PLEASE HELP ANSWER THOROUGHLY.. PLEASE USE ORIGINAL ANSWERS AND DO NOT COPY (OR JUST REPHRASING) FROM GOOGLE OR EXISTING ANSWERS IN CHEGG

CASE INCIDENT 2 Smart Teams and Dumb Teams In this chapter, we've identified how some of the synergistic excel in logical analysis, brainstorming, coor- characteristics we use to describe individuals also can dination, planning, and moral reasoning. And teams that describe teams. For example, individuals can be high in are dumb? Think of long unproductive meetings, social the trait of openness, as can a team. Along the same lines, loafing, and interpersonal conflicts. have you noticed that some teams seem to be smart, while You might be remembering a few teams you've wit- others seem, um, dumb? This characteristic has nothing to nessed that are in the dumb category, but we hope you do with the average IQ of the team members but instead can think of a few that excelled. Smart teams tend to reflects the functionality of the whole team. Teams that are be smart in everythingfor any task, they will find a Understanding Work Teams CHAPTER 10 375 workable solution. But what makes them smart? Re of communication. Theory of Mind is related to emotional searchers in an MIT study grouped 697 subjects into intelligence (EI), which we discussed in Chapter 4. teams of 25 members to solve tasks, looking for the When we have the opportunity to hand-pick team characteristics of smart teams (they weren't all smart). members, we can look for those who listen as much as The findings were: they speak, express empathy, and remember what others tell them about themselves. For teams to which we are as- 1. Smart teams did not allow individual members to dominate. Instead, there were more equal contribu- signed, we can seek these attributes in others and help tions from members than in other teams. guide the team toward its best self. As for IQ? Here's the good news: Recent research indicates that our member- 2. Smart teams had more members who were able to ship in a team actually makes us smarter decision-makers read minds. Just kidding. But the members were able as individuals! to read complicated emotions by looking into the eyes of others. There is a test for this ability called Reading Questions the Mind in the Eyes. 3. Smart teams had more women. It's not that smart 10-16. From your experiences in teams, do you agree with teams had more gender equality; these teams simply the researchers' findings on the characteristics of smart teams? Why or why not? had more women. This result might be partly due to the fact that more women scored higher in the Read- 10-17. On the highly functioning teams in which you've been a member, what other characteristics might ing the Mind in the Eyes test. have contributed to success? The researchers recently replicated the study using 68 10-18. The authors who suggested that membership in teams and again found that some teams were smarter than a team makes us smarter found that teams were others. This study added a new angle to the research: How more rational and quicker at finding solutions to would teams working in person differ from teams working difficult probability problems and reasoning tasks online? Surprisingly, there was little difference: All smart than were individuals. However, after participation teams had more equal member communication (and in the study, team members were much better at plenty of it) and were good at emotion reading. When the decision making on their own, even up to 5 weeks online collaborators could not see each other, they prac later. Do you think this spillover effect would hap- ticed Theory of Mind, remembering and reacting to the pen equally for people in smart teams and dumb emotional cues they were able to detect through any mode teams? Why or why not