Enter The Blog

Thanks for returning! I have a Facebook Fan page and Twitter account that you may be interested in too.

When I was in school I never considered my group assignments as ‘projects’. Instead I looked at them as the same type of work I had done before, but now shared with other people. In fact I never really knew what project management was until after I graduated from business school.

I realize now that group assignments can be considered small projects and that they can be completed easier by using some basic tools. In a great little book called ‘Managing Smaller Projects’, Mike Watson discusses small projects and how they require a different mindset. First of all Watson defines projects as having at least 5 characteristics; an objective, start and end dates, a temporary team and milestones and tasks. A small project is one where there are a lot of constraints on time and resources.

Almost all group assignments in school are just small projects since they have both time and size constraints. These constraints force them to be usually a few weeks to months in duration and in groups of 5 or less. Therefore students typically have to get organized and start working quickly if they intend to meet their deadlines.

So what should a group do to ensure that they are working quickly but effectively? Well Watson says that small projects sometimes get derailed because the team wastes time searching for solutions or getting into too much detail for the scope of the project. To help solve this problem groups should write a project outline and have their professor or teacher review at some early point. The project outline is a document which details; the objectives of the project, the way your group will accomplish the objectives, goals, communication plan and finally your milestones. This may sound like a lot, but it really doesn’t have to be. I’ll break down these things one by one.

1. Objectives – You need to clarify what your purpose is and make sure everyone in the group is aware of it. Watson says that objectives should be S.M.A.R.T. which means Stated clearly, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic and Time sensitive.
2. Proposed project – What exactly will your project be about? As it becomes clearer, be sure to write down all the details as a group.
3. Communication plan – If you agree on how and when you will communicate, you’re more likely to actually do it. Make sure everyone has each other’s contact details. Using a site like EnterTheGroup.com to keep track of your work and communication can help.
4. Milestones & tasks – Once you decide what your project will look like you then need to think about milestones and tasks. A milestone is a point where your project has completed a certain number of tasks. Groups should create milestones so that there is metaphorical path from beginning to end. For small projects there will only be a few milestones each consisting of a couple of tasks.

Ultimately a group project should follow the same steps as a large project. However the difference is that small projects shouldn’t get bogged down in details. They should write an outline, keep track of tasks and milestones and definitely meet on and offline, but these formalities should be brief and to the point.

Once these steps are mastered, you’ll notice that the formality isn’t a time waster, but instead a time saver. Your projects will definitely come out better if you write and stick to an outline.

Popularity: 31% [?]

Here’s an interesting result from a scientific study – self-control (or lack of it) is infectious! In other words, these studies found that when we affiliate ourselves with people who have a lot (or little) self-control it affects our life decisions.

Maybe this isn’t so shocking after all since we know that group think is very powerful and people tend to conform to the average of the groups to which they belong. This type of conformity can be both a psychological and physiological phenomenon. We see it all the way from the joining of cults to the synchronizations of women’s ovulation cycles.

This idea of conformity exists in the working world as well. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation can attest to the fact that peer (or boss) pressure has significant influence. Finally and the main reason why I posted the link below, is that when it comes to students working together on group projects, conformity can take hold. Groups must encourage dialogue and constructive criticism through open communication. Of course you may reach a point where you want conformity. This will likely be after a lot of thinking and discussion has already occurred.

Here is a link to the research study: http://entertheblog.com/wX

Popularity: 25% [?]

It was not a surprise to me to read this article from the PsyBlog which argues that people in groups tend not to make the best decisions because they don’t share information. From my experience in the money management world I know that people tend to tell you what you want to hear rather than what you ‘need’ to hear. People seek to find the consensus of a group and then quickly join in so as to avoid standing out.

I was aware that stock analysts and portfolio managers follow the herd, but this article cites evidence that even doctors fail to share information when it comes to diagnosing patients (that’s scary). So it would seem that people working in groups, regardless of the industry, tend to fall prey to this phenomenon.

When working on a group project the same issues apply; we have to create an atmosphere of trust where everyone feels safe to share information. We also have to be thorough so that we think about every piece of information that could be relevant to our project.

Check out this great article;http://entertheblog.com/1C

Popularity: 12% [?]

This is an interesting article out of Farnam Street Blog discussing how quickly people can identify with groups. In a study described below teenagers quickly identified with their own ‘groups’ and subsequently discriminated against other groups. Group dynamics seem to have a powerful effect on the human psyche, apparently causing people to do things they normally wouldn’t. Why is that???

Why Groups and Prejudices form so Easily

This classic social psychology experiment shows how little excuse people need to form into groups and start discriminating against others.

People’s behaviour in groups is fascinating and frequently disturbing. As soon as humans are bunched together in groups we start to do odd things: copy other members of our group, favour members of own group over others, look for a leader to worship and fight other groups. Just glance at Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment for proof of how easy it is to provoke war between groups.

