Virtual Intimacy Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Virtual Intimacy - Research Paper Example The history of virtual intimacy can also be traced in older times. It was in practice with the help of letters (pen friendships) and telephones (telephonic friendships: a bit newer trend than pen friendship). These practices were not so much common and were only revolving around a certain group of people usually with literary taste. It was a practice of patience so young generation was rarely found indulged in such relationships (Psy.D.). During the age of technology, people who were dreaded of loneliness found a way out to get rid of anxiety and stressful individualist life. They started finding happiness in their desktops. Virtual intimacy and distant cyber oriented relationships no doubt have introduced us with a number of social and communal melodies with incurable side effects. Youth has abundantly distracted in the way of finding their glee in their computers. Cyber crimes were augmented significantly during the age of virtual intimacy (Halder et al 32). These crimes include ha cking, personal information theft, online passwords theft, credit cards theft and fake identity show off. Levels of virtual intimacy are several including general friendships, love relationship and sexual relationships using web cameras and audio applications. Lack of trust and fake identity representation has destroyed the entire beauty of social networking. People are usually representing their identity in false grounds to timely enjoy with others (Gizmodo). Apart from social networking sites, internet media has introduced online dating services where individuals can find their dating partners to exhale their desperate feelings of affections. Since Maslow has identified social and affection need of human being, it has now justified because people cannot survive in individualist cultures (Halder et al 34). When the debate of real versus virtual relationships comes into being, it can easily be justified that level of trust is vulnerable in actual and physical relations in today†™s technological age. In the scenario of uncertain physical intimate relations, it is really hard to trust upon unseen people on internet in order to plunge in to a relationship. In some cases, people reach to marriages but such marriages are not long terms due to abundantly spoken lies (Kiesbye 21). People are lean to plunge in to virtual relations because they do not feel any sort of binding or accountability. They can utilize their leisure in better way. It also offers diversity to people. If a person joins an international dating forum, he or she can get a very diverse choice of people. For example, females in western countries are more interested in Asian men and men in Asian countries like to have a white lady. This collision in choices stimulates them to have a platform to get connected with people of their desire. Many people are fond of travelling and networking, for this purpose they remain connected with many people of their interest areas who can provide them help when needed (Panteli 101). A very broadly observed phenomenon is curse of foreign nationality in men of less developed countries. They get contacts with foreign woman who can support them to come abroad for better earnings. However this is observed lesser. Nowadays people are interested in short term relationships without any sense of accountability and responsibility. Which is why they either virtually intimated with others or they look for shorter term need fulfillment

Historical Documentary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Historical Documentary - Essay Example But one form of documentary was on an upwards curve even into the new millennium - the history documentary" Documentary films are non-fiction films which portray the events which have already happened and which are happening at the moment. This developed in time to be the historical documentaries which have entered a golden age in the literal sense of the word. This boom is attributed to many factors like the political changes, the crucial event in a country, the anxious arrival of the millennium, the unpredicted development of technology, and the accessibility of information. It is also due to freedom of information, favourable political and economical factors, the establishments of film archives, the regular transformation of the filmgoers and producers, prevailing nostalgia of what we left behind and the demand for more real historical events. Over and above these causes, the other noteworthy change was the co productions of history documentaries and political and economical conditions which added to the flourishing of these types of documentaries. "The documentary--whether it is a written account, a photograph, or a film--has long served as one of the primary sources for historians writing about the past as well as one of the key forms, historians use to communicate their stories about the past." (Professor Jill Watts -History 300B, spring 2007) Documentary film was actually born of the written and photographic tradition Initially, documentary films were just current events which had certain significance for the people living at that particular period of time. This created a genre of films which have a say not for the universal time but for only a period. This type of documentary would have had its heyday only when certain pulverizing events such as wars and political controversies took place. When the heat of the debate wears off, there is no more interest on the specific documentary anymore. History Documentary films have reflected attitudes and internal changes in British society for a century. British documentary as a notable movie genre surfaced around 1906. From then on documentary films began establishing a theme. The theme usually focused on the way of life of British working class and rarely touched on other types as well. An apt example of this is 'The Drifters' by Grierson The growth of Documentaries It is essential to note that the government and national agencies funded the production and distribution of such documentaries in the 1920s and 1930s. Popular agencies which got involved in this type of film making are the Ministries of Transport, Trade, Information, the General Post Office and Empire Marketing Board. The British documentary directors were all socialists and their documentaries such as Workers for Jobs by Arthur Elton in 1934, and then by Edgar Anstey in 1935 to devastating effect in Housing Problems for the Gas Light and Coal Company were technically advanced, using the latest film equipment in novel and exciting ways. They used synchronized sound-recording on location. Another important factor to note is that the 16mm film became standardized by Eastman and Bell & Howell in 1923 and the films were exhibited at cinemas as a

”Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe Essay Example for Free

