Designing
and Using a Course in Organization Design to Facilitate Collaborative
Learning In The Online Environment
by
Tracy C. Gibbons, Ph.D. and Randi S. Brenowitz, MBA
This
chapter appeared in The Handbook of Online Learning by
Kjell Rudestam and Judith Schoenholtz-Read, Sage Publications
2001.
Online
Learning For Real World Experience
In
today's computer-mediated economy, distance learning provides
more than just an opportunity to unite students from different
locations toward a common educational goal. It serves as a bridge
from the often theoretical basis of academic studies to the real-world
practices necessary for success outside university walls. With
workers in both traditional and technology-based companies using
computers and the Internet to accomplish their tasks, developing
technological skills through learning by doing becomes increasingly
important. In addition, people must learn how to engage one another
on a personal level and develop mutual respect in an environment
where face-to-face interactions are absent or scarce.
More
and more organizations, particularly those with satellite offices
across the country and around the globe, seek alternatives to
flying participants to a common meeting site. Leveraging the unique
talents of diverse employees and applying them toward a singular
project or goal requires a collaborative process that may be new
to some. An increasingly common solution to this problem is the
creation of Virtual (VTs) or Geographically Dispersed (GDTs) Teams.
These are groups of people who share responsibility and accountability
for a product or other output, are interdependent for the purposes
of its development or creation, and are not physically co-located.
Students accustomed to researching and writing on their own and
employees performing certain tasks that were previously done in
relative isolation (such as writing or programming) often find
collaboration to be a challenge above and beyond the project itself.
Groupware applications are one way to accelerate projects whose
contributors are geographically dispersed, adding to shared information
and messages through the Internet and e-mail. Online education
allows students to gain practical experience using technology
to accomplish tasks and develop interpersonal relationships, which
increases their value as future employees.
Addressing
how distance learning prepares students for the business, social,
and collaborative realities in the Internet economy, this chapter
provides a summary of our experiences and discoveries teaching
an online, experience-based seminar in Organizational Design at
the Fielding Institute. For the coursework a group of geographically
dispersed students-often working in different time zones-collaborated
to create a redesign of an organization they selected from among
their real world cases. This chapter reviews the factors that
are essential to the success of online collaboration in general
and examines the insights we gained from our specific experiences
working in a distance learning environment.
Organization
Design in the Online Environment
Among
the offerings at Fielding, our Organizational Design seminar presented
unique challenges and opportunities for online learning. Organization
design is the process of developing or modifying the major elements
of an organization so that they are in alignment with the overarching
purpose, mission, and goals of the organization as well as with
each other. A complex undertaking, organizational design requires
the ability to work in real time with often competing organizational
needs and variables. The very nature of organization design demands
a comprehensive understanding of the varying dynamics of a company
or institution. In order to do this, an individual may need to
step outside his or her functional role to view the circumstances
from another perspective.
Increasingly,
teams that represent segments or cross-sections of the organizations
that are being designed or re-designed do design work in organizations.
By collaborating with a group composed of diverse individuals
with different job titles and roles, each person not only contributes
a unique perspective, but also sees other viewpoints that may
be new to him or her. A successful collaborative team will incorporate
all these perspectives to find the solution that best meets the
organization's needs. And performance is measured by the outcome,
the common product of the collaborative team.
We
developed an online course through which the students learned
by creating their own organizational design: examining a case
study from a variety of perspectives and then merging their findings
into a cohesive, relevant design. The students defined and developed
their project by working as an interdependent, geographically
dispersed team (GDT) where the success of each student depended
on the success of the team. To work collaboratively in an online
environment, the group needed to first develop its own method
of organizing the task at hand. This provided the students with
an unusual level of "meta-learning," that is, doing
that which they were learning (organizational design) in order
to learn about organizational design. All the while, the group
members were also learning to use computers and a groupware application
to accomplish their tasks. This experienced-based approach gave
students practical skills in using technology to transcend barriers
of time and space, collaborating with a multicultural and multifunctional
group, and building an organizational design model informed by
a variety of perspectives.
We
found that in order for this learning and working model to be
effective, the size of the team was a critical variable, ranging
from six to ten. The minimum number was a function of the workload
vis a vis time constraints of the course: fewer people could not
have completed the assignments in a semester. The maximum was
a function of the complexity of the interactions and group dynamics
in an asynchronous, online environment: with more people, it would
have been impossible to manage.
