Data Collection And Analysis

In attempting to test the hypotheses, data gathered from different management teams in the chosen two organizations; food & beverage processing industry and sanitary manufacturing are singled out for the survey.  The survey focusing on the total number of ideas generated by each team, individual recollection of team members, time taken to complete the assigned business case scenario. Relationship between the succeeding by-products of a process and the conflict experienced during a specific decision-making process, and time consumed to arrive at a decision alongside an evaluation of proposed idea qualities will also be assessed (Griffin & Moorhead, 2012).

In the study setting, top management is those individuals who had actively engaged in the decision in question. Teams, on the other hand, were determined based on the outcome of decisions that have been made in the past and on who was involved in the decision-making process. In the Setting A, 50 top management teams from different food & beverage company were picked. A letter was dispatched to the CEO of the selected companies requesting their employee’s participation. Of the 230 selected firms, only 84 CEOs accepted participation and 58 declined. The other 88 CEOs could not be accessed or reached within the agreed time. A survey letter containing items to be studied with instructions was later dispatched to 302 managers of the 84 selected organizations. In the Setting B, interview and e-mail survey method were deployed as this was the largest and most representative sample. On average top management teams made up of 5 managers each was observed.  A similar data collection process as the one used in the case of setting A. This data was verbally collected and after that converted to numerical and tabulated in Table 1.In the survey process, the following were assessed;

  • Effective and Cognitive Conflict of the group
  • Effective acceptance of a decision
  • Effective commitment
  • The understanding level measure
  • Decision quality based on a scale ranging from 1, ‘poor’ to 4, ‘excellent,’

Table1: Result for Effective and Cognitive Conflict

Setting A
Items Cognitive Conflict  Effective Conflict
Cognitive Conflict of Teams on Performance    
Amount of disagreement over different ideas 113 80
Amount of differences of opinion over decisions 20 78
Amount of differences over content during the decision process 83 90
Amount of deference to authority  during the decision process 65 80
Effective Conflict of Teams on Performance    
Amount of anger witnessed among groups over this decision 79 66
Amount of tension witnessed among groups over this decision 91 69
Amount of personality friction witnessed between groups during the decision 85 88
Amount of personal clashes witnessed during group decision 77 130
     
     
Setting B
Items Cognitive Conflict  Effective Conflict
Cognitive Conflict of Teams on Performance    
Amount of disagreement over different ideas 147 130
Amount of differences of opinion over decisions 40 128
Amount of differences over content during the decision process 121 140
Amount of deference to authority  during the decision process 90 130
Effective Conflict of Teams on Performance    
Amount of anger witnessed among groups over a decision process 121 115
Amount of tension witnessed among groups over a decision process 140 95
Amount of personality friction witnessed between groups during the decision making process 102 122
Amount of personal clashes witnessed during group decision making process 98 180
     

 

Descriptive and statistical analysis tool ANOVA will then be deployed to assist with data deduction and analysis. The ANOVA analysis will help assess the level of team agreement for decision quality and conflict measure. Team affiliation as the independent variable will reveal agreement on variance coefficient between teams.

References

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2004). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge:         Cambridge University Press.

Franz, T. M. (2012). Group dynamics and team interventions: Understanding and improving team            performance. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2012). Organizational behavior: Managing people and   organizations. Mason, OH: South Western/Cengage Learning.

 


ORDER UNIQUE ANSWER NOW

Add a Comment