†Things Fall Apart† by Chinua Achebe Essay In †Things Fall Apart† Chinua Achebe takes us to a Nigerian village at the time of the British colonization of Africa where substantial changes are affecting the inhabitants. Okonkwo is a proud African man who strives to succeed in the Igbo society. In his early days he created a name for himself by being a successful wrestler. He then put enormous effort into making his farm prosperous by working hard and creating a big family. That he appreciates hard work and discipline defines him as a father. When he realizes that his oldest son Nwoye is not of the quality he requires, he feels himself obligated to take action mostly with the use of violence thought he finds little pleasure in beating the children and views. It is rather a way to obtain respect and his way of parenting. To some extent this domestic aggression is accepted and is an acknowledged part of the Igbo culture. Apart from the elevated position he acquires other clansmen do not always agree with his impulsive nature as for the incident during the week of peace when he beat his wife. At first sight Okonkwo is a confident man who has no fears. This is deeply rooted in the view of how a man should be in their culture where the ability to not show any emotions is highly redeemed. But actually, a lot of his actions can be traced back to fear and insecurity. This fear clearly has to do with Unoka, his work-shy father who left nothing over to his son but debt after his death. Eventually, these moral standards conflict Okonkwo when affection starts to grow for Ezinma, the daughter of his second wife, feelings which he experiences are difficult to handle. He also feels especially bad after he killed the adopted boy Igbomefuna, an act that puts Okonkwo in a depression that if nothing else demonstrates that something has changed in his character. †Okonkwo was also feeling tired, and sleepy, for although nobody else knew it, he had not slept at all last night. He had felt very anxious but did not show it. When Ekwefi had followed the priestess, he had allowed what was  regarded as reasonable and manly interval to pass and then gone with his machete to the shire†. (p 82) One could wonder why he follows even though the priestess had requested to be alone with Ezinma during the sprititualic ritual. It is evident that breaking the rules of the ritualic traditions is not something he could let himself do easily. Not mainly would it be fright of the gods. Okonkwo tries to keep up a facede which involves obeying the traditions of his ancestors as for not showing emotions. And with a past as a warrior it is understandable why he is keen to not look weak. Reference list: Things Fall Apart – Chinua Achebe Litterature Criticism And Theory – Andrew Bennet Nicholas Royle (p.63-70)

Project development management process

Project development management process INTRODUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT: is the art and science of planning, organizing and managing, the vision, task, and resources to bring about the successful completion of specific project goals and objectives. Project Management in software development process can be referred to as the application of management techniques and system execution of a software project through the projects life-cycle in order to achieve predetermined objectives of scope, quality, time and cost to the equal satisfaction of those involved. It involves planning, monitoring, and control of people, process and event that take place as software evolves from an initial concept to an operational implementation. [6] SOFTWARE: Software comprises of programs and associated data and documentation. Each of these items is a part of software development process. The main problems for software development currently are: high cost, low quality and frequent changes causing change and rework. Software has become a limiting factor in the evolution of computer-based systems. The intent of software development is to produce a framework for building higher quality software. In order to achieve successful and quality software certain methods and criteria need to be followed. These methods and criteria are classified as the software development processes. [6] SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES: is a structure imposed on the development of a software product. The process includes the phase approach to software development, software development models, the software development processes and the software project management processes. There are several models for such processes, each describing approaches to a variety of tasks or activities that take place during the process. These processes are carried out in a step by step criteria so as to come up with a successful project where by a successful project start with a step back and understanding business drivers, the problem or opportunity that accelerates the project. [6] A PHASED APPROACH TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT A development process consists of various phases, with each phase ending with a defined output. The phases are performed in an order specified by the software development process model. The primary reason for using a phased process is that it breaks the problem of developing software into successfully performed set of phases, each handling a different concern of software development. This ensures that the cost of development is lower than what it would have been if the whole problem were tackled together. [4][6][2] Furthermore, a phase software developmental approach allows proper checking of quality and progress at some defined points during the development. In general, any problem solving in software must consist of these activities during the development process: requirement specification, system design, detailed design, coding and testing, deployment and conversion as shown in figure 1. [6] Requirement Specifications: defines the objectives of new or modified system and lists a detailed statement of the functions that new system must perform. Analysis: during analysis, the focus is on building models that unambiguously determine the problem for which a software solution is being constructed. At this stage the limitations of the target environment is not given a priority. Design: the analysis model is adapted such that it serves as the basis for implementation in the target environment. Hence, the design deals with transforming or refining the analysis model into a design model that determines how to eventually obtain a working system. Implementation: at this stage, the coding of the system is performed Testing: testing deals with the validation of software at various levels. Testing can be categorized as follows: Unit: deals with testing the smallest units of the designed software. Integration: integration testing deals with testing the application that has been (partially) put together by integrating the smallest software units. Basically it involves testing individual software modules as a group. Validation: this involve in testing whether the software functions in a manner expected by the user. System: this is carried out at the after the integration and validation testing, system testing deals with different test whose primary purpose is to fully exercise the computer-based system. Although each test has a different purpose, all work should verify that all system elements have been properly integrated and perform allocated functions. Recovery: recovery testing involves system tests that force the software to fail in a variety of ways and verifies that recovery is properly performed. Security: this testing verifies that protection mechanisms built into a system will, in fact, protect it from improper usage and unauthorized access. It ensures adherence to restrictions on command usage, access to data, and access requirement according to associated privileges. Stress: the stress testing involves executing a system in a manner that demands resources in abnormal quantity, frequency, or volume. In other words, stress testing helps find out the level of robustness and consistent or satisfactory performance even when the limits for normal operation for the system software is crossed. Conversion: during this phase, the old system is substitute by the new system that has been developed. Four approaches can be adopted to achieve the conversion transformation [Harold] namely: Parallel: in this approach both the old and new system are run together until everyone involve in the project is convinced that the old one can be safely taken out of operation. Direct Cutover: at this stage, the old system is discarded and replaced by the new one, all at the same time. Pilot study: during the pilot study approach, the new system is introduced into a very limited area of the organization. It is not introduced any further into the rest of the organization as long as the pilot system does not begin running smoothly. Phased: the phased approach involve the introduction of the new system in stages. The pilot study approach can be considered as a special case of this approach. Maintenance: software maintenance process is the modification of a software product after delivery to correct faults, to improve performance or other attributes, or to adapt the product to a modified environment. At this stage the system has to be kept operational. The nature and extent of activity during this process depend on the type of software being developed. For some support software, the maintenance and operation phase may be very active due to changing user needs. [7] SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES Software development processes are the structures or processes imposed on the development of a software product. To produce a successful and qualitative software product certain processes management criteria need to be considered. [6] A process is a particular method of doing something, generally involving a number of steps or operations. A software development project will have at least development activities and project management activities. The development process focuses on the activities directly related to the production of software that is design, coding, and testing. Project management processes focus on planning, estimation, scheduling and taking corrective action when things do not go as per plan. [6][7] Configuration management processes focus on change and configuration control, so that the correct, tested and approved version of software component are put together for delivery. The process management processes focus on the management and improvement of these processes. The four named processes will be discussed in detail. Development Processes: these processes specify the major development and quality assurance activities that need to be performed in the project, and hence form the core of the software development processes. [7] Software development activity like any production activity is carried out in a sequence of steps, each step performing a well-defined activity leading to the satisfaction of the project goals, with the output of one step forming the input into the next step. One of the aims of any process should be to prevent defect from a phase to pass on to the next phase. This requires verification and validation activity at the end of each step. Verification checks the consistency of input into a phase, while validation activities check the consistency with user needs. There is a clearly defined output of a phase, which can be verified by some means, and the input into the next phase. Such outputs of a development process are called work products. These could be requirements documents, design documents, code, and prototype. [5] As a development process typically contains a sequence of step, the criteria for exit and entry from the phase are to be defined. These generally depend on the implementation of the process. Besides the verification and validation criteria, the development step needs to produce some information for the management process. Information has to flow from development process. An example of a typical step in a development process is illustrated in figure 2. [8] Project Management Processes: the project management component of the software process specifies all the activities that need to be done by the project management to ensure that the cost and quality objectives are met. Project management is an integrated part of software development. To meet the cost, quality and schedule objectives, resources have to be properly allotted to each activity for the project, the progress of the different activities has to be monitored, and corrective action taken, if needed. The processes focus on issues like planning a project, estimating resources, and schedule and monitoring and controlling the project. The basic task is to plan the detailed implementation of the process for a particular project and ensure that the plan is followed. [5][6] Software Configuration Management Processes: throughout development, software consist of a collection of items, such as programs, data and documents that can be easily changed. These changes do happen often. The easily changeable nature of software and the fact that changes often take place require that changes take place in a controlled manner. Software configuration Management systematically controls the changes that take place during development. Basically it is the task of tracking and controlling changes in the software. Configuration management practices include revision control and the establishment of baselines. It is also the process of changing requests and verifying the completeness and correctness of item. These processes are considered independent of the development process, because development processes cannot accommodate changes at any time during development. [6] Process Management Processes: software processes are also not static entities. Process management processes concentrate on the changes that need to be done to improve the process. The three important entities that software development deals with are processes, projects and products. The various software processes ensure that the activities require to develop software are carried out in a controlled manner. [6] CONCLUDE SUMMARY Software development management process consist of various phases, each phase ending with a successful defined output, making it possible to move to the next phase accordingly. The phases are performed in an order specified by the process model criteria being followed. The software development process goes through several phases just like the software development life cycles. The software development process consists of four management processes which are development processes, project management processes, software configuration management processes and the process management processes. The four Ps extremely vital for software project development management are people, product, process and project. All four play equally important roles in the success of a project.

