ARE 112 - Wk 3 4/13

4 horsemen of the apocalypse

The four attitudes that most predict the dissolution of a relationship, especially in combination, are criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. Dr. John Gottman, a psychologist at the University of Washington, studied more than 2,000 married couples over two decades. He discovered patterns about how partners relate to each other which can be used to predict - with 94% accuracy - which marriages will succeed and which will fail. Gottman says that each horseman paves the way for the next. worked w/ couples In our work with couples, we have found that unhappy couples are usually doing some form of relationship dance involving some combination of pursue-withdraw. - in other words, the more one person tries to get close the more the other person withdraws; and the more the other person withdraws, the more the first person tries to get close. criticism and defensiveness are common aspects of the pursue part of the dance and contempt and stonewalling are common aspects of the withdraw part of the dance What we are really saying when we are pursuing through criticism and defensiveness is "Notice me. Be with me. Pay attention to me. I need you." What we are really saying when we are withdrawing even when done with contempt and stonewalling is "I don't want you to hurt me. Leave me alone. I am trying to stay in control." Either way, these behaviours are serious indicators that the relationship is in trouble 1. Criticism - Attacking your partner's personality or character, usually with the intent of making someone right and someone wrong - Generalizations: "you always..." "you never...""you're the type of person who ..." "why are you so ..." 2. Contempt - Attacking your partner's sense of self with the intention to insult or psychologically abuse him/her - Insults and name calling: " bastard, wimp, fat, stupid, ugly, slob, lazy..." Hostile humor, sarcasm or mockery Body language & tone of voice: sneering, rolling your eyes, curling your upper lip Defensiveness - Seeing self as the victim, warding off a perceived attack - Making excuses (e.g., external circumstances beyond your control forced you to act in a certain way) "It's not my fault...", "I didn't..." - Cross-complaining: meeting your partner's complaint, or criticism with a complaint of your own, ignoring what your partner said - Disagreeing and then cross-complaining "That's not true, you're the one who ..." - Yes-butting: start off agreeing but end up disagreeing - Repeating yourself without paying attention to what the other person is saying - Whining "It's not fair. Stonewalling (This final horseman is considered the most dangerous of all because an individual begins to withdrawal from the conflict itself, avoiding it at all costs. (the end - this is dysfunctional) - Withdrawing from the relationship as a way to avoid conflict. Partners may think they are trying to be "neutral" but stonewalling conveys disapproval, icy distance, separation, disconnection, and/or smugness - Stony silence - Monosyllabic mutterings - Changing the subject - Removing yourself physically So what can you do if you notice yourself participating in criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and/or stonewalling? - Learn to make specific complaints & requests (when X happened, I felt Y, I want Z) - Learn to communicate consciously by speaking the unarguable truth - Learn to listen generously. Listen for accuracy, for the core emotions your partner is expressing and for what your partner really wants. - Validate your partner (let your partner know what makes sense to you about what they are saying; let them know you understand what they are feeling, and what they want; see through their eyes) - Shift to appreciation (5 positive interactions are necessary to compensate for one negative interaction) - Claim responsibility: "What can I learn from this?" & "What can I do about it?" - Re-write your inner script (notice when you are thinking critical, contemptuous or defensive thoughts; replace thoughts of righteous indignation or innocent victimization with thoughts of appreciation, and responsibility that are soothing & validating) - Practice getting undefended (allowing your partner's utterances to be what they really are: just thoughts and puffs of air) and let go of the stories that you are making up