But think about the types of groups you belong to, and you’ll realise they differ dramatically. Some groups are more like soldiers in the same unit or friends who have known each other from childhood. Long-standing, tight-knit, protecting each other. Perhaps it’s not surprising people in these groups radically change their behaviour, preferring members of their own group over others in many ways.

Other groups, though, are much looser. Supporters of a large sports club, for example, or work colleagues only together on a project for a few months or even a group of people in an art gallery appreciating a painting.

It seems impossible that people stood together for only 30 seconds to look at a painting can be said to form a group in any measurable way. Surely it’s too fleeting, too ephemeral? This is exactly the type of question social psychologist Henry Tajfel and colleagues set out to answer.

They believed it was possible for a group, along with its attendant prejudices, to form at the drop of a hat. In fact they thought a group could form even when there was no face-to-face contact between members, none of the people knew each other and their ‘group’ behaviour had no practical consequences. In other words they had absolutely nothing to gain (or lose) from this barely existent group.
Forming a ‘minimal group’

Tajfel and colleagues came up with a neat solution for testing their idea. Participants, who were 14 and 15 year-old boys, were brought into the lab and shown slides of paintings by Klee and Kandinsky. They were told their preferences for the paintings would determine which of two groups they would join.

Of course, this was a lie designed to set up the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in their minds. The experimenters wanted two groups of boys with not the faintest idea who was also in their own group or what the grouping meant or what they had to lose or gain.

After this setup, the boys were taken to a cubicle, one at a time. Each was then asked to distribute virtual money to the other members of both groups. The only information they had about who they were giving it to was a code number for each boy and that boy’s group membership.

There were a series of rules for the distribution of the money that were designed to tease out who the boys favoured: their own group or the other group. The rules were changed slightly in different trials so that it was possible to test a number of theories. Did the boys distribute the money:

* Fairly?
* To obtain maximum joint profit?
* For maximum ingroup (own group) profit?
* For maximum difference between groups?
* Using favouritism? This involves a combination of maximum ingroup profit and maximum difference?

Startling findings

From the way the virtual money was distributed, the boys did indeed demonstrate the classic behavioural markers of group membership: they favoured their own group over the other. And this pattern developed consistently over many, many trials and has subsequently been replicated in other experiments in which groups were, if you can believe it, even more minimal.

When I first came across this experiment, my first reaction was to find it startling. Remember, the boys had no idea who was in their group ‘with them’ or who was in the other group. But, the most puzzling aspect of this experiment is that the boys had nothing whatsoever to gain from favouring their own group – there didn’t seem to be anything riding on their decisions.

Out in the real world there’s a good reason to favour your own group – normally it is also advantageous to yourself. You protect yourself by protecting others like you.
Social identity theory

What Tajfel argued, though, was that there was something riding on the decisions the boys made, but it was something very subtle, yet incredibly profound.

Tajfel argued that people build their own identities from their group memberships. For example, think of each of the groups you belong to: say at work, or within your family. Part of who you are is probably defined by these groups. Putting it the other way around: the nature of your group memberships define your identity.

As our group membership forms our identity, it is only natural for us to want to be part of groups that are both high status and have a positive image. Crucially though, high status groups only have that high status when compared to other groups. In other words: knowing your group is superior requires having a worse group to look down upon.

Seen in the light of social identity theory, then, the boys in the experiment do have a reason to be selfish about the allocation of the virtual cash. It is all about boosting their own identities through making their own group look better.
Criticisms

No experiment can, or should, be automatically taken at face value. Questions have to be asked about whether it is really telling us what the authors claim. There are two criticisms often levelled at this experiment and its interpretation:

1. The participant’s behaviour can be explained by simple economic self-interest. But: in another experiment only symbols were used rather than ‘virtual’ money and the results were the same.
2. The participants were responding to what they thought the experimenters wanted (psychologists call this ‘demand characteristics’). But: Tajfel argues it is unclear to the participants what the experimenters wanted. Recall that the rules for distributing money frequently changed. Also, the participants were encouraged to think that choosing whose paintings they liked (the ‘first’ experiment) was unrelated to the allocation of virtual money (the ’second’ experiment).

Despite these criticisms, Tajfel and colleagues’ findings have stood the test of time. The experiment, or something like it, has been repeated many times with different variations producing much the same results.
Centrality of group membership

Social identity theory states that our identities are formed through the groups to which we belong. As a result we are motivated to improve the image and status of our own group in comparison with others.

Tajfel and colleagues’ experiment shows that group membership is so important to us that we join the most ephemeral of groups with only the slightest prompting. We will then go out of our way to make our own group look better compared to others.

The simple fact of how important group membership is to us, and how easily we join groups, often without realising it, is both a subtle and profound observation about human nature.

Read more: http://entertheblog.com/Q7

Popularity: 9% [?]

We often think that working in a group is at best an inconvenience and at worst a big impediment to our success. However, have you ever considered the possibility that a group can be more effective than working alone? If done properly, a well organized group can spark creativity, enhance IQ, bring more skills to the table and accomplish more work.

