Small Groups

The article by James Surowiecki was a bit confusing to me at first.  At first it states something about how being in a small group can actually make them dumber rather than wiser. Which threw me off, until I figured out he was just talking about the performance of the MMT.  Like stated, small groups are used everyday, all the time.  For juries, board of directors, teams, and meetings, small groups are present all over.  Everything has it's faults though.  Influence of the people in small groups on each other's judgment can not be ignored.  As much as they might think they still have their own ideas or opinions, they become very reliant on each others thoughts.  Because the influence is more direct and immediate, means that small groups can make very bad decisions.  Emphasizing consensus over dissent is one of the real dangers of that.  People start to just agree with each other, figuring they know what they are talking about because they have learned to share opinions and thoughts so often. Instead of challenging ideas, they just go along with whatever comes their way.  On the contrast, when a small group works well together and doesn't fall into these traps, they have the potential to be perfect.  Like mentioned in the article, when they work together so diligently and consistently, they have what can be called an "intellectual swing".  What he ends with saying though, is how group decisions are not inefficient.  Like everything though in the worlds, whether worked on in groups or by individuals, has it's faults and advantages.

Carter Racing

I enjoyed the discussion we had on the Carter Racing article in class on Monday.  Reading the article and analyzing it before hand, I had decided that I thought they should still race.  When we got together in groups, my group also agreed that they should go for the race.  We found no reason for them not too considering the evidence and statistics we had.  As a class we figured out the expected value and probability of all the choices.  We, still as a class, with those results, decided that they should race.  When Dr. Goates gave us the second paper with more data about the weather, our decisions began to change very quickly.  With the other information, we realized there seemed to be a much stronger correlation between the weather and blown engine gaskets.  It made me realize how quickly we sometimes look at situation, and could be so set on a decision, but we don't realize we're not looking at the full picture.  In all situations, whether at work, school, or just in life, many times we don't always see all the "evidence" or "data".  The Carter team worked great together and had been very successful that season.  If they had just raced though, without looking into the extra data about the weather, they could have blown everything. Before jumping to conclusions with any decisions or actions, we should always take a step back first to make sure we're are taking everything into account.  

Multicultural Teams

To almost go along with my last blog, I think that multicultural groups are hard to classify as "teams".  Continuing with Katzenbach and Smith's definition of team, after reading the article on multicultural teams it sort of contradicts the meaning of team. Cultural differences can create many issues and obstacles to effective teamwork. Yes, as they said, with good management, most of those obstacles can be overcome, but I feel like some are very hard to fix completely. The most trouble is with communication, which deals prominently with accents and fluency.  You can have excellent management but if you can't understand the person you're suppose to be on a "team" with, there are obviously going to be some difficulties.  Also, when dealing with different cultures, you're dealing with very different norms.  When people have grown up and been taught to act a certain way, even if comes off to someone else as very rude and wrong, it isn't always easy to change their habits. Some habits, or ways of your culture, become a part of you.  So with that said, I think it is hard for a group of multicultural people to really become a team because of the hardship they have become close and understanding each other.  With the right people, management, and willingness though, they could become a well-established team with a little work and patience.

Working Groups vs. Teams

Sometimes you forget how a common simple term can be used all the time but with such different meaning behind it.  For example, so many times the word "team" is used, whether it be for an sports activity, or a project at work or in school, but what is that word representing? What Katzenbach and Smith discuss is how the word "team" brings more of meaning.  A real team will bring more to the table than a "group".  The people on a team work as a whole and have a common goal and purpose.  They rely on each other and will do anything for each other in order to reach their goal.  So many times I feel, especially on sports teams, a person will get so selfish and because they think they need to do everything themselves in order succeed, they will take over.  I think we do this a lot in life, usually making things more complicated for ourselves.  When working on projects, or playing a sport, or in many other situations, we need to learn how to really work as a team with other people.  There will probably have a better outcome, and it will probably be much more enjoyable, no matter what is getting done or what is trying to be achieved. I don't think many people act accordingly anymore, and it's something to think about.

What Do Personality Tests Really Tell Us?

"Employers love personality tests", the article starts out. Should they? Should they rely on this method to determine whether or not a person is fit to be hired for their position? Personality tests, in my opinion, can be very misleading. As much as they may be able to read a person better then if they just told you about themselves, I feel that they can also be unreliable. Most personality tests use questions that are indirect ways of actually asking what they want to know. Sometimes these questions are not easily answered. For example, when Malcolm Gladwell talks about the Myers-Briggs test example with being a "Judger" or "Perceiver". He goes on to say how he can't really choose between one or the other because he finds himself following both examples at different times, and I agree with this example completely. I've taken many personality tests before, and I find myself annoyed because I usually am not just one way or the other. I feel that I face this issue with a lot of the questions. Is that still portraying a good representation of my personality then? I'm not sure it is.

What I also found to be very interesting was the way psychologist Lon Geiser interpreted the stories Gladwell came up with for that test.  I don't see that ever being a reliable test, because like Gladwell argues, the stories can be taken in many ways.  It all depends on the person's opinion who would be analyzing them.

GPA Matters?

Of course everyone wants a good GPA in college, but I feel like it is always said that other qualities are more important.  After reading the article concerning what matters most to some corporations, I was very surprised to read that a lot of them look at GPA first. I do understand where they are coming from, but I don't think that that is a fair representation of a person. Whether or not though, I feel the issue I have with this is making it apparent to students. I think that a lot of college students have the impression that extra curricular activities, leadership, teamwork, etc are more important qualities than if they have a 4.0. If companies are beginning to pay more attention to grades, the word should be spread.