Homeworks academic service


What three team leadership concepts can be leaned from the company wrigley

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract Concept mapping has generally been used as a means to increase the depth and breadth of understanding within a particular knowledge domain or discipline.

In this paper we trace the deployment of collaborative concept mapping by a research team in higher education and analyse its effectiveness using the crime metaphor of motive, means, and opportunity. Introduction In an effort to address the quality and impact of research, higher education institutions have invested in research capacity building initiatives including those that leverage the expertise and relationships within research collaborations and teams.

Yet, the various methods and tools appropriate for understanding and building research capacity within research teams remain underexplored. This paper reports on a case study of a collaborative concept mapping process CCM with an educational research team located at a regional Australian university. We argue that collaborative concept mapping is an exercise that embodies effective capacity building processes by enabling exploration, articulation, and negotiation of shared motives and opportunities for research team development.

We undertake this journey by first conceptualising capacity and the building of research capacity as it appears in the literature. We then move to CCM and argue how it is well suited as a capacity building process.

The paper culminates with an analysis of CCM as a capacity building process in relation to the means, motives, and opportunity framework of Britton as deployed by James and Wrigley [ 1 ].

Conceptualising Capacity Building Broadly, capacity building stimulates desired development and change for individuals, organisations, and communities. First, capacity building as a concept has been described as a mysterious, elusive, confused, and misinterpreted, with numerous definitions present in the literature [ 1 — 4 ]. Further, capacity building is considered to be undertheorised [ 3 ].

  1. Further, embracing of definitional, conceptual, and theoretical eclecticism in regard to capacity building appears necessary for this team to successfully apply and research capacity building across the varied contexts with which it engages [ 40 ].
  2. Basque and Lavoie [ 25 ] reviewed 39 studies dating from the late 1980s that specifically investigated CCM.
  3. Hence, these concepts do not make a knowledge proposition. The team also had a shared commitment to capacity building research as evidenced in the team name and shared goals in the form of key performance indicators around publication outputs, grant applications, and successes and attracting research higher degree students.
  4. The team also had a shared commitment to capacity building research as evidenced in the team name and shared goals in the form of key performance indicators around publication outputs, grant applications, and successes and attracting research higher degree students. Given the range of contexts and conceptualisations it is hardly surprising that a single encapsulating definition and theory of capacity building remains elusive.

Accordingly, capacity building has been variously theorised, for example, by means of stewardship theory e. Given the range of contexts and conceptualisations it is hardly surprising that a single encapsulating definition and theory of capacity building remains elusive.

Rather than considering this as an undesired situation to be rectified, definitional and theoretical eclecticism can be argued as necessary for the application of capacity building across the varied contexts in which it has been deployed.

  • Had we, as facilitators, insisted on the typical concept map format, one of the key tenets of effective capacity building approaches, that they retain and develop ownership for participants would have been lost;
  • The core or relationships was connected by an arrow to what appeared as an important proposition for the team;
  • The research experience of the 17 members of the CBRNetwork varies and includes research higher degree students, early- and mid-career researchers, and senior researchers working in a broad range of research interest areas pertaining to education and learning;
  • Next, participants were invited to begin assembling the concept map on the whiteboard using the sticky notes and whiteboard markers to record the cross-links and linking words;
  • After reviewing what collaborative concept mapping is and the pertinent literature, we will present a case study on the use of collaborative concept mapping with an education research team.

No matter which definition, theory and conceptual lens is used to frame capacity building; a critical question remains: James and Wrigley [ 1 ], adopting the crime metaphor of Britton, identify that effective capacity building in aid-based contexts requires attention to motive, means, and opportunity. Analysing CCM by using this framework does offer a sleuthing kind of subtext to the development of greater understanding in relation to the happenings within and as a result of the process. In this case we are focused on the three aspects surrounding the doing of CCM and its relationship to the individuals involved their motivespossibilities for actions opportunitiesand its effectiveness as a method means.

Opportunity refers to translating the work of capacity building into action and the availability of the required resources and support to do so; and means refers to methods for capacity building.

Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

Effective capacity building methods are thus heterogeneous, process-oriented, and sociocultural practices that privilege and leverage relationships. Building Research Capacity In response to increased pressures in recent decades to improve research quality and impact, the international higher education sector has sought to build research capacity with various internal and cross-institutional initiatives implemented in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and West Africa [ 15 ].

These initiatives have included institutional research policy development and investment in research infrastructure. Other initiatives recognise that in addition to administrative and resourcing enablers for research activity, building research capacity requires building researcher capacity. One response to this has been researcher development programs that include technical skills training in areas such as research design and methods and proposal and grant writing [ 16 ].

Sterland [ 17 ], however, cautions that capacity building approaches that are reliant on skills development risk being too generic and may be unable to take account of specific context, stages and needs; may focus on immediate outcomes at the expense of longer term processes; and foster a simplified view of capacity building as components or parts disconnected from a whole organisation or context.

