Rachel Teel

SYSEN 552 SU21

08/08/2021

Reflection and Synthesis #2

Task 1: Toward the Management of Cognitive Gap
The group I chose for my ongoing analysis consists of myself, Rob, Seth, and Courtney.
We comprise a project team that is responsible for the research and development of the next
generation product to a product that is currently in clinical trials. In the group, Rob, Courtney,
and I fall on the more adaptive side of the spectrum and Seth is more innovative. In the recent
weeks, it has become more apparent that Rob is significantly more adaptive than Courtney and
me. It has been difficult to understand exactly why he is maintaining ideas that fall so closely to
the current paradigm without sufficient justification. Courtney and I are in the AC2 group, Rob is
just outside that group as a more adaptive AC3, and Seth is a highly innovative AC3. The
grouping of the different agents of change is depicted in Figure 1. The reason Rob is not part of
the AC2 group is that consensus is difficult to reach with him between Courtney and me. In a
recent situation where the team was discussing a new packaging design option, Courtney and I
agreed on a slightly more innovative change that still maintained similar fit, form, and function
to the original design. It was fairly easy to bridge the gap with Seth and explain the pros and cons
to the new design. Rob was outside the consensus sub-set because he was still questioning the
new design as he had thought of a design more similar to the original.

AC3 AC2 AC3

more adaptive <--------------------------------------------> more innovative
Problem
Figure 1. Agents of Change Analysis

The cognitive climate of the group is fairly positive as both AC3 individuals and the AC2
group are able to work together. Since the two AC3 individuals are both managers and leaders of
the team, it creates a bit of a dichotomy between the two. The gaps between the AC2 group and
the two AC3 groups has yet to be a major challenge. The main issues arise from the large gap
between the two AC3 groups since they are both high-ranking. They can negatively impact the
group by disagreeing with each other, which then impacts Courtney and me in the consensus
sub-set. The positive side to having leaders on either end of the continuum is that it promotes a
lot of good conversations about different directions that our development could go for the new
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
08/08/2021

product. Their roles could be improved if more coping behavior was used from Rob to help
bridge the gap to the AC2 group, because we could then help just bridge one gap to Seth. The
issues that arise with having both authority figures in the AC3 groups, is that even though the
AC2 group is the consensus sub-set and is 50% of the team, the final decisions are made by either
AC3 individual. This can lead to decisions that do not satisfy all members of the team if healthy
group discussion was not considered prior to the decision. Seth tends to use a lot of coping
behavior to bridge the gap to the AC2 group due to the problem also being fairly adaptive. Seth is
a very successful manager and is able to use coping behavior very effectively to communicate
and problem solve with others. Rob on the other hand, seems to be most resistant to using coping
behavior to collaborate with the group. This negatively impacts the team dynamic and often the
team morale because there is a disconnect between individuals. This disconnect can often lead to
different members feeling as though their ideas are not being heard by others.
Resistance to change has been a prominent aspect of this group in the last couple months
as decisions are being made on design paths for the future. Rob tends to be resistant to more
radical changes, such as, redesigning the manufacturing process from the previous generation
product. On the opposite end, Seth tends to be more resistant to staying in the same mindset of
the previous generation because there have been flaws in that process. This aligns with the
principles of A-I theory because they are both more resistant to changes on the opposite end of
the continuum from them. These are changes that they may not understand or be able to properly
analyze due to their cognitive style. Resistance to change can come about from lack of
understanding the proposed idea and lack of experience in that type of idea. I have found that on
this project I tend to be more accepting of changes that align with where the projects are on the
continuum. I think this is due to my cognitive style being more moderate, so I have adapted more
to the style of the problem itself. The resistance to change in this group could be handled better
by having conversations where the pros and cons of each idea are laid out by the group as a
whole. This would allow us to see the ideas from each perspective, which may help us to make a
more informed decision. It would also help to limit the interpersonal issues due to resistance
without resolution or discussion.
In this group, there are two different bridging scenarios that occur most frequently.
Figure 2 depicts scenario one where Courtney and I act as bridgers to Rob and/or Seth to bring
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
08/08/2021

them to the AC2 group. This occurs when the change being presented best falls within the
moderately adaptive area, so both AC3 groups need to be bridged to help in the consensus. An
example of this scenario recently happened when I had an idea to slightly adjust a manufacturing
step process and introduce a new production tool to do so. Rob needed bridging to understand
the necessity for the new tool and how that would enhance the incremental adjustment to the
process. Seth needed slightly less bridging as he understood the impact of the new tool addition,
and therefore understood how the incremental change would make a sufficient impact on the
process. This is an effective example of bridging as we were able to bring both individuals to a
place of understanding so that productive discussions could take place.

Rob Bridgers Seth

more adaptive <------------------------------------------------> more innovative
Figure 2. Bridging Scenario #1

Figure 3 depicts scenario two where on occasion Seth acts as the bridger for Rob to the
AC2 group. This occurs when Seth is already using coping behavior to adapt to the AC2 group
and then goes above that and bridgers for Rob. As a manager Seth is proficient in balancing
human relations and having him act as the bridger is helpful because it is one manager helping
the other. This benefits the team for important decisions because Rob and Seth are going to be
the two individuals that having the largest influence on the situation. This scenario is not always
successful as Seth is using coping behavior and bridging at the same time. In a recent situation,
Seth was explaining to Rob a proposal for a new part design that was more moderate on the
continuum. Seth was using coping behavior while also trying to explain to Rob the change in a
bridging manner. Seth was unable to maintain his coping behavior in certain areas, which led to
Rob not understanding the explanation that Seth was giving. In that case, I stepped up to serve as
the bridger and explain the proposal to Rob in a more adaptive way that he was able to then
discuss productively.

