Example Reflection – Mixed Case

Challenge & Selection

I am a researcher in a constantly growing group inside the Research and Development (R&D) department  of the company. Our focus is to create innovations and patents than can be applied to the company’s  products in a short period (2-3 years). We have some budget allocation and some people allocation in the  group, but our manager wants to distinguish separate micro-teams that will be able to perform and  deliver. He is not coming from an academic background, so he is not focused that much on the innovation  and the new ideas, but in the delivery to the product lines and the higher people in the hierarchy and the  optimization of them. Thus, when doing this course, I saw at him the first manager of the video lectures  of the course (The story of George & Geoff – Week 2) whereas it is obvious that, after a big change in the  overall department, he needs to evolve to the second manager of the lectures (The story of George &  Geoff – Week 2) of the course because it is clear that he will not make.

So, my suggestion is the story telling part but enhanced with a sticker allocation and description of the  whole team in order to identify how can we adjust our team to the new changes in the department. We  do not want to become ineffective or problematic (which clearly is the path that we are going now), but  we want to continue our good progress. So, our goal is to gather and say our story regarding our manager  and share our reflections and then categorize them with stickers in a white board to find the pros and  cons and design our future steps.

Application

To create this procedure, we selected a shuffled approach also on the people that would participate. Thus,  we wanted to create a wider approach so that our work would be more structured and the results more  accurate even though our sample was very small. Moreover, we wanted to also eliminate any personal  preferences and feeling. The approach is that we gather all in meetings, create the data after talking and  put the stickers on the board. Then try to create relations and extract conclusions.

Firstly, we went via meeting all the people by their position in the company. Me gathered in different  meetings the following people:

-  Managers & Directors because they are more seniors than him

-  Senior researchers because they are the ones collaborating more closely to him

-  Researchers and Post-Docs because they interact between the previous and the following

-  PhD, MSc, internship students, because although they do not have direct collaboration with him,  they can say their opinion in order to create a more detail approach

-  Near collaborators from outside the company that were trustworthy enough to be included

After getting the data of their stories telling, we created a mixed board with all the details of the stories.  We did not highlight to whose story each sticker belonged to for obvious reasons.

Then, we gathered as sub-teams of the whole group which means a mixed group of one person of each  of the above categories including the other managers & directors which would take the place of our  director as if they were him, but this time we excluded the external partners because we wanted to avoid  their inclusion to our internal structure, issues, views, and insights.

Insight

By applying this enhanced version of the story telling tool, we were really excited of what happened. It  was a wow reaction to us to find out of how many different views and opinions exist about the same  person. Especially when we compared the opinions of the people in the same category of the previous. It  was really a huge surprise for us that the material we collected was 4-5 times more than the one we  expected to collect and of course more diverse and pluralistic.

Then, the biggest surprise happened when we performed the second phase, where the shuffled teams in  terms of level of collaboration with the manager were about to analyse the data found in the first part. It  went obvious that all the managers need to deliver, and they are not focusing mostly on innovation. This  confirmed what was said in the course material. Furthermore, we identified the different approach each  one of us has and the different thoughts. But, in the end, we all agreed that we are a R&D department  and that we must focus more on the innovation and the novelties and stay a bit far from the delivery  focused approach.

Approach

Finally, we consider our approach as one of the most appropriate regarding the big diversity between the  opinions and views of the people involved in the experimental project. Moreover, this approach was  highly respected by the managers and all the participants in general, so that it was suggested to be  followed to other groups including HR. Maybe we could have followed the visualization approach which  would have given us the opportunity to create a graph of all the opinions and statements, but we rejected  it because the graph would have been very complex and difficult to analyse.

Thanks to this course, I was able to overcome my engineering background and take a more managerial  approach that I hope it will help me in the future.


Example Reflection – Mixed Case Challenge & Selection I am a researcher in a constantly growing group inside the Research and Development ( R&D ) department of the company . Our focus is to create innovations and patents than can be applied to the company ’s products in a short period ( 2 - 3 years ) . We have some budget allocation and some people allocation in the group , but our manager wants to distinguish separate micro - teams that will be able to perform and deliver . He is not coming from an academic background , so he is not focused that much on the innovation and the new ideas , but in the delivery to the product lines and the higher people in the hierarchy and the optimization of them . Thus , when doing this course , I saw at him the first manager of the video lectures of the course ( The story of George & Geoff – Week 2 ) whereas it is obvious that , after a big change in the overall department , he needs to evolve to the second manager of the lectures ( The story of George & Geoff – Week 2 ) of the course because it is clear that he will not make . So , my suggestion is the story telling part but enhanced with a sticker allocation and description of the whole team in order to identify how can we adjust our team to the new changes in the department . We do not want to become ineffective or problematic ( which clearly is the path that we are going now ) , but we want to continue our good progress . So , our goal is to gather and say our story regarding our manager and share our reflections and then categorize them with stickers in a white board to find the pros and cons and design our future steps . Application To create this procedure , we selected a shuffled approach also on the people that would participate . Thus , we wanted to create a wider approach so that our work would be more structured and the results more accurate even though our sample was very small . Moreover , we wanted to also eliminate any personal preferences and feeling . The approach is that we gather all in meetings , create the data after talking and put the stickers on the board . Then try to create relations and extract conclusions . Firstly , we went via meeting all the people by their position in the company . Me gathered in different meetings the following people : - Managers & Directors because they are more seniors than him - Senior researchers because they are the ones collaborating more closely to him - Researchers and Post - Docs because they interact between the previous and the following - PhD , MSc , internship students , because although they do not have direct collaboration with him , they can say their opinion in order to create a more detail approach - Near collaborators from outside the company that were trustworthy enough to be included After getting the data of their stories telling , we created a mixed board with all the details of the stories . We did not highlight to whose story each sticker belonged to for obvious reasons . Then , we gathered as sub - teams of the whole group which means a mixed group of one person of each of the above categories including the other managers & directors which would take the place of our director as if they were him , but this time we excluded the external partners because we wanted to avoid their inclusion to our internal structure , issues , views , and insights . Insight By applying this enhanced version of the story telling tool , we were really excited of what happened . It was a wow reaction to us to find out of how many different views and opinions exist about the same person . Especially when we compared the opinions of the people in the same category of the previous . It was really a huge surprise for us that the material we collected was 4 - 5 times more than the one we expected to collect and of course more diverse and pluralistic . Then , the biggest surprise happened when we performed the second phase , where the shuffled teams in terms of level of collaboration with the manager were about to analyse the data found in the first part . It went obvious that all the managers need to deliver , and they are not focusing mostly on innovation . This confirmed what was said in the course material . Furthermore , we identified the different approach each one of us has and the different thoughts . But , in the end , we all agreed that we are a R&D department and that we must focus more on the innovation and the novelties and stay a bit far from the delivery focused approach . Approach Finally , we consider our approach as one of the most appropriate regarding the big diversity between the opinions and views of the people involved in the experimental project . Moreover , this approach was highly respected by the managers and all the participants in general , so that it was suggested to be followed to other groups including HR . Maybe we could have followed the visualization approach which would have given us the opportunity to create a graph of all the opinions and statements , but we rejected it because the graph would have been very complex and difficult to analyse . Thanks to this course , I was able to overcome my engineering background and take a more managerial approach that I hope it will help me in the future .