Personality Essay -- essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Psychology covers a huge field and one interesting aspect of it is personality. Personality by itself involves various issues. Some aspects are Psychoanalytic, Ego, Biological, Behaviorist, Cognitive, Trait, and Humanistic. Different types of behaviors are amazing to learn about, mainly the behavior therapy, collective behavior, crime and punishment, and Social behavior and peer acceptance in children. I chose Behaviorism over the other aspects because I believe behavior determines human personality and is very interesting. You can tell what one is by his behavior, and one behaves according to what place he has in society. By doing this paper on Behavior, I hope to get a better understanding of, if behavior develops a personality or if personality guides behavior. I also see behaviorism helping me in the future with my personal and professional career by understanding human personality and behavior better than I do. No matter what your major is , if you can determine one's personality by his behavior you can really get your work done from that person and understand the better than you would otherwise. This person could be your employee or your employer. Behavior Therapy Behavior therapy is the application of experimentally derived principles of learning to the treatment of psychological disorders. The concept derives primarily from work of Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov. Behavior-therapy techniques differ from psychiatric methods, particularly psychoanalysis, in that they are predominately symptom (behavior) oriented and shows little or no concern for unconscious processes, achieving new insight, or effecting fundamental personality change. The U.S. psychologist B.F. Skinner, who worked with mental patients in a Massachusetts State hospital, popularized behavior therapy. From his work in animal learning, Skinner found that the establishment and extinction of responses can be determined by the way reinforces, or rewards, are given. The pattern of reward giving, both in time and frequency, is known as a schedule of reinforcement. The gradual change in behavior in approximation of the desired result is known as shaping. More recent developments in behavior therapy emphasize the adaptive nature of cognitive processes. Behavior-therapy techniques have been applied with some success to such disturbances as enuresis (bed-wetting), tics, phobias, stutteri... ...nvolving children to learn social acceptance showed us clearly how one behaves makes him what he is. I believe the same for adults. I believe if one behaves in a certain way for a long time, not only society with believe you are what you are behaving as but he himself will start believing he is what he is behaving as. Also I have learned to be more patient with people because I take a step in the further and think why a person would behave in a particular way. I now can see a clear difference between normal and abnormal behaviors. Benjamin, L. S. (1982). Use of structural analysis of social behavior (SASB) to guide intervention in psychotherapy. In J. C. Anchin & D. J. Kiesler (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychotherapy (pp. 190-212). New York: Pergamon. Benis A.M. Toward Self & Sanity: On the Genetic Origins of the Human Character. Psychological Dimensions Publishers, New York, 1985 http://pmc.psych.nwu.edu/personality.html Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine Gurtman, M. B. (1992b). Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 989-1002.

Madness and Insanity in Shakespeares Hamlet - Both a Sane and Insane Hamlet :: GCSE Coursework Shakespeare Hamlet

Sane or Insane Hamlet: Support for both Positions Shakespeare's tragic hero, Hamlet, and his sanity can arguably be discussed. Many portions of the play supports his loss of control in his actions, while other parts uphold his ability of dramatic art. The issue can be discussed both ways and altogether provide significant support to either theory. There are indications from Hamlet throughout the play of his mind's well being. Hamlet's antic disposition may have caused him in certain times that he is in a roleplay. Hamlet has mood swings as his mood changes abruptly throughout the play. Hamlet appears to act mad when he hears of his father's murder. At the time he speaks wild and whirling words:Why, right; you are I' the right; And so, without more circumstance at all, I hold it fit that we shake hands and part... [Act I, scene V, lines 127-134]. It seems as if there are two Hamlets in the play, one that is sensitive and an ideal prince, and the insane barbaric Hamlet who from an outburst of passion and rage slays Polonius with no feeling of remorse, Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell! / I took thee for thy better. Take thy fortune;/ Thou find'st to be too busy is some danger.- [Act III. scene IV, lines 31-33] and then talks about lugging his guts into another room. After Hamlet kills Polonius he will not tell anyone where the body is. Instead he assumes his ironic matter which others take it as madness. Not where he eats, but where he is eaten. / A certain convocation of political w orms a e'en at him. [Act IV, scene III, lines 20-21] If your messenger find him not there, seek him I' th' other place yourself. But, indeed, if you find him not within this month, you shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the lobby. [Act IV, scene iii, lines 33-36]. Hamlet's behavior throughout the play, especially towards Ophelia is inconsistent. He jumps into Ophelia's grave, and fights with Laertes in her grave. He professes I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers/Could not, with all their quantity of love,/ Make up my sum [Act V, scene I, lines 250-253], during the fight with Laertes in Ophelia's grave, but he tells her that he never loved her, when she returns his letters and gifts, while she was still alive. Hamlet subtly hints his awareness of his dissolving sanity as he tells Laertes that he killed Polonius in a fit of madness [Act V, scene II, lines 236-250]

Why teams don’t work?

