Project Management MOT 8221 Karl A. Smith Constructive Controversy & Decision Making Spring, 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Asking the Right Questions: Chapter 1
Advertisements

CT is a self-directed process by which we take deliberate steps to think at the highest level of quality. CT is skillful, responsible thinking that is.
What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions article by: David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto Harvard business Review  Presentation by:  Liz Farricker.
Socratic Seminars. We will end the year with an in-class discussion project called Socratic Seminars. We will use our class novel to get ideas for discussion.
Critical Thinking. Definition: Evaluating whether we should be convinced that a claim is true or that an argument is good. It’s also about formulating.
What is Teamwork & Team Building Team work : Concept of people working together as a team. Team Player : A team player is someone who is able to get.
Preparing Faculty to Conduct Educational Research: What’s SoTL’s Role Ruth Streveler, Nancy Chism, Marilla Svinicki and Karl Smith POD Conference, October.
Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, 10e David W. Johnson & Frank P. Johnson © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Chapter Eight.
Constructive Academic Controversy: The Art of Arguing to Enhance Learning Workshop for Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Karl A. Smith Engineering Education.
“I can tell you who I am, what I think, feel, believe, want to do, and have done, without getting anxious or worrying about what you may think about.
USING AND PROMOTING REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT AS STUDENT LEADERS ON CAMPUS Patricia M. King, Professor Higher Education, University of Michigan.
Participating actively in decision making as a team and as an individual Investigating ways in which rights can compete and conflict, and understanding.
GROUP SKILLS GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills.
6/5/2007SE Survival Exercise Recap1 Team Software Project (TSP) June 05, 2007 Planning, Quality, Risks.
Surviving the Desert. Spring 2011MGMT E-4000, M. S. White, Ph.D., J.D. Team Decision-Making.
Working as a Team. 2 Types of Conflict Cognitive – Positively related to decision quality and commitment Affective – Negatively related to decision quality.
Putting It all Together Facilitating Learning and Project Groups.
© LearningBridge Inc., All rights reserved Team Effectiveness: Principles & Guidelines.
Principled Negotiation 4 Scholars from the Harvard Negotiation Project have suggested ways of dealing with negotiation from a cooperative and interest-
Critical Thinking and Argumentation
Learning to Think Critically
Learning to Think Critically pages Objectives Define thinking & reflection Identify 3 functions of the brain Describe how thinking impacts decision.
Creating Collaborative Standards-Based IEPs: A Training for IEP Team Members Session One.
How to Write a Literature Review
Introduction to Constructive Controversy: The Art of Arguing to Enhance Learning Lilly Teaching Seminar Michigan State University April 11, 2013 Karl A.
Constructive Controversy & Decision Making Karl A. Smith February, 2012.
Building and Managing Successful Teams – Team Decision Making
Where questions, not answers, are the driving force in thinking.
Constructive Controversy in Graduate and Professional Courses Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University STEM Education Center/Civil Eng –
Team Decision Making Karl A. Smith University of Minnesota January 2005 Engineers Leadership Institute Minnesota Society.
Sebastian Slotte and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University School of Science Decision Structuring Dialogue.
Team Decision Making Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota -
Cooperative Learning and Problem- Based Learning: Working with Teams Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University.
1 CHAPTER 2 CREATIVE AND CRITICAL THINKING, PROBLEM SOLVING, AND THEIR ROLES IN BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTING.
Reaching Consensus. “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr. (1967)
CHAIRING SKILLS. Why do we have Meetings? Why have meetings? Make policy Take decisions Agree priorities Ensure probity Co-ordinate Build morale Engage.
Team Development Objectives To know the stages in the development of teams To understand team roles To understand about team decisions To learn how to.
THE ARGUMENTATIVE OR PERSUASIVE ESSAY Mr.Wilson – LMAC - English.
History and Philosophy of Engineering Education ENE 695M Karl A. Smith Constructive Controversy.
Professional Development to Practice The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the US Department of Education to the Missouri.
Team Decision Making Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota Preparing and Supporting Students.
Problem Solving in Groups
Managing Classrooms for Constructive Conflict Presentation to the Family and Consumer Sciences Academy, Temple University August 3, 2005 Tricia S. Jones,
Working and Writing in Teams Module Eighteen Copyright © 2014 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Ashley James & Tom Flammini October 8, 2013
GROUP DECISION MAKING ADVANTAGES BROAD REPRESENTATION TAPS EXPERTISE MORE IDEAS GENERATED EVALUATION OF OPTIONS COORDINATION HIGH ACCEPTANCE DISADVANTAGES.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING EDC 448 WORKSHOP Building/Supporting Critical Thinking from Multiple Perspectives.
Team Exercise. 5/29/2007SE Survival Exercise2 SURVIVAL!
Teams succeed when members have:  commitment to common objectives;  defined roles and responsibilities;  effective decision systems, communication and.
The Team That Wasn’t! What did Eric do right? What did Eric do wrong? Describe Randy in the context of Covey. Critique: –Katzenbach--’the team or Randy.
NOTES Chapter 3 – Communication, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution.
Consensus Decision Making Third World Group 2010.
Group Communication. How many people do you think make up a small group? What are some advantages to group work? What are some disadvantages? Types of.
Team Decision Making Karl A. Smith Purdue University/ University of Minnesota Engineers Leadership Institute Minnesota Society for Professional.
“Let us examine this question together my friend, and if you can contradict anything that I say, do so, and I shall be persuaded.” Crito, Plato Socratic.
Persuasive and Argumentation Writing
Controversy Learning goals: cognitive goals social goals
CONTROVERSY AND CREATIVITY
Learning to Think Critically
Chapter 18: Supporting Your Views
Session 2 Challenges and benefits of teaching controversial issues
FIE 2009: Special Session Holly Matusovich, Virginia Tech
Thinking In College In this lesson, we’ll explore what it means to be a college-level thinker, and how to develop strong thinking skills. Any questions.
Socratic Seminar *I can balance listening with speaking.
CT is a self-directed process by which we take deliberate steps to think at the highest level of quality. CT is skillful, responsible thinking that is.
39 studies (41% Higher Ed), meta-analysis
Thinking In College In this lesson, we’ll explore what it means to be a college-level thinker, and how to develop strong thinking skills. Any questions.
Learning to Think Critically
Critical Thinking and Argumentation
Communicating in Groups and Question and Answer Sessions
Presentation transcript:

