First of all, I thought your presentation was very interesting (not to mention you did a nice job aesthetically, matching each speakers shirt with the color of their slide). I felt that your topic was a very useful one in the context of employment. I could definitely see it applied in creating some form of leader selection through online tasks. I found it interesting that more words did not suggest a higher leader score, as well as that the emerging condition groups came to a consensus more often. I was not surprised however, when you found that the emerging leader often was not rated as the most "leader-like". One explanation for this that I wondered about, which I mentioned to you in class, was that a natural leader in the group surfaced by themselves, without being told, simply because of their personality. I think you might see some interesting additions to your results if you analyzed some of the conversations individually. Other than that, I thought you guys did a great job, and your experiment sounded really fun. I would have loved to participate in one of the groups. Keep up the good work!
I am going to agree with Jason that this is a very interesting topic. First, I would just like to say that I am impressed with how many participants you were able to recruit in such a short period of time. I have always been interested in how leaders emerge and whether or not every person has the capabilities of being a leader. Some people are just better at it than others. Virtual leadership is often even more challenging than leading a group in person. This might even relate to the infrahumanization group in this sense and explain why the emerging leader you assigned was often not seen as very leader-like. Overall, I enjoyed your presentation and wish you luck in finishing your research and paper.
First off, great job with the PowerPoint. Appearance is obviously everything. Just kidding. But seriously, I think you guys really have caught on to something here. I’m very interested in pursuing a career in the consulting field and I think this could have important ramification to that sort of profession where workers are only called in temporarily to complete a given project or have to consult with a work group. Many times, due to travelling or various other reasons, a consultant isn’t able to be physically present for the duration of his stay with a given company. He is then forced to communicate and collaborate virtually. If he is established as the leader of a project, is he more likely to receive cooperation on behalf of the workers he’s delegating responsibility to than if he were just one of the team members himself? These sorts of real world implications would be great as suggestions for further research, especially since I can see this topic heavily applying to the professional sphere.
Your presentation was very well organized and coherent, which made understanding the differences between leaders and non-leaders as well as assigned leaders and emergent leaders an easy process. I was surprised to learn that leaders (both assigned and emergent) did not use more pronouns such as “I” and “we”, especially after our data collection from the status emails we had analyzed earlier in the semester. The data from the emails suggested higher status people (i.e. leaders) used more pronouns, but that turned out not to be the case in your study. In terms of future research, I liked what Kyle said in response to Professor Hancock’s question about the broader implications of this study, which talked about conducting a study in which no leader is acknowledged. This would establish a strong comparison to the other groups in which there was an assigned or emergent leader.
I agree with earlier comments that your presentation and findings could be extremely informative for a variety of professions and forms of virtual teams. I would have liked for you to elaborate more on how your findings inspire new design implications for online communication tools that facilitate virtual teams. I think that beyond examining language use to distinguish leaders in a virtual group, determining how people in that group judge each others' expertise in their respective fields would be extremely interesting. During the question and answer session, someone mentioned virtual teams of individuals from diverse educational backgrounds and professions. How can language use be employed to judge each member’s expertise?
Great presentation. The biggest surprise for me is that you didn't see support for more of your hypotheses because they seemed logical and well thought out. I thought you had a really clever experimental design. The main thing I kept thinking about was that leaders, at least in most contexts we encounter them, have some form of authority -- to reward or sanction their followers. I think adding that to your study design may be a good idea.
I loved your presentation! I've done a lot of group work this semester, and I've become really interested in how people end up being leaders. Especially people with take-charge attitudes. It makes me wonder how people become leaders without any such appointment. Did you have a condition, or has anyone studied a condition, in which no one was told that anyone was the leader, and then at the end they got to rate who they considered the leader? I would be interested to see what kind of language was used as a leader really did develop over time, without any appointment like the ones you gave. And likewise, how the language used there would differ from the condition in which someone was told they were the leader.
What an interesting topic! Your presentation reminded me of the article we read back in the beginning of the semester about the differences between leaders in f2f and cmc. Work related communication on computer’s is even more prevalent in today’s world. The internet has allowed companies all over the world to connect making physical co-presence unnecessary. However, I’m sure some company’s communication has changed substantially (or even suffered) as a result of this shift. Therefore, I’m sure your research will be extremely useful in the real world to help companies adjust and improve their communication. I’m excited to see what else you continue to find so that you can really expand on your implications for future design!
Ishan Chellaney - At the outset, it was apparent that your group had a well-researched and well-organized presentation. I particularly like your usage of varied color schemes to underline key relationships between categories and numbers. The implications of your work are profound, especially within the framework of outsourcing in today's global business landscape. A suggestion would be to concentrate on this underlying implication in that there is a growing trend of espousing flat hierarchy as opposed to the traditional organizational structure. Exploring this tenous balance between the varied lines of authority and communication can add to the overall implications of your findings.
Great presentation. It was clear you spent a lot of time on your slides, and we, the audience, really benefitted. I especially liked the outline at the top. I also liked the straight forward design of your experiment. Results are always most interesting when there is only a small change between the control and experimental condition. It was also really interesting that there was a negative correlation between word count and leadership rating. I wonder if the leaders were doing more delegating than actual work. My only critique is that I would have liked to see p values rather than just means on your results, but I recognize you may not have done the statistical analysis yet.
One thing I thought was great about your presentation was how so many of your hypotheses were wrong. At first it was kind of funny, but I think that will end up working in your favor because it means you guys actually found some interesting things! So good work at being wrong! I was curious to see how your results would have been different had you not disclosed the assigned leader to the entire group.
You guys had a really great aesthetic thing going on. Your experiment also has very clear independent and dependent variables, and you did a great job of communicating them with us. Your hypotheses seemed very well-researched, as well. I would be interested in seeing a group that really did have an emergent leader, rather than simply a leader that was assigned but not disclosed; I think that would actually give some very pertinent insights into the language of leaders.
First of all, I thought your presentation was very interesting (not to mention you did a nice job aesthetically, matching each speakers shirt with the color of their slide). I felt that your topic was a very useful one in the context of employment. I could definitely see it applied in creating some form of leader selection through online tasks. I found it interesting that more words did not suggest a higher leader score, as well as that the emerging condition groups came to a consensus more often. I was not surprised however, when you found that the emerging leader often was not rated as the most "leader-like". One explanation for this that I wondered about, which I mentioned to you in class, was that a natural leader in the group surfaced by themselves, without being told, simply because of their personality. I think you might see some interesting additions to your results if you analyzed some of the conversations individually. Other than that, I thought you guys did a great job, and your experiment sounded really fun. I would have loved to participate in one of the groups. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteI am going to agree with Jason that this is a very interesting topic. First, I would just like to say that I am impressed with how many participants you were able to recruit in such a short period of time. I have always been interested in how leaders emerge and whether or not every person has the capabilities of being a leader. Some people are just better at it than others. Virtual leadership is often even more challenging than leading a group in person. This might even relate to the infrahumanization group in this sense and explain why the emerging leader you assigned was often not seen as very leader-like. Overall, I enjoyed your presentation and wish you luck in finishing your research and paper.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great job with the PowerPoint. Appearance is obviously everything. Just kidding. But seriously, I think you guys really have caught on to something here. I’m very interested in pursuing a career in the consulting field and I think this could have important ramification to that sort of profession where workers are only called in temporarily to complete a given project or have to consult with a work group. Many times, due to travelling or various other reasons, a consultant isn’t able to be physically present for the duration of his stay with a given company. He is then forced to communicate and collaborate virtually. If he is established as the leader of a project, is he more likely to receive cooperation on behalf of the workers he’s delegating responsibility to than if he were just one of the team members himself? These sorts of real world implications would be great as suggestions for further research, especially since I can see this topic heavily applying to the professional sphere.
