Discussion: View Thread

Greetings!

I teach an MBA-level OB course. I assign a group project, which includes a
paper and presentation. All group members get the same grade on the
project. In addition, five percent of each student's final grade is based
on peer evaluation. The students use a BARS format instrument to evaluate
each member of the team on the following eight dimensions (0 to 100):

+ willingness to volunteer
+ ability to communicate verbally
+ listening/attentiveness
+ preparation
+ ability to work toward consensus
+ courtesy, tact, sense of humor
+ open-mindedness
+ ability to offer/accept criticism

The peer evaluation grade is based on these ratings. In addition to giving
each team member a numerical score, the students are requested to include a
paragraph on each person, describing the individual's contribution to the
team.

This is the dilemma:

In order to obtain truthful assessments of team members' behaviors, I feel
that the evaluations should remain confidential. I doubt students would say
anything negative about their classmates if the evaluations were not
confidential.

However, given that the peer evaluations are a part of a student's grade, I
also feel students should have the right to know how their final grade is
determined. I do let students know their average score, based on how they
were rated by the group, but I don't let them see the comments, or who gave
them what rating.

My question:

How do other faculty handle peer evaluations in their classrooms?

Denise Bane
Assistant Professor of Management
Baruch College, The City University of New York
Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net

Hello Denise

You have just described my BARS instrument that you are using in your classroom
(it first appeared in the Summer, 1985 issue of JME's predecessor, OBTR or The
Organizational Behavior Teaching Review)! I am very happy that you are having
some success with it and will share some of my experiences (and those of some of
my colleagues) over the past 12 years with it. First of all, I have now
upgraded it to a 10 dimension instrument and edited it for gender neutrality; I
will be happy to send it to you if you wish. Re your other points, I am a firm
believer in showing everyone the results of their classmates' feedback. This can
be done anonymously or for attribution. I generally do it anonymously except in
MBA classes that are focused on collaborative learning or teambuilding. I also
have students fill out a self-assessment using the same dimensions. AND I may
fill one out, too, or at least comment on each student's self-appraisal. I do
this at mid-term and at the end of the term. At mid-term, students must take
notes on their feedback and come up with at least 2 objectives to pursue in
connection with their participation for the second half of the term. At term's
end, they all see their classmates' results, but then I collect them and pass
back their final participation grade (usually 10-15% of their grade in OB
courses) with their final exams or projects. In a 25 student class, I average 1
student who overrates him/herself, and 1 who underrates her/himself in
comparison with what I think are appropriate ratings. I meet personally with any
students who seem to have totally miscalculated the effect of their
participation or non-participation. On balance, students take it pretty
seriously and seem to be honest with themselves and others, especially if I give
them a pep talk beforehand on the value of honest feedback and the fact that
they will rarely be in a position to get such honest concrete feedback from so
many peers again. I almost never have to censor any feedback. Just to cover your
worry about feedback honesty in terms of the exact numbers, I would tell
students that the numbers are advisory or are averaged in or combined with the
instructor's rating to determine the final participation grade. I have done lots
of other things with this instrument in connection with peer appraisal,
including mini-performance appraisals, face-to-face with adult students, but
this may be enough to spur your imagination on the subject! If anyone else is
interested in the updated survey, let me know....

Best,

Bill

Denise Bane wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> I teach an MBA-level OB course. I assign a group project, which includes a
> paper and presentation. All group members get the same grade on the
> project. In addition, five percent of each student's final grade is based
> on peer evaluation. The students use a BARS format instrument to evaluate
> each member of the team on the following eight dimensions (0 to 100):
>
> + willingness to volunteer
> + ability to communicate verbally
> + listening/attentiveness
> + preparation
> + ability to work toward consensus
> + courtesy, tact, sense of humor
> + open-mindedness
> + ability to offer/accept criticism
>
> The peer evaluation grade is based on these ratings. In addition to giving
> each team member a numerical score, the students are requested to include a
> paragraph on each person, describing the individual's contribution to the
> team.
>
> This is the dilemma:
>
> In order to obtain truthful assessments of team members' behaviors, I feel
> that the evaluations should remain confidential. I doubt students would say
> anything negative about their classmates if the evaluations were not
> confidential.
>
> However, given that the peer evaluations are a part of a student's grade, I
> also feel students should have the right to know how their final grade is
> determined. I do let students know their average score, based on how they
> were rated by the group, but I don't let them see the comments, or who gave
> them what rating.
>
> My question:
>
> How do other faculty handle peer evaluations in their classrooms?
>
> Denise Bane
> Assistant Professor of Management
> Baruch College, The City University of New York
> Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net



--
Bill Ferris
Professor of Management
Western New England College
Springfield, MA 01119

Phone: (413) 782-1629
Fax: (413) 796-2068
E-Mail: bferris@wnec.edu

Denise Bane wrote:
In addition to giving
> each team member a numerical score, the students are requested to include a
> paragraph on each person, describing the individual's contribution to the
> team.
>
> This is the dilemma:
>
> In order to obtain truthful assessments of team members' behaviors, I feel
> that the evaluations should remain confidential. I doubt students would say
> anything negative about their classmates if the evaluations were not
> confidential.
>
> However, given that the