Project Management MOT 8221 Karl A. Smith Constructive Controversy & Decision Making Spring, 2002

Decision Making – In the Field Lewis’ Suggestions (p ) 1.Decisions that are primarily quantitative in nature should be made by an expert 2.When acceptance is more important than quantitative concerns, the decisions should be made by consensus 3.When acceptance and quantitative issues are almost equally important, then a consultative approach should be used. Decision-Making and Conflict (Avoiding Groupthink) Constructive Controversy Advocacy Sub-Groups

Two Approaches to Decision Making Garvin & Roberto, Harvard Business Review, 79(8), AdvocacyInquiry Concept of decision making A contestCollaborative problem solving Purpose of discussionPersuasion and lobbyingTesting and evaluation Participants’ roleSpokespeopleCritical thinkers Pattern of behaviorStrive to persuade others Defend your position Downplay weaknesses Present balanced arguments Remain open to alternatives Accept constructive criticism Minority viewsDiscouraged or dismissed Cultivated and valued OutcomeWinners and losersCollective ownership

A Litmus Test (Gavin & Roberto) Multiple Alternatives Assumption Testing Well-defined Criteria Dissent and Debate Perceived Fairness

Constructive Controversy Procedure Step Typical Phrase ! PrepareOur Best Case Is... ! PresentThe Answer Is...Because... ! Open DiscussionYour Position is Inadequate Because... My Position is Better Because... ! Perspective ReversalYour Position Is...Because... ! SynthesisOur Best Reasoned Judgment Is...

Disputed Passage Through a Glass Darkly Second Thoughts The Quest Controversy Process

Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you? B Walt Whitman, 1860

Promoting Controversy 1.Present Viewpoints. 2.Highlight Disagreements. 3.Be Impartial and Rational. 4.Require Critical Evaluation. 5.Assign Devil’s Advocate Role. 6.Use Advocacy Subgroups 7.Have “Second Chance” Meetings

Second-Chance Meetings Alfred Sloan, when he was the Chairman of General Motors, once concluded an executive meeting called to consider an major decision by saying, “... I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here...Then I propose we postpone further discussion until our next meeting to give ourselves some time to develop disagreements and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”

Skilled Disagreement 1.Define Decision as a mutual problem, not as a win-lose situation. 2.Be critical of ideas, not people (Confirm others' competence while disagreeing with their positions). 3.Separate one's personal worth from others' reactions to one's ideas. 4.Differentiate before trying to integrate. 5.Take others' perspectives before refuting their ideas. 6.Give everyone a fair hearing. 7.Follow the canons of rational argument.

Rules for Constructive Controversy 1.I am critical of ideas, not people. I challenge and refute the ideas of the opposing group, but I do not indicate that I personally reject them. 2. I remember that we are all in this together, sink or swim. I focus on coming to the best decision possible, not on winning. 3. I encourage everyone to participate and to master all the relevant information. 4. I listen to everyone’s ideas, even if I don’t agree. 5. I restate what someone has said if it is not clear. 6. I first try to bring out all the ideas and facts supporting both sides, and then I try to put them together in a way that makes sense. 7. I try to understand all sides of the issue. 8. I change my mind when the evidence clearly indicates that I should do so.

Controversy References Gavin, David A. and Roberto, Michael A What you don’t know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8), Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., and Smith, Karl A Enriching college instruction with constructive controversy. ASHE- ERIC Reports on Higher Education. Washington, DC: ERIC. [ASHE-ERIC, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC ] Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A Constructive controversy: The power of intellectual conflict. Change, 32 (1), Smith, Karl A Structured controversy. Engineering Education, 74(5),