ReplyDeleteYour presentation was very well organized and coherent, which made understanding the differences between leaders and non-leaders as well as assigned leaders and emergent leaders an easy process. I was surprised to learn that leaders (both assigned and emergent) did not use more pronouns such as “I” and “we”, especially after our data collection from the status emails we had analyzed earlier in the semester. The data from the emails suggested higher status people (i.e. leaders) used more pronouns, but that turned out not to be the case in your study. In terms of future research, I liked what Kyle said in response to Professor Hancock’s question about the broader implications of this study, which talked about conducting a study in which no leader is acknowledged. This would establish a strong comparison to the other groups in which there was an assigned or emergent leader.
ReplyDeleteI agree with earlier comments that your presentation and findings could be extremely informative for a variety of professions and forms of virtual teams. I would have liked for you to elaborate more on how your findings inspire new design implications for online communication tools that facilitate virtual teams. I think that beyond examining language use to distinguish leaders in a virtual group, determining how people in that group judge each others' expertise in their respective fields would be extremely interesting. During the question and answer session, someone mentioned virtual teams of individuals from diverse educational backgrounds and professions. How can language use be employed to judge each member’s expertise?
ReplyDeleteGreat presentation. The biggest surprise for me is that you didn't see support for more of your hypotheses because they seemed logical and well thought out. I thought you had a really clever experimental design. The main thing I kept thinking about was that leaders, at least in most contexts we encounter them, have some form of authority -- to reward or sanction their followers. I think adding that to your study design may be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI loved your presentation! I've done a lot of group work this semester, and I've become really interested in how people end up being leaders. Especially people with take-charge attitudes. It makes me wonder how people become leaders without any such appointment. Did you have a condition, or has anyone studied a condition, in which no one was told that anyone was the leader, and then at the end they got to rate who they considered the leader? I would be interested to see what kind of language was used as a leader really did develop over time, without any appointment like the ones you gave. And likewise, how the language used there would differ from the condition in which someone was told they were the leader.
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting topic! Your presentation reminded me of the article we read back in the beginning of the semester about the differences between leaders in f2f and cmc. Work related communication on computer’s is even more prevalent in today’s world. The internet has allowed companies all over the world to connect making physical co-presence unnecessary. However, I’m sure some company’s communication has changed substantially (or even suffered) as a result of this shift. Therefore, I’m sure your research will be extremely useful in the real world to help companies adjust and improve their communication. I’m excited to see what else you continue to find so that you can really expand on your implications for future design!
ReplyDeleteIshan Chellaney - At the outset, it was apparent that your group had a well-researched and well-organized presentation. I particularly like your usage of varied color schemes to underline key relationships between categories and numbers. The implications of your work are profound, especially within the framework of outsourcing in today's global business landscape. A suggestion would be to concentrate on this underlying implication in that there is a growing trend of espousing flat hierarchy as opposed to the traditional organizational structure. Exploring this tenous balance between the varied lines of authority and communication can add to the overall implications of your findings.
ReplyDeleteGreat presentation. It was clear you spent a lot of time on your slides, and we, the audience, really benefitted. I especially liked the outline at the top. I also liked the straight forward design of your experiment. Results are always most interesting when there is only a small change between the control and experimental condition. It was also really interesting that there was a negative correlation between word count and leadership rating. I wonder if the leaders were doing more delegating than actual work. My only critique is that I would have liked to see p values rather than just means on your results, but I recognize you may not have done the statistical analysis yet.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I thought was great about your presentation was how so many of your hypotheses were wrong. At first it was kind of funny, but I think that will end up working in your favor because it means you guys actually found some interesting things! So good work at being wrong! I was curious to see how your results would have been different had you not disclosed the assigned leader to the entire group.
ReplyDeleteYou guys had a really great aesthetic thing going on. Your experiment also has very clear independent and dependent variables, and you did a great job of communicating them with us. Your hypotheses seemed very well-researched, as well. I would be interested in seeing a group that really did have an emergent leader, rather than simply a leader that was assigned but not disclosed; I think that would actually give some very pertinent insights into the language of leaders.
ReplyDelete