Participation and synergy in groups

Topic 3 has been the most valuable so far. In my subject, due to large groups and low funding per student, the students do all assignments in groups. Three very pertinent questions were raised in my group. The first concerned how to really engage all students in the groups. The problem with free-riders was discussed – a particular problem since we are supposed to assess and grade the students individually even if they do their work in groups. Interestingly, research apparently shows that assessment does not increase participation (Brindley et al. 2009).

The second question addressed the possibilities to create synergies in the group. Even if all group members participate actively, it is not certain that they work as an integrated group. They may be tempted to divide the work between them and choose one part of the assignment each. This may obviously be time-efficient for them but it also leads to their knowledge acquisition being fragmented and they miss the possibilities that teamwork has to learn from one another and arrive at a larger wholeness than just the sum of the individual inputs. In this context, I found an article by Sanchez-Segura et al. (2018) which contains valuable input in this regard. The authors propose a stepwise way of working. The first step is an organisational immersion phase in which the participants get to know each other and plan the continued work (probably a little as we did in the first topic of the ONL course). Identifying the group's target as well as their barriers and negative beliefs are important parts of this stage. The next step is the organisational expression in which the problem is structured. Then follows step 3 which is called root definition of relevant systems in which the group formally identifies their vision for understanding the situation of the problem. Next, in step 4 a system that supports the solution to the problem should be defined. In step 5, the outputs of steps 2-4 are checked for sufficiency. If this assessment is positive, the group moves on to step 6 in which they define the changes and desired states. Finally, in step 7 the changes and policies are implemented. One important success factor seems to be to really identify the barriers and negative beliefs that hinder the progress of the group. By addressing them, they can be turned into levers that instead propel the group forward. An example is that the barrier of lack of time can be addressed by clear scheduling, short and effective meetings and efficient communication. Although I am not sure that I understand all parts of their way of working, I think it can contribute to the course development and delivery. I will try to use it in my next course.

The third question that we came up with was how diversity in groups influence the engagement and synergies. We seemed to agree that although homogenous groups may be more time-efficient in the short run, diverse groups have much more creativity and innovativeness. I think diversity is important in order for us not to end up in knowledge bubbles in which only our own presuppositions are confirmed. Related to this subject, I watched a TED-talk by Rocío Lorenzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPtPG2lAmm4

I mention this in my previous blog post. She confirmed the value of diversity for creativity. But, amazingly only 30% of German top companies have even one woman in their board. They are really missing out on a great deal of knowledge and creativity.

Finally, we decided to use our own group as an example of how a good group could function. That was good fun :)