Team
Building Factors that Affect Online Education
While
online learning has become a standard mode of education at many
institutions including Fielding, a unique factor of our Organizational
Design seminar was the collaborative process, the interdependency
of all team members, and the resulting evaluative structure in
which the work of the team was more important than any particular
individual's contribution. For such a course to be successful,
we needed to consider not only online learning standards but also
those relevant to the effectiveness of a geographically dispersed
team.
Many
elements of successful virtual teams mirror those of successful
face-to-face teams: communication and collaboration are two of
the most important factors in any team's success. While agreements
about goals, policies, and procedures are necessary within any
group working collaboratively, they need to be even more explicitly
discussed and clearly defined by a team working solely in a technologically
mediated environment. In their book Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies,
Tools, and Techniques that Succeed, Duarte and Snyder (1999) outline
critical success factors for virtual teams. Standard organizational
and team processes, organizational culture, and leadership are
among those most relevant to designing an online course.
Standard
Organizational and Team Processes
Though
initially requiring a certain time commitment that could be seen
by some as outside the project goals, setting standards at the
beginning stages of a team's formation can actually reduce start-up
time. By getting each team member's input and buy in on goals,
methodology, and processes-as well as on what to do in the event
of conflict or failure to adhere to the agreements-collaborative
teams avoid having to negotiate these issues as they arise, which
is distracting to the task at hand.
Organizational
Culture
Developing
comprehension of and mutual respect for differences of culture
(whether national, organizational, or functional) helps to mitigate
misunderstandings and disagreements based on style, expectations,
values, and assumptions. In one of our classes, for example, we
had students from several countries (including a variety of English
speaking countries). It had already been established that English
would be the language of the course. Since many students would
be working on pieces of the final paper, one student suggested
that all writing (even initial drafts) be created in "American
English." An Australian student took offense to this as she
found that having to edit her thoughts in real-time would significantly
reduce her creativity. Quite a debate ensued and tempers flared.
Eventually, the team decided that any English would do for drafts
and that those for whom English was not their native tongue shouldn't
worry too much about grammar and spelling. In the end, one person
would be assigned the task of making the final paper read "in
one voice." For virtual teams, cultural respect must be explicitly
stated, and transgressions must be immediately addressed. While
the anonymity of cyberspace erases certain biases of gender, race,
age, and social strata, it also eliminates key indicators of intent,
such as body language, facial expression, tone of voice, and intonation.
In a text-only environment, a tongue-in-cheek comment can be easily
misinterpreted, and the lag time between a posting and a response
can cause emotions to simmer and resentment to build. Differences
in language can also cause misunderstandings, not just among different
nationalities but also among diverse functional roles. Terms may
have narrower meanings among certain groups than they do among
others. Common definitions must be discussed and agreed upon for
a diverse collaborative team to function effectively.
Leadership
Lipnack
and Stamps (1997) emphasize the fact that virtual teams require
stronger leadership than conventional teams. Co-located teams
can sit in a conference room and circle around an issue until
they come to consensus. With electronic communication, a discussion
may never close when keeping it open is as simple as pressing
the "reply" or "next" button on the computer.
Leaders must manage the process of bringing the team to closure
and consensus. They should ensure full participation of team members
and help to keep the multiple dialogues straight and on task,
creating structure and defining boundaries. This is not meant
to control the members or restrain initiative or creativity, but
rather to keep teams from becoming immobilized by the ambiguity
of working in cyberspace.
Leadership
roles must be defined and supported by the group. Whether practiced
by one team member for the entire project or divided by task,
leaders must fully support collaboration and virtual teams as
a way of doing business. They must take advantage of the diversity
of the team to develop and utilize each team member's expertise
to the fullest potential; set and uphold realistic expectations;
allocate the appropriate time (and, in real-world situations,
money) needed to accomplish the project; and most importantly,
model the collaborative behavior that will contribute to the success
of the team.
Duarte
and Snyder (1999) also list essential skills for both leaders
and team members to develop. Of these competencies, two are crucial
to online education: building and maintaining trust and using
interpersonal awareness. As we explore our own course experience,
we will highlight the tools we used to develop these skills among
the group members. In addition, we will address particular situations
that challenged us as facilitators and the students as a collaborative
team, further illustrating the importance of trust and awareness
in the distance learning environment.
Fielding
Course In Organizational Design
Course
Design
In
order to use technological and other media to its greatest advantage
for an online, team-based learning experience, the facilitator
(instructor) must clearly articulate the design criteria for the
course. As co-facilitators for the Organizational Design seminar,
our goals were to provide an opportunity for learners to: 1) learn
the basic concepts of and models for organization design, 2) work
collaboratively as a team in an on-line environment, 3) experience
doing organization design for a real organization, and 4) have
a learner-centered learning experience in the Fielding tradition
that required learners to take responsibility for their learning
and the course environment.