Some institutional research capacity building responses have consequently incorporated tailored research skills development activities within collaborative research networks and teams [ 1518 — 20 ]. For example, in the developmental model of Wary and Wallace [ 21 ], researcher skills are built via research-related activities occurring within a mentoring model. While there is clearly value in peer and team processes for researcher development, there are also numerous challenges for collaborative and team research contexts, including failure to develop shared understandings about the motives, goals, frameworks, and ways of operating with regard to governance, communication, and conflict management [ 162022 ].

While the research capacity building literature identifies the nature of the problems to be addressed within teams and collaborations and highlights that solutions are ideally tailored and leverage social and relational practices in settings such as meetings and retreats, explicit methods and tools for fostering and understanding research capacity within teams and collaborations remain underexplored [ 2324 ].

In this paper, we will illuminate and add more substance to the myth and magic of capacity building as it relates to academic research team development and will argue that collaborative concept mapping, a process of concept mapping with small groups typically used for educational purposes [ 2526 ], is a valuable capacity building process for research collaborations. After reviewing what collaborative concept mapping is and the pertinent literature, we will present a case study on the use of collaborative concept mapping with an education research team.

Collaborative Concept Mapping Concept mapping is the process of creating concept maps or diagrams that organise, represent, and create knowledge. Concept mapping can be utilised by individuals or small groups, the latter being typically referred to as collaborative concept mapping CCM [ 27 ]. First, a clear context and knowledge domain is established by posing a focus question that is to be addressed during the concept mapping.

Novak and Gowin [ 27 ] undertook seminal work on concept mapping demonstrating that concept mapping strategies enabled students to control the outcomes of certain education engagements.

Through the process of sharing meaning with the teacher, and making concepts and connections explicit, students were shown to develop clearer pathways to the knowledge they were trying to capture. Watt [ 28 ], Chittenden [ 29 ], and Kuhn and Davidson [ 30 ] all reported instances of using this technique to increase learning toward deeper understanding. Basque and Lavoie [ 25 ] reviewed 39 studies dating from the late 1980s that specifically investigated CCM.

They cited evidence that CCM when compared with individual concept mapping produced better quality concept maps and benefited learning e. Further, they reported on studies showing that interactions observed during CCM were consistent with features of scientific discourse and included elaborated exchanges, coconstruction of meaning, and formation of alliances e.

Similarly, van Boxtel et al. Altogether, CCM studies have indicated what three team leadership concepts can be leaned from the company wrigley the process extends concept mapping processes and outcomes from individual learning to socially constructed meaning making.

  1. View at Google Scholar H.
  2. Analysing CCM by using this framework does offer a sleuthing kind of subtext to the development of greater understanding in relation to the happenings within and as a result of the process. Through the process of sharing meaning with the teacher, and making concepts and connections explicit, students were shown to develop clearer pathways to the knowledge they were trying to capture.
  3. This research team was cognisant of the external systemic drivers for the achievement of research outcomes, namely, ongoing Faculty funding being contingent upon achieving the key performance indicators.

The research experience of the 17 members of the CBRNetwork varies and includes research higher degree students, early- and mid-career researchers, and senior researchers working in a broad range of research interest areas pertaining to education and learning.

Five months after the formation of the research team in 2009, we facilitated an initial CCM exercise with the original smaller team of six researchers [ 14 ]. The purpose of the CCM activity was to assist the team to explore and document the meaning and operation of teamwork within the newly formed team.

There were also some unexplored or only partially completed propositions, concepts, and links, most notably build capital and capacity and shared responsibility. The first collaborative concept map produced by the research team. Reproduced and adapted with permission of publisher. Towards the end of 2011, the research team successfully applied for formal status as a Faculty Research Centre, and as a consequence the membership of the team grew from seven to 17 members.

Around this time, members expressed interest in revisiting the CCM exercise with the expanded team. Before proceeding with another CCM process, a formal and formative evaluation of the previous CCM process was conducted using an anonymous 10-question online survey as documented in de George-Walker and Tyler [ 9 ].

The questions focused on member views about the value, challenges, what three team leadership concepts can be leaned from the company wrigley limitations of CCM for exploring concepts around teaming and the degree to which the propositions that emerged from the previous process reflected the current values, goals, and practices of the team. The ten team members who responded to the survey were positive about the CCM process and the overall position emerging from the survey was that CCM was a dynamic dialogical and visual tool that enabled individual reflection, collective coconstruction, and documentation of notions of team identity and teaming practices and facilitated a positive team climate.

Also pertinent was the position that some additional needs of the team were not addressed in the initial CCM process; for example, there was limited exploration of the concepts of capacity, capacity building as featured in the team nameleadership, and creativity and practical team processes such as communication and mechanisms for achievement of research goals. All survey respondents, including original and newer team members, indicated that it would be very useful to use CCM again with the expanded team membership to document and build shared notions around teamwork and to explore the other identified issues.

CCM Process and Outcomes The second CCM exercise was again facilitated by the authors of this paper, who at that time had become adjunct members of the team after taking up positions at other universities. Eight members of the team, not including the authors, participated in the process with a range of research experience from novice to expert researchers.

