Running head: THE GREEN TEAM

The Green Team: Recommendations for Queens University of Charlottes Sustainability Council David Owens-Hill Queens University of Charlotte April 29, 2011

THE GREEN TEAM

The Queens University of Charlotte Sustainability Council is a cross-discipline work team composed of volunteers from across the multiple service-areas of the university. It is lead by the Vice President of Campus Planning and Services and hosts a collection of staffers from Marketing, Student Life, Campus Services, as well as faculty. To understand the brief case presented in the following paragraphs, we will first examine some of the cast: Bill N.: the appointed-leader of the small group Reena A.: a reluctant member of the group, responsible for media-relations David H.: responsible for printed collateral and publicity Amber P.: responsible for student involvement Patrick M.: Ambers right-hand man Carrie D.: a reluctant member of the group, a member of the Earth Science faculty Reed P.: a member of the group who rarely attends meetings Jenny S.: a member of the group who acts as team secretary/registrar

Together, the 8 players in this group represent a cross-section of the university and are tasked with the advancement of sustainability initiatives across the campus. The individuals listed above represent the member of the Sustainability Council who are most often in attendance at meetings, but are just over half of the 14-person team. Most of the members of the team were motivated to join by a commitment to like-goals, defined by Harris and Sherblom as the reasons, purposes, and goals that draw us to groups (2011, p. 11). The two members listed above as reluctant members were assigned by someone else; again, referring to Harris and Sherbloms descriptions: in any organization there are necessarysometimes arbitraryassignments to groups. Participation can, nonetheless, still be surprising, rewarding and fun (2011, p. 12). We are fortunate in our evaluation of this group that the reluctant members were not arbitrary assignmentstheir work-roles

THE GREEN TEAM

supported the needs of the groupbut their participation must be viewed through a reality filter; they would often prefer to be doing something else. The group has, in the past year, accumulated some success in their mission; recently, on their recommendation, the president of the university signed a commitment letter to reduce the institutions carbon footprint by a significant percentage and under the guidance of the group the university has seen a tremendous increase in recycling, waste reduction and energy conservation. After a year of hard work and increasing recognition by the power-centers of the organization within which it exists, the group is achieving synergy. Synergy, defined as several individuals working together and building on each others strengths to generate more and better solutions than if people worked alone (McShane & van Glinow, 2000, p. 312) will be shown to be a necessary precursor to Social Capital in a future section. The groups long-term goals are loosely defined as advancing and promoting (as well as communicating) the universitys efforts to reduce carbon emissions, green the campus by encouraging recycling and waste-reduction programs, and to champion the universitys sustainability efforts as central to our core values. In the short-term, the team was tasked with establishing a week of events surrounding Earth Day as a celebration of the earth and as a reward for a year of successful work.

Earth Week, 2011 Earth day, an event held annual since 1970, works with partners in over 192 countries to broaden, diversity and mobilize the environmental movement with programming that ranges from voter registration to greening schools and industries to

THE GREEN TEAM

protecting endangered animal species (Earth Day Network). The connection to the Sustainability Council is clear, the Earth Day mission fits with the small groups mandate, and the members of the team all subscribe to the principles set forth by the Earth Day organization, the group established an aggressive schedule of events to showcase the efforts of the small group. So where, you may ask, is the problem? No one came to four of the twelve events. This is the moment where we begin to see the need to evaluate the groups dynamic. Not necessarily because of unsuccessful events, but because of the group reaction to them. Appendix I and II list, respectively, the schedule of events for Earth Week 2011 and an email that begins the groups descent into name-calling, finger pointing, andfranklythe opposite of synergy. Because this case study and report are not evaluating the effectiveness of the groups marketing prowess, I have omitted most of the response to the email included and have not discussed at-length the groups efforts to encourage attendance at these events.

Crisis on the committee The team, to this point, had a positive impression of its work-product. As a regular attendee of the meetings specific to short-term goal setting for Earth Week events (which were held weekly), I saw no indication of a break in the message shared at the meetingsone of cooperation and productivityand the ultimate message of frustration and outrage that resulted from the teams activity. As a relatively small group working within a much larger organization, the primary method of communication during the period of crisis in question was email.

THE GREEN TEAM

Although a convenient medium at the time for its easy accessibility and speed, the committee saw the issues traditionally associated with computer-mediated communication. As explained by ORourke: The fact that they are communicating through a keyboard and screen does not mean that [communicators] become disembodied minds, and the kinds of physical signals that people give as to their affective and cognitive states can be most revealing to the researcher even if they remain invisible to the chat partner. (2008, p. 234) These issues will be further explained in the outcomes section.

