I was once working in a competitive business simulation. The team came together for the first time, and in this first observation, they had a lot of information to learn about their task and one another. There was no way that everything could go perfectly, but the team did its best to come up with a compelling strategy and direction as well as rolls. It appeared that most team members were engaged in a conversation about strategy, but there was one woman, let's call her Pat, who began to speak up less as the rounds went on. At first, Pat had provided a lot of suggestions. Many of her suggestions were positively acknowledged by the teams. A lot of team members would say, good idea or we'll think about that. But virtually none of Pat's ideas were supported by other members of the group after the vague initial compliment. As assimilation progressed the team moved along at an average pace but they decided to shift roles in order to enhance their strategy about mid way through. At this point in the assimilation, Pat told the team to assign her any role that was available. She also started to show up late to the team meeting and she was quieter in conversations as each round passed. I wondered, as many teammates did, why was Pat coming late? And why was she unengaged in the simulation? The possibility of race or gender dynamics underlying her behavior were far out of mind at first. After all this was a friendly group who came to the program to learn and there was no apparent conflict within the team. Team members assume that Pat's lateness was explained by other priorities that she needed to take care of outside of the team. And that directly related to the team dynamics. As I observed the team over a longer period of time, I realize that the team's first impression of Pat's disengagement was incorrect. In fact, it became apparent that there was a deeper and more implicit faction in the team. The white males in the group were far more vocal, and their ideas were accepted more often as a decision's made in the group. There was little opportunity for Pat, who happened to be African American, and a woman, to get a word in edgewise. Also, no one reached out to Pat on a one on one basis after observing her disengagement to find out what was going on. While the white males on the team did not mean any harm and in principle try to make an effort to include Pat in the team's decisions, the team dynamics became quietly toxic by the third day of the simulation. And the team unintentionally suffered from oppression based conflict. This was caused by overlooking Pat's contributions and well being on the team. The team, unfortunately but not surprisingly lost a competitive situation. The reasons for this are two fold. One, all the team members were not fully engaged in the group's goals. Two, the team did not find ways to ensure that diverse and varied perspectives were included in shaping strategy. Ultimately these over sights limited the team from becoming high performing. Unfortunately this dynamic happens all too often in teams, whether you're based in the US or in another country. There are always going to be prevailing power dynamics that favor the opinions of the dominant or majority group and discourage participation of marginalize or minority members of the group. As history has shown, dominance over marginalized groups never works out for individuals or organizations in the long term. And why is that? Because marginalization leads people to self center, and cuts out valuable ideas. As the competitive business stimulation progressed, Pat's team ultimately lost due to the quiet fracture and poor decision making that resulted. It was surprising that this happened because the executives on this team had deep experience and were taking time to learn as part of an executive development program. However they were reluctant to have the difficult conversations and productive conflicts that would've been necessary to move the team from low to high performing. Similarly at Enron, the company's silenced whistleblowers, who noticed odd behavior in the organization right before the crash of the company. Because Enron executives failed to listen to alternative perspectives on what the organization was doing, the company chaotically fell apart. The point here is not that the team members were purposefully ignoring Pat, but even the highest performing individuals can easily overlook certain viewpoints that don't align with their own. This simple but profound act of overlooking someone's contribution can lead to negative and even disastrous consequences for a team. We'll now hear from Dr. Marybeth Gasman, Professor of Higher Education and Director of the Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions. Dr. Gasman will discuss how to over come a pressure based conflict in your organization. Whether you are from the dominate or the marginalized group on your team. The experience and knowledge shared by Dr. Gasman will help you to make even more responsible decisions for your team and the individuals within it.