Project Aristotle

What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team - Fact based on what they do New research reveals surprising truths about why some work groups thrive and others falter Julia - wasn't sure what she wanted to do w/ her life - All she knew for certain was that she wanted to find a job that was more social. ''I wanted to be part of a community, part of something people were building together,'' she told me. She thought about various opportunities — Internet companies, a Ph.D. program — but nothing seemed exactly right. So in 2009, she chose the path that allowed her to put off making a decision: She applied to business schools and was accepted by the Yale School of Management. - When Rozovsky arrived on campus, she was assigned to a study group carefully engineered by the school to foster tight bonds. Study groups have become a rite of passage at M.B.A. programs, a way for students to practice working in teams and a reflection of the increasing demand for employees who can adroitly navigate group dynamics A worker today might start the morning by collaborating with a team of engineers, then send emails to colleagues marketing a new brand, then jump on a conference call planning an entirely different product line, while also juggling team meetings with accounting and the party-planning committee. To prepare students for that complex world, business schools around the country have revised their curriculums to emphasize team-focused learning. Every day, between classes or after dinner, Rozovsky and her four teammates gathered to discuss homework assignments, compare spreadsheets and strategize for exams. Everyone was smart and curious, and they had a lot in common: They had gone to similar colleges and had worked at analogous firms. These shared experiences, Rozovsky hoped, would make it easy for them to work well together. But it didn't turn out that way. ''There are lots of people who say some of their best business-school friends come from their study groups,'' Rozovsky told me. ''It wasn't like that for me.'' her studying became a source of stress - ''I always felt like I had to prove myself,'' she said. The team's dynamics could put her on edge. When the group met, teammates sometimes jockeyed for the leadership position or criticized one another's ideas. There were conflicts over who was in charge and who got to represent the group in class. ''People would try to show authority by speaking louder or talking over each other,'' Rozovsky told me. ''I always felt like I had to be careful not to make mistakes around them.'' she looked around for other groups to join - found "case competitions" - contests in which participants proposed solutions to real-world business problems that were evaluated by judges, who awarded trophies and cash. - wasn't all that different from what Rozovsky did with her study group: conducting lots of research and financial analyses, writing reports and giving presentations. The members of her case-competition team had a variety of professional experiences: Army officer, researcher at a think tank, director of a health-education nonprofit organization and consultant to a refugee program. Despite their disparate backgrounds, however, everyone clicked. - One of her favorite competitions asked teams to come up with a new business to replace a student-run snack store on Yale's campus. Rozovsky proposed a nap room and selling earplugs and eyeshades to make money. Someone else suggested filling the space with old video games. There were ideas about clothing swaps. Most of the proposals were impractical, but ''we all felt like we could say anything to each other,'' Rozovsky told me. ''No one worried that the rest of the team was judging them.'' Eventually, the team settled on a plan for a microgym with a handful of exercise classes and a few weight machines. They won the competition. (The microgym — with two stationary bicycles and three treadmills — still exists.) - her study group of hers dissolved her second semester - her case team however stuck together for the two years she was at Yale It always struck Rozovsky as odd that her experiences with the two groups were dissimilar. Each was composed of people who were bright and outgoing. When she talked one on one with members of her study group, the exchanges were friendly and warm. It was only when they gathered as a team that things became fraught. By contrast, her case-competition team was always fun and easygoing. In some ways, the team's members got along better as a group than as individual friends. Yet many of today's most valuable firms have come to realize that analyzing and improving individual workers — a practice known as ''employee performance optimization'' — isn't enough. As commerce becomes increasingly global and complex, the bulk of modern work is more and more team-based In Silicon Valley, software engineers are encouraged to work together, in part because studies show that groups tend to innovate faster, see mistakes more quickly and find better solutions to problems. Studies also show that people working in teams tend to achieve better results and report higher job satisfaction. In a 2015 study, executives said that profitability increases when workers are persuaded to collaborate more. Within companies and conglomerates, as well as in government agencies and schools, teams are now the fundamental unit of organization. If a company wants to outstrip its competitors, it needs to influence not only how people work but also how they work together. Five years ago, Google — one of the most public proselytizers of how studying workers can transform productivity — became focused on building the perfect team. In the last decade, the tech giant has spent untold millions of dollars measuring nearly every aspect of its employees' lives. Google's People Operations department has scrutinized everything from how frequently particular people eat together (the most productive employees tend to build larger networks by rotating dining companions) to which traits the best managers share (unsurprisingly, good communication and avoiding micromanaging is critical; more shocking, this was news to many Google managers). - In 2012, the company embarked on an initiative — code-named Project Aristotle — to study hundreds of Google's teams and figure out why some stumbled while others soared. Dubey, a leader of the project, gathered some of the company's best statisticians, organizational psychologists, sociologists and engineers. He also needed researchers. Rozovsky, by then, had decided that what she wanted to do with her life was study people's habits and tendencies. After graduating from Yale, she was hired by Google and was soon assigned to Project Aristotle. Project Aristotle's researchers began by reviewing a half-century of academic studies looking at how teams worked. Were the best teams made up of people with similar interests? Or did it matter more whether everyone was motivated by the same kinds of rewards? Based on those studies, the researchers scrutinized the composition of groups inside Google: How often did teammates socialize outside the office? Did they have the same hobbies? Were their educational backgrounds similar? Was it better for all teammates to be outgoing or for all of them to be shy? They drew diagrams showing which teams had overlapping memberships and which groups had exceeded their departments' goals. They studied how long teams stuck together and if gender balance seemed to