails how could you let that shuttle attempt take-off that morning. I, being far removed from the situation, said just alone when the loss was merely money that the event should not happen and now when the lives of others are at stake this should make the decision even easier...right?

Then Dr. Goates said the point about it being in their nature which is understandable. They were astronauts and that's what they were. I question whether or not the astronauts even knew that this data existed or were brought aware of it. I'm sure there is a general understanding that yeah they are going into space and that the risk of not coming home is there. But the specifics of this, whether they were or were not brought to the attention of the astronauts, should have been. Or, a higher power should have stepped in and shut the operation down. But, anyway it did happen and I for one would rather die attempting to explore a place where so few have traveled than dying in a car accident. Both of these have great risks. Most of us drive in a car everyday and many using our cellphones at the same time even though we know it is a big risk. So I guess what i'm saying is: Are the scientists and astronauts ignorant because they decided to fly anyway or are we ignorant because we make a great risk every time we use our cellphones and drive? Is it really any different?

Efficiency and Teams

Efficiency: we hear it in pretty much every business class we take. The more efficient production or organizational tasks can be accomplished the more time and money is saved. With teams this comes into play just as it does elsewhere. When a team is created and they connect to a level where they are  one unit then they are efficient, or a high performance team on the team performance curve. The curve shows the levels a team goes through and the efficiency that goes along with that. The main thing I think is important to consider with a team is that if it doesn't prove to be more efficient than why waste the time trying to fix it. Assemble a group that shoots through the projections and raises your companies sales or production output. With a team I think that once a personal relationship is bruised within the team that team cannot operate at an efficient level and therefore must be fixed in a way that is outlined in the team performance curve article. They can either add members, get rid of members, or place responsibilities elsewhere. Just to wrap it all up that without running on. The main goal of creating a team should be to improve efficiency, without this the team does not help the company grow.

Multicultural Groups

With different cultures working together their will always be bridges to cross. I mean we look through history and its easy to see why. Their has been so much animosity and wars fought because one group of people disagrees with another's way of living. Like with the small discussion of Palestine in class. The cultures have been placed their and split so awkwardly that there is bound to be disputes. The Israeli people and the Palestinians don't particularly like one another as is and having them work together to form a peace treaty is difficult. But by using the tools in the article managing multicultural groups maybe this problem could be solved. If adaptation doesn't work by fixing it on their own which hasn't happened since they've been placed there. Outside nations stepping in would be an issue as well so structural intervention doesn't seem to be a good idea. Managerial intervention seems like the best plan with the U.N. being that managerial body that steps in. If that doesn't work maybe the exit must occur where this just runs its course. This would be sad to see cause in the end without compromise, war would most likely occur.

The Low Grades

All our lives we have been conditioned to believe that grades are the most important thing. In high school it was oh you better not slack off or else you won't get into college. From my experience I think high school was a cake walk as long as you did the work and even if you slacked off which I know I did it is still easy to get through it. As far as getting into college, sure the first applicants that schools will look at will be those top GPA high school kids. But there always seems to be those kids in your dorm or gen-ed classes where your like how did they get into college. This is because high school grades don't carry over to college and the monkey on your back of everyday teachers and parents are gone.

As far as this article is concerned yeah it is most important to be above a 3.0 for a meaningful field of study if you  want to stand out. The first interviews employers will give will be with those who put in the effort on an independent basis to get to where they are. It's only fair that students who work their tail off to get that high GPA get rewarded by getting that first interview.

But, in my opinion the GPA is only their to get in the door and that the rest of your resume or even just your attitude and personality in general will get you the rest of the way. One employer I had even asked us (the employees) to take a personality test just to see how well we fit our jobs.

From the employer perspective I think yes they should interview those top GPA students but also allocate time for the lower GPA students as well because extra curriculars definitely affect someones GPA and you never know when you'll find that diamond in the rough.

Discrimination

In relation to the walmart case we talked about in class I have a few comments I want to put out there.

Walmart has around if not over 4500 stores in the U.S. and almost double that worldwide. With that many stores and an improper infrastructure to detect these things it is understandable that this could happen. I am in no way saying that this sort of discrimination is an alright thing. With the number of employees and managers that headquarters has to manage, along with all other aspects of the Walmart culture, it is not a foolproof plan and there are sometimes mistakes which they have now discovered. And as long as Walmart fixes this issue going in to the future and compensates those who were discriminated against then it is a step forward.

Check this story out:
       I was watching undercover boss one week and it was with the hooters organization. As you can imagine they have their fair share of discrimination. The one manager that this boss shadowed was a jerk to his employees to say the least. He forced them to do contests when it came to letting people off early. The one contest was eating a plate of baked beans with no hands. Yeah this guy was a creep. Anyway, later when the manager had the meeting with the boss. The boss said how he knows that this sort of management style is wrong and that he's sure there are a few bad eggs in the company but that he would do what he could to find them and prevent this from happening again. The manager was fired instantly.