MSOD 614: Assignment One - Learning Group Formation Methodology

Hannah Elise Jones, Ashley Woods, Grace Chen

January 21, 2017

In order to develop an approach for learning group formation in Intensive 2, our group

collaborated to propose a realistic methodology. Recognizing no group formation process will ever be

perfect, our trio opted for simplicity by developing three overarching concepts that need to be taken into

consideration during learning group formation; effective learning groups should each have cohesive

personalities, complementary working roles and a desire by all to develop trust and psychological safety.

To begin, forming learning groups with cohesive personalities will not only facilitate rich

conversation and a sense of community, but will also organically begin to establish a sense of trust and

psychological security, one of our three non-negotiables. Further, beginning with cohesive personalities

will lend itself toward establishing overall group cohesion, a concept related heavily to task commitment

and interpersonal attraction to a group. Moreover, it was found that individuals with greater personality

cohesion will have a more positive association with the group itself (Lott & Lott, 1965). Consequently,

members of a learning group will likely walk away having a positive experience personally and

professionally.

In addition, selecting group members with complementary working roles is important for a

variety of reasons. Working roles, as defined by our group, could describe what role an individual

naturally fills, what role they prefer to fill, and what role they may be interested in taking on to challenge

themselves. We know that multiple roles exist in group life and find it imperative that learning groups are

comprised of diversity, in order to avoid variables such as group-think and power struggles, all while

encouraging growth and development. If, for instance, a group was comprised of multiple leader roles,

the learning group would likely spend more time determining who owns authority and power, and less

time investing in each others MSOD journey.

 Finally, discovering ways in which to establish trust and psychological safety is critical when

forming learning groups. Recent research on effective teams has indicated that psychological safety is a

key indicator of team performance (Duhigg, C., 2016), and as a result, more organizations are aligning

around the realization that Trust is foundational to group productivity [. . .] A work environment

characterized by psychological safety is necessary for individuals to feel secure [. . .} (Schein & Bennis,

1965). Given that our learning groups are intended to be support groups for the duration of our MSOD

journey, it is paramount that group members feel comfortable expressing themselves while assuming a

position of vulnerability to gain the most benefit from this experience. While there are many examples of

behaviors and interventions to develop trust in existing teams, there is less research on how you can

design a team with higher levels of psychological safety from the beginning, or one that is likely to

develop these characteristics effectively. However, it has been found that strong relationships between

cohesive team members have a significant impact on the speed with which trust develops (Carmeli and

Gittell, 2009). This research supports our proposed methodology of emphasizing cohesive personalities

and complementary roles, as a way to support psychological safety and trust in our Learning Groups.

To ensure our three overarching concepts are taken into consideration when forming learning

groups, we propose utilizing a pre-assessment tool to capture and measure the thoughts, feelings and

behaviors of our cohort members regarding personality, and working roles. There are many tools with

which to measure personality but for the purposes of this methodology we are recommending Myers

Briggs, because it is a well-known and proven tool (Dyer, Dyer, Dyer 2007) (Appendix A). Students

would use the chosen tool to self-assess prior to the group formation process. Once types have been

identified, the data for the whole cohort can be sorted in advance, to provide a comprehensive picture of

the personality breakdown of the group. However, if the pre-work was not done in advance of the session,

the process would still work real time, as students would be able to take the assessment online or on paper

and sort themselves into their learning groups based on the personality types in the room. We recommend

the pre-work option so that students have time to understand the model being used and reflect on their

assigned type, so that in the room they can speak to it with more confidence and clarity.
 A similar approach could be taken to identifying complementary working roles. Personality

assessments will indicate how an individual is likely to work but, accepting differences in style,

personality assessments alone do not indicate best fit for a particular role. Assessments that more directly

measure best-fit for role would be a useful tool in the learning group formation process. Tools such as

Strengths Finder or the Belbin Roles Assessment (Appendix B), could be used in the same way as the

personality assessment described above, with students pre-testing themselves and using the information to

sort themselves into teams, either in advance or real-time.