Here are some reports from the field, cited by Osborn, Moran, Mushiest, and Zinger (1990) in Self-Directed Work Teams: The New American Challenge. At Xerox, the authors report, Plants using work teams are 30 percent more productive than conventionally organized plants. Procter & Gamble gets 30 to 40 percent higher productivity at its 18 team-based plants†¦. Tektronix Inc. Reports that one self-directed work team now turns out as many products in 3 days as it once took an entire assembly line to produce in 14 days†¦. Federal Express cut service glitches such as incorrect bills and lost packages by 13 percent†¦.Shenandoah Life processes 50 percent more applications and customer service requests using work teams, with 10 percent fewer people. (up. 5-6) Heady stuff, that, and it is reinforced by back-cover blurbs. Tom Peters: â€Å"Selfridges work teams are the cornerstone of improved competitiveness .. † . Bob Waterman: â€Å"Self-Directed Work Teams seems too goo d to be true: dramatic improvement in productivity and a happier, more committed, more flexible work force. Yet †¦ They do just what they promise for the likes of P&G, GE, and Ford. † It makes sense. Teams bring more resources, and more diverse resources, to bear J.Richard Hickman ; Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Theory and Research on Small Groups, edited by R. Scott Tindal et al. Plenum Press, New York, 1998. 245 246 on a task than could any single performer. Moreover, teams offer flexibility in the use of those resources-?the capability to quickly redeploy member talents and energies and to keep the work going even when some members are unavailable. Teams composed of people from different units can transcend traditional functional and organizational barriers and get members pulling together toward collective objectives.And, of course, teams offer the potential for synergy, that wonderful state when a group â€Å"clicksâ⠂¬ and members achieve something together that no one of them could possibly have accomplished alone. These are major benefits, worthy of the attention of the leaders of any purposive enterprise. No wonder Steersman found teams to be so popular. But there is a puzzle here. Research evidence about team performance shows that teams usually do less well-?not better-?than the sum of their members' individual contributions. I first encountered this bleak fact as a beginning doctoral student at he University of Illinois.In a course on group dynamics, Ivan Steiner put on the board his now well-known equation: AP = UP – PL; that is, the actual productivity of a group equals its potential productivity (what the team is theoretically capable of, given the resources brought by members) minus what he called process losses such as coordination and motivational problems (Steiner, 1972). I was surprised that there was no term for process gains, the synergistic benefits that can emerge when people work together. The model, I thought, should really read: AP = UP – PL + PEG. It turns out hat there is no empirical Justification for that extra term.When interacting teams are compared to â€Å"nominal† groups (I. E. , groups that never meet, whose output is constructed by combining the separate contributions of those who would have been members), nominal groups usually win. And when Steiner's models miss the mark in empirical studies, the problem usually is that groups fail to achieve even the relatively modest performance targets specified by those models. At least for groups in the experimental laboratory. Maybe the laboratory context is so constraining that groups do not have the elbow room to show what they can do.Maybe the real advantages of groups are only to be found in organizational practice. I came up short on this hypothesis as well, this time at the hands of Bill Hicks, an editor at Josses- Bass. My colleagues and I had completed an intensive stud y of some 33 different work groups of all different kinds-?athletic teams, industrial production workers, top management teams, prison guards, airline crews, economic analysts, and more. We pulled our findings together in a book that I proposed be titled Groups That Work, a catchy phrase with what I thought to be a clever pun.Bill sat me down and said he'd e happy to publish the book, but not with that title: There were Just too many groups in our study that barely worked at all. I went back to the manuscript and found that he was right. Probably 4 of our 33 groups were actually effective teams. The rest had problems so severe that our analysis was mainly about what had gone wrong with them. So the book was published with a parenthetical phrase after my clever title: Groups That Work (And Those That Don't). Anyone who actually reads through it will discover, as Bill did, that most of our groups lie within the parentheses. Moreover, the preface of the book offers a cautionary note ab out team effectiveness, based on the experience of the authors who wrote it. The book took 9 years to be completed, mainly because our own team suffered a near-total collapse midway through the project. 247 Other in-depth studies of real groups performing real work provide additional reasons for concern-?such Irving Jinni's (1982) well-known demonstration that even highly cohesive groups composed of well-qualified, well-motivated people sometimes fall into a pattern of â€Å"grouping†that can yield disastrous policy recommendations.What, then, are we to make of all the team successes reported in the managerial literature? It is possible, of course, that the published claims are exaggerated, as writers have sought to catch the wave of enthusiasm about teams-?to sell books, to build consulting practices, to market training programs, to become team gurus. That is not a sufficient explanation. Indeed, I trust the accuracy of the numbers about productivity and service gains that a re reported in the popular books about teams. My concern, instead, is whether those numbers really mean what they seem to mean.Consider first the attributions that are made about the causes of team successes. After teams have been implemented in an organizational unit, its performance habitually is compared to that of a conventional unit (or, perhaps, to the same one before teams were installed). Such comparisons are fraught with interpretive ambiguities, because there invariably are many differences between the units compared-? in technologies, labor markets, senior managers, and so on. It almost never is the case that the only change is that work previously done by individuals is now performed by teams.Was it the teams that generated the improvements, or was it one of the other differences between the units? It is not possible to know for sure. 2 Questions also can be raised about the staying power of any performance improvements obtained when teams are installed. The implementati on of any new management program, be it self-managing teams or anything else, invariably involves intense scrutiny of the unit where the changes will occur. Taking a close look at any work unit that has been operating for a while almost always surfaces some inefficiencies and poor work procedures.These incidental problems are corrected as part of the change process-?it would be foolish not to. But in making those corrections, an interpretive ambiguity is introduced. Was it the team design that resulted in the improvements found, or was it that a shoddy work system was shaped p? Virtually any intervention that is not itself destructive has a better-than-even chance of generating short-term improvements, simply because of the value of intently inspecting a work system. This, in addition to any benefits from the well- known â€Å"Hawthorne effect† (Rotisseries & Dickson, 1939).The question, then, is whether short-term improvements associated with the introduction of teams are su stained over time as the newness wears off and inefficiencies begin to creep back into the system. Again, it is not possible to know for sure-?at least not without an appropriate longitudinal research design. 