Identifying issues and areas for improvement within the group The electronic missive from Carrie D. was a pointed explanation of what she understood to be wrong with the team. There are important clues to what will ultimately need to be resolved in order to have an actualized, highly-functioning team. When Carrie D. says Not a single one of you were there. What does that say about your interest in Queens' Earth Week and the events and concepts associated with it? (Carrie D., Personal Communication, April 18, 2011) we can begin to expand the micro to the macro. If committee members did not attend the lecture, were they also prone to skip meetings and planning sessions? A review of the meeting minutes shows that attendance at the meetings usually hovered at less than 50% of the entire team. On 2 occasions, so few people were in attendance that the meetings were simply cancelled and were not rescheduled. The Storming phase of group developmentwhich Harris and Sherblom loosely define as the process of working through conflict to establish norms within a

THE GREEN TEAM

group (2011, p. 61)should have included, from the very beginning, resolution for lack of support for the group and other disruptive behavior. Without this storming phase, the group lacks a key survival skill. Janis and Mann (as cited in Callaway and Esser, 1984, p. 157) outline five antecedent conditions for the occurrence of groupthink: (1) a high level of group cohesiveness; (2) insulation of the group members from opinions outside the group; (3) an inefficient procedure for gathering and interpreting information; (4) leadership that is both directive and influential; and (5) a tendency to avoid challenging the first acceptable alternative suggested by a group-member (as cited in Callaway and Esser, 1984, p. 157) Our group, upon close examination, presents three of these conditions. The group was insulated from outside opinionsa realization in hindsight, as so many are, the groups leadership was directive and influential (as the highest-ranked staff person on the committee, the leader of the team has final say-so on group efforts), and a tendency to avoid challenging the first acceptable alternative suggested, most likely because of the large number of committee members who were assigned to the group without first buying into its mission. The conditions are aligned for groupthink, but what does this mean for our team? If we accept Janis 1982 definition of groupthink as a strong concurrence-seeking tendency among group members that leads to a deterioration in their decision-making process (as cited in Harris & Sherblom, 2011, p. 51) and allow that three of the five influences were being exerted on our team, we can see that a breakdown in the decisionmaking process is likely. The group, in its rush to concurrence, skipped the pre-evaluative

THE GREEN TEAM

measures that could have avoided crisis in the beginning. Easy questions, such as have we analyzed the audience for each of these events? and did we explore effective communication channels for each event? could have assuaged the frustration that bubbled over into team conflict. In fact, no evaluation measures were employed before, during, or after the planning meetings to ensure the efficacy of the team communication internally or externally. This is not to say that the frustration that bubbled over into conflict was handled appropriately. Carrie D.s email is hostile and does not adhere, or acknowledge, the basics of providing constructive feedback to a team. Some of the most egregiously violated rules of feedback according to Harris and Sherblom (2011, p. 125) in this instance are: Feedback should be constructive, not evaluative Effective feedback should be directed toward helping move the group along, not toward punitive action Effective feedback should be well-timed; we should distinguish between what is best left unsaidor said later in privateand what is relevant and timely Effective feedback should not be stored up so it can be dumped later. Sandbagging, or waiting until we can score, will subvert the group process

Constructive feedback establishes the provider of feedback (Carrie D.) as measured and reasonable to the recipient (the rest of the Sustainability Team) and provides a framework from which all members of the group can grow and improve. The primary issue within the Sustainability Team, as evidenced by the observations above, is a lack of conflict-resolution ability. We see mistrust, hostility, frustration, and ill-conceived communication within the team and it inevitably spills into

THE GREEN TEAM

external communication. The email that sparked this evaluation of the team was Cced to members of the university community that are not on the team and who are not directly involved. As a result, we see diminished trust for the team at-large from an uninformed public. This lack of conflict-resolution ability is party a result of groupthink, but in large part the fault of incomplete storming during the formation of the group and a lack of total commitment by some team members.

We have work left to do, where do we go from here? To recommend improvements to the team is to recommend systemic change. Sometimes we must examine what we have by destructive methods in order to build processes that are effective and efficient. My recommendations to avoid future conflict and reputational damage are as follows: First, adjourn the committee. Shut it down. Stop the meetings, explain to important stakeholders that you are entering a time of reorganization and evaluation and set a time frame for both of those activities. It has become clear that the decision-making capabilities of the group are compromised and expecting the members of the group to affect change from the inside out is unrealistic. Once the time for evaluation is established, stick to it! During this time4 weeks feels appropriate for a team this sizeask all the members to evaluate their individual performance and the performance of the team as a whole. Check the evaluations (which should be completed in writing) for signs of groupthink or for indicators that a member is less-than-committed to the team. Additionally, an evaluation should ask what should we start doing, what should we stop doing, and what should we keep doing?

