Androgynous Collaboration

I thought The Androgyous Collaborator: The Impact of Gender Studies on Collaboration was a great article; very informative and relevant to collaboration. I collaborate on projects at home, work and school and on several occasions have witnessed the impact of gender on collaboration. As I read the student emails, I began to make judgements as to whether a male or female wrote the email. While I sensed the gender, I was not always correct.

Students traditional gender roles: fulfill or deny. Result of collaboration: difficult or not.

S, A [females]. In my opinion, these two students fulfilled the traditional gender role. They did not appear task oriented in their emails. Although they refer to the project, the emails point out what & who is wrong with their process. While it's okay to state failure, one should be objective and provide some balance by stating successes too. I found S to be emotional, expressive and in search of group harmony. For example, the length of her email demonstrates her inability to focus on the task. She goes on and on about the problems with her group. A appeared emotional, sensitive and a little aggressive (accusing group member of wrong doing). For example, she labels herself as the 'black sheep of the herd.' This indicates her sensitivity. Most men I know wouldn't worry about consequences associated with their disagreement with others. As a result, I feel they had a difficult collaboration with no 'real' goal in mind and zero results accomplished.

W [female], K [male]. In my opinion these two students demonstrated qualities of androgynous collaborators. Upon my first read of their emails, I thought W was a man and K a woman. Boy was I wrong. However, that demonstrates their ability to take on opposite gender roles. W showed listening and relationship skills of a female. On the other hand, demonstrated task oriented, logical, and objective skills of a male. She has the ability to state what the group did well and where they needed work. K initially presented male role of objectivity and task oriented. Then showed emotional and expressive qualities of female collaborators. As a result, I feel they collaborated well. I had a better understanding of the group dynamics and project issues after reading their emails. They seemed balanced and able to see the big picture from both sides of the equation.

Course collaboration in traditional gender roles: fulfill or defy. Am I androgynous collaborator; how so?

After reviewing my emails, I generally defy traditional gender roles and am an androgynous collaborator. Male traits: task oriented, objective, logical, self-confident and competitive; Female traits: helpful, sensitive, intuitive, tactful, listener, maintain relationships (personal & business), aware of others feelings and focused on home/family. I feel my profession has played a huge part in my ability to be an androgynous collaborator. Corporate culture demands professionals to be objective, task oriented and competitive. In order to survive in this community, a woman needs to learn these traits and have a good balance of the two gender roles. In my office, I often see women who take on mostly female roles. They are viewed as nice, sweet and too emotional/expressive in some cases. These individuals don't move far in the company. Females that have a balance are often more successful. On the other hand, I see many men that struggle to adopt female traits. They appear cold and insensitive. People, especially women have trouble connecting with these individuals. It's all very interesting to watch.

Anderson and Burnett Articles: Response

I found both of these articles relative to my profession. Anderson makes valid points regarding collaborative challenges that take place in the workplace. He discusses the challenge of organizing group v. individual responsibilities and offers four guidelines to help teams out. These include: 1) encouraging debate and diverse ideas; 2) efficiency; 3) detailed guidance and 4) project schedules. In my current job, I relate most to guidelines 1 and 4 above. Working for a corporation, I've come to realize the value of a project manager. I have taken part of projects that included individuals from various points of the organization. The project manager is responsible for keeping the project organized, scheduling regular meetings, ensuring that objectives are established and met. There are a lot of variables to juggle and it's not always a pleasant job. One must be very persistent because individuals seldom focus on their own agendas rather than the groups. With regards to encouraging debate and diverse ideas, I agree with Anderson's comments on inviting others to speak and listening with interest and respect. I personally have been in situations where I am afraid to speak up and share my thought. Likewise, I see many others that struggle with this. People are afraid to sound stupid or say the wrong thing. What I've learned is that there really is no wrong answers. Your idea may not be chosen but they are all worth tossing around. Everyone has a different perspective on the subject that makes a valid point or may inspire a new idea.

Burnett on the other hand, does a nice job of distinguishing between the types of conflict that arises out of collaboration. At one point or another, we have probably been part of affective, procedural and substantive conflict. I have seen all three at work but obviously the goal is to have substantive conflict. Substantive conflict allows colleagues to disagree about the subject but in a constructive manner. Generally each party has their view/beliefs but works together to find a middle ground. Substantive conflict happen quite often in corporations and while it is productive in its end result, the problem I find is that it can generate meeting after meeting. I have been to involved in projects where multiple meetings are required in order to work through the disagreements before a solution is reached. Perhaps that is the corporate way. Furthermore, Burnett makes a good point about competitive v. cooperative context. While competition is a motivational force in itself, is usually creates more problems than are necessary because no one wants to lose. The idea of a collaborative context where ideas can be challenged but respected all the same, is much more professional and productive.