The
facilitator-who, even in a self-learning model, is acting in a
leadership role-must have direct knowledge of and experience with
the dynamics of work teams, how to create a collaborative work
environment, and online facilitation. For our Organizational Design
seminar, we drew on our extensive experience with both co-located
and virtual teams to design an online environment that supported
the learning goals we had set. Taking advantage of the structure
of Fielding's computer-mediated conferencing (CMC) application
(known as FELIX), we divided the course into seven distinct and
interrelated phases: 1) reading assignments, 2) team start-up,
3) case development and selection, 4) development of a work plan,
5) project work, 6) documentation, and 7) evaluation. For each
phase, learners posted messages and responses relevant to the
topic at hand. FELIX tracked in an outline and topic-based format
the discussion that occurred asynchronously. This enabled learners
to keep multiple dialogues going at the same time, while maintaining
a logically threaded discussion. It also allowed the next phase
to begin while learners were still grappling with a previous phase,
without interrupting the dialogue flow.
Another
essential element in course design is to consider the time available
(usually a semester or trimester in the academic environment)
and to limit the coursework accordingly. Those experienced with
virtual teamwork understand that GDTs typically require more time
than co-located teams to perform similar tasks. Grappling with
such anomalies as time differences, without the benefit of immediate
answers to questions, team members can easily feel overloaded
and get frustrated. We focused our course on the essential elements
of organizational design to allow only the most relevant work
within the limited period of time.
One
of the greatest challenges for collaborative distance learning,
or for any GDT, is defining the boundaries in which the work of
the team will occur. In cyberspace, we are less bounded or constrained
by the conventions that govern work done by groups. We must thus
set concise, clearly defined goals, procedures, and boundaries
to create a framework and context within which the team can feel
secure.
As
a kick-off to the course, we posted an initial greeting (including
contact information for both of us) along with a detailed syllabus
containing an overview of the course, a description of the methodology,
rules for postings and frequency of participation, an outline
for each assignment, the grading system, our role as facilitators,
and the reading list. Regarding rules for postings and participation,
we devised a new time standard: Fielding Standard Time, designated
as midnight on any calendar day in Santa Barbara (Pacific Time).
This was necessary to ensure that learners in different time zones
were meeting the required deadlines. Because of the interdependent
nature of the coursework, we asked learners to check in three
or more times per week and not to save all their work for the
weekends. We strongly encouraged them to bring a laptop computer
when travel took them away from home base for more than a few
days. We also directed learners to use the title field of their
post to reflect the content of the message as an aid for tracking
the flow of an interactive dialogue among multiple participants.
Reading
Assignments
To
provide learners with the conceptual underpinnings of organization
design, we gave the group lists of required and suggested readings.
The required readings included materials that offered an overview
of organization design concepts and variables, specific models
of organization design, and the history and evolution of the field.
Learners were encouraged to augment the required reading with
sources that were relevant to the specific case that they worked
on and with materials and learnings from other courses they had
taken. We expected learners to read the materials and to explore
and apply them to the content or tasks as they progressed throughout
the course. Our reading list comprised three required books and
five required articles; in addition, we recommended eighteen other
relevant resources.
Team
Start-up and Development
The
initial team start-up and development was the most crucial phase
of the course. During this phase, the team set standards relevant
to goals, created processes, and developed agreements for reaching
consensus in the online environment, while also building the trust
and interpersonal awareness that are so critical to successful
virtual teams. The first assignment in the online space involved
expanded introductions where we asked learners to post what attracted
them to the course; their learning goals; their fears, concerns,
or reservations; their experience in the Fielding program thus
far; their role in their job and how they found it useful to the
coursework; what they felt they could contribute to the team;
and some information about themselves personally, e.g., where
they live, what it's like there, their family, hobbies, and interests.
We also asked each participant to respond by commenting on similarities
and differences among the team members. This enabled learners
to get to know one another on a social and professional level
before diving into the coursework itself. It brought up common
interests, topics for side conversations, and differences in writing
style that helped learners become familiar with each other's ways
of communicating.