2 The solution to this problem, of course, is to conduct experimental research on the impact of team designs for work, because true experiments allow unambiguous inferences to be drawn about the causes of any effects obtained.Unfortunately, experiments are rarely a viable option for comparing team and traditional work designs in organizations. For one thing, the level of experimenter control required in such studies (I. E. , to randomly assign people to teams and teams to experimental conditions) would not be tolerated by most managers who have work to get out. And even if an organization were found in which managers would relinquish such control to experimenters, there would be serious questions about the generalization of findings obtained in such an unusual place (Hickman, 1 985). 248 So what is going on here?How can we reconcile the amazing reports from the field about the benefits of teams with the gloomy picture that has emerged from scholarly research on group performance? Do teams generate the benefits for their organizations that are claimed for them, or do they not? 3 My observations of teams in organizations suggest that teams tend to clump at both ends of the effectiveness continuum. Teams that go sour often do so in multiple ways -?clients are dissatisfied with a team's work, members become frustrated and disillusioned, and the team becomes ever weaker as a performing unit.Such teams are easily outperformed by smoothly functioning traditional units. On the other hand, teams that function well can indeed achieve a level of synergy and agility that never could be preprogrammed by organization planners or enforced by external managers. Members of such teams respond to their clients and to each other quickly and creatively, generating both superb performance and ever-increasing personal ND collective capability. Teams, then, are somewhat akin to audio amplifiers: Whatever passes through the device-?be it signal or noise-?comes out louder.To ask whether organizational performance improves when teams are used to accomplish work is to ask a question that has no general answer. A more tractable question, and the one explored in the remainder of this chapter, is what differentiates those teams that go into orbit and achieve real synergy from those that crash and bum. As we will see, the answer to this second question has much more to do with how teams are trucked and supported than with any inherent virtues or liabilities of teams as performing units.Mistakes Managers Make In the course of several research projects, my colleagues and I have identified a number of mistakes that designers and leaders of work groups sometimes make. What follows is a summary of the six most pernicious of these mistakes, along with the actions that th ose who create and lead work teams in organizations can take to avoid them. 4 Mistake l: Use a Team for Work That Is Better Done by Individuals There are some tasks that only a team can do, such as performing a string quartet or arraying out a multiparty negotiation.There are other tasks, however, that are inimical to team work. One such task is creative writing. Not many great novels, There is a large and diverse published literature on the performance of self-managing teams. Here is a â€Å"starter set† of illustrative and informative pieces: Cohen and Leotard (1994), Sorcery, Mueller, and Smith (1991), Gun (1984), Jackson, Malarkey, and Parker (1994), Pops and Marcus (1980), Wall, Kemp, Jackson, and College (1986), and Walton (1980). Some of the material in the next section is adapted from Hickman (1990). 3 Why Teams Downtown's 249 symphonic scores, or epic poems have been written by teams. Such tasks involve bringing to the surface, organizing, and expressing thoughts and ideas that are but partially formed in one's mind (or, in some cases, that lie deep in one's unconscious), and they are inherently better suited for individual than for collective performance.Even committee reports-?mundane products compared to novels, poems, and musical scores-?invariably turn out better when written by one talented individual on behalf of a group than by the group as a whole working in lockstep. The same is true for executive leadership. For all the attention being given to top management teams these days, my reading of the management literature is that successful organizations almost always are led by a single, talented and courageous human being.Among the many executive functions that are better accomplished by an exceptional individual than by an interacting team is the articulation of a challenging and inspiring collective direction. Here, for example, is a mission statement copied from a poster in a company cafeteria: â€Å"Our mission is to provide quality products and arrives that meet the needs of individuals and businesses, allowing us to prosper and provide a fair return to our stockholders. Although I do not know how that particular statement was prepared, I would be willing to wager that it was hammered out by a committee over many long meetings. The most engaging and powerful statements of corporate vision, by contrast, invariably are the product of a single intelligence, set forth by a leader willing to take the risk of establishing collective purposes that lie Just beyond what others believe to be the limits of the organization's capability. Beyond creative writing and executive leadership, there are many other kinds of tasks that are better done by individuals than by teams.It is a mistake-a common one and often a fatal one-?to use a team for work that requires the exercise of powers that reside within and are best expressed by individual human beings. Mistake 2: Call the Performing Unit a Team but Really Manage Members as To reap the benefits of teamwork, one must actually build a team. Real teams are bounded social systems whose members are interdependent for a shared purpose, and who interact as a unit with other individuals and groups in achieving that repose (Alder, 1977).Teams can be small or large, face-to-face or electronically connected, and temporary or permanent. Only if a group is so large, loosely connected, or short-lived that members cannot operate as an intact