have an impact on a team's success. No matter how researchers arranged the data, though, it was almost impossible to find patterns — or any evidence that the composition of a team made any difference. ''We looked at 180 teams from all over the company,'' Dubey said. ''We had lots of data, but there was nothing showing that a mix of specific personality types or skills or backgrounds made any difference. The 'who' part of the equation didn't seem to matter.'' - Some groups that were ranked among Google's most effective teams, for instance, were composed of friends who socialized outside work. Others were made up of people who were basically strangers away from the conference room. Some groups sought strong managers. Others preferred a less hierarchical structure. Most confounding of all, two teams might have nearly identical makeups, with overlapping memberships, but radically different levels of effectiveness. ''At Google, we're good at finding patterns,'' Dubey said. ''There weren't strong patterns here.'' As they struggled to figure out what made a team successful, Rozovsky and her colleagues kept coming across research by psychologists and sociologists that focused on what are known as ''group norms.'' Norms are the traditions, behavioral standards and unwritten rules that govern how we function when we gather: One team may come to a consensus that avoiding disagreement is more valuable than debate; another team might develop a culture that encourages vigorous arguments and spurns groupthink. Norms can be unspoken or openly acknowledged, but their influence is often profound. Team members may behave in certain ways as individuals — they may chafe against authority or prefer working independently — but when they gather, the group's norms typically override individual proclivities and encourage deference (respect) to the team. Project Aristotle's researchers began searching through the data they had collected, looking for norms. They looked for instances when team members described a particular behavior as an ''unwritten rule'' or when they explained certain things as part of the ''team's culture.'' Some groups said that teammates interrupted one another constantly and that team leaders reinforced that behavior by interrupting others themselves. On other teams, leaders enforced conversational order, and when someone cut off a teammate, group members would politely ask everyone to wait his or her turn. Some teams celebrated birthdays and began each meeting with informal chitchat about weekend plans. Other groups got right to business and discouraged gossip. After looking at over a hundred groups for more than a year, Project Aristotle researchers concluded that understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Google's teams. But Rozovsky, now a lead researcher, needed to figure out which norms mattered most. Google's research had identified dozens of behaviors that seemed important, except that sometimes the norms of one effective team contrasted sharply with those of another equally successful group. Was it better to let everyone speak as much as they wanted, or should strong leaders end meandering debates? Was it more effective for people to openly disagree with one another, or should conflicts be played down? The data didn't offer clear verdicts. In fact, the data sometimes pointed in opposite directions. The only thing worse than not finding a pattern is finding too many of them. Which norms, Rozovsky and her colleagues wondered, were the ones that successful teams shared? based on the option of which group you'd rather join - In 2008, a group of psychologists from Carnegie Mellon, M.I.T. and Union College began to try to answer a question very much like this one. ''Over the past century, psychologists made considerable progress in defining and systematically measuring intelligence in individuals,'' the researchers wrote in the journal Science in 2010. ''We have used the statistical approach they developed for individual intelligence to systematically measure the intelligence of groups.'' Put differently, the researchers wanted to know if there is a collective I. Q. that emerges within a team that is distinct from the smarts of any single member. To accomplish this, the researchers recruited 699 people, divided them into small groups and gave each a series of assignments that required different kinds of cooperation. One assignment, for instance, asked participants to brainstorm possible uses for a brick. Some teams came up with dozens of clever uses; others kept describing the same ideas in different words. Another had the groups plan a shopping trip and gave each teammate a different list of groceries. The only way to maximize the group's score was for each person to sacrifice an item they really wanted for something the team needed. Some groups easily divvied up the buying; others couldn't fill their shopping carts because no one was willing to compromise. What interested the researchers most, however, was that teams that did well on one assignment usually did well on all the others. Conversely, teams that failed at one thing seemed to fail at everything. The researchers eventually concluded that what distinguished the ''good'' teams from the dysfunctional groups was how teammates treated one another. The right norms, in other words, could raise a group's collective intelligence, whereas the wrong norms could hobble a team, even if, individually, all the members were exceptionally bright. - But what was confusing was that not all the good teams appeared to behave in the same ways. ''Some teams had a bunch of smart people who figured out how to break up work evenly,'' said Anita Woolley, the study's lead author. ''Other groups had pretty average members, but they came up with ways to take advantage of everyone's relative strengths. Some groups had one strong leader. Others were more fluid, and everyone took a leadership role.'' As the researchers studied the groups, however, they noticed two behaviors that all the good teams generally shared. First, on the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as ''equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.'' On some teams, everyone spoke during each task; on others, leadership shifted among teammates from assignment to assignment. But in each case, by the end of the day, everyone had spoken roughly the same amount. ''As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well,'' Woolley said. ''But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence declined.'' Second, the good teams all had high ''average social sensitivity''— a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues. One of the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity is to show someone photos of people's eyes and ask him or her to describe what the people are thinking or feeling — an exam known as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test - people on the more successful teams scored above avg. on the test Within psychology, researchers sometimes colloquially refer to traits like ''conversational turn-taking'' and ''average social sensitivity'' as aspects of what's known as psychological safety — a group culture that the Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson defines as a ''shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.'' Psychological safety is ''a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up,'' Edmondson wrote in a study published in 1999. ''It describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.'' '' Rozovsky's study group at Yale was draining because the norms — the fights over leadership, the tendency to critique — put her on guard - Whereas the norms of her case-competition team — enthusiasm for one another's ideas, joking around and having fun — allowed everyone to feel relaxed and energized. - But Google's data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything else, was critical to making a team work. - ''We had to get people to establish psychologically safe environments,'' Rozovsky told me. But it wasn't clear how to do that. ''People here are really busy,'' she said. ''We needed clear guidelines.'' - However, establishing psychological safety is, by its very nature, somewhat messy and difficult to implement. You can tell people to take turns during a conversation and to listen to one another more. You can instruct employees to be sensitive to how their colleagues feel and to notice when someone seems upset. But the kinds of people who work at Google are often the ones who became software engineers because they wanted to avoid talking about feelings in the first place. - They hadn't yet figured out how to make psychological safety easy, but they hoped that publicizing their research within Google would prompt employees to come up with some ideas of their own. - ''I might be the luckiest individual on earth,'' Sakaguchi told me. ''I'm not really an engineer. I didn't study computers in college. Everyone who works for me is much smarter than I am.'' But he is talented at managing technical workers, and as a result, Sakaguchi has thrived at Google. He and his wife, a teacher, have a home in San Francisco and a weekend house in the Sonoma Valley wine country. ''Most days, I feel like I've won the lottery,'' he said. Sakaguchi was particularly interested in Project Aristotle because the team he previously oversaw at Google hadn't jelled particularly well. ''There was one senior engineer who would just talk and talk, and everyone was scared to disagree with him,'' Sakaguchi said. ''The hardest part was that everyone liked this guy outside the group setting, but whenever they got together as a team, something happened that made the culture go wrong.'' Sakaguchi had recently become the manager of a new team, and he wanted to make sure things went better this time. So he asked researchers at Project Aristotle if they could help. They provided him with a survey to gauge the group's norms. - When Sakaguchi asked his new team to participate, he was greeted with skepticism. ''It seemed like a total waste of time,'' said Sean Laurent, an engineer. ''But Matt was our new boss, and he was really into this questionnaire, and so we said, Sure, we'll do it, whatever.'' The team completed the survey, and a few weeks later, Sakaguchi received the results. He was surprised by what they revealed. He thought of the team as a strong unit. But the results indicated there were weaknesses: When asked to rate whether the role of the team was clearly understood and whether their work had impact, members of the team gave middling to poor scores. These responses troubled Sakaguchi, because he hadn't picked up on this discontent. He wanted everyone to feel fulfilled by their work. He asked the team to gather, off site, to discuss the survey's results. He began by asking everyone to share something personal about themselves. He went first. - the manager was actually battling stage 4 cancer in his kidney that spread to his spine (a new one went to his liver) - no one knew he was dealing with that After Sakaguchi spoke, another teammate stood and described some health issues of her own. Then another discussed a difficult breakup. Eventually, the team shifted its focus to the survey. They found it easier to speak honestly about the things that had been bothering them, their small frictions and everyday annoyances. They agreed to adopt some new norms: - From now on, Sakaguchi would make an extra effort to let the team members know how their work fit into Google's larger mission; they agreed to try harder to notice when someone on the team was feeling excluded or down. 'As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well. But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence declined.' There was nothing in the survey that instructed Sakaguchi to share his illness with the group. There was nothing in Project Aristotle's research that said that getting people to open up about their struggles was critical to discussing a group's norms. But to Sakaguchi, it made sense that psychological safety and emotional conversations were related The behaviors that create psychological safety — conversational turn-taking and empathy — are part of the same unwritten rules we often turn to, as individuals, when we need to establish a bond. And those human bonds matter as much at work as anywhere else. In fact, they sometimes matter more. What Project Aristotle has taught people within Google is that no one wants to put on a ''work face'' when they get to the office. No one wants to leave part of their personality and inner life at home. But to be fully present at work, to feel ''psychologically safe,'' we must know that we can be free enough, sometimes, to share the things that scare us without fear of recriminations. We must be able to talk about what is messy or sad, to have hard conversations with colleagues who are driving us crazy. We can't be focused just on efficiency. Rather, when we start the morning by collaborating with a team of engineers and then send emails to our marketing colleagues and then jump on a conference call, we want to know that those people really hear us. We want to know that work is more than just labor. Which isn't to say that a team needs an ailing manager to come together. Any group can become Team B. Sakaguchi's experiences underscore a core lesson of Google's research into teamwork: By adopting the data-driven approach of Silicon Valley, Project Aristotle has encouraged emotional conversations and discussions of norms among people who might otherwise be uncomfortable talking about how they feel. ''Googlers love data,'' Sakaguchi told me. But it's not only Google that loves numbers, or Silicon Valley that shies away from emotional conversations. Most workplaces do. ''By putting things like empathy and sensitivity into charts and data reports, it makes them easier to talk about,'' Sakaguchi told me. ''It's easier to talk about our feelings when we can point to a number.'' The paradox, of course, is that Google's intense data collection and number crunching have led it to the same conclusions that good managers have always known. In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs. - Project Aristotle is a reminder that when companies try to optimize everything, it's sometimes easy to forget that success is often built on experiences — like emotional interactions and complicated conversations and discussions of who we want to be and how our teammates make us feel — that can't really be optimized. - ''That could have been the wrong thing to say to someone else, but he knew it was exactly what I needed to hear,'' Rozovsky said. ''With one 30-second interaction, we defused the tension.'' She wanted to be listened to. She wanted her teammate to be sensitive to what she was feeling. ''And I had research telling me that it was O.K. to follow my gut,'' she said. ''So that's what I did. The data helped me feel safe enough to do what I thought was right.''