Whereas
this kind of communication usually happens in the hallways or
before the bell in a classroom situation, in an online environment
the facilitator must promote this interaction through a specified
assignment and time allocation. In fact, the facilitator must
be a model for interpersonal awareness and trust building. Early
on, we addressed the participants' concerns and fears, reassuring
them, for example, that they would not be penalized for technological
failures; even the best applications and Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) limit access at times. We encouraged casual conversation,
even seemingly irrelevant musings, and we responded to each learner
individually to make sure everyone felt heard. Humor, too, provides
fertile soil for trust and human interaction. To ensure that comic
moments were read as such, we modeled the use of electronic emoticons:
symbols or words to express emotion, humor, or irony, such as
;-) and (smile!). Getting used to text-only communication can
be difficult for some, and it was crucial that we permit enough
time and nonthreatening content to allow the more reticent technology
users to feel confident. Although this was neither their first
distance learning course nor their first experience using Fielding's
CMC application, we were asking our students to use-and stretch-the
technology in a different way than they were accustomed to. In
situations with new users, we believe that this start up time
would require even more time, attention, and training.
After
the "getting to know each other" topic was completed,
we gave the team the task of reaching consensus in three areas:
team goals, team agreements, and-as part of the meta-learning
process-how to reach consensus. Mastery of this process is critical
to the team's ability to work together successfully during its
life together. During this phase, team members posted their ideas
about team learning goals and working agreements (or norms) about
such topics as decision-making; online participation; collaboration
and interdependence; what to do if deadlines couldn't be met;
how to allocate/manage the leadership role during the various
phases of the project; and how to handle an unexplained, extended
absence of a team member from the group. Respect for each person's
opinion motivated the discussion that followed everyone's postings,
which further developed the trust that the agreements were designed
to foster. Then one person took on the role of the synthesizer
or "weaver," taking the different strands of discussion
and weaving them into a tapestry that reflected what seemed to
be the consensus. The team then discussed and fine-tuned the consensus
before polling to indicate their agreement.
As
facilitators we stepped in to support good progress and express
concerns related to, for example, limiting goals to what is reasonable
and addressing what to do if someone falls short on an agreement.
Some learners naturally gravitated toward the leadership roles
during this process, e.g., sending up the "trial balloons"
to define consensus and encouraging stragglers to weigh in with
their opinions. We found that these were often the same people
who took social leadership roles as well, supporting others, interjecting
humor, and inquiring about team members who lapsed into "radio
silence," not posting any messages for one reason or another.
Case
Writing and Selection
During
the case selection phase the team developed the content on which
it would focus its collective wisdom and energies. We asked each
member to write an organization design case study, including the
current organization design, its appropriateness for the course,
and the owner's (team member's) familiarity with or access to
information needed to complete and test the design activity. Using
a model outlined in one of the assigned readings, we also specified
definitions for certain key terms-such as purpose, mission, objectives,
and tasks-that would be used in the assignment so that everyone
would have the same understanding of these terms. Explicitly defining
a common language is more important in text-only virtual environments
than in face-to-face situations where language can be immediately
clarified through queries or accentuated with nonverbal cues.
When
all the cases were posted, the team developed selection criteria
by which they would choose a single case to work on together as
a "consulting" team for the duration of the class. This
was the team's first opportunity to make a major decision, thus
testing the agreements that they had put into place in the previous
phase of the class. It required that someone step forward as a
leader to mediate the discussion and build the model for consensus.
We suggested factors that the team take into consideration, including
how the case fit the team's goals; the scope of the project (making
sure it was manageable during the limited time period the team
would be working); how much access the owner had to critical information;
the availability of the owner (travel schedule, outside commitments
such as family or job); the extent to which the information present
in the case was clear, complete, and usable; and how well the
case permitted the examination of all aspects of the model chosen
from the required reading.
To
assist in the analysis process-which left unaided could easily
become unwieldy-we assigned each team member a review of two other
cases, ensuring that each case would be reviewed by two people
and that no one would review his or her own case. However, the
actual criteria for selection and the process by which they would
make the decision were left up to the team. Since this was the
first real test of the agreements the team had formulated, it
was often the first time these agreements were challenged. In
one case, some team members posted reviews in a timely manner,
while others lagged behind. This left some cases with two reviews
and others with one or, in the worst case, no review, which posed
a serious problem for informed selection. The person who had stepped
forward as leader was charged with suggesting procedures and decisions
to allow the project to move forward despite the fact that the
input was incomplete. In one case, the leader asked other members
of the team to do additional reviews. In another, he proposed
modifications to the formal review process, based on the content
of the unreviewed cases that had been read by all participants.
The participating team members agreed, and the challenge was met
without unduly slowing down the process.
