Ethics of teamwork  (Page 3/6)

Exercise 1: developing strategies for value realization

Directions

1. Identify value goals. Start with two or three. You can add or subtract from these as the semester progresses.
2. Give a brief description of each using terms that reflect your group's shared understandings. You may use the descriptions in this module or those in the ADEM Statement of Values but feel free to modify these to fit your group's context. You could also add characteristics and sample rules and aspirations.
3. For each value goal, identify and spell out a procedure for realizing it. See the examples just below for questions that can help you develop value procedures for values like justice and responsibility.

Examples

• Design a plan for realizing key moral values of team work. Your plan should address the following value-based tasks
• How does your group plan on realizing justice? For example, how will you assign tasks within the group that represent a fair distribution of the work load and, at the same time, recognize differences in individual strengths and weaknesses? How does your group plan on dealing with members who fail to do their fair share?
• How does your group plan on realizing responsibility? For example, what are the responsibilities that members will take on in the context of collective work? Who will be the leader? Who will play devil's advocate to avoid groupthink? Who will be the spokesperson for the group? How does your group plan to make clear to each individual his or her task or role responsibilities?
• How does your group plan on implementing the value of reasonableness? How will you guarantee that each individual participates fully in group decisions and activities? How will you deal with the differences, non-agreements, and disagreements that arise within the group? What process will your group use to reach agreement? How will your group insure that every individual has input, that each opinion will be heard and considered, and that each individual will be respected?
• How does your group plan on implementing the value of (academic) honesty? For example, how will you avoid cheating or plagiarism? How will you detect plagiarism from group members, and how will you respond to it?
• Note: Use your imagination here and be specific on how you plan to realize each value. Think preventively (how you plan on avoiding injustice, irresponsibility, injustice, and dishonesty) and proactively (how you can enhance these values). Don't be afraid to outline specific commitments. Expect some of your commitments to need reformulation. At the end of the semester, this will help you write the final report. Describe what worked, what did not work, and what you did to fix the latter.

Obstacles to group work (developed by chuck huff for good computing: a virtue approach to computer ethics)

1. The Abilene Paradox . "The story involves a family who would all rather have been at home that ends up having abad dinner in a lousy restaurant in Abilene, Texas. Each believes the others want to go to Abilene and never questions this by givingtheir own view that doing so is a bad idea. In the Abilene paradox, the group winds up doing something that no individual wants to dobecause of a breakdown of intra-group communication." (From Huff, Good Computing, an unpublished manuscript for a textbook in computer ethics. See materials from Janis; complete reference below.)
2. Groupthink . The tendency for very cohesive groups with strong leaders to disregard and defend againstinformation that goes against their plans and beliefs. The group collectively and the members individually remain loyal to the partyline while happily marching off the cliff, all the while blaming “them” (i.e., outsiders) for the height and situation of thecliff. (Also from Huff, Good Computing , an unpublished manuscript for a textbook in computer ethics.)
3. Group Polarization . Here, individuals within the group choose to frame their differences as disagreements.Framing a difference as non-agreement leaves open the possibility of working toward agreement by integrating the differences or bydeveloping a more comprehensive standpoint that dialectally synthesizes the differences. Framing a difference as disagreementmakes it a zero sum game; one’s particular side is good, all the others bad, and the only resolution is for the good (one’s ownposition) to win out over the bad (everything else). (Weston provides a nice account of group polarization in Practical Companion to Ethics. This is not to be confused with Cass Sunstein's different account of group polarization in Infotopia .)
4. Note: All of these are instances of a social psychological phenomenon called conformity. But there are otherprocesses at work too, like group identification, self-serving biases, self-esteem enhancement, self-fulfilling prophecies,etc.