On Organizational Learning - Case Study Example

1. Introduction In early October 2012 up to the end of January 2013, GLO-BUS is an online (excluding Christmas break), I was assigned to work in a GLO-BUS business simulation group work. Basically, PC-based exercise where my team runs a digital camera company in head-to-head competition against other companies that are being managed by other class members (GLO-BUS, 2013). Back then, I was obliged to work in groups of five. GLO-BUS puts me in a situation where I can work together with my colleagues and apply what I have learned in a business school. My personal exposure in this company was purposely done as realistic as possible in order to provide with a close-to-real-life managerial experience. As a result, I was able to learn more about the industry environment. At the same time, I was able to make logical decisions in a business-like manner. Reflection is defined as “a cognitive examination of experience” (Seibert and Daudelin, 1999, p. 7). It means that in the process of reflecting over the past managerial experience or teamwork experience of a person, one can learn from the mistakes made by themselves and other people. Considering the true definition of reflection, this report aims to encourage me to analyze my own personal experience as I work in group. 2. Ways on How Reflective Practice Techniques can be Used in Analyzing My Team Experience The ability of one person to learn the different reflective practice techniques is important in terms of teaching them “how to step back, compare, and think about” the differences in their own work-related behaviour, attitude, values, perception, learning and listening abilities, and communication skills (Lyons, 2010, p. 94). In general, going through the process of reflection is important because it allows us to learn from our own mistakes. There are quite a lot of reflective practice models which can be used in analyzing my team experience at GLO-BUS. Among the most common models which can be used in reflective practice include: the “single and double loop learning” as presented by Argyris and Schon (1978, p. 3), the reflective model which includes “recording the concrete experience, observe and reflect, form an abstract concept, and test implications of concepts in new situation” as presented by Kolb (1984) [cited in Kolb and Kolb, 2005], the ‘reflection-in-action” and “reflection-on-action” model by Schon (1987), and the structured debriefing model of Gibbs (1988) which includes “description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan” [cited in Moon, 1999, p. 73]. In analyzing my team experience at GLO-BUS, I find the process of combining the use of Schon’s reflection-in-action” and “reflection-on-action” model and Argyris’s single and double loop model very useful. Applicable in the case of a GLO-BUS business simulation group work, the use of a Schon’s reflection-in-action” made me able to complete a given task easier. Basically, Schon’s reflection-in-action” is all about performing a hands on experimentation. To avoid going through a trial and error method, our team would initially discuss ways on how to avoid unnecessary errors. On the other hand, Schon’s reflection-on-action” is more useful in drafting my reflective report. In the process of identifying and gathering all lessons learned while working as a team at GLO-BUS, I was able to think back and write our work-related experiences (Schon, 1983, p. 26). The single-loop and double-loop learning helps me gain better understanding on how a formal or informal reflective learning can take place (Argyris, 1999, p. 69; Argyris and Schon, 1978, p. 3). Single-loop learning takes place each time matches or mismatches are corrected by changing actions (Argyris, 1999, p. 68). By going through reflective practice, the use of a single-loop learning model will allow us to gain immediate and fast learning improvements (Brockbank and McGill, 2006, p. 33). On the other hand, the use of double-loop learning model help us apply what we already know or have learned in the past (Kelly, 2008, p. 57). In other words, the use of double-loop learning will give me and my group members the opportunity to make wiser business-related decisions on behalf of GLO-BUS. To help me analyze my team experience, I purposely kept a journal with regards to my daily experiences at work since Day 1. A critical incident technique is “a set of procedures for collecting direct observations of human behaviour” (Krishnaswamy, Sivakumar and Mathirajan, 2006, p. 174). To ensure that I was able to record useful information about my groupmates, I had to apply the use of a critical incident technique. Based on my personal record, I was able to conduct a “mind mapping process” to help me easily think and reflect about signs of work-related conflicts which I had encountered with my group mates (Goal, 2013). For example, in a piece of paper, I had to draw a graphical diagram about my work experiences with my team mates. In the process of drawing the graphical presentation of my work experiences, I was able to clearly reflect about what really happened to us each day. 3. Three Critical Incidents that Affected the Team and Me as an Individual 3.1 First Critical Incident: My Contribution to the Group At the beginning of the GLO-BUS exercise, I experienced difficulty mingling with the team. I felt that my contributions were not appreciated by the group members. This made me feel de-motivated and less committed to the team’s work objectives. One week later, it was easier for me to work with my teammates. As the GLO-BUS exercise progressed, I found myself fulfilling some important roles within the team. I felt that I made a meaningful contribution to the group. The ‘Belbin Team Roles is used to “identify people's behavioural strengths and weaknesses within the workplace” (Belbin Associates, 2012). Based on the Belbin’s team role test, I am a shaper. It means that I am a task-focused person with a high motivation to achieve the organizational goal. Therefore, I was in-charge as the group coordinator at GLO-BUS. Each time I received an email notification about our work-related progress (i.e. Company Operations Reports and Competitive Intelligence Reports), I would print copies of all reports and give one copy to each of the group member. It was also my duty to discuss with my group mates and evaluate what had happened in the past, how well our company did in guiding our decisions for the following task, and identify specific task we needed to complete the following week. It was also my duty to keep them motivated at work and ensure that the team members will not lose focus in achieving our goals. I stayed focus and confident throughout the completion of the GLO-BUS exercise. Basically, my personal characteristic which I learned from the Belbin’s test was partly responsible in keeping me motivated throughout the completion of the GLO-BUS exercise. Each time I receive an individually assigned task, I see to it that I would complete the task before the deadline. I also see to it that I would participate and make useful contribution to the group. 