Creating
a Work Plan
The
team planning activities, which occurred simultaneously with case
development, asked learners to determine a plan for how they would
best utilize the resources available to them to decide how they
would choose and analyze the case, prepare and document recommendations
for the redesign of the subject organization, and justify the
solutions based on the resources they discovered and utilized.
In the plan, the team developed a schedule for their work, determined
roles and responsibilities, and addressed the leadership needs
of the project.
As
facilitators we found that a certain amount of structure was needed
during this phase to keep the team on track and to assist them
in dividing up the tasks. We suggested the following macro-level
tasks that needed to be accomplished: analysis of the existing
organization; understanding the contextual dynamics of the organization;
understanding/researching issues, concerns, and opportunities
mentioned by the "client;" redesigning each of the elements
using the model from the required reading; testing the redesign
and adjusting for overall fit and balance; and writing the final
report. We asked the team to decide how best to divide up this
work; to use the technology, FELIX, to produce the work; and to
determine a timetable for delivering the work.
Typically,
one person took the leadership role, developing an outline for
the elements of the work plan and posing the essential questions
that generated the discussion needed to flesh out the plan. The
ensuing dialogue refined the outline, and individual team members
volunteered to be the point person on a particular task. The leader
frequently updated the team on the status of the plan, which informed
everyone regarding who had volunteered for what and which tasks
still required leadership. We checked in to support the progress
and offer our assistance when concerns arose regarding participation
of all the team members.
Project
Work
The
analysis of the current organization design in the selected case
and the proposed redesign using the assigned conceptual model
formed the heart of the course and the bulk of the work performed
by the team. To provide a framework for the final report, we posted
a description of the tasks/sections to be addressed with pertinent
questions the team should consider when working on that task.
We also stated our expectations for the final report, in terms
of format, style, professionalism, consistency, accuracy, and
attention to detail. In addition, we posted key questions the
team should answer while developing the different elements of
the organizational model we had asked them to follow, which included
strategy, structure, people, processes, and reward systems (See
Appendix). By specifically guiding the team's thinking for each
of the tasks and elements, we reduced the chances that they would
be led off track by the potentially overwhelming challenges of
the project. The guidelines and boundaries set for a virtual team's
work determines their ability to succeed in the project. A project
that is too expansive will certainly lead them astray, as will
sidetracking into irrelevant material.
However,
it is critical that a certain kind of sidetracking be encouraged,
to promote social interaction and provide relaxation from the
stress of performing in an online environment. During one of our
courses, after posting the material relevant to the topic, we
would lapse into discussions of basketball and friendly rivalries
over whose team had the better coach or more talented players.
Not only did these conversations lighten the tone of the serious
work we were engaged in, but also they served to strengthen the
bonds among the team members that are so crucial to building and
maintaining trust.
One
issue that became apparent during this stage of the course was
the fear of being misunderstood. While the loss of certain traditional
communication barriers-such as anxiety when speaking in front
of groups and lack of confidence in verbal skills-empowered some
students to express themselves more freely than they would in
a traditional learning environment, others found the lack of verbal
and nonverbal response cues to be intimidating. Misunderstanding,
either as a result or cause of conflict, is common in both intellectual
content and interpersonal face-to-face exchanges. Moreover, misunderstanding
and its subsequent resolution can contribute to group formation,
synergy, and creativity. But when it occurs in a virtual team,
learners are frequently at a loss for how to deal with it, and
the problem becomes an obstacle. In an online learning environment,
the fear of one's written message being taken the wrong way often
surfaces as a long, unwieldy preamble to the main point of the
posting in an attempt to predict and counter every possible interpretation
of the text being written. Sometimes participants disengage from
an activity or avoid dealing with situations that could contribute
to conflict. The practical effect of this fear is reduced willingness
to take risks, which can lead to gridlock in the group.
Conquering
the fear of being misunderstood involves trust: accepting that
team members will not judge one another negatively through their
own misinterpretations. The acceptance of all viewpoints and voices,
however deftly or awkwardly expressed, reduces misunderstandings
that can stymie the group. Facilitators can mitigate these situations
by modeling and encouraging clarification. When team members reflect
back what they interpret from another's posting before making
assumptions about the intended meaning, they give the originator
a chance to further clarify his or her intent.
Documentation-The
Final Report
The
capstone of the group's work together was a final report that
summarized the particulars of the case that they had selected,
their analysis of it, the proposed design solution and rationale
for it, and other recommendations for the client organization.