Courtney
Rob Rachel Bridger
more adaptive <-------------------------------------------------> more innovative
Figure 3. Bridging Scenario #2
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
08/08/2021

This project group recently went through the addition of a new entry level engineer,
Courtney. This addition meant that the group development cycle had to restart to adjust for the
additional person. In the Forming phase there was a lot of emphasis on introducing Courtney to
the project and the way that a lot of the work was currently being divided. Seth is the reporting
manager for both Courtney and I so he provided a lot of the beginning structure of how the work
will be divided and how I will assist Courtney in certain learning opportunities. Our Storming
phase was fairly minimal because Courtney has a similar cognitive style to myself, so I was able
to help with any personal relationships and how best to work with both Rob and Seth. In this
phase though, Rob was not adjusting to having another member of the team and kept giving all
the work to myself and Courtney did not have enough to do. This led to Seth having a
conversation with Rob about what tasks need to be given to each of us so that the workload can
be even. I think that Rob’s more adaptive style was a con in adjusting to our new team structure
because it was a change in his normal process. It shifted the mindset that he needed to have when
passing off work and making sure to include another person into that analysis. The addition to
our team helps to depict Kirton’s idea that we are always in a state of change. Our initial team
had gotten into our rhythm for performing and successfully executed the needed tasks. The
addition of Courtney now adjusts our process and requires the stages of development from
Tuckman and Jensen to restart.
Our group has just moved on from the Norming stage, because we are now able to
effectively communicate information and disperse work properly. The communication from all
four of the members has improved as we all adjusted to the newly introduced style and level of
Courtney. As we enter the Performing phase, we are a more cohesive group and have developed
the needed strategies to bridge and cope with the different styles. Courtney has been a good
addition to the team thus far and her moderate style benefits the group as she is able to use
minimal coping behavior in relation to Problem A. This analysis has helped me to see how the
main focus of the group as we move forward will be Problem B, because we have had issues
with personal relations in the past. It will be important to ensure that with the addition of
Courtney we are effectively communicating and discussing our style differences to ensure that
conflict is minimal. I can also see how significantly the group development process would
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
08/08/2021

change if Problem A changed. If the same group was now put onto a project that is highly
innovative, it would be a completely different analysis as the Problem A cognitive gap would be
much larger. Tuckman and Jensen’s model is a useful tool to help understand the group
development process and what to expect as the team develops and grows. It is an important point
that with personnel changes on a team, the development process needs to restart. If it is ignored
there will not be proper dynamics within the team and the group performance could really be
impacted.

Task 2: A Final Look at Collaboration and Problem-Solving Leadership

I work in the field of ophthalmic medical devices, specifically in microinvasive glaucoma
surgery (MIGS) and drug delivery implants. The ophthalmic medical device field had not seen
new technology for decades up until about the early 2000’s. This field went through incredible
innovative growth over about a decade to bring a lot of ocular disease treatments up to the
current technological standard. The growth over the last five years has still been very innovative,
but there are companies who are now developing the future generations of their current products.
The level of incremental/adaptive change has increased dramatically, and I think that a lot of
companies are struggling to find the right balance. Employees had been very used to always
focusing on radical cutting-edge ideas and not so much of improving the current processes and
products. As the research behind MIGS and ocular implants expands, companies are also
expanding along with it and the need for employees with diverse styles and levels is heightened.
This shift in the paradigm to focusing on a more balanced company product pipeline is
going to highlight the ideas of both Kirton and Tushman on the different types of change and
their benefits. Kirton’s work with cognitive style on a continuum and how projects fall along that
continuum as well is going to be helpful for company executives so that the employee base can
be properly utilized. The analysis of the benefits of both adaptive and innovative change is going
to be critical for company leaders and the development teams. As adaptive change is on the rise,
individuals need to be aware of where on the continuum they fall and how to best support others
and the projects they are on. The directive for this adjustment is going to need to come from the
top of the company and the analysis that is done to determine the best direction for supporting
the patient population and the financial aspect of the company. The work done by Raisch et al.
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
08/08/2021

proposes that in order to be able to have both exploration and exploitation within a company,
separate teams may be required (2009). This would allow for the proper allocation of resources
best fitted to align with Problem A as different teams would be assigned to projects based on the
style of the individuals and the project.
This knowledge would expand the opportunities for a company because with a balanced
view of change the best decisions for the company can be made. A bias towards one type or the
other could put the company at risk for financial or employee failure. This course has allowed
me to see how critical this topic is, because it has enabled me to see examples of this in my own
company. The connection between managing change and managing diversity are evident and you
cannot effectively do one without the other. The management of change needs to happen with the
understanding of the different styles of change and how that impacts the strategic approach. Only
then can the management of diversity be effectively used to exploit the employee style
characteristics to align with the change.
This course and SYSEN 850 have allowed me to discover my own cognitive style and the
relationship with my level so that I can now better utilize those traits on certain changes. These
courses have also enabled me to see the benefits to cognitive diversity on a project and how I can
help understand different cognitive approaches. I have already been able to put into action using
my knowledge on different styles to help another coworker better understand why someone was
making the adaptive proposals without acknowledging the other innovative ideas of the team. I
have gained confidence to stand up for individuals with differing opinions and to see all ideas as
valuable. Opposing views are how teams can work together to produce the best and well thought
out solutions to the problems of today. I have thoroughly enjoyed these courses and I look
forward to being able to utilize and share my knowledge on these subjects to better my own
project team now and in the future.
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
08/08/2021

References
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity:
Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. <i>Organization
Science,</i> <i>20</i>(4), 685-695. Retrieved August 8, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614687