THE GREEN TEAM

When each team member has answered those questions and has evaluated their individual performance and the team performance in a meaningful way, ask each member of the team to recommit to the goals of the group. If the people who were assigned to the team would like to roll-off the committee, now is the time. Foster an attitude of openness and truthfulness. There should be no judgments for those members who no longer want to be a part of this team. Likewise, this is the time to look for new members of the team. Brainstorm with leadership from multiple business units to identify individuals whose role would make their membership a parallel work-group. Most importantly, ask the general public if they would like to join the team. By allowing an opt-in from the public at large, you are likely to foster teamwork by accepting members who subscribe to like-goals. Now that membership is established, we should look at the defined role of the group. Advancing the sustainability initiatives across the campus is a wildly broad role. I would recommend to team leadership that the groups role be clarified and expectations set. Commitment to the universitys sustainability initiatives should be implicit with membership. Further, to avoid groupthink during event planning, I would recommend that the defined roles be published for public feedback and that feedback be specifically sought during event or programming planning. To encourage full participation, I would recommend sanctions on team members who do not regularly attend meetings.

Takeaways When we look at teamwork and the roles of teams in times of reputational crisis, we should examine the value of social capital as a potentially helpful characteristic of

THE GREEN TEAM

10

team functionality. The sustainability council is an evolving body with a rotating cast of characters. The seven individuals represented in the following case have all served loyally on the team for at least two years, have excellent professional relationships with one another and a considerable amount of combined social capital. This social capital, defined loosely by Robert Putnam as features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit: (Putnam, 1995, p. 67). We see in a wide body of research a correlation between leader effectiveness and social capital (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006; Burt & Ronchi, 2007; Day, 2000; Fredericks, 2003) and we generally understand from available research that positive social capital bolsters effective leadership while shielding ineffective leadership from harsh scrutiny. Though the team in its current form should resist the urge to rest on their laurels at all costs during this time of reputational crisis, they should also be prepared to use any tool in their tool-kit to weather the current issue. The only way to cash in a groups social capital is to first understand its presence and value. Awareness is key, and a measure of good leadership is self-awareness. Additionally, when examining the root cause of this type of conflict, it is helpful to examine the motivations of each of the players. For example, Carrie D.s email is pointed and accusatory, but ends with a revealing note: Not a single one of you were there. What does that say about your interest in Queens' Earth Week and the events and concepts associated with it? (Carrie D., Personal Communication, April 18, 2011). As a faculty member, Carries everyday work-product rests firmly in academia. When an individuals life and work are so closely tied to their level of personal knowledge, the result of an empty auditorium can be more than embarrassment; it can be a blow to ones

THE GREEN TEAM

11

self-brand. Carrie is useful for what she knows. If she feels that no one is interested in what she knows, what is her purpose in life? By examining her motivations for sending the email that began the reputational crisis, we begin to see that it is not her frustration that no one showed up to her lecture that began the crisis, but the threat to her selfidentity and self-brand.

Conclusion This team weathered an embarrassing conflict that negatively affected their reputation and ability to perform their assigned role. By examining membership, the indicators of groupthink, leadership as it relates to the groups social capital, and by going below the line to examine the motivation of each members commitment and reason for joining, the team can do more than attain a perfunctory level of achievement. The team can excel and achieve synergy.

THE GREEN TEAM

12

References Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2006) the ties that lead: a social network approach to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 419-439 Burt, R. S., & Ronchi, D. (2007). Teaching executives to see social capital: Results from a field experiment. Social Science Research, 36, 1156-1183 Callaway, M., & Esser, J. (1984). Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problemsolving procedures on group decision making. Social behavior and personality, 12(2). 157-164. Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: a review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613. Earth Day Network. (nd). About Us. Retrieved from: http://www.earthday.org/about-us Fredericks, S. M. (2003). Creating and maintaining networks among leaders: An exploratory case study of two leadership training programs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 45-54. doi:10.1177/107179190301000104 Harris, T., & Sherblom, J. (2011). Small group and team communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M.A. (2000). Organizational behavior. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill. ORourke, B., (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer mediated communication and language learning. Computer assisted language learning, 21(3), 227-251. Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling alone: Americas declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78