Unlike most other courses-both on-line and classroom-learners
did not write and submit individual work. Instead, consistent
with the other elements of this course, the team was required
to produce the final document jointly and interactively. This
turned out to be the most difficult aspect of the course for several
reasons. Common among all groups was the end-of-the-trimester
time crunch. Underestimating the complexity of some of the earlier
assignments and of the dynamics of the team and the medium, they
began to fall behind and were unable to replan or make up for
the slippages. Since the class had a definite end point, they
had less time than originally allowed to produce the paper. Those
teams who had a member with strong writing skills who drafted
the document as well as a clear process for how others would participate
in shaping and editing it produced the best papers. This typically
occurred when a strong leader emerged who was willing to drive
and manage the process to conclusion in a fairly directive manner-and
others were willing to allow this while contributing fully and
within the time constraints. In one case, the group allowed a
team member to volunteer to draft and coordinate the editing of
the report who was not well suited to this task-even though, as
it turned out, others on the team were aware of this. In another,
the writer was well qualified but by the end of the class did
not have the personal bandwidth to complete the task. In neither
case was the team able to manage themselves to a more satisfactory
outcome. The result was that the papers did not adequately reflect
the content or the quality of the work that preceded them, and
many team members were disappointed by this anticlimactic end
to their experience together.
Evaluation
In
keeping with the learning goals of the course and the interdependence
of the team, we created a process for evaluation that assessed
both team performance and individual contributions. We outlined
our system for grading in the syllabus so that there would be
no surprises when evaluations were solicited and received. We
based our grades on a system of 100 points: 25 for the quality
of the team's plan, product, and process (everyone on the team
received the same number of points for this component); 25 for
a team member's self-evaluation based on how well he or she met
personal and team learning goals; 25 for the evaluations each
team member received from the other team members related to his
or her participation in and contributions to the team; and 25
for the facilitators' evaluation of each team member's individual
participation, contributions, intellectual and practical curiosity,
and command of the subject.
What
was unique about this system was that it reflected the interdependence
of the team, not only for the accomplishment of the project but
also for the evaluation of performance. We felt that it more closely
mirrored a real-world work scenario where the outcome of the joint
project determines the success of the individuals involved. A
collaborative project is only as good as its weakest element,
and part of the team's work was to determine how best to use the
resources and talents they had at their disposal.
Several
issues arose as a result of our interdependent evaluation model.
Some team members had difficulty evaluating their peers or had
fears about what others would say about their own contributions.
Others expressed concern that their grades would be tied to the
work of others, the quality of which they couldn't control. In
order for the evaluative process to function correctly, we needed
each team member to complete the evaluation assignment, which
was the last task for the course and the one most likely to be
neglected. Not all students gave the assignment the same level
of attention: some contributed very high quality evaluations,
while others provided only cursory responses.
This
kind of group evaluation process proved to be quite time-consuming
for us as facilitators. We had to merge all the comments while
maintaining the anonymity of the contributors. For each student,
we prepared a large packet with both quantitative (points) and
qualitative (narrative) evaluations. Despite the great amount
of work the evaluations represented for both the students and
the facilitators, students indicated that these complex evaluations
were much more valuable than merely receiving a letter grade and
an assessment based only on the instructors' perceptions.
Elements
Resolving and Accepting Contrasting Elements
One
of the most surprising things we discovered in our Organizational
Design seminar was how certain contrasting elements inherent to
education in general presented unique problems to be solved or
to be accepted as irreconcilable in the online environment. The
traditional differentiation between faculty and student tended
to blur in the online environment where there was no podium to
stand behind or board to write on. All the postings, whether from
facilitator or learner, were equivalent: each was given a number
by FELIX and merged in with all the other postings. Apart from
our initial syllabus and assignment postings, our commentary as
facilitators resided alongside the discussion of the learners,
which eliminated the hierarchy usually associated with the teacher/student
relationship.
The
synchronous vs. asynchronous nature of work could not be resolved
within the context of our course, since nearly all the discussion
was asynchronous and each individual participated at a time that
best suited his or her schedule and local time zone. The same
was true for face-to-face vs. virtual interaction. We had to accept
that there would be no face-to-face meetings, and that interpersonal
relationships were mediated by technology. The loss of face-to-face
contact, both formal and casual, carries a great impact. Studies
show that in face-to-face discussions, a message is conveyed 55%
by body language, 38% by tone of voice, and only 7% by actual
words. In telephone conversations, a message is conveyed 87% by
tone of voice and 13% by actual words (Mehrabian & Ferris,
1967). In our course, students grappled with the limitation of
communicating solely through written words. However, when severe
problems arose, we used the telephone to have real-time discussions
so that we could find appropriate solutions. But the standard
practice was to use the technological medium to bring up issues,
gather input, consider options, and make a decision on how to
proceed.