Team Revised Memo: Challenger Disaster

TO: Distribution - Engineering and Managerial Services, National Air and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Morton Thiokol, Inc.

FROM: Krystal Miarecki, Heidi Pak

RE: URGENT: Avoiding Disaster on STS 51-L (Challenger Shuttle) Mission

In regards to STS 51-L (Challenger Shuttle), we have identified a design problem with the SRM O-rings that, if not addressed, could result in a fatal mission.

Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are relatively new technology to us, as opposed to liquid-fueled systems. As the Challenger will be the first astronaut-manned mission using SRBs, we cannot take any risks.

The problem we have run across lies in the O-rings. At launch, the O-rings will lose their original shape due to motor pressurization. While it is in the nature of the O-rings to return to its original shape, we have found that there are milliseconds in between the transformation of the O-rings that determine system failure or success.

Furthermore, we have discovered that temperature affects the rate at which O-rings return to their original shape. After numerous tests, we found that field joint secondary seals lifted off metal surface under the following conditions: 1) at 75° F lost contact for 2.4 seconds; and 2) at 50° F lost contact without re-establishing. With our launch deadline set for January 27th, the temperatures have very little chance of being above 50 degrees.

When dealing with extremely sensitive materials that determine success or failure in milliseconds, it is unethical to gamble with the seven astronauts' lives and the reputations of our three organizations. Therefore, I urge the managers to consider postponing the launch date until further research is conducted and safe launching temperature has been reached.

As funding is tight and deadlines are crucial, a public statement must be released regarding the crucial need for more research into the technology behind the O-rings, as well as supporting statements as to why we are relying on SRB versus liquid-fueled systems.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.




Heidi and I approached our memos a little differently. Her memo provided an overview of facts and felt personal in nature. My memo was more technical in regards to details of the shuttle problem. Both memos were of an urgent nature. We combined the two memos, providing a good balance of technical details and personal touch; while keeping an urgent tone. I feel this was a good combination for our mixed audience of managers and engineers.

Challenger Memo

TO: Engineering and Managerial Services Distribution

National Air and Space Administration (NASA)

Marshall Space Flight Center

Morton Thiokol, Inc. (MTI)

FROM: Krystal Miarecki

DATE: July 16, 2009

RE: URGENT: SRM O-Ring Design Problem / Failure

ISSUE

After several evaluations of the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB), engineers at MTI have discovered an issue with the O-Rings that if not addressed, could have fatal effects on the next space shuttle launch mission.

Facts:

• Primary "O" ring erosion (nozzle to case) has occurred in twelve (12) flights

• Primary "O" ring erosion (case to case) has occurred in five (5) flights; pressure build up on primary "O" ring causes secondary "O" ring to unseat

• Primary "O" ring sealing: FAILED

• During motor pressurization, field joint secondary seal lifted off metal surface (e.g. seal maintained contact at 100° F, lost contact for 2.4 seconds at 75° F and lost without re-establishing contact at 50° F)

• Secondary "O" ring sealing; FAILED at 50° F

Result of "O" ring failure:

Due to the joint erosion, the primary "O" ring fails during ignition. As a result, the secondary "O" ring may fail to serve its purpose as the redundant seal. Upon failure of a primary ring, the secondary ring may not pressurize and respond to the clevis opening rate, which means, there is no guarantee that the secondary seal would hold.

**FAILURE OF THE SRM "O" RINGS COULD RESULT IN A FATAL ACCIDENT AND LOSS OF HUMAN LIVES.**

RECOMMENDATION

Taking into consideration the time of the year and low temperatures, I feel we should not risk using the current "O" ring seals on the shuttle. It is my recommendation that the space shuttle mission scheduled for January 27, 1986 be delayed until further noticed.