I. Teams - Where Work and Learning Occurs in the Modern Organization

What "we have done", not one single individual - Southwest Air and the Indy 500 A. SA = no seats reserved; first come first served (makes sure everyone arrives on time and not having to hold the gate for someone that is late) B. Pit crew very similar to the gate crew (SW and Indy 500); as soon as they get their job done they can help someone else out - everyone gets their job done - reorganize the management of the gates (if you can get more planes out with help of the gate = more $); when everyone is gone to their destination (everyone helps to clean the plane including the pilots to get on board more customers = more revenue) - teams make a diff. = efficiency and effectiveness - Why have teams? = Scientific management i. Everyone's got a job to get done as in Weber's approach = a. Behavior school - People would rather work in a team than individually = willing to work harder and carry on responsibilities of teammates - Both of these schools are grounded in one another

Team characteristics (the environment of the TC's you have)

a. Trust (we have to trust each other to get things done) - trust that you're going to get your work done the right way and others as well - have to build trust - have an environment where it can be built a. Feedback processes (either I am or am not getting work done; or is there a better way to do this) --- the feedback is the content a. Channels of communications (feedback comes through this) - how that feedback comes around - normally verbal - could be written or visual - ex. govt. agency - committee that would manage the move from one building to another - people were going to be assigned new office spaces - only communication is in meetings every Friday strictly verbal - no emails or rumors {everyone is properly informed of what is going on} a. Approaches to decision making (either group decision or someone specifically takes on the decisions b/c they trust that one person to then also give them the right feedback) a. Acceptance of goals a. Shared values and beliefs