As
an example, one of the most consistent problems that teams face
when using this medium as their primary means of interaction is
"radio silence." Radio silence refers to a team member
who goes for an extended period of time without participating,
i.e. posting a message to the team space. ("Extended"
is relative to the team's norms/agreements and the requirements
for collaboration specific to the task or project.) It creates
at least two obstacles for the team. First, effective teams typically
have agreements or expectations about how frequently each member
will participate; a project schedule with deadlines, interdependencies,
etc.; and/or specific individual assignments or action items,
and the non-participation of even one member can quickly bring
the team to a standstill. This then forces the team to take time
to decide what to do about both the person and the project in
order to keep working and progressing. Second, once relationships
are formed (implying some level of trust and concern for each
other), team members begin to worry about the absent member, particularly
since in a GDT, no one else on the team will run into that person
in another setting, either to inquire about his/her absence or
to verify a "sighting." In our course, we intentionally
constrained the use of other media in order to test the limits
of computer mediated conferencing as a tool for GDTs. However,
in situations like the one described, we used other means to contact
an MIA and to resolve the situation. The resolution was, typically,
highly individual and ranged from one learner getting new equipment
to the withdrawal from the course of another who could not keep
up with the workload.
We
resolved the issue of theory vs. practice by focusing our online
learning model on practice. The theoretical base for our course
came largely from the readings, and there was no formal review
or discussion of these theories. Instead learners were expected
to apply what they'd read to the practice of organizational design,
which formed the core of the course. This practice occurred on
two levels: the actual coursework in redesigning the case study
they chose, and the meta-level of organizing themselves to perform
the task.
One
of the challenges in the practical learning model is how best
to use the skills and experience of the group. For example, someone
may volunteer for a task for which he or she is not well suited.
This may occur at a time when others, including the faculty, are
still unfamiliar with the participants' various strengths and
limitations. When possible, it is up to the leader to diplomatically
suggest that the talents of this person might be better used elsewhere,
and to gain support for this deferral from the rest of the group.
The person in question is much less likely to be offended by the
suggestion if the rest of the team offers rousing support for
applying his or her skills to another task.
Despite
the attempts of the faculty to compensate, the relative lack of
structure, the absence of face-to-face contact, and the reduction
of familiar social cues can create considerable ambiguity in the
group. As a result, a balance between autonomy and accountability
must be struck by and among team members. This requires participants
to find ways to make individual and original contributions to
the work and learning of the team while also respecting the norms
and agreements set by the team. Without the willingness of at
least a few members to experiment with a range of behavior, the
team may remain under-differentiated. At the same time, if even
a couple of members are unwilling to adhere to the agreed-on standards
and conventions, an almost unmanageable situation for the others
can develop. A constant distraction from the main purpose of the
team, behavior outside the "norms" requires extra attention
to team dynamics and challenges others to confront the disruptive
team members. Failure to face and resolve these issues can lead
to anarchy in the group. While these dynamics also occur in face-to-face
groups, they are more easily managed by such factors as the authority
of the faculty/leader; non-verbal cues and other reinforcers of
group norms; and informal, person-to-person interaction and feedback.
For example, failure by one (or more) member to meet agreed-to
deadlines for submitting work on which others are interdependent
creates a situation that snowballs through the semester. It may
cause the team to do rework when that member's posting eventually
appears and can also result in the team running out of time on
the final project or documentation.
Another
issue that generated a certain amount of fear at the beginning
of the course was structure vs. flexibility. As we've discussed,
structure is essential to successful online teamwork as well as
to distance learning in general. Tasks such as organizing or coordinating
sub-tasks and integrating outputs of individual work almost always
requires more leadership in a GDT than with co-located teams.
While team members may recognize the need for such structure and
manage themselves well under more conventional circumstances,
their lack of familiarity with raising issues in a technologically
supported forum may dictate the need for a leader to manage these
tasks. If the leader creates the required structure-which includes
identifying the need, recruiting/naming a person who will be responsible
for managing the task or process, providing the necessary support
and coaching, and holding both the task manager and the other
team members accountable for engaging and reaching closure-team
members are less likely to experience frustration and gridlock.
