Managing Group and Teams - Essay Example

? Managing Group and Teams Managing Group and Teams Introduction Based on the potential issues associated with group decision making, it is critical that organizations discover better and more effective processes for making decisions. From the ancient days when working conditions conformed to the strict rules of Taylorism, today, workers are required to possess soft skills such as appreciating the importance of effective communication and teamwork (Angeline & Pollack, 1993). Presently, organizations depend immensely on teamwork, hence the need for all employees to possess effective communication skills. Coevolutionary gaming is a scenario process developed by Jim Miskel and Jeff Cares in their article “Take Your Third Move First”. Coevolutionary gaming has revolutionized the way organizations consider aspects such as teamwork and decision making, both in issues that affect the organization internally and externally. This paper will examine coevolutionary gaming, discussing how the strategy enhances proper decision making, particularly within a group situation such as an organization or department in an organization. The paper will also describe the fundamental limitation of the coevolutionary gaming and the way through which this limitation can be resolved. Miskel and Cares’ article builds on the conception that planning, as well as resultant decision making should never be done within a vacuum. This means that it is not sufficient to just consider the present facts, as well as historical information and data in order to arrive at decisions or plans (Evans, 2012). The coevolutionary gaming also argues that it is unfeasible to presume that those who will be impacted by such planning or decision making, for instance, competitors will simply accept the decisions and not institute some form of counter action. Plans, as well as decisions, made within a vacuum process can be characterized as shortsighted at best. This is primarily because these decisions and plans typically do not take into consideration other factors such as the implications of counter plans and actions, which could be instituted by parties affected by the decision or plan. A decision made on the basis of existing data could turn out to be worse than simply sustaining the status quo, particularly if reactionary actions are taken into consideration (Branke & Rosenbusch, 2008). For instance, the decision of a newcomer to a market to implement robust price reductions so as to capture massive market share can be considered as detrimental in a coevolutional milieu (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). On the basis of existing data, this decision appears quite simplistic; however, the choice is erroneous since it wrongly presumes that the market leaders will do nothing in retaliation against the extremely low prices of the newcomer. What such existing data fails to show is that the market leaders are better equipped to retaliate in the event of a price war than the newcomer because of their robust, incumbent market volumes, which provide them the economies of scale needed to make long term decisions such as cutting prices (Ficici, 2004). Consequently, the market leaders can fight aggressively to the point where they bring their prices below the newcomer’s point of breakeven, which is often higher, until the newcomer collapses since its sales will be incapable of supporting its overall operations (Thompson, 1994). Simply put, this means that if the decision made by the newcomer is not based on coevolutionary gaming, it could prove more fatal for the company than, for instance, identifying a geographic market niche where it can build its brand. Coevolutionary gaming is an essential tool in decision making, particularly within groups when the risk factors, as well as uncertainty levels are extremely high. This is the fundamental reason why Cares and Miskel poised that the process of coevolutionary gaming lends itself particularly well to all decision making endeavors, regardless of the business, from the Department of Defense to the smallest company in the economy. Coevolutionary gaming is particularly critical when used in the process of communication, for instance, the Johari Window, as well as in other processes that involve risky or cautious shifts in group think. The Johari Window consists of both known and unknown rooms or windows through which people can perceive and decipher the factors that they are already aware of from the personality factors that are hidden. Luft & Ingham (1955) describe the Johari Window as a four-panned space in which each pane denotes a factor in the process of personal human interactions between at least two individuals. The four factors; open, blind, hidden and unknown, denote how humans perceptions shift as they interact with others. As people’s interactions progress, the panes in the Johari Window also shift and change. For instance, blind, unknown and hidden factors can become open as parties continue to interact with one another. Coevolutionary gaming, in the business environment can prove extremely useful when considered through the Johari Window (Steward, Davies & Dick, 1999). As the processes inherent in the game continually progress, factors or adjectives, which were not known previously, become clear and known. For instance, two parties that are prominent players in key decision making can hide crucial factors from each other in order to facilitate successful negotiations (De Jong & Pollack, 2004). Coevolutionary gaming, therefore, unveils these critical factors without necessarily producing the risk factor of real-time information. Hidden, unknown and blind factors, in this case, therefore, represent risks. This can, however, be migitated through the process of coevolutionary gaming. This is because the process involved in coevolutionary gaming enhances interaction and the possibility of effective outcomes. This means that business decisions can be facilitated through the use of coevolutionary gaming (Hofbauer & Sigmund, 1998). Unknown factors are effectively minimizes, thus business decision making can be based on the most advantageous outcome of the assessment (Luft & Ingham, 1955). In this manner, group decision making, for instance, the risky and cautious shift, as well as groupthink are also made useful when they are integrated into coevolutionary gaming. The primary advantage lies in the fact that risks, as well as plausible costly decision mistakes are significantly alleviated, thus saving an organization from incurring massive costs. It is clear that coevolutionary gaming can also be utilized to deter the risk factors linked to the dynamics of groupthink. According to Axelrod & Hamilton (1981), this includes the following factors: the illusion of vulnerability, bounded rationality, as well as associated presumptions, stereotyping of outsiders, belief in morality, direct pressure on rebels, mind guards and self censorship. Therefore, the risk of group decision-making typically involves the factor of groupthink, which influences the communication process according to majority shared group consciousness. However, perhaps the biggest limitation of conventionary gaming is that the strong members within a group often influence weak members, resulting in decisions, which can be considered as unsound, or not the most appropriate choices among those available. This limitation is, however, resolved as coevolutionary gaming offers an opportunity for the realization of multiple decisions with diverse outcomes. This ultimately mitigates the conflict associated with the element of groupthink (Ficici, 2004). In this way, coevolutionary gaming uncovers the limitations inherent in the groupthink process and offers the group or organization with extremely rational and viable decisions; this would not be the case within a group situation. Conclusion In the case of a company, conventional coevolutionary war game would involve conducting extensive market research to discover the products and services that will best cater for the market. Additionally, a competitive analysis would show the plausible reactions of major market players. A senior management team would ultimately develop a strategic plan to deal with these reactions. The primary problem with this approach is that the company will not notice the actual adaptive responses adopted by the incumbents until it is too late and the strategic initiative is lost (Branke & Rosenbusch, 2008). Therefore, coevolutionary gaming strategy is the most effective approach to decision making since it considers all elements that could affect the business, for instance, competition and incumbent retaliation and unexpected innovative competition. Coevolutionary gaming provides decision makers with strategic dynamics through which they can consider both sides; the existing and future occurrences that could impact the decisions made. References Angeline, P. J., & Pollack, J. B. (1993). Competitive environments evolve better solutions for complex tasks. Sydney: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms International Computer Games Association. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W.D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390–1396. Branke, J., & Rosenbusch, J. (2008). New approaches to coevolutionary worst-case optimization. New York: Springer-Verlag. De Jong, E. D., & Pollack, J. B. (2004). Ideal evaluation from coevolution. Evolutionary Computation Journal, 12(2), 159–192. Evans, J R. (2012). Business analytics. New York: Pearson. Ficici, S. G. (2004). Solution concepts in coevolutionary algorithms. Massachusetts: Brandeis University Department of Computer Science. Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolutionary games and population dynamics. London: Cambridge University Press. Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. Steward, H., Davies, A., & Dick, B. (1999). The Johari window and the dark side of organizations. Queensland: Southern Cross University. Thompson, J. N. (1994). The coevolutionary process. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Read More