Types of teams

examples only, there are more types - a. Formal and informal (Peach's vs. Alex's team) Peach = formal - legitimacy in procedures/ policies in the organization; Alex = Informal - we got a problem to solve so let's get it done a. Temporary and permanent (some teams discontinue when they finish a task; others continue on) - normally a formal team is a permanent team & normally an informal team is a temporary team <- not always true; you can also have a formal team that is temporary a. Cross-functional (like Alex's team when you have people w/ diff functions - Stacey on inventory, Lou on stats, Bob - best of all worlds in this kind of team) a. Virtual team (meeting over the internet like this class; in The Goal - talking to Jonah over the phone) a. Self-managed work team (no boss; design the team to solve to process) Hierarchical team (boss) Note: The types of teams in part reflect the culture of the organization

I. Conflict and Conflict Resolution - Requisite for the Transformational Organization (we are not going to prevent conflicts but make sure we can resolve them)

Conflict Resolution: "The removal of the substantial (substance)and emotional (emotions)reasons for the conflict" (one is not worse than the other; just trying to determine if it relates to substance or emotions)

Causes or antecedent (something happened to then have generated the conflict) conditions - not the conflicts themselves (why do the conflicts occur) *don't have to remember all of these but recognize them* - quiz

- 1. Role ambiguities and expectation gaps (never clear on who is going to do what - have to make sure all tasks are properly assigned - expectation gap = an accountant = build a new advertisement in 2 days and you say its going to take 2 weeks so we have an expectation gap and we haven't learned what the other party has to do) - 1. Task interdependencies and need to rely on others to get the work done (when you are given a deadline, you have to meet it; you can't tell people you can't meet the deadline the day of the deadline) - you should know ahead of time if it is not going to get done; if you don't get your work done in time - ToC = other people get pushed out b/c you've become the bottleneck inside that organ.) - 1. Competing objectives and resource scarcities (we got work to do that's going to take 6 people to do it when we only have 5; we need to get the work done but have resource scarcities - one think their work is more impt. Than the others & vice versa and so we have to come back on shared values/ goals into how we are going to get the work done) 1. Structural differences and incompatible approaches to work (ex. the issue discussed previously in working from home; ex. civil engineer wants to build the best road; the accountants don't want to spend the $; engineers would go over budget = problem about the way we get work done; follow the budget or not - intense conflict b/w the engineers who were big on planning and accountants were big on saving) 1. Unresolved prior conflicts (someone misses a deadline and so someone else has to work the weekend = Ill never forget that; - unresolved) - And more recently from CFG - cross-functional groups (have to understand we have competing objectives but if you look at it from a marketing perspective and someone else from a finance perspective, = we may have conflicts about how things are going to get done) 1. Move from the vertical organization to the horizontal organization (to resolve these conflicts) solve them among ourselves rather than asking the boss to resolve it

Mechanisms for conflict resolution but not the resolution itself (how do we affect the cr's from avoidance to consensus)

- Negotiations (about mostly all conflicts are resolved this way; where A and B solve the problem - they negotiate w/ each other) - Mediation (we still can't come to a resolution so we have A - X - B, so the X says "A what do you want and B what do you want" and come up with a resolution) - boss gets involved here - Arbitration A - Z - B (in mediation, A and B make the decision on what to do, in arbitration, Z makes the decision on what to do) - Binding and non-binding arbitration - Arbitration normally implies binding arbitration where A and B sign a contract w/ a 3rdparty saying whatever you decide that's where we are going to go - normally is a retired judge or attorney who says ill arbitrate this matter, im an expert and ill make the decision; the only way you can get out of binding arbitration is in statutes of fraud - bribes to make decision on their behalf - don't need to know that term - Non binding is also a contract where A and B say that as long as we get a reasonable answer, we'll go w/ it, so if Z comes with something in favor in A, it is reasonable; if unreasonable, I'm not going to go ahead with it

