Chapter 5 Results
5.2 Findings
5.2.2 The behavioural norms for which rules might or might not be
was suitable for behaviours identified as critical for on-line teamwork.
5.2.2 The behavioural norms for which rules might or might not be
useful
The focus group participants were asked, while in one of the two asynchronous discussion board environments, to identify specific behaviours that might be destructive to a team and then those that might optimise its performance. These lists of behaviours were then presented to the participants when in their
were asked if the list of behaviours accurately represented their previous discussions. The two lists were unanimously accepted. Participants were then asked to indicate if they thought the module’s rule product would be useful for each behaviour in the list and to give their reasoning. This question directly addresses research goal c). For which behaviours are rule artefacts valuable? The answers provided were typical of those commonly found in the literature on features of problem and effective teams such as those mentioned in the team- building training materials of the Indian Ministry of Defence (CGDA, 2004). This confirmed the expertise of the participants.
The categories of behaviours considered as crucial to optimal team performance were grouped as either common to both discussion board lists or unique to one only.
The key concepts of the three common categories were “respect”,
“communication behaviours” (as distinct from communication content) and “group focus”.
Behavioural statements to do with respect were:
• respect for the efforts of others, • respect for the contributions of others, • politeness.
Behavioural norms to do with communications were
• openness
• contributing to discussions.
Behavioural norms to do with group focus were:
• aiming for consensus in decision-making and team direction, • being adaptable and receptive to new ideas,
• exerting an appropriate level of domination of decision-making only
[once everyone has had input to the decision and if skilled or authorised to make decisions.]
Caveats to these generalisations were evident in discussions, but the behaviours considered important were clear.
Two norms of behaviour appeared in only one of the lists:
• encourage participation in others, • be time conscious.
These were closely linked in discussions on the attendance rule.
Four of nine respondents ticked all choices. The remaining five felt the module artefacts were not useful in some cases. The value of the rule product for encouraging the positive forms of the behaviours listed was rather mixed. One could think of many circumstances where the products might or might not work. This was in keeping with the highly qualified response to the Attendance rule product (section 5.2.1.1) and further confirmed virtual teams to be complex systems.
BEHAVIOUR RULE ATREFACT SUITABLE EXTERNAL VALIDATION Category YES/TOTAL LISTINGS % No. Focus Groups
respect 9/16 56 across 3 groups
group focus 17/26 65 across 3 groups
communicate 8/9 89 across 3 groups
encourage 4/4 100 across 1 group
punctual 6/6 100 across 2 groups
Figure 23. Focus group evaluation of the usefulness of a rule artefact for key types of behaviour. Categories and contributing specific behaviours were all validated by the participants. The interpretation of results was also accepted by participants.
The following interpretation of the answers to the question was sent to all
participants for validation. Eight of the nine participants responded, agreeing with the interpretation. One qualification was received and has been included below.
The rule module was considered to be less effective for behaviours based on users’ attitudes to each other and the team as a whole.
“Rules are generally not able to gauge the intent behind postings and therefore are not suitable for points 4 and 5” [ Behaviours: ‘Be open to new ideas’, ‘respect others and their contributions’ - author]
“'rudeness' could be managed more fluidly by the team than with a rule.”
“I think some norms are easier to test with a rule than others”
“Should I respect the effort of someone who isn't performing up to scratch. I think in this case you need to get along side someone and encourage them to perform at a higher level while respecting their person.”
[? Mechanical aspects of communication and attendance can be tracked easily, whereas content and intent cannot?]
P14_G3: Rules may not unduly influence the
behaviours during spontaneous interaction between team members. It is hoped that working towards a common goal will tend to moderate less helpful tendencies.
Participants concluded that the rule module artefacts would be more useful for the mechanical, readily measurable aspects of communication and attendance and less suitable for behaviour understood in terms of content and intent. The implication for software design is that recommended rules, in particular, should focus as much as possible on behaviours that were easily identified via system measures. Rules that were about behaviour more abstracted from the system measures would be more likely to fail.
When asked to rate the usefulness of the process of constructing the rules for these same key behaviours, the response was far less qualified.
5.2.3 The behavioural norms for which the process of constructing
rules might or might not be useful
This question was designed to address research goal d). For which behaviours are the processes of constructing rules valuable? The mechanism for exploring the question was the same as for research goal c). Because the nine participants overwhelmingly felt that the process of setting up the rules was useful for encouraging behaviour of all sorts, this section will focus only on the qualifications provided by the participants both from the raw data and after validation of interpretation. 7 of 9 participants ticked all choices. They felt that the module process was good for all behaviours and hence behaviour categories. One participant did not tick three choices. His reasoning as presented to
participants for validation follows:
P26 felt rule process was inappropriate for ‘respect others opinions’ (what if opinions were no good), ‘shifting focus of team’ (could be beneficial to shift) and ‘dominating discussions’ (team may need one person who knows what to do).
[P26_G2: Interpretation confirmed]
One participant ticked all but one choice. Her reasoning is as follows:
P21 felt that rule making process would not help with being
adaptable? (because this is an individual trait that cannot be changed)
[P21_G1: Interpretation confirmed]
Participants accepted the following interpretation, with two qualifications about the initial reasoning presented by P26.
Participants felt that the process of rule creation was more important than the rules themselves – at least for those behaviours that were less mechanical and more about human attitudes (those abstractions for which behavioural indicators would be unreliable).
P12_G3: The only area of disagreement is with the comments you have ascribed to P26 concerning respect for others. I
interpreted "respect for others opinions" as meaning others were expressing opinions in good faith and therefore their ideas should not be dismissed out of hand; even if you philosophically disagree with them.
P14_G3: There must always be some flexibility in coping with different personalities and interactions between team members. While some suggestions (by any one of the team) on any subject, may be deemed “no good”, on a different subject, that same person (if confident enough and encouraged) may be able to contribute a whole new dimension.
The final qualifications by both P12 and P14 provided further support for the view that the rule module process was useful for all types of critical teamwork behaviour. This followed on from the tendency to generalise the benefits of team involvement in the attendance rule process (section 5.2.1.5). By participating in the process of construction, rules would be understood and endorsed, behaviour critical for the team would be kept in mind, participants would be more likely to comply with rule consequents and there would be a reduced chance of future conflict. The benefits stemmed from team members collaboratively learning about each other and the nature of the team itself.
The attitudinal reasons why the module process was found to be valuable were evident not just from answers to this question, but across the entire study. The coding of all transcripts, discussions and quiz answers yielded insights based on increased commitment. The link between trust and commitment further confirms the suitability of Phreda’s design principles. Research goal a) identifies trust as the key variable for improving on-line teamwork.