In the animal world, many types of individually powerful animals hunt in packs to increase their chances of success. They do this typically because the game they’re hunting is too large for them to attack on their own. By joining a group, these animals (for example wolf packs) can out-maneuver and overpower their prey. Of course by joining forces animals take on some risks as well. They must share any food they kill, even if it is a small amount and they ALL suffer if any of the animals fails to do their job in capturing prey. These risks are worth taking if the pack (or group) is successful. We should think of our groups in group projects in the same way; as potentially being able to achieve much more than individuals, but not without risk.

The Roman army, which was once the most powerful force in the world, was based on the premise of groups. The army was broken into a number of groups of various sizes. The smallest of these groups were called centuries, which were made up of approximately 100 soldiers. These centuries worked as a cohesive unit with one leader, who was called a centurion. The soldiers in these groups operated in a box formation with their shields lined up side by side. By operating in this way the soldiers could defend themselves better while also being able to break through enemy lines. These simple concepts were applied consistently and very precisely, which is one reason why they were so successful in battle.

Centuries working as a group, moving in tandem and all following the same strategy were able to defeat armies across the world. Their enemies were often unorganized and fought as a group of individuals. The difference between the Roman soldiers and their enemies were primarily better training and discipline. Training and discipline will distinguish an individual from his peers or his competition, however; What distinguishes a successful group from an unsuccessful one?

This question can be answered if we first understand why people join groups and what their motivations are. If you’re a student then the answer to the first question of why is obvious, you have no choice! You were given an assignment to do and you must do it. Also if you’re an employee, it’s likely the same answer applies; you’re in a group because you were given a project to complete and you must do it or get fired! It’s fair to say that there is motivation in not failing or not being fired. However, human beings tend to strive for something positive as opposed to avoiding something negative. Isn’t it more likely that you will work hard to achieve a good grade as opposed to working just not to fail? Also, won’t you work harder to get a raise or promotion as opposed to just keeping your job and current status? Quite simply, human beings are motivated when they have the opportunity to achieve significant goals.

If people are given clear goals then they have something to strive for and this gives us purpose, not only in our group projects, but also in life. Therefore, a successful group should have a clear goal of what they intend to achieve and this goal should be meaningful for everyone in the group. In the example of the wolf pack, the goal is to kill their prey and eat. In the example of the Roman centuries, their goal is to win the battle and in the process not only survive, but also bring honor, prestige and wealth to the Roman Empire. Therefore the first rule of a successful group is having a common purpose or goal.

While goals are extremely important, the truth is that they can only be achieved through some form of strategy. A strategy is a method of achieving a goal. An example of this concept would be someone who wanted to travel from point A to point B. This is the person’s goal. Her strategy may be to get in car, consult her GPS and drive there. The strategy of a group is something which needs to be formed by discussing the problem at hand and the various ways of solving it. The methods of solving a problem are going to be based on the skills and number of people available in the group. The formation of an accepted group strategy will be a compromise based on trial and error. Ultimately the group’s strategy should be formed clearly and there should be consensus across the group.

Thus the second rule of a successful group is an accepted and unified approach. Take again the example of the Roman century, if any of the soldiers in the group decided that the Roman approach to battle was wrong and went their own way, what do you think would happen to them? Well if they broke off from the box formation and went off on their own it is likely that one of two things would have happened; they would have been killed in battle or if not, they would be executed by Roman commanders after the battle. In either situation, the result is not desirable. Therefore there is a strong pressure to conform to a group’s strategy once it has been decided upon.

In conclusion, we should overcome any prejudices that we may have regarding the potential power of working in groups. Even if our beliefs are the consequences of negative past experiences we should remember that groups can accomplish more than individuals. Furthermore we should remember that very successful groups can even go so far as conquering the world, turning a company into an industry leader or quite simply achieving top grades.

Popularity: 9% [?]

This article discusses the issues that people face when working with others. I believe that group dynamics are more complex than people realize and this article addresses that. This article is courtesy of PsyBlog.

Discover the essentials of group psychology.

When we’re in a group other people have an incredibly powerful effect on us. Groups can kill our creativity, inspire us to work harder, allow us to slack off, skew our decision-making and make us clam up.

The keys to understanding human behaviour—our lives as citizens, as workers, as friends—are in the research on group psychology, which PsyBlog has been exploring over the past few months.

This post provides an overview and you can follow the links to explore the experiments that reveal the power groups hold over us.

Formation, influence and leadership

The seeds of group behaviour are sown even before its members meet. Just knowing that some people are on ‘our side’ and others are not begins to shape our social identity. Group affiliation soon grows even stronger, though, bending our behaviour further, if we undergo an initiation rite. A rite as simple as reading rude words out loud can produce a measurable effect (see 10 rules that govern groups, #1, #2).

Once we are in a group it starts to shape us through conformity, pulling our attitudes and behaviour in line with others, threatening us with ostracism if we dare to rebel and, when facing rival groups, firing our competitive spirit (see 10 rules that govern groups, #3, #4, #10).

Popularity: 6% [?]