THE GREEN TEAM

13

Appendix I: Earth Week Schedule of Events Monday, 4/18: 9 a.m. 5 p.m.: Goodwill collection in residential quad. (Bins will be placed around the residence halls so that the Queens community and neighbors can drop off unwanted items, rather than throwing them away.) 11 a.m. 1 p.m.: Ivy pull outside Watkins Hall. (Students, faculty and staff are invited to help Campus Services remove ivy from our grounds to kick off a landscaping project that will be completed at a later date.) 3 4 p.m.: Water and energy conservation webinars in Sykes Auditorium. (These webinars by Will Sarni of Deloitte Consulting and Kevin Coyle of the National Wildlife Federation will cover our role as stewards over water and energy resources. Topics include the growing impact of water scarcity and student-led campus sustainability initiatives to conserve energy and natural resources. Refreshments will be served.) 7 8 p.m.: Invasive plant lecture by Queens Dr. Carrie DeJaco in Sykes Auditorium. (Most of the exotic plants we use in the landscaping of our yards and cities are very not friendly to wildlife and, in fact, might as well be plastic from many animals points of view. This presentation will increase your awareness of and knowledge about invasive, exotic plants in our landscape and introduce you to the many wonderful plants native to this area that we can use in our gardens instead. Refreshments will be served.) Tuesday, 4/19: Goodwill collection and ivy pull continue (same times/locations as Monday). 11 a.m. 2 p.m.: Farmers market in Trexler Courtyard. (Stop by to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables.) Wednesday, 4/20: 9 a.m. 5 p.m.: Goodwill collection truck by Evans Clock Tower. (The Queens community and neighbors from Myers Park are invited to participate in this day-long drive. A Goodwill trailer will be parked by the Evans Clock Tower on Radcliffe Avenue to take donations.)

THE GREEN TEAM

14

11 a.m. 2 p.m.: Outdoor picnic hosted by Queens Dining Services in residential quad. 12:30pm: Tree planting in residential quad. (The campus community will come together to plant a scarlet oak between Evans Clock Tower and Hayes Residence Hall.) 4 p.m. 5 p.m.: Stormwater management lecture by Michael Cole of ColeJenest & Stone in Sykes Auditorium. (Learn about innovative and sustainable storm water management techniques for a healthy campus and planet. Refreshments will be served.) Thursday, 4/21: 9 a.m. 6 p.m.: Third annual Power Down Day. (People across Queens will be asked to unplug as many electronic devices as possible for the day. The amount of energy this effort could save would power dozens of homes and businesses.) 9 a.m. 5 p.m.: Goodwill collection in residential quad. (Bins placed around residence halls) 11:15 a.m. 11:45 a.m.: Weekly Chapel service outside Belk Chapel.

THE GREEN TEAM

15

Appendix II: Email Communication from Carrie D. From: Carrie D. To: Reena A., Bill N., Amber P., David H., Jenny S., Josh N., Tim E., Paul J., Aaron S., Sarrin W., Patrick M., Zach T., Alice O. Cc: Kent R., Vanessa W., Rebecca A., Reed P., Greg P., Jessica B., Lynn M., Norris F. Subject: Re: Earth Week Release Date: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:40 P.M. Dear Sustainability Committee, I took the photograph below at 7:04 this evening in Sykes Auditorium. I was there because I had agreed to give a talk on invasive species at 7:00 this evening to go along with the other planned "Earth Week" activities. Two of my students were there, along with one woman who said she was from a company that would be doing landscaping around campus. I have given similar talks at several other venues around the Charlotte area to audiences of close to a hundred people, so I don't think it was a lack of the Charlotte community's interest in the subject matter that left all these seats empty. I asked my Ecology class today if they were aware of the Earth Week activities planned for today. They were not. I asked them if they were aware of the tree planting planned for later this week. They were not. Not a single one of you were there. What does that say about your interest in Queens' Earth Week and the events and concepts associated with it? Carrie Attachment:

THE GREEN TEAM

16

Appendix III: Weekly Reflections Norms and Roles 1. Identify several critical and peripheral norms in your organization. Critical norms: the group is (overly?) convivial and friendly. Social faux pas are not tolerated and are dealt with immediately (e.g., no one talks over anyone else, everyone is on time to meetings) Interestingly, being on time is so critical to the group that people will skip the meetings altogether rather than walk into one late. Peripheral norms: regardless of the meeting place, the group always sits in roughly the same order around a table with David and Reena sitting beside one another, Bill and Jenny next to one another, etc. 2. What roles are evident in your group? Leadership clearly defined by position outside the group. Reena and David take a role in leadership, but cede points to Bill regularly. Jenny is clearly the registrar. She was not asked to fill this role, but always has and is good at it. 3. Is the level of cohesion in your group healthy? Why or why not? The level of cohesion seems to be healthy. It could, in fact, be stronger. 4. Is your group guilty of groupthink? What happened? How are they avoiding it? YES, YES, YES! See the paragraphs above!

