June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
26.689.1 - 26.689.13
Evaluating a Communication Framework for Team Effectiveness in a First-Year Design and Communication CourseTeams are the foundational building blocks of organizations, utilized to derive increasinglyinnovative solutions to complex problems in order to maintain a competitive market advantage1.As such, the development of teamwork based skills has been identified as a critical competencyin engineering education required to prepare graduates for team-based projects in industry. Whilemost engineering faculty have relatively effective methods in place to teach students’ technicalskills (e.g., design fundamentals, problem analysis, etc.), it is sometimes challenging to findsuitable tools to support communication and teamwork skill development. In response to thischallenge, a collaborative partnership between the psychology and engineering department at alarge Canadian university yielded a theoretical-based communication technique applied to theengineering curriculum in order to enhance team effectiveness.While teams stimulate an innovative environment, the interdependence of individuals leads to anincreased risk of conflict between members2. Teams literature has identified three types ofconflict that can arise3: task conflict (TC), relationship conflict (RC) and process conflict (PC).Briefly, TC involves different perspectives and opinions about the task, RC refers to perceivedinterpersonal incompatibilities (i.e., personality clashes), and PC involves discordant views ofroles, responsibilities, and/or task timelines. The aforementioned collaboration discovered anideal conflict combination, or profile, linked to higher performance and positive team dynamics.Specifically, teams that engaged in task-related debates (i.e., high TC) while being unhinderedby interpersonal tensions and logistical disagreements (i.e., low RC & PC), performed best.Thus, the goal of teamwork education might be advanced by encouraging this ideal conflictprofile.Reaching this ideal profile may lie in a communication framework known as constructivecontroversy4 (CC). CC requires the openness to new perspectives, challenging of assumptions,and identification of optimal courses of action5. Adapting this theoretical foundation, we createdan easy to remember acronym, SUIT, that was the basis for a 90-minute training sessionadministered to students. SUIT stands for Share, Understand, Integrate and Team decision.Specifically, teams are taught to share all unique information; understand information throughcritical questioning; integrate concepts to create innovative solutions; and agree on a teamdecision to implement a plan. The SUIT training session included an informational overview,followed by a structured role play, a decision making exercise, and team charters.We report on the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of CC-based training in twocohorts of a first-year design and communication course. Contrasting 195 untrained (n=577individuals) and 177 trained (n=566 individuals) teams found an approximately 20% increase inthe number of teams in the ideal conflict profile. Additionally, trained teams reportedsignificantly higher cooperative conflict management, perceived innovation efficacy, andcollective team effectiveness, strongly supporting the inclusion of the SUIT technique in thefirst-year curriculum to improve team functioning. Taken together, this evidence-based techniqueoffers a valuable pedagogic foundation that can prepare students for the team-based workprevalent in organizations and holds potential as a universal application to various levels inengineering education. References1. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 333-375). New York: Wiley.2. Deutsch, M. 2006. Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.): 23-42. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.3. Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256-283.4. Tjosvold, D. 1985. Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of Management, 11: 21–37.5. Tjosvold, D. 2008. Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7: 73-85.
Hoffart, G., & Larson, N. L., & O'Neill, T., & McLarnon, M. J. W., & Eggermont, M., & Brennan, B., & Rosehart, B. (2015, June), Evaluating a Communication Framework for Team Effectiveness in a First-Year Design and Communication Course Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24026
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015