Team tasks (a linear process in terms of team work) aka team control - everyone knows what is going on in terms of communication

- a. Planning and scheduling work (this is what we are going to get done) - a. Assigning tasks (to the people inside the organization; advocation delegation) - a. Training (make sure everyone is trained) - Performance evaluation (once we get the work done) - a. Quality control (is the best way to organize the team)

conflict resolution (types of conflict resolution) - NOT MECHANISMS

1. Avoidance (don't care what happens - if it doesn't affect you, stay out of it; some can't and feel they have an answer for everything; they start getting involved when they have no business in being there) have to realize that if it doesn't affect you then it doesn't affect you and you should get out of it 2. Accommodation (kind of like avoidance but you have some stake in the decision; but not a big deal to you - whether you take A or B does have an effect on me but I can manage that effect; do want to be informed of the decision made so I will accommodate on whatever decision you make) 3. Authoritative command (can't decide for ourselves if we are going. - Note the 3 A's and 3 C's 4. to go to the boss (doesn't give us the best cr) 5. Compromise (WORST type of CR for a business) - this only works in politics = competing obj's outside an orga. Structure; ex. you and your partner get a new house, one wants it beige and the other wants it pink = compromise (half pink and half beige) you may not have gotten everything you want but you got something - always ends up in a suboptimal decision 6. Consensus or collaborative problem solving - (the best = based on the concept that there is a best answer ; work your way over the substantive conflict or the functional conflict to find the best answer of what's going on - assumption that there is a best way to do things A. Sometimes accomplished with "structural approach" rather than a people approach like separate work areas or more resources - this is sometimes called "conflict elimination" rather than "conflict resolution." (ex. the accountants and engineers are not getting along b/c they see each other every day so we'll put the accountants on the top 2 floors and engineers some floors below them so that they don't' see each other and we don't have those conflicts they had) ///Cr = the conflict is still there but we got it resolved; Ce = it disappeared///

A. Types of conflicts (normally you can handle the first 3 but you don't want to get to the fourth b/c there can be all sorts of problems there)

1. Substantive - outcomes (you think we should package in pink but I think we should package it in yellow) - better way of what we want to get done 2. Emotional or relationship - the way people work together (I think we should have a meeting to do this and you disagree and think we should meet customers to get their feedback first rather than mines first) or another ex. - you think we should work from home and the other thinks at the office (the way that people work together; I don't emotionally like working in close quarters while others do) - Ex. working at Yahoo - taking away registers for lunch (free) took people some time to realize this among a new way of doing things in the organ.; everyone working on site - some don't like to commute and ideally would like to work from home - some people had a hard time with this - they didn't have enough parking spaces for everyone to be in) = the way people work together needs to be planned out if you are going to change things, 3. Functional - something can be achieved to help task performance - generally has a focus on "how" and "when" the outcome will be achieved and not on the outcome itself. = substantive conflict functional = there is a best way to do things 4. Dysfunctional - hurts task performance - generally has to do with the inability of the parties to resolve the conflict such as not listening to each other. (I don't want to resolve this conflict; I don't like you and so I'm not going to process) 5. 1. The nature of a conflict: Example - John Gottman's four horsemen of the apocalyptic conflict - in the Course Pack - 05_ARE112_Conflicts_Gottman - a. JG = psychologist at Un. Of Washington - family psychology; very sensitive; analyzed couples and their relationships - discovered patterns in the way partners related to each other - 94% accuracy - which marriages fail and which succeed - a. Criticism "involves attacking someone's personality or character—rather than a specific behavior—usually with blame". Gottman says this OK but not recommended, (good; no one is perfect; you should be criticized in a good way = constructive criticism) what you are doing may not be the best way to get things done) - w/ criticism is how this starts (you're sloppy, you don't clean the kitchen and so you are sloppy) - a. Contempt is the intention to purposely insult- this is a reflection of one's personal feelings about the criticisms. (you're a slob = maybe you are just busy) - a. Defensiveness is when one party see themselves as the victim, which leads to making excuses. (I am not a slob, you don't carry around your way around the apartment either) - a. Withdrawal or stonewalling. This final horseman is considered the most dangerous of all because an individual begins to withdrawal from the conflict itself, avoiding it at all costs. (the end - this is dysfunctional)