In the meantime, I feel we should develop a special project team consisting of engineers and managers from NASA, MTI and Marshall dedicated to the "O" ring issue and meet weekly via conference call to discuss the project status. Furthermore, any interim correspondence should be sent via email and include all project team members.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Bill Finch Recommendation Letter

I worked with Jennifer and Gordon on this assignment and felt it went fairly well. The three of us submitted our memos and after reviewing them, Jenn offered to take a shot at the first draft. I thought she did a very good job of extracting information out of each of our letters to form one memo. Jenn focuses on the strengths she found in each letter and formatted it to the mid-manager level. I felt this was an appropriate fit because it's the level Bill is at in his career; while the letter is professional it is also personal. Gordon and I did a final round of edits before submitting the final copy.

I think we started off strong as a group but had some challenges at the end. For technical reasons, I did not always receive Gordon's emails and edits. That made it a little difficult at the end getting the final document together. Collaborating through one medium (email) is challenging because we had no other way to contact one another. When collaborating in the workplace, you have more venues to collaborate through (email, telephone and in person), which gives one more flexibility.

Recommendation Letter for Bill Finch

July 2, 2009

Robert Hansen
District-Level Supervisor, Network Design

RE: Second-line Engineer Position

Dear Robert,

I am responding to your inquiry considering Bill Finch for the second-line engineer position. Currently, Bill is a customer services supervisor with a background as a first-line foreman. My experience working with Bill on our community improvement group has been positive. He’s a very active and dedicated community volunteer, serving in the Lions Club and on the YMCA Board of Directors.

With regards to Bill’s work ethic, he's known to be a team player and runs the best crew on site; consistently meeting objectives by a substantial margin. Bill’s personnel evaluation (10 months ago) points out his ability to retain good expense control and effectively meet safety objectives. For example, just last month, Bill was a key contributor at our family safety night event.

Although Bill has a great work ethic, his strong personality can challenge his ability to communicate effectively with co-workers. I don’t see this as a problem but rather a development opportunity. The business relationship coaching class offered in human resources would benefit Bill and help fine tune his skills. On a personal note, I feel it’s important to point out that Bill is also dealing with a difficult personal issue. His lovely wife Eloise has cancer and the prognosis is not good. However, even with the additional stress, Bill continues to produce exceptional team results.

With that said, I would recommend Bill Finch for the second-line engineer position. This would be a great opportunity for Bill and your group would acquire a dedicated, hard working engineer.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call, (860) 225-5252.

Sincerely,

Krystal Miarecki

Locker Article: Success v. Failures

This article was interesting to me because I have worked in the legal field for some time, both for a government agency and now a corporation. I have seen collaborations as discussed in the article similar to Group 1 and Group 2. Locker highlights the failures in Group 1 to include: power struggle, devaluing team members, poor communication, poor acceptance of criticism, individual not team effort, tasks defined as purely legal, viewed feedback/revisions negatively and lack of organizational culture. At one time or another, we have witnessed some or all of these failures. My employment in the government agency law department fit the decription of the autonomy 'Jim' felt attorneys should have. Attorneys worked on their cases individually, not sharing work effort with others and would only discuss cases with the general counsel if an issue arose. There was a certain 'attitude' amongst the attorneys, whereas, they felt they could 'handle' situations without the contribution of others. The tasks and writing here were narrowly defined and carried out as legal. Although that was the organizational culture of this agency and it usually worked most of the time.

Now that I work in a corporate law department it is interesting to watch the transition legal staff makes from private sector to corporate. Corporate culture is very different from private practice or a government agency. In corporations people collaborate all the time, or they at least try to. Locker discusses the success Group 2 had in their collaboration to include: flexibility, equal team contributions, genuinely cared for each other, good communication, planned and executed together, tasks and writing were defined and carried out broadly (legal / non-legal intentions), informed/educated the audience throught their writing, viewed revision process as a means to improve document and they were acclimated in their oranizational culture. Group 2 had a stellar team. While collaboration occurs regularly in corporations, I find it very challenging because you work with such a large group of people. These individuals are different via their cultures, methods of learning, work experience and the way in which they social interact with one another. I found that to have successful collaboration it helps if you know and understand who you are working with. In my work environment a problem I see is in communication with one another on issues outside of their own specialized areas. Working on a project, I will seldom get emails/correspondence that do not speak to the project group audience but rather to an individual area. People seem to struggle with broadening information to make the email/correspondence understandable and useful to all.

In regards to classroom collaboration, the difference I see is between standard full-time students and the adult learners. I have not had negative collaborations at the university but I have had better collaborations, usually with adult learners. I think that is to be expected considering the additional work and life experience they have. Most of them have learned to collaborate fairly efficiently at this point in life.