One dynamic that could emerge in this process is debate on whether teams should be made of like

personalities and styles or divergent ones. For the purposes of creating an effective team, it is generally

accepted that personality types should fit together, with strengths in some complimenting weaknesses in

others (Bajic, 2015). Accepting this, the goal would be for individuals to self-select their learning group

members based on Myers Briggs categories of complimentary rather than identical variables, in order to

meet the needs for complimentary strengths that cover all areas of the Myers Briggs spectrum. The

dynamics surrounding this decision making process would be a bit ambiguous, since each cohort member

would choose others based on their own perceived notions of complementary (yet compatible) personality

types. The decision making process would entail some improvisation, since specific instructions on

selection would not be strictly defined.

To evaluate process effectiveness, our group suggests utilizing a mixed methods technique to

collect both qualitative and quantitative data. To collect qualitative data, a survey could be administered

immediately following learning group formation regarding individuals satisfaction with the process

(Appendix C). In addition, KPIs related to supporting completion of Strategic Learning Contracts could

be collected at the 3 month, 6 month, and one year marks, as a way to measure effectiveness

quantitatively. As learning groups will also be utilized in client consultation work, we would also

encourage an evaluation of client satisfaction or stakeholder feedback, following future practicums where

learning group collaboration is required.

 Our proposed process of learning group formation will challenge cohort members in several

ways. First of all, the Myers Briggs Personality Test and Belbin Roles Assessment will challenge

individuals to self-reflect in order to properly classify themselves using the methodology the tools

provide. This process would involve the ability to be honest with oneself and to reflect on ones own

actions and preferences when answering the questionnaire and processing the results. In addition, the

selection process would challenge cohort members to make group selections based on ambiguous and

loosely defined instructions. Individuals who would need well-defined steps in order to accomplish goals

may struggle with improvising spontaneously, while selecting the members of their learning group. We

believe that a well-informed and data-driven approach, as this methodology recommends, could help to

alleviate some of the concern individuals may have about the group formation process. Using proven

tools would help to de-personalize the experience, without sacrificing individual consideration, but for

this to work individuals must be open to the tools and receptive to examining what emerges out of their

self-assessment process.

A practice that may be helpful in order to be successful with this activity is to be mindful of the

Wise Self, which we learned about in Intensive 1. This process may stir up a range of emotions from

different Committee Members. If this occurs, individuals may tune into the Wise Self to reign in the

Committee Member that is reacting the most. The Wise Self needs to be centered in the present moment,

yet connect to all emotions with non-judgement, in order to observe, reflect, and learn from this activity.

Hopefully, with this experience, cohort members can form supportive functional learning groups to aid in

their professional development in the MSOD program.

 References

Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of
relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64(4),
259-309. Doi:10.1037/h0022386
Bajic, E. (2015, September 28). How The MBTI Can Help You Build A Stronger Company.
Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/elenabajic/
2015/09/28/how-the-mbti-can-help-you-build-a-stronger-company/
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and
learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6),
709-729. Doi:10.1002/job.565
Duhigg, C. (2016, February 27). What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect
Team. Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/
magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
Dyer, W. G., Dyer, W. G., & Dyer, J. H. E. H. (2007). Team building: proven strategies for
improving team performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through
group methods: the laboratory approach. New York: Wiley.
Appendix A: Myers Brigs Personality Assessment
Appendix B: Belbin Roles Inventory Assessment
 Appendix C: Questions for Learning Group Formation Process Satisfaction Survey

1. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the high, how confident are you that your learning group will be
successful in achieving group and individual goals?
2. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the high, how happy are you with the group members in which
this process formed?
3. What feelings are you experiencing after participating in this learning group formation process?
(Open-ended response)
4. What would you do to improve the process? (Open-ended response)
5. How likely would you be to recommend using this same process again? (Select: Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, Dont Know, Agree, Strongly Agree) . And Why?