Focus Group – attendance rule process

Focus group participants, after being shown how the module could create rules, were asked three questions about whether the process of constructing the

attendance rule might be valuable. The answers were synthesised by paraphrasing repeated opinions and listing unique comments. The synthesis was then circulated amongst participants who attested that their views were not omitted or

misrepresented. Additional comments were permitted.

The synthesised statements and any final qualifications follow.

Attendance Rule Process: Do you think that the process of arriving at the rule would be useful?

The process of setting up the attendance rule was seen as crucial. With one exception participants agreed that having team members involved in setting up the rule would be central to a sense of ownership or “buy in” to the behaviour rule and thus result in compliance. The rule could be tailored to the specific needs of the team and changed over time. Being involved in establishing the rule would make its application less confronting and antagonistic.

The dissenting participant took the view that commitment to behaviour was not so important as commitment to team outcomes. [Implicit in P22’s comment was the notion that people could look after their own behaviour as long as they were committed to team goals.]

P14_G3: P22 makes a valid point but I feel the rule is a statement by the team members of their

commitment to the team and it’s goals.

Attendance Rule Process: If the process is useful, to whom might it be useful?

The process of rule setting would be useful for the whole team because:

• it helps the members take ownership in an egalitarian and democratic fashion (promotes inclusion)

• it focuses the team on the behaviour needed for optimal outcomes • it allows for adaptation of rules to meet specific team

circumstances and changes.

• it lets everyone know why the rule is important (its intent) and

how it functions.

Attendance Rule Process: Do you think that the process of constructing the rule might affect team performance?

The question is poorly worded. Team performance must be affected because being involved in any team process is part of a team’s performance.

That aside, interaction between team members will be positive if the process is handled well, and negative if handled poorly. A clear template for discussion is necessary. A well handled rule-making process has the capacity to empower and motivate members and to remove the potential for misunderstandings / conflict further down the track. If handled badly the rule-making process can result in

participants disengaging from the team.

The software needs to be able to make rules for sub-groups within the team in case rules apply to some and not to others.

The answers, although based on the process of constructing the Attendance rule were, quickly generalised to the process of arriving at any rule. There was an overwhelming sense that knowing what behaviours were important to each other and taking part in setting up behavioural guidelines were valuable and vital for a team. While the value of the rule artefact was viewed with many qualifications, the response to the process questions was strongly positive. As Morgan notes, changes in focus group participant behaviour can be observed (Morgan 1997). The sound of the recorded responses indicated very definite enthusiasm when the topic changed from the rule itself to the process of creating the rule. Responses were far more animated.

The concepts presented for valuing involvement in the rule-setting process (as shown in the syntheses of the three questions above) confirm the concepts central to the design principles of the module. The focus group participants valued the democratic and adaptive features of Phreda as well as its ability to capture and share vital team knowledge. They saw the knowledge as valuable for team well- being – for maintaining commitment and avoiding potential conflicts. The experts noted that team members learned what was considered important by the rest of the team from the process of rule making?.

The respondents did point to the fact that a facility or template is needed to handle the rule-setting decisions as there is a risk of failure at this point. This was not addressed in the design and would be worth pursuing when developing the prototype further.

It has been shown that the rule module does affect behaviour and that the behaviour may be constructive for the team. The focus group responses to the preset Attendance rule artefact were mixed, some positive and others highly qualified. The idiosyncratic responses to preset rules were further demonstrated by the responses of real-life participants in venue V1 whose behaviour, while seemingly related to what the Give_Feedback rule addressed, could be attributed to a number of motivations. The rule artefact could cause a change in behaviour directly, indirectly or not at all. Two venue V2 participants responded

constructively to the Morale_Slipping rule, which happened to be most suitable for their team’s circumstances. The rule module’s overwhelming constructive effects would come, according to the focus group experts, when the members participated in the rule-making process. These benefits resulted not just from understanding a rule, its purpose and then behaving accordingly, but also by changing member attitudes. Attitude issues will be explored in the results for research goals concerning trust (section 5.2.4)

The research shown so far has explored rules based on attendance, discussion posting and voting behaviours. For which behaviours might the rule module be