The Park at Wrigley - Chicago, IL

Five participants were newer members and had not participated in the first CCM process. The CCM process occurred onsite at the regional campus where the majority of team members were located. The process occurred over a three-hour period with a 30-minute break around midway through the process.

The process began with the facilitators providing an overview of concept maps and the process of CCM and summarising the first CCM process and outcomes as overviewed in the previous section. Acknowledged by the group was that in the previous map there was a lack of prepositions and verbs that left certain agreed upon concepts unfinalised as propositions.

For example, in Figure 1the concepts talk, dialogue, hetroglossia, and unfinalisability are linked, but this link remains unspecified. Hence, these concepts do not make a knowledge proposition. The group was encouraged to focus in this CCM exercise on the building of complete propositions. The hierarchal ilk of the exercise was also reiterated noting that the top concept was to be shaped from the question, which was again initially concerned with notions of teamwork but was extended with the agreement of the group to include a focus on research outcomes upon which team funding was contingent: A parking lot was established and individuals contributed concepts by talking in various sized groups, comparing ideas and reviewing.

Approximately 42 concepts were generated in 10 minutes. The facilitators then requested the group review a large number of concepts, and if appropriate, to group them under similar themes and label them with an overarching concept. This invited the group to observe any repetition in concepts and what this might mean with regard to the importance of various concepts and also to begin considering the hierarchical and cross-linked nature of the generated concepts.

The broader concepts that emerged during this theming stage were management, mentoring, networking, academic writing and publishing, personal growth, capacity building, constraints, profile, lateral thinking, and outcomes and outputs.

5 things I

Taking the example of management, some of the concepts identified by the group as subordinate concepts were shared leadership, strategic planning, long-term goals, prioritising, setting limits, identifying opportunities, cost-benefit analysis, project management, budget, administrative support, corporate support, and sharing resources.

Next, participants were invited to begin assembling the concept map on the whiteboard using the sticky notes and whiteboard markers to record the cross-links and linking words. A team member volunteered as the scribe and began moving the concepts around on a large whiteboard whilst others looked on and engaged in general discussion about these concepts and suggested changes.

The team initially chose the concept of teaming as one of the top concepts but quickly moved on to discuss notions of leadership and how it might be distinguished from governance.

One complex proposition began to arise as the team attempted to link the outcomes from the discussions of teaming and leadership in a concept map: Another branch of the map formed by the participants offered an incomplete proposition: Motivation was then connected to strategic direction but without a joining preposition.

Motivation was identified by one team member as nonconcrete and argued what was really sought by the team was the driver or machinery of motivation for research. With this epiphany, scholarship of capacity building S of CB was chosen as a central component of a new map that departed from the typical concept map form and took the form of a circle with other concepts circling the central position of S of CB.

The concepts of profile, PhD, writing, and external funds were interconnected with prepositions to make a seemingly meaningful set of propositions and the concept map began to look more like a conceptual model. Nevertheless, useful propositions emerged; for example, the S of CB attracts PhD students ; the S of CB develops profile that enhances and attracts external funds. No propositions were built within this figure. The cone figure was placed horizontally to fit the confinements of the white board, but its positioning was intended as vertical, reflecting the hierarchal tenant of concept mapping.

At the base of the cone was profile.

  • James and Wrigley contend that an appreciation of these restraints is important, so these can be directly addressed;
  • The importance of a common bond, mindset, or framework has been identified in the literature as not only adding to the depth of scholarly work but also building team spirit, trust, and collegiality [ 38 , 39 ];
  • These initiatives have included institutional research policy development and investment in research infrastructure;
  • Yet, the various methods and tools appropriate for understanding and building research capacity within research teams remain underexplored;
  • All survey respondents, including original and newer team members, indicated that it would be very useful to use CCM again with the expanded team membership to document and build shared notions around teamwork and to explore the other identified issues;
  • Eight members of the team, not including the authors, participated in the process with a range of research experience from novice to expert researchers.

The skin of the cone carried the verbs produces and enhances, seemingly producing the proposition: S of CB produces and enhances profile. A central core to the cone was prominent running from top to bottom with the concept of relationships written on it. The core too had a thin skin labelled as governance. The core or relationships was connected by an arrow to what appeared as an important proposition for the team: S of CB is more productive when relational.

One more step

It is noted that this figure may be interpreted as a model. The second collaborative concept map produced by the research team. A thematic content analysis of the data was conducted according to the means, motives, and opportunity framework of Britton that James and Wrigley [ 1 ] had deployed. The researchers were, however, also open to unexpected themes that might be evident in the data. Developing shared purpose and motivation involves unearthing and addressing individual and shared values, beliefs, agendas, and interests; matters that can often be complex, emotion-laden, and challenging to discuss, let alone reaching consensus on.

We argue that to successfully build the capacities of research teams there must be a shared motive and that CCM is a valuable tool that enables exploration, articulation, and negotiation of purpose.