Wiki contents

Journals

2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This week’s journal will mainly focus on the problem of our team coming last after this week's rollover.

The approach our team has been taking since the start of the actual competition is something I don't agree fully with. I think this has reflected on our results. The reason why I feel this is a problem for this week is because of the fact that our shareholder value has decreased significantly. I think this is occurring because we aren’t making use of the lab times and receiving the guidance from Peter that we could possibly benefit from. Especially now.

I believe the cause of this problem is due to having different opinions within the group. Everyone in the team has been putting in the effort that is expected. But I do somewhat feel that it is a case of the blind leading the blind as we feel confident with our decisions most times but feel as if though we justifying our reasoning on what seems logical. But logic is not all we can rely on. All members in my team have been focused on ensuring that they come to meetings well prepared and our CEO has been doing a good job leading us. However, the fact that we aren’t taking advantage of lab times to get guidance from Peter is something that bothers me quite a lot. This is because I fear that my grade is on the line but am still optimistic about how our team will approach the next few weeks.

The reason being that Peter literally acts as a walking stick for the blind as he is there for a reason. I personally feel as though we would benefit and learn more about the choices we are making if we take advantage of the resources available. This is because we have the opportunity to ask him any questions at the time and get a better understanding of our choices before the rollover kicks in. We can test this by heading into the labs at the dedicated time on Wednesday’s and using this time effectively. But I am worried that not everyone agrees with this. 

In the future (or now really), I would bring it up with the team again as I have previously before and see what their thoughts are at this stage. If we still can’t come to an agreement for meeting in the labs, then to address this problem, I will head into the labs myself. This is just to make use of the help I can get from the labs and share any new information with my team. 

This week I have learnt that compromising with your team and speaking up is important to ensure that everyone is on the same page. I hope we get there in the coming weeks. We need to come up with a new strategy and use visual communication, as mentioned by Kim & Mauborgne (2002). This is where team members eliminate, create, reduce and raise whatever is necessary in order to work towards this new strategy. If we can continue to work well as a team, I feel as though we will have nothing to worry about in coming weeks. 


Overall, I'm sure our team will smash it and we'll be fine eventually. 

References: 

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2002). Charting Your Company’s Future. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 76–83. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=6756408&site=ehost-live&scope=site



3 Comments

  1. Hi Shivi,

    I can see you are able to reflect your learning through this journal by identifying a problem that could impact your group. It is good to see you plan to take actions about it based on what is beneficial for you and why. Your problem is something I am sure many groups face if the team is not formed up to expectation. I highly recommend you can try implement further readings into your learning journals regarding teamwork problems (especially Week 2 readings). One reading "Why teams matter" ( Katzenbach & Smith, 1992) may be a good guide to start as it mentioned important team basics such as all agreeing on commitment and the goals. I think such readings can help you tackle this problem better. 

    Overall, I wish you the best for the this coming week! 

    Sabrina

  2. Hi Shivi,

    I appreciate how honest and thoughtful this journal is. It is clear that you have been able to identify an area in which your team is perhaps falling short. It is good to see that you have been able to draw from the readings to actively improve the way you go about handling your current group dynamic. In improving your journals for the future, I would recommend the use of Daudelin’s reflective process more clearly, to give your journal some stronger structure.

    Good luck and I hope to read more in the weeks to come!

    Sanara

  3. Hi Shivi Deo

    I'm going to spend some time unpacking what you have done in your learning journal to try and (1) help you do better learning journals, and (2) maybe help you help your team.


    This week’s journal will mainly focus on the problem of our team coming last after this week's rollover.

    Simple, straightforward, to the point.  You've ticked off the first of Daudelin's four steps.


    The approach our team has been taking since the start of the actual competition is something I don't agree fully with. I think this has reflected on our results. The reason why I feel this is a problem for this week is because of the fact that our shareholder value has decreased significantly. I think this is occurring because we aren’t making use of the lab times and receiving the guidance from Peter that we could possibly benefit from. Especially now.

    And so to analysis. Having read this, I don't really know what is the approach the team has been taking; so it's going to be hard for a reader to judge if your reasons for 'not agreeing' are sound or not. You have kind of jumped to a hypothesis—our approach is wrong—without showing any analysis to support that. (You might do later, but logically, you should go from problem to analysis, to hypothesis/theory to action).

    I believe the cause of this problem is due to having different opinions within the group.

    Is that really a cause or a symptom of something deeper? Eventually, you go on to say, that the cause is actually something thing different ... namely "the blind leading the blind". You present some logic for that but no really evidence (this is, or should be, still the analysis step.

    Everyone in the team has been putting in the effort that is expected.

    A statement like this needs some unpacking. What's your evidence for this? How does what your team do (in terms of effort) compare with other teams? Is this also a function of your team's approach (I don't know)? Other teams, for example, are spending a lot of time working on the simulation as individuals and they only come together to test team members' ideas and integrate their decisions (for one team, this latter step takes them about an hour).

    But I do somewhat feel that it is a case of the blind leading the blind as we feel confident with our decisions most times but feel as if though we justifying our reasoning on what seems logical.

    Again, what's the evidence/analysis/examples to support this. 

    But logic is not all we can rely on. All members in my team have been focused on ensuring that they come to meetings well prepared

    I still don't know what "well prepared" looks like for you.

    and our CEO has been doing a good job leading us. However, the fact that we aren’t taking advantage of lab times to get guidance from Peter is something that bothers me quite a lot.

    This is because I fear that my grade is on the line

    True enough

    but am still optimistic about how our team will approach the next few weeks.

    Because? ... and this point I have no sense of what you are going to do differently to change the current situation.


    The reason being that Peter literally acts as a walking stick for the blind as he is there for a reason. I personally feel as though we would benefit and learn more about the choices we are making if we take advantage of the resources available. This is because we have the opportunity to ask him any questions at the time and get a better understanding of our choices before the rollover kicks in.


    I do try and give people they need for the situation they are in, but I can take a horse to water, but I can't make it drink. 

    We can test this by heading into the labs at the dedicated time on Wednesday’s and using this time effectively. But I am worried that not everyone agrees with this. 

    Because?

    In the future (or now really), I would bring it up with the team again as I have previously before and see what their thoughts are at this stage. If we still can’t come to an agreement for meeting in the labs, then to address this problem, I will head into the labs myself. This is just to make use of the help I can get from the labs and share any new information with my team. 


    Okay, that seems like it could work to reduce the knowledge gap that you allude to at the beginning.


    This week I have learnt that compromising with your team and speaking up is important to ensure that everyone is on the same page. I hope we get there in the coming weeks. We need to come up with a new strategy and use visual communication, as mentioned by Kim & Mauborgne (2002). This is where team members eliminate, create, reduce and raise whatever is necessary in order to work towards this new strategy. If we can continue to work well as a team, I feel as though we will have nothing to worry about in coming weeks. 

    This feels like it is wodged in because it's kind of "theory of the week". You don't need it. If you need anyone else's theory a better match could have been the notion of joint accountability.

    If your hypothesis is that you and the team lacks knowledge, and your action is geared towards addressing that (at least for yourself), then that can by enough hypothesising.


    Overall, if I spend time doing a very close reading I can see where you are going. I suggest that you need to explicitly split out the four sections and make sure that each section (problem, analysis, hypothesising, action) actually meshes with the section before.