Intervening when the time is right: How the timing of formal interventions affects group process and decisions.

While scholars and practitioners have explored what to do when intervening to help novice groups, there has been considerably less attention paid to when to do it. This paper explores how the timing of process interventions impacts group decision-making processes and outcomes. In two laboratory experiments, I tested the extent to which groups altered their processes in response to interventions received at various times during their first task. In Study 1, I found that groups that received interventions during the early stages of their discussions shared more information than did groups who received interventions before beginning discussion, which indirectly affected the quality of their decisions. In Study 2, I compared early, in-process interventions to interventions received at the temporal midpoint of the first task and found that groups receiving interventions at the temporal midpoint of their first task improved their initial processes and outcomes, relative to control, while groups receiving earlier interventions did not. However, in a subsequent task, both early and midpoint interventions led to improved decisions, as groups receiving interventions decreased in the amount they advocated for individual member preferences. The implications of these studies for research on group development, collective decision- making, and team coaching is discussed

Better lagged than never: The lagged effects of process interventions on group decisions.

This study investigated three issues regarding process interventions in group decision making: (1) how process interventions affect group decision making processes and outcomes; (2) how persistent these effects are, and (3) how the timing (earlier vs. later) and type (directive vs. participative) of process intervention moderate these effects. The key finding was that process interventions had immediate effects on critical group processes, but did not significantly improve decision quality during the task in which the intervention was received. Surprisingly, post-intervention processes continued to improve and resulted in improved decisions in a subsequent task. This "lagged" effect was mediated by the degree to which groups aggregated unique information and avoided advocating for individual members" preferences

Out of the Shallows into the Deep

The growing consensus of opinion is that micromanagement is an element of a draconian-style leadership best resigned to the past. The future framework is for autonomy and freedom. But that should not mean managers leave their staff alone, without support or guidance

An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? Two experiments on in-process interventions in decision-making groups

This paper details two laboratory experiments about the timing of formal interventions in decision-making groups. Study 1 showed that groups receiving in-process interventions pooled more critical information and made better decisions than groups receiving pre-task interventions because in-process interventions prolonged discussions and reduced discussion of member preferences. Study 2 showed a similar pattern of results over a smaller time frame; groups receiving in-process interventions prolonged their discussions, discussed member preferences less, and pooled more critical information than those receiving pre-task interventions because they perceived those interventions as more valuable, which indirectly improved the quality of their decisions. Surprisingly, the specific timing of in-process interventions had no significant effects on information pooling or group decisions in either study. These studies collectively suggest that decision-making groups respond more strongly to interventions designed to cure process problems, rather than prevent them, which has implications for theory on formal interventions, group decision making, and group development

Trying not to try: The paradox of intentionality in jazz improvisation and its implications for organizational scholarship

Organizational scholars have long been interested in how jazz musicians manage tensions between structure and freedom, plans and action, and familiarity and novelty. Although improvisation has been conceptualized as a way of managing such paradoxes, the process of improvisation itself contains paradoxes. In this essay, we return to jazz improvisation to identify a new paradox of interest to organizational scholars: the paradox of intentionality. To improvise creatively, jazz musicians report that they must “try not to try,” or risk undermining the very spontaneity that is prized in jazz. Jazz improvisers must therefore control their ability to relinquish deliberate control of their actions. To accomplish this, they engage in three interdependent practices. Jazz musicians intentionally surrender their sense of active control (“letting go”) while creating a passive externalized role for this sense of active control (using a “third ear”). Letting go allows new and unexpected ideas to emerge, while the metaphorical third ear can identify promising ideas or problematic execution and, in doing so, re-engage active agency (“grabbing hold”). Examining the practices within creative improvisation reveals the complexity of the lived experience of the paradox, which we argue suggests further integration among organizational research on improvisation, creativity, and paradox

The Experience of Improvising in Organizations: A Creative Process Perspective

In this paper, we explore how improvisation is experienced by people in organizations, conceptualizing improvisation as a creative process. We draw on a small number of scholarly accounts of the experience of improvising in organizations, and compare and contrast them with accounts from the performing arts. In both cases, improvising evokes simultaneous exhilaration and fear, as well as experiences of non-goal-directed action. In many organizational contexts, however, improvisation is normatively discouraged, which heightens the fearful aspect of the experience. This leads many workers to avoid improvising, using it as a method of last resort and even hiding its use. Thus, improvisation is seldom used in favorable circumstances nor practiced to the point of familiarity or expertise. We discuss the implications of these insights for research and practice of improvisation and creativity in organizations, and propose a research agenda for the experience of improvising in organizations

Physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity or education about physical activity, or both, compared to active medical care, waiting list, or usual care in children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS)