ETHICAL TEAMWORKCosmetic or Cosmological?Approximately 45 minutes |
42 |
Overview
The issue of spending training dollars wisely appears in this case study, which has team members share their views on popular courses of team action.
Purpose
To encourage honest and full disclosure regarding team choices and decisions.
To stimulate thinking about in-depth alternatives to expensive team-building programs.
Group Size
Any number of individuals can participate. Participants will work in teams of five to six.
Room Arrangement
If possible, arrange round table groupings for team meetings.
Materials
Flipchart and marking pens
Handout 42.1, Cotton Candy Case Study
Procedure
1.Begin the activity by sharing Bob Root’s comment in an interview with Mark McMaster. (Root is managing director of Orion Learning International, which facilitates team-building programs for organizations.) “People have a sense of concern not only because of the state of the economy but also for their own job security. The recent [corporate] scandals only increase the need for more dialogue.”
2.Lead a 5- to 10-minute discussion by asking:
How concerned are you about the economy?
How concerned are you about losing your job?
To what extent have recent corporate scandals affected you?
Do you feel a need for more dialogue with your organization’s leaders?
Do you feel trust has eroded in your workplace between managers and their staffs?
What do you feel is the best way to restore trust—either in your own organization or in other organizations—where trust levels have declined?
3.Divide the group into teams of five or six participants. Ask them to take about 10 minutes to brainstorm ideas regarding the last question concerning ways to restore trust.
4.Call on a spokesperson from each team to read the group’s list of recommendations. If and when reference is made to off-site team-building programs such as ropes courses or sailing excursions, note the recommendation on the flipchart.
If no such references were made, ask why not. List some of the reasons on the flipchart and ask for further input from the whole group regarding the validity of the reasons provided. If some subgroups did list off-site programs as a way to restore trust, ask the group at large what their experiences have been with such programs.
5.After a 5- to 10-minute discussion in step 4, introduce Stephen Covey’s observation from the Quotation section, in which he likens some team-building programs to cotton candy. Open his remarks to further discussion. Then take about 5 minutes to list—with input from the entire group—trust-building, team-building activities that might be substituted for such programs. Suggest activities such as building a Habitat for Humanity. Such no-cost efforts not only have an ethical purpose but also develop teamwork via interdependency and shared problem-solving. In addition, they are more cosmological than cosmetic in their impact.
6.Distribute Handout 42.1, “Cotton Candy Case Study.” Allow approximately 5 minutes for the same subgroups to work on the questions listed in the handout.
7.Conclude the activity by calling on a spokesperson from each team to answer one question each from the case study handout. If there are more questions than teams, continue in a round-robin fashion until all the questions have been answered. Provide input on each response to tie together the comments and the purpose of the exercise—to encourage complete input from all team members and to find inexpensive but far-reaching ways to develop team trust (Allow at least 5 minutes for this final step.)
Variation
Obtain in advance information regarding involvement in humanitarian projects, such as Habitat for Humanity. Provide copies of requirements or goals different projects might have and ask groups to devise a plan of action that will help them engage in team-building efforts that are less cosmetic, less expensive, yet more ethically important than sending team members off to resorts, retreats, or cruises.
Ask participants to compile ideas that will benefit others, develop teamwork, and minimize expenditures. For example, the team appoints one person to be the collector of loose change. He or she is responsible for asking team members at the end of the work week to donate all their loose change. The money is then used to sponsor an impoverished child in a foreign country. The Save-the-Children foundation is but one of many that will arrange for your team to make a big change in a little person’s life: 800-243-5075. The monies go toward community development, helping families to help themselves. The team can correspond with the child they are helping and will receive an annual progress report on the developmental activities. Each team member can take on the additional responsibility of inspiring other workplace teams to undertake these virtual adoptions.
Discussion
Is there a correlation between an individual’s “cheating” on the golf course and that same individual’s behavior at work? By extension, can a given team act both ethically and unethically in two different situations?
Why or when could it be wrong, or even unethical, to voice your opinion regarding a team’s intended course of action?
What might be the down side of sending an executive team off for a week at DisneyWorld or off on a team-building cruise?
Should managers and employees serve on the same teams?
What are the advantages and disadvantages to training that involves off-site team-building ventures?
Other than these ventures, how can teams develop respectful co-dependency?
Quotation
“A lot of team-building programs are very cosmetic. It’s a lot like cotton candy—it tastes good, but doesn’t nourish the organization in a way that allows it to explore its deeper issues.”
—Stephen Covey
Points of Interest
The St. Louis-based consulting firm of Watson Wyatt found that fewer than 40% of people trust executive leaders in American firms. The number who expressed confidence in the job being done by their own leaders didn’t even reach 50%. Only 63% felt confident that their own organizations were operating with honesty and integrity. (It would be interesting to poll the group on these points and see how the percentages compare with the national figures cited here. Ask what is being done (in addition to or in place of trust-buidling and team-building endeavors) to restore confidence in their firm.
HANDOUT 42.1
Cotton Candy Case Study
SITUATION
Jennifer Donnelly serves on a management team struggling to maintain a positive attitude—not only toward the project they have been assigned but also toward the organization itself. A high-level executive was recently replaced after reporters discovered he had lied about having earned an MBA and the stain of his unethical behavior is spreading in several directions.
In an effort to restore trust, the executive’s successor has proposed sending the team for a 4-day team-building program, to be held on a golf course in the Southwest.
Jennifer, a task-oriented individual who does not play golf, is opposed to the idea. She acknowledges there is a problem with trust in the organization but suspects that the off-site retreat will seem like a “mini-vacation” to others. She also fears more time will be spent on the golf course than in a meeting room, working on the serious issues that face the team.
Unfortunately, Jennifer is new to the team and not as experienced as the more veteran team members. She fears her opinion is a singular one, and so has decided not to voice her objections.
Your team is to discuss the all the questions that follow and will share one in particular with the group at large.
1.What’s the best way for a team to elicit honest opinions from each of its group members?
2.Just as there as sins of omission and sins of commission, some might feel it is wrong (possibly unethical) of Jennifer not to share her true feelings on this issue. Would you agree?
3.What would be the pros and the cons of having the newly hired executive present at the meeting when the golf-resort question will be decided upon?
4.What other forums (e.g., a “town hall”) and methods (e.g., anonymous votes with rationale) could be employed to obtain the full and direct honest responses of team members?
5.What negative consequences (if only in the form of rumors) might be engendered if the decision is made to proceed with what some call “cotton candy” training (namely, team-building retreats in lush settings)?