On
the other hand, this increased structure needs to be balanced
with a degree of flexibility, which is not to say that learners
can disregard deadlines or offer one of the wealth of excuses
with which most teachers are quite familiar (e.g., the dog ate
my homework, my computer crashed, etc.). Backup systems, composing
messages offline, and alternative means of communication (such
as e-mailing a posting to the contact person at Fielding should
access to FELIX be denied) provided the kind of flexibility necessary
to keep the course moving in the event of technological failure.
The
unique design requirements of this course relative to others in
the program curriculum as well as other more traditional courses
posed other dilemmas. Some learners found the work load, requirements
for regular and frequent online participation, and demands of
collaboration in an ambiguous medium to be more difficult than
anticipated: it was not possible to succeed as an individual in
this course, and there was no online version of cramming or pulling
an all-nighter at the end of the semester. A manageable number
fell behind, and over the space of several offerings of the course,
a couple dropped out for various reasons. If too many had done
either, the dynamics of the course would have been at risk, and
with it the overall integrity of the learning experience. This
was not, however, a situation that we had to confront.
Advantages
and Disadvantages of the Online Environment
Alongside
these contrasting elements are sets of advantages and their corollary
disadvantages that we discovered in our experience with interdependent
distance learning. One advantage is that the working with geographically
dispersed teams allows an international experience without traveling.
But the disadvantage of the same is that there are sometimes surprising
cultural and language barriers, even when one is diligent about
trying to avoid them. We witnessed a certain amount of conflict
during the editing of a written project where the contributors
spoke different national styles of English, e.g., Australian vs.
American. Even though we had specifically stated that both forms
were acceptable, when it came to merging the two together, bad
feelings arose among team members. This is an example where immediate
conflict resolution was necessary to prevent wounds from festering
and one or more participants from feeling disenfranchised.
One
particularly agreeable advantage of the online environment is
that age, gender, and race get neutralized, particularly for women
and people of color who are often discounted in teams where they
are a minority. This can, however, lead to loss of identity for
some who base their view of themselves on those very things.
Another
advantage and academic leveler is that people who are not quick
on their feet can participate equally because they have time to
think before they post. The disadvantage is that there is lag
time before getting feedback, which can lead to feelings of not
being heard. And, as we've mentioned already, when conflict arises,
it may not be immediately addressed, and the delay can increase
frustration and hurt feelings.
The
Internet allows worldwide communication and access from almost
anywhere, which is a great advantage in today's global market
and mobile workforce. However, Internet Service Providers outside
the U.S. can be unreliable, which puts some learners, particularly
those in developing nations, at a severe disadvantage. Nevertheless,
we successfully conducted the course with students living as close
as Los Angeles and as far away as South Africa.
Conclusion
We
discovered that a course design based on collaboration and assigned
projects that require interdependence and teamwork can be successful
in the online environment. A collaborative team can achieve high-quality
results without face-to-face interaction. However, a team working
in a virtual environment requires more structure than traditional
teams, including agreeing on norms and procedures, setting realistic
expectations and boundaries, and providing the leadership to keep
the team on track and moving toward each goal.
In
an online environment there is a strong social component through
which participants form close bonds and true affection in their
relationships. But it doesn't happen in the casual way that student-to-student
relationships develop in the traditional teaching environment.
Social interaction must be modeled and encouraged by the instructor/facilitator,
and significant time and space should be dedicated to this task
from the outset. And, where students whispering in the back of
the real-life classroom would be a distraction to the instruction
taking place, side conversations and chit chat on seemingly irrelevant
topics are constructive toward building trust and interpersonal
awareness in an online environment.
Finally,
our experience with this course further emphasized that the online,
collaborative work product has real world applications as the
modern workforce becomes more geographically dispersed. By working
together in a technologically mediated environment, learners developed
a set of skills that are imperative in today's global marketplace.
And by engaging in a double level of learning-learning to organize
themselves in order to learn to organize another company or institution-members
of collaborative teams gain twice the practice of learning by
doing, the kind of active engagement that proves more successful
in adult education experiences.
Appendix
Guidelines for Final Project
ASSIGNMENT
#5--ORGANIZATION DESIGN PROJECT
The
purpose of this assignment is for you to work as a consulting
team on the redesign of the organization described in the case
you have selected.
The
outcome of this assignment is the completion of your case analysis
and redesign recommendations and presentation of it to the other
team.
The
deadline for this assignment is December 1 FST.
Part
I - A description of the organization being redesigned. Much
of this can come from the original posting of the case. Bear in
mind that the other team has not read all of the cases and will
need some context and introduction to the organization. In addition
to a summary of the organization, please ensure that you consider
the following questions: