After watching the video, I think that Mr. Wujec’s analysis
is accurate. The MBA students spend
their entire time developing a single plan and put all of their proverbial eggs
into one basket. They do not know if it
will or will not work out until the end of the allotted time period when they cap off
their tower with the marshmallow – it is only as time is expiring that their
plan comes to (or does not come to) fruition.
On the other hand, the kindergarteners go with the trial and error
approach – they try something out and see if it works. If it fails, they move on to something else,
but they get instant feedback on the design and can move on to better ones in
the event the current design doesn’t work.
Now I understand what he is saying here with the prototype argument,
however what is lost is that in the real world, prototypes can often be very
expensive, can take long periods to build (especially if fine machining is
involved), and often does not lead to full solutions to problems. I would argue that physical prototypes in
real business environments employed in the manner he is insinuating is nowhere
near the cost effective approach that most employers are looking for. With that being said, today’s technology
allows for different forms of design plans.
For example, 3D CAD programs can lead to outstanding simulations of new
equipment that is much less costly than a physical prototype. Further, there is technology that allows you
to extrude a plastic replica of your design – this would cover the physical
prototype (albeit non-functioning) while minimizing cost.
Another possible reason why kindergartners outperform MBA
students is that group dynamics are probably much more prevalent in a group of
MBA students compared to a group of kindergartners. Mr. Wujec specifically mentioned that a
decent amount of time is spent jockeying for power and talking about how to
start the design in many groups. I would
imagine this is not the case with kindergartners where their egos haven’t had
the opportunity to fully develop yet.
Essentially, having a group full of leader type personalities can lead
to inefficiencies in time usage that a group without a strong leadership
dynamic wouldn’t experience. I think
this is the main reason why a group with executive assistants and CEOs together
do better than a group of just CEOs.
Executive assistants spend all day communicating between different power
hunger people and as a result are able to maintain the power struggle at lower
levels than what would occur without them.
Essentially, they keep their CEOs’ egos in check, allowing them to communicate
for effectively and thus resulting in better solutions. If I had to relate this to a process
intervention workshop, I would break out and refer to table 8.1 in the
book. Going back to the CEOs, I would
imagine that many of them would attempt to dominate, seek recognition, or would
block ideas they didn’t like. On the
other hand, kindergartners would probably not have any of those things going on
within their group dynamics. Seeking
opinions, asking questions, elaborating, and summarizing are all great
communication skills that would at the very least allow you to more efficiently
develop your solution if not a correct one.
Ultimately, the video further proves that the current trend in business
towards a flatter command structure is probably a good one – positional power
often breeds egos that tend to get in the way of group tasks. If, on the other hand, people can put their
egos aside, group dynamics and efficiency only goes up.
No comments:
Post a Comment