Individual Analysis of Alex Autry Interview

Introduction

     Kotter asserts that in order to make a good team you must find the right people (Kotter, 2012). That was not an option for Group Three which began as a group of five students that had never met each other before being assembled as part of a small group for a required class assignment in DEPM 604, Leadership in Distance Education and E-learning, a mandatory course for all MDE students. One may assume that members began with the predictable unspoken feelings that all obligatory collaborative projects evoke the feelings of trust and mistrust.  The trepidation brought on by lack of familiarity, the possibility of clashing personalities, time constraints, and not knowing one another’s work ethic, conduct or motivation (Lewicki, McAllister& Bies, 1998).  In the end, Group Three participants created a very consistent and unified group that worked well together by establishing group norms for communication, shared leadership and task defining roles.

Group diversity

     Diversity is always a consideration in a group (Ayoko, & Hartel, 2006).); however, culture, race nor gender played a significant role in our group dynamic. Initially our group was composed of three men and two women, after Teresa dropped out of the group one woman remained.  The racial composition was three European Americans and one African American. There were three members residing in the Eastern Time Zone representing Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts and one living in the Central Time Zone in Illinois. Also, our group consisted of two high school teachers, one technical writer and one librarian, all of whom were in different stages of completing their MDE. Our common goal as a group, which was to complete the task, overshadowed and prevailed over any of our differences (Kotter, 2012).

Group norms

     Our first group activity was to create a joint document listing expected group behaviors, those behaviors that we felt would help us to work effectively as a virtual team.  Given the limited time of our group, not all of the behaviors listed were enacted.  One crucial behavior was giving one another respect and positive feedback. Looking over the document the most important behaviors fell into two categories, communication, and roles.

Communication

     As with all virtual groups, we did create and sustain trust using communication technology (Malhorta, Majchrzak & Rosen, 2007). We maintained regular contact and built cohesiveness through our choice of communication, which meant selecting a method that every group member would be able to easily access.  We tried various modes of communication via the Internet.  We tried Google Docs but we encountered some issues with sharing resources with everyone. We tried the group area in LEO, but not everyone could log-on throughout the day thus, email eventually became our primary means of communicating within our group. Those working from both computer and cell phone could access email without much hindrance.

     Our messages were quick short and to the point, making email a perfect vehicle for multiple updates within any given day.  We used email to make suggestions, determine tasks and roles and to clarify and clear up any concerns. We did however post our important email updates in the LEO group area as an alternative way to keep everyone in the loop.

     Communication via email within the group increased during times of uncertainty and stress. For example, after Alex Autry agreed to be interviewed it took quite a while for him to respond and set up an interview time. Although there was a concern, maintaining constant contact did not allow panic we kept abreast of the potential issues and the consideration that we may have to choose another candidate to interview.     

Roles

     Our group of five was quickly whittled down to four, which was a negligible occurrence because our roles had not been defined thus losing a member did not affect group cohesion or planning. One group member suggested that we choose a distance educator from the government sector. After that suggestion, Robin researched and presented some options to the group. Once we chose a leader, we decided what roles were required to get our assigned tasks completed.  Kris emerged as the member who would perform the interview thus his role was to contact Alex Autry to set up the interview. At some point Alex Autry was unresponsive to Kris’s emails after having agreed to the interview.  The role of contact shifted when Mike stepped up and secured Alex’s phone number and worked along with Kris to set up an interview.  The interview was in the afternoon, which meant Daryl, and Robin would not be available due to scheduling conflicts, however the rest of the group knew about this. Once the interview had been done, Robin played the role of transcriber and was assigned to post it to the Group 3 forum. All four of us worked to complete the paper, Kris and Mike compiled contributions and we all went about the task of editing, asking one another for input, offering suggestions, corrections, checking, and double-checking before Robin was asked to submit the final paper.

Leadership

   At various points in the process, we each stepped up in the role of organizer and cheerleader, leader and follower. Daryl was the first to establish contact and take the lead by introducing himself to the group via email. Daryl established himself as someone who had taken the time to familiarize himself with his new group members. Daryl approached the group by saying that he read some of our posts in class and the thought that we would make an interesting group. Additionally, he began to gain trust by expressing up front what we were probably all thinking, saying that he had been a part of virtual groups before with mixed results. Daryl then suggested that we all take time to read and formulate an approach to our assignment and perhaps make time to set up a collaborative meeting. The rest of the group followed Darryl’s lead. As time went on we all became leaders and followers depending on individual schedules, ideas and tasks. Decision making was by committee.  There were no overblown egos, snakes or reluctant members in our group (Kotter, 2012).

Conclusion

     We worked well as a team; we eased into a shared leadership depending on what needed to be done. Thus, there were times when we were all followers. There was no lack of positive encouragement and positive feedback.  In the end email was our choice of communication and that worked well for all of us. At no point did ego or lack of participation jeopardize our assigned tasks. There was a true reciprocity of respect and commitment to complete our assigned task successfully.

References

Ayoko, & Hartel. (2006). Cultural diversity and leadership: a conceptual model of leader intervention in conflict events in culturally heterogeneous groups. Cross Cultural Management, 13(4), 345-360.

Kotter, J. (2012).Leading change, with a new preface. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press

Lewicki, M. and Bies. (1998). Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy of management Review. 23 (3), 438-460.

Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21 (1), 60-70.