Years ago (over 10) I used a simulation in my undergrad organization
design class that was very engaging and where pooled, sequential and
reciprocal interdependence evolved naturally when students organized
small (4), medium (7-9) and large (20+) work groups to perform a task
(folding boxes out of sheets of paper). It was called the "Corrugated
Container Corporation," and I may have found it in Morris and Sashkin's
"Action in Organizations" or Hall, Lewicki, Bowen and Hall's
"Experiences in Management and Org Behavior".
If you were soliciting a task that you can use in an experimental
situation, I think you could assign groups to complete this task under
different conditions of task interdependence.
I haven't taught UG org design for 10 years, so I don't know if this
exercise is still available or if it's copyrighted. Perhaps another
reader knows. I found a one page (front and back) handout I made for my
class that includes directions and folding instructions. I could fax a
copy to anyone who is interested (but only if no one replies with the
original source--I'm more conscientious about intellectual property
rights now than I was then).
Ken
More detail (for those who are interested in using this in call):
Students have to follow step by step directions to make paper boxes by
folding sheets of 8.5x11 copy paper. You break the class into small (4
member), medium (7-9 member) and large (20+ member) groups. Each team
sends one of their members to be the quality control board. They
evaluate the output and reject any boxes that do not measure up. You
give the groups time to 'organize as they wish.' Small groups invariably
organize their work quickly with pooled or reciprocally interdependent
members, either allowing each member to fold the entire box, or working
and reacting collectively as they discover problems with their initial
organization of work. Large groups have more trouble organizing. The
'natural leaders' emerge and 'take charge' and their task oriented
'initiating stucture' style of leadership is appreciated by the masses.
They invariably organize as an assembly line with each person making one
fold and passing it on to the next. The leaders seldom participate in
the construction, but manage the interface. The medium sized groups
will sometimes organize like the small groups (sometimes forming two sub
groups) and sometimes like the large group.
After an initial production run, teams can reorganize, and then you run
second, and if time allows a third run. What is fun is that the small
group always outperforms the large group on the initial run and the
large group usually outperforms the small group on later runs (mid size
group falls between). This gives you the opportunity to discuss the
values/costs of vertical and horizontal differentiation. The cost and
value of "management" (i.e., people who help coordinate action bu don't
help fold boxes).' You can even discuss the value of boundary spanners
and imitation (Did anyone watch what the other groups were doing? How
did the group respond to other groups performing better than they did?).
It also illustrates the "success leads to failure" syndrome as the
groups that performed well during the first round usually don't change
their design, while the less effective groups make changes that lead to
them outperforming the stagnant small groups.
Ken
Kenneth Bettenhausen
Management Program Director
Business School
University of Colorado at Denver and HSC
Kenneth.Bettenhausen@cudenver.edu
phone: 303-556-5816
fax: 303-556-5899 -----Original Message-----
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
[mailto:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Stan Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:41 PM
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: task interdependence
Dana--
I ask my teams early after forming them each semester to discuss and
justify what type of sports team their student team should most resemble
for the semester. I give them three choices: baseball (sequential),
football (pooled), basketball (reciprocal). (The sports team parallels
are consistent with an AOM article some years back.) They have to
announce their positions simultaneously (on team marker boards) (a la a
technique from Larry Michaelsen's team based learning) and justify their
decision. Other teams may challenge another team's position. In general,
I am fishing for basketball here, but award the team with the best
justification a prize (like Snickers)-- or the team that most acts like
a basketball/reciprocally interdependent team by having more members of
its team present their views in their justification may get the award.
In my experience, the students do get into this.
Stan Williamson, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
Scott Endowed Professor for Teaching Excellence, 1999-2002
Management Program
College of Business Administration
University of Louisiana at Monroe
Monroe, LA 71209-0100
318.342.1195
fax: 318.342.1101
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
[mailto:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Dana Glenn
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:03 AM
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: task interdependence
Dear Colleagues,
I am trying to find a team task that allows for a manipulation of task
interdependence according to Thompson's (1967) notion of sequential,
pooled, and reciprocal interdependence. Any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.
Take care,
Dana M. Dunleavy(Glenn),Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Organizational Sciences & Communication
George Washington University
600 21st Street NW, #104
Washington DC 20052
202.994.1873 (office)
202.994.1881 (fax)