social system does the entity cease to be a team. Managers sometimes attempt to capture the benefits of teamwork by simply declaring that some set of people (often everyone who reports to the same supervisor) is now a team and that members should henceforth behave accordingly.Real teams cannot be created that way. Instead, explicit action must be taken to establish and affirm the team's boundaries, to define the task for which members are collectively responsible, and to give the team the autonomy members need to manage both thei r 250 own team processes and their relations with external entities such as clients and coworkers. Creating and launching real teams is not something that can be accomplished casually, as is illustrated by research on airline cockpit crews.It is team functioning, rather than mechanical problems or the technical proficiency of individual pilots, that is at the root of most airline accidents (Helices & Focuses, 1993). Crews are especially vulnerable when they are Just starting out: the National Transportation Safety Board (NTIS) found that 73% of the accidents in its database occurred on the crew's first day of flying together, and 44% of those accidents happened on the crews very first flight (National Transportation Safety Board, 1994, up. 0-41). Other research has shown that experienced crews, even when fatigued, perform significantly better than do rested crews whose members have not worked together (Focuses, Lubber, Battle, & Comb, 1986), and that a competent preflight briefing b y he captain can help reduce a crew's exposure to the liabilities of newness (Gannett, 1993). This substantial body of research has clear policy implications.Crews should be kept intact over time, preflight briefings should be standard practice, and captains should be trained in the skills needed to conduct briefings that get crews off to a good start (Hickman, 1993). Yet in most airlines, crew composition is constantly changing because of the long-standing practice, enforced by labor contracts, of assigning pilots to trips, positions, and aircraft as individuals-?usually on the basis of seniority bidding system. Virtually all U. S. Airlines now do require that crew briefings be held.Yet captains receive little training in how to conduct a good one, some briefings are quite cursory (e. G. , â€Å"Let's the social hour over real quick so we can get on out to the airplane†), and schedules can get so hectic that crew members may not even have time for proper introductions, let a lone a briefing, before they start to fly together. Creating and launching real teams is a significant challenge in organizations such as airlines that have deeply rooted policies and practices that are oriented primarily toward individuals rather than teams.To try to capture the benefits of teamwork in such organizations, managers sometimes opt for a mixed model in which some parts of the work and the reward system are structured for individual performance, whereas other parts require teamwork and provide team- based rewards. Research has shown that such compromises rarely work well. Mixed models send contradictory signals to members, engender confusion about who is responsible and accountable for what portions of the work, and generally underperformed both individual and real-team models (Washman, 1995).If the performing unit is to be a team, then it should be a real team-?and it should be managed as such. Mistake 3: Fall Off the Authority Balance Beam The exercise of authority cr eates anxiety, especially when one must balance between assigning a team authority for some parts of the work and withholding it for other parts. Because both managers and team members tend to be uncomfortable in 251 such situations, they may implicitly collude to â€Å"clarifying is really in charge of the work.Sometimes the result is the assignment of virtually all authority to the team-? which can result in anarchy or in a team heading off in an inappropriate direction. Other times, managers retain all authority for themselves, dictating work procedures in detail to team members and, in the process, losing many of the advantages that can accrue from team work. To maintain an appropriate balance of authority between managers and teams requires that anxieties be managed rather than minimized. Moreover, it is insufficient merely to decide how much authority a team should have.Equally important are the domains of authority that are assigned to teams and retained by managers. Our res earch suggests that team effectiveness is enhanced when managers are unapologetic and insistent about exercising their own legitimate authority about direction, the end states the team is to pursue. Authority about the means by which those ends are accomplished, however, should rest squarely with the team itself. 5 Contrary to traditional wisdom about participative management, to authoritatively set a clear, engaging direction for a team is to empower, not deplorer, it.Having clear direction helps align team efforts with the objectives of the parent organization, provides members with a criterion to use in choosing among various means for pursuing those objectives, and fosters the motivational engagement of team members. When direction is absent or unclear, members may wallow in uncertainty about what they should be doing and may even have difficulty generating the motivation to do much of anything. Few design choices are more consequential for the long-term well-being of teams than those that address the partitioning of authority between managers and teams.It takes skill to accomplish this well, and it is a skill that has emotional and behavioral as well as cognitive components. Just knowing the rules for partitioning authority is insufficient; one also needs some practice in applying those rules in situations where anxieties, including one's own, are likely to be high. 6 Especially challenging are the early stages of a group's life (when well-meaning managers may be tempted to give away too much authority) and when the going gets rough (when the temptation is to take authority back too soon).The management of authority relations with task- performing groups is much like walking a balance beam, and our evidence suggests that it takes a good measure of knowledge, skill, and perseverance to keep from falling off. As used here, the terms manager and team refer to conventional organizational arrangements in which some individuals (â€Å"managers†) are auth orized to structure work for performance by other organization members. Teams that have been given the authority to monitor and manage their own work processes are therefore called â€Å"self-managing. In some circumstances, teams also have the authority to set their own direction. Examples include physicians in a small-group practice, a professional string quartet, and a mom-and-pop grocery store. These kinds of teams are referred to as â€Å"self-governing† (Hickman, 1986). Given that newly minted Mambas increasingly find themselves working in or leading task-performing teams immediately after graduation, it is unfortunate that few MBA programs provide their students with practice and feedback in developing such skills. 252 Mistake 4: Dismantle Existing Organizational Structures So That Teams Will Be Fully â€Å"Empowered†to Accomplish the Work Traditionally designed organizations often are plagued by constraining structures that have been built up over the years to monitor and control employee behavior. When teams are used to perform work, such structures tend to be viewed as necessary bureaucratic impediments to group functioning. Thus, Just as some managers mistakenly attempt to empower groups by relinquishing all authority to them, so do some attempt to cut through bureaucratic obstacles to team functioning by dismantling all the structures that they can.The assumption, apparently, is that removing structures will release the pent-up power of groups and make it possible for members to work together creatively and effectively. Managers who hold this view often wind up providing teams with less structure than they actually need. Tasks are defined only in vague, general terms. Lots of people ay be involved in the work, but the actual membership of the team is unclear. Norms of conduct are kept deliberately fuzzy. In the words of one manager, â€Å"The team will work out the details. If anything, the opposite is true: Groups with appropriate structures tend to develop healthy internal processes, whereas groups with insufficient or inappropriate structures tend to be plagued with process problems. 7 Because managers and members of troubled groups often perceive, wrongly, that their performance problems are due mainly to interpersonal difficulties, they may turn to process- focused coaching as a remedy. But process consultation is unlikely to be helpful in such cases, precisely because the difficulties are structurally rooted.It is a near impossibility for members to learn how to interact well within a flawed or underspecified team structure. Our research suggests that an enabling structure for a work team has three components. First is a well-designed team task, one that engages and sustains member motivation. Such tasks are whole and meaningful pieces of work that stretch members' skills, that provide ample autonomy for doing what needs to be done to accomplish the work, and that generate direct and rusticity feedback a bout results. Second is a well-composed group.Such groups are as small as possible, have clear boundaries, include members with adequate task and interpersonal skills, and have a good mix of members-?people who are neither so similar to one another that they are like peas in a pod nor so different that they are unable to work together. Third is clear and explicit specification of the basic norms of conduct for team behavior, the handful of â€Å"must do† and â€Å"must never do† behaviors that allow members to pursue their objectives without having to continuously discuss what kinds of behaviors are and are not acceptable.Although groups invariably develop their own norms over time, it is important to establish at the outset that members are expected to continuously monitor This point is reinforced in a quite different context by an essay written by Joe Freeman (1973) for her sisters in the feminist movement in the asses. The message of the essay is neatly captured by its title: â€Å"The Tyranny of Structuralizes. † 7 253 their environment and to revise their performance strategy as needed when their work situation changes.The key question about structure, then, is not how much of it a team has. Rather, it is bout the kind of structure that is provided: Does it enable and support collective work, or does it make teamwork more difficult and frustrating than it need be? Mistake 5: Specify Challenging Team Objectives, but Skimp on Organizational Supports Even if a work team has clear, engaging direction and an enabling structure, its performance can go sour-?or fall well below the group's potential-?if it has insufficient organizational support.Teams in what Richard Walton (1985) calls â€Å"high commitment† organizations can fall victim to this mistake when they are given challenging objectives but not the resources to achieve them. Such teams often start out with great enthusiasm but then become disillusioned as they encounter frust ration after frustration in trying to obtain the organizational supports they need to accomplish the work. If the full potential of work teams is to be realized, organizational structures and systems must actively support competent teamwork.Key supports include (1) a reward system that recognizes and reinforces excellent team performance (not Just individual contributions); (2) an educational system that provides teams, at their initiative, any training or technical consultation that may be added to supplement members' own knowledge and expertise; (3) an information system that provides teams the data and forecasts members' need to proactively manage their work; and (4) the mundane material resources-?equipment, tools, space, money, staff, or whatever-?that the work requires.It is no small undertaking to provide these supports to teams, especially in organizations that already have been tuned to support work performed by individuals. Existing performance appraisal systems, for examp le, may be state-of- the-art for measuring individual contributions but wholly inappropriate for assessing ND rewarding work done by teams. Corporate compensation policy may make no provision for team bonuses and, indeed, may explicitly prohibit them.Human resource departments may be primed to identify individuals' training needs and to provide first-rate courses to fill those needs, but training in team skills may not be available at all. Information and control systems may provide senior managers with data that help them monitor and control overall organizational performance, but teams may not be able to get the information they need to autonomously manage their own work processes.To align existing organizational systems with the needs of task-performing teams usually requires managers to exercise power and influence both upward and laterally in the organization, and may involve difficult negotiations across functional boundaries. For these reasons, providing contextual supports f or teams can be a 254 significant challenge for managers whose experience and expertise has mainly involved supporting and controlling work performed by individuals. That challenge is worth taking on, however, because an unsupported organizational context can undermine even teams that are otherwise quite well directed and well structured.It is especially shattering for a team to fail merely because the organizational supports it needs cannot be obtained. Mistake 6: Assume That Members Already Have All the Skills They Need to Work Well as a Team Once a team has been formed and given its task, managers sometimes assume their work is done. A strict hands-off stance, however, can limit a team's effectiveness when members are not already skilled and experienced in teamwork-?a not uncommon state of affairs in cultures where individualism is a dominant value. It can be helpful,