THE GREEN TEAM

17

Diversity 1. What types of diversity are evident in your group? (ex. age, race, geography, religion, etc.) Type of position at the university: faculty, staff, students (who rarely attend), outside contractors, members of university senior leadership. Most group members are roughly the same age (late 20s to early 30s) with the exception of Bill who is quite a bit older. The members of the team all work on the centralcampus, so geography is not an issue. All members are white, but this is indicative of the racial makeup of the campus, which is overwhelmingly white. 2. What specific challenges does the diversity bring to your group? With the exception of work-type, the group isnt very diverse. Perhaps more diversity would encourage less groupthink. The diverse types of roles (faculty, staff, contractor) did present a crisis, which is discussed in this paper. 3. Describe a specific instance in which your group utilized diverse perspectives to accomplish a task.

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication, Listening 1. What types of verbal communication occur most frequently in your group (task, process, narratives, metaphors, etc.)? What purpose do they serve? Write down some examples. The majority of verbal communication is task and process related. The group is aligned to a goal and the members role in reaching milestones must be clearly communicated. Its a shame that metaphor and narrative are not utilized more.

THE GREEN TEAM

18

The personal-nature of these types of verbal communication would be very useful in humanizing the role of the group to explain its importance. 2. What type(s) of group talk (task-oriented, role-defining, motivational/consciousness-raising, social-emotional, encounter, humor) do you hear in your group? What type(s) are lacking? What should your group add to enhance their cohesiveness and productivity? I hear a lot of task-oriented group talk. With the tendency to create vague assignments, I think the group would benefit from more role-defining group talk. 3. Provide examples of different types of nonverbal communication used in your group. The group has a lot of eye rolling. Bad news! 4. How is the nonverbal communication in your group used along with the verbal communication (ex. Repeat, complement, accentuate, substitute, etc.) The nonverbal communication often negates the message of the verbal communication. This is a review of a team that is broken, so I am not surprised that were hearing one thing and seeing another. 5. What barriers to active listening are displayed in your group? What is the leader doing to overcome these barriers? The leader needs to break down the barriers between the members of the groups as it pertains to their work-status/role. Only then will the members learn to listen to one another. This is another important time to think about the motivations of the members of the team, both in joining and for committing to the team, as well as for their actions while on the team.

THE GREEN TEAM

19

Conflict and Teams 1. Which of the five approaches to conflict resolution are most prevalent in your group? Which are least? Do these approaches compliment or compete with each other? What other approach might be useful in your group? 2. Describe an instance where you or someone in your group had to go below the line to resolve a conflict. How did the situation work out? Did the individual know to do this or did he or she have to be prompted by another group member? This entire paper is about going below the line. Motivation is important when thinking about why a team member would undermine the teams reputation. 3. Which bases of power are utilized most frequently in your group? Least? Conflict is most frequently avoided. In fact, it is always avoided. 4. Is power most often used to solve conflict in your group? Power was rarely used to solve conflict in the group. Conflicts, until the one described in this report, were not explored or vocalized. 5. Do you see more examples of power to or power over in your group? The group felt that they had the power to in almost every situation. Further study is necessary to see if they actually do. 6. Assuming it has happened, describe the process of your group becoming a team. If you do not believe your group is a team, what barriers exist that are preventing a team from forming? The group feels that they are a team, and I used the terms interchangeably in this report, but I would argue that the group needs more norming, storming, etc. to become a team.

THE GREEN TEAM

20

7. In what ways does your team still need to evolve (ex. leadership, goals, trust, etc.)? The team lacks clear goals and charismatic leadership. After the reputational crisis explored in this paper, the group is also lacking trust.

Decision Making and Creativity 1. Which of the decision-making methods does your team use most often? Least often? Is there a method that you think would be more effective for your team? If so, why do you think the team does not utilize that method? 2. Has your team ever fallen pretty to groupthink? If so, describe the experience. If not, how is the team preventing this from happening? YES, YES, YES! Read the stuff above re: groupthink 1. Would you consider your team to be creative? How is creativity encouraged in your team? What ideas do you have that could encourage creativity in your group? I would not consider this to be a particularly creative group. Creativity should be encouraged as necessary for success in this type of environment, but the group often falls back to what has worked in the past.