3.2 Second Critical Incident: My Communication It is important to use the right communication channels (i.e. Information Richness of Communication Channels or Media Richness theory) in order to get a good team result (Dennis and Kinney, 1998). In one occasion, our team leader sent me an e-mail asking my opinion with regards to the company strategies. She misunderstood the terms “competitive level strategy” and “corporate level strategy” and showed no sign for the research. I replied her e-mail saying “Please consider on what you have done”. Only then I was able to receive a reply from her asking me the question ‘Are you a teacher?’. The miscommunication between me and my team leader is good evidence that I failed to use the right channel of communication. It turned out that she did not fully understand what I was trying to tell her in my e-mail. Therefore, I should have just replied back to her in person instead. Looking back at the scenario, I strongly believe that she would have responded differently if I told her my ideas face-to-face. In the process of communicating with her in person, I would have the chance to decode some of her non-verbal cues when I used the terms “competitive level strategy” and “corporate level strategy” (i.e. facial expression, body language and voice). In general, the use of a face-to-face communication strategy offers information richness because the receiver and the sender can see or hear beyond the words spoken. If we had agreed to meet up, I could have the opportunity to communicate my opinion to her clearly. Now-a-days, there are several communication methods which can be used in transmitting important business information. Communication tools used in communicating a message can affects how accurately the message will be received and decoded. In some cases, the use of some of some communications technology can jeopardise team work and friendships. Depending on the nature and importance of a message, I will try to think carefully and select the best communication channel in the future in order to avoid the risk of miscommunication. 3.3 Third Critical Incident: We Achieved 3rd Place in GLO-BUS In GLO-BUS, our goal was to be in top three. Our group was able to manage the team process well. At first, we won the 7th place for two weeks before we took the 5th and 4th position for several weeks. Finally, we won the 3rd place in our industry rankings and received good results. Everyone in our team was happy with our achievement. Our team process was based on Bruce Tuckman’s five-stage model of team development. Basically, Tuckman’s model clearly “describes the phases which teams tend to go through from their inception to the successful completion of the project, and highlights the areas which may cause the team and the project to fail” (Wilson, 2010). 3.3.1 Tuckman’s five stages of group development: 3.3.1.1 Forming My challenges include the following: (1) the members of the group came from different courses; (2) personally, I did not know my teammates before; (3) having five members in a group is not easy to manage. The forming stage in this group involved exchanging contact details and getting to know everyone’s strengths and weaknesses. The forming stage also includes knowing what each person could contribute to the team and what kind of personalities they have. 3.3.1.2 Storming Aside from achieving good results, our group agreed that we should be included in the top 3. Therefore, we decided to use some ideas coming from Michael Porter’s differentiation strategy. For example, we employed a differentiation strategy that sets our company’s digital cameras apart from rival brands. This was made possible by trying to make high quality products for high price. Therefore, we had set some rules that will be followed throughout the completion of GLO-BUS. At this stage, we identified processes and set standards around areas like preparation for meetings, communication, teamwork and deadlines. With regards to communication, we tried to use “Google Conference” but failed and tried to re-arrange a new meeting. Therefore, we decided that our group meeting was set on every Monday after lectures at 17.30 pm. We also selected a group leader and coordinator to ensure that the team would keep moving. 3.3.1.3 Norming We developed some structure with regards to the role each person will have and what each group member is expected to contribute to GLO-BUS. Among the roles that were assigned to us include: Product Design Decisions, Assembly Decisions, Compensation, Training, Labor Force Decisions, and Finance Decisions. 3.3.1.4 Performing Some of our group members did not follow the agreed procedures. Even though some group members failed to accomplish their task within the given deadline, our group managed to reach our group objectives within the scheduled deadlines. We won the 3rd place in GLO-BUS. 3.3.1.5 Adjourning Due to hard work, our team completed the assigned tasks successfully. We did experience some difficulties at some point. Despite the challenges, our group worked well together. Everyone was satisfied with our work performance. 4. Discussion 5. Conclusion References Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishing. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Belbin Associates. (2012). Retrieved February 26, 2013, from Belbin Team Roles: http://www.belbin.com/rte.asp?id=8 Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2006). Facilitating reflective learning through mentoring & coaching. Kogan Page Ltd. Dennis, A., & Kinney, S. (1998). Retrieved from Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task. Information Systems Research. 9(3), pp. 256-274: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a5685ab8-1f20-4221-89ae-c2e4decbd976%40sessionmgr13&vid=5&hid=28 GLO-BUS. (2013). Retrieved February 26, 2013, from Official Website: http://www.glo-bus.com/ Goal. (2013). Retrieved February 26, 2013, from Methods Of Reflective Practice: http://www.belfastmet.ac.uk/goal/Resources/ReflectivePractice/page_06.htm Kelly, A. (2008). Changing software development: learning to be agile. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education , 4(2), pp. 193-212. Krishnaswamy, K., Sivakumar, A., & Mathirajan, M. (2006). Management Research Methodology: Integration of Principles, Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley Ltd. Lyons, N. (2010). Handbook of Reflection and Reflective Inquiry: Mapping a Way of Knowing for Professional Reflective Inquiry. Cork: Springer. Moon, J. (1999). RF740910 Martine Chamberland - Méd./CPSS. Oxon: Kogan Page Ltd. Schon, D. (1987). Teaching artistry through reflection-in-action. In Educating the reflective practitioner (pp. 22-40). CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. NY: Basic Books. Seibert, K., & Daudelin, M. (1999). The Role of Reflection in Managerial Learning. Westport: Quorum Books. Wilson, C. (2010). Retrieved February 26, 2013, from Bruce Tuckman's Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing Team Development Model: http://www.performancecoachtraining.com/resources/docs/pdfs2/BruceTuckman_Team_Development_Model.pdf Read More