We will first present findings from the qualitative assessments of the groups and then the findings from the quantitative analysis.
Qualitative Description Of The Groups
Although the groups worked in similar fashions with regard to the design thinking methods, there were visible differences between the groups related to being either a C-group (poor performers), B-group (mediocre performers), or an A-group (top performers). Our general perception of the groups was that the A-groups were impatient and disciplined; the B-groups were motivated but drifting; and the C-groups were self-content and happy.
C-Groups: The Happy-Go Lucky
Albeit aiming for performance, these groups started their projects with an attention to team-members´ well-being and enjoyment. When asked, they indicated that this was intentional. Their aim was to build a safe and cohesive group, within which it was safe to be creative. Within the initial task of coming up with ideas through needfinding, they also managed to build upon each other’s´ ideas through brainstorming. However, all ideas were supported, with the underlying intention of keeping the sense of well-being in the group. This apparently created a problem for these groups, in that they could not manage to disregard poorer ideas and continue with fewer, or even a single idea to develop further. This led to significant losses of the initially high energy levels within the groups, because they became resigned and fell into a kind of stalemate. They managed to develop their projects and deliver, but as time went on they were mostly characterized by passivity. Despite apparent energy losses, these groups openly expressed their happiness with the group and regarded themselves as top performers.
With regard to design thinking, these groups started not with an attention to the process and task at hand, but rather with the intention of building cohesion. The intention was to build a basis of knowing each other, upon which they could later collaborate. One group expressed this as follows:
“…Early in the semester, during the "forming phase", the group emphasized getting to know each other and being liked. In the beginning, there was not as much focus on working hard on the tasks, but instead learning about each other. Furthermore, in the development of the group, we may have been a little too caring and it has not been the norm in the group to express dissatisfaction or to have strong opinions about how tasks should be solved. If we had had a more task-oriented leadership role, the efficiency of the work would probably have increased...» (Reflection note C-group 1)
The concept of ”flat structure” was important for these groups, meaning that they did not want an authoritarian leader. This was thought to be of essence for the groups´ wellbeing, and the ability for all of them to join decision-making and participate in co-creating the idea. As time went on however, as C-group 1 expressed in the quote above, this developed into low efficiency. One of the other groups stated:
“…The group started working early with well-being among the members and focused on creating trust in each other. This was extra important as the group wanted a flat structure, and everyone had to be able to take the leadership role without being met with unnecessary skepticism…” (Reflection note C-group 5)
A large part of what these groups thought to be a success, was their attention to the social. That meant that one of the things these groups actively paid attention to was nurturing of the group members (literally), often appointing this as a dedicated responsibility. This was not only at the start, but continued on as the project developed. Even if some may have had the intention of being more task oriented, they seemed to enjoy this mode of working and also crediting their performance to this emphasis. One of the groups reflected:
“…The social responsible´s… …responsibility of bringing cake to the meeting at the end of each week has been a success. This creates a climax at the end of each week, which the group members look forward to and work towards. In our group, it has been experienced that the group members build each other up due to the cake responsibility. Complements are given for the work the social responsible has done, and this also spreads to professional work with the task at other times of the week…” (Reflection note C-group 2)
A-groups: The impatient, systematic and challenging groups
The most salient characteristic of the top-performers, was their dynamic in approaching teamwork, combined with a disciplined structure towards the process. One group had to split up because one of the members was ill and had to work from his home (the whole period). Another group consisting of three members, decided after two weeks that they could not work together. They split up, with two of the members working together while the third member worked alone - coming together only to decide on deliverables and future tasks. The other groups would co-work along the whole spectrum from splitting up to being together most of the time. Characteristically these groups worked in a systematic and disciplined manner with task-orientation but also with team relationships. For instance, many of these groups fixed team roles early (only two of the groups did not) and employed more formal roles than the other groups.
With regard to design thinking, these groups were the ones most attentive to performing the process “by the book.” For instance, the brain storming processes were always concluded with the selection of one idea. All ideas were visualized (leaders were attentive to everyone using the sticky notes and adhering them to the wall). Iterations were performed methodically. However, with regard to team processes, it could look very different, as explained above. When asked, these groups would typically answer that this was how they could best manage the design thinking process, solving the problem for the customer. (In contrast, the C-groups would put the teams´ wellbeing in front). Only one of these groups had an espoused emphasis on social well-being within the group.
The A-groups would employ a leader (as did some of the others), but also a secretary and some even a devil´s advocate role. A clear structure appeared in how they rotated on these roles. Leaders were firm and authoritative. In contrast to the C-groups, these groups were quick to decide on the business idea to be developed. This necessarily involved firmness and the discarding of some ideas. They worked on challenging each other, both with tasks (e.g. deliverances) and team relations (e.g. performing the role) from the very start. Approximately half of the groups were, by coincidence, subjected to adversity they had to overcome. Common for these, was that they dialogued and communicated through the adversity, employing honest feedbacks. The other half did not experience adversity, but still in much the same manner communicated and dialogued with honest feedback.
Observing and conversing with these groups would take the form of an almost eager impatience and a reported list of things (from the groups themselves) that could be done better (how can we be satisfied when we have so much to improve?). The A-groups were never completely satisfied with their work and group, and always showed an eagerness to improve. And this improvement and discipline was, in essence, connected to using the design thinking process and the best adapted team dynamics. The latter could, as described above, differ among the groups. These groups apparently also spent a lot of time in discussing and reflecting on the best way to move ahead. In contrast, this was not perceived as necessary for the C-groups.
“…The group gathered to discuss how the rotation of leadership role should be carried out, as well as what requirements should be set for the leadership role. Through this process, one person was very clear on what he expected from the others. Great demands were made on what had to be met by them, and if those expectations were not met, this person expressed that he had to intervene to take over the leadership role…” (Reflection note A-group 7)
This kind of toughness and directness characterized the dynamics in these groups, without turning into conflicts. They were accustomed to this way of communicating and agreeing on challenging each other.
“…At present, we as a group have raised more sensitive and uncomfortable topics to challenge each other…” (Reflection note A-group 13)
B-Groups - The Wanderers
Compared to the C-groups, the B-groups did not openly express an attention towards well-being and being top performers. They were more similar to the A-groups´ impatience and eagerness to develop, and were, as such, pro-active and forward-leaning. In developing ideas, they managed to both come up with a lot of ideas and choose one to go forward with. However, they seemed less firm and structured (than the A-groups) in doing this, and some groups experienced retaking discussions on ideas that were disregarded. They could also seem more task-oriented than the C-groups, more attentive to the work that had to be done, but at the same time also experienced misunderstandings with their intentions. As a whole, these groups displayed many of the same characteristics as the A-groups, but did not seem to employ them in a systematic and structured fashion. For instance, one of the things that distinguished the A-groups was their ability to challenge each other and each others´ views; an attention to psychological safety that the B-groups would try to emulate. However, not whole-heartedly and not systematically. Many of these groups would, for instance, use a “devil´s advocate,” a role that should challenge the group´s ideas. In contrast to the A-groups though, the B-groups would try this as an idea (maybe doing it once or twice) and then disregard it. Some of these groups were satisfied with their performances; others were more indifferent.
With regard to design thinking, these groups were attentive to the process and the task at hand. However, their mindsets seemed more drifting as they would not manage to maintain the discipline necessary to stay with their tasks. This could be seen, for instance, in how they related to iterations. Many of these groups followed a more linear path in their product development, which resulted in few improvements and developments from the original idea The A-groups, in contrast, would often end up with solutions very different from what they started out with. Where the C-groups were content and not seeking any improvements, the B-groups on the other hand could acknowledge that they needed improvements and suggest actions to be taken. However, as opposed to the A-groups, they would often not stick to the program:
“…The group members believe that the group discussions could have been more effective if they had a person who led the discussions and resolved the group's derailments. The group members also lacked a person who would have followed up the execution of the tasks and would have set clear expectations and goals for each group member…” (Reflection note B-group 20)
This tendency to drift was by most attributed to not only the lack of a clear structure having a leader or a person that could finalize decisions, but as reflected by some a fear of performing this role too authoritarian:
“…Even though the group decided to have a leader, the division of roles in the group in practice has had a flat structure. We believe that this was because the group members were not well enough acquainted with each other at the beginning of the collaboration and because of that they were careful to take on the leadership role. The group did not have a clear picture of, or a standard for, how a group leader should be and what functions he or she should perform. The group members who had the leadership role were therefore afraid of appearing too totalitarian and demanding. Often there was uncertainty about who was actually the leader at the moment. This led to the leadership role becoming quite weak...” (Reflection note B-group 4)
This acknowledged of lack of structure was common for these groups. Another important characteristic was that they, in hindsight, could reflect on improvements. The A-groups in contrast had on-going reflections; while the C-groups did not acknowledge any improvement factors. The above-mentioned lack of structure and discipline in performing the leadership role, reverberated also in weak performance of other roles, for instance the Devil´s Advocate. As reflected above, some reason was attributed to being insecure of each other, while others attributed this to a lack of task orientation:
“…In the start, it would have been advantageous to structure the working days better and specify smaller sub-goals… …We assume that with better planning and structure, the time pressure towards the submission deadlines would be easier. We see in retrospect that it would have been positive if we had had a more task-oriented focus earlier in the project, and used the role of the devil's advocate more actively…” (Reflection note B-group 11)
Quantitative Findings
In this section we will present the results from the SPGR questionnaire. These measurements were performed in the first week of the project, where the main task was to conceive of a possible business idea; and in the second to last week of the project when the main task was to finalize the project and rehearse a pitch.
Table 3: Measures of team behaviors
First week (1 of 8)
First, there is only a weak statistical difference between the groups with regards to the N2 vector - creativity. The A-groups are however, by this measure, the most creative, although observations suggested similar usages of initial phases of brain storming (coming up with ideas). Findings suggest further that C groups work significantly more than A and B groups in this phase towards group conformity. This shows in their significantly higher scoring in the D2 vector, which denotes interactions oriented towards acceptance of the group and conformity. A similar but opposite tendency is shown in the O2 vector, which denotes interactions that promote the individual self/self-promotion. Although the significant difference is not as strong here, A together with B groups are significantly higher on this vector. This attests to the higher levels of confrontations already from the start with the top-performers. A-groups differ significantly from the other groups with regards to higher levels of C1 (Control) and Task-orientation (C2). This suggests that A-groups have worked more methodically and were more disciplined (C1) with attention to the achievement of a result (C2) already from the start, while the C-groups emphasized getting to know each other and building a positive climate. These findings correspond with observations of the brain storming process. The convergence of many ideas to one require a discipline and confrontation when needed, as exemplified by the top performers.
Last week (7 of 8).
In this phase, there are no statistical differences in D1 (task conformity). All groups work similarly with regard to task orientation. However, C-groups continue to show significantly more conformity behaviors (D2) than the A-groups, with the difference that B-groups here show more similarity with the C-groups (B/C groups are together lower than A-groups at the 0,1 level). A and B groups continue to be significantly higher in self-promoting behaviors (O2) than C-groups, and critical and opposing behaviors (O1). Taken together with the conformity behaviors, it suggests that A-groups demand more of each other and that voicing up behaviors is not a problem with regard to unification around a common task. Some reason may be the accompanied discipline exerted by the A-groups. A-groups differ from the C and B groups, with a continued significantly higher level of authority and discipline-oriented behaviors (C1). Even if the graphical figure shows large differences in task-orientation (C2), there are no significant differences. Taken together with the other findings, it suggests all the same that A-groups show a unity in performing, through a coordinated (disciplined) approach. Individual contributions are still promoted, and they demand more from each other than the other groups. This corroborates the qualitative findings, in that temperatures were quite high within all groups approaching deadline. Contrary to B and C groups however, the rough behaviors of the A-groups translated into constructive discussions; while for others could lead them into a state of quarrel or dispute (as happened with one of the C-groups). But more often than not would especially the C-groups refrain from these kinds of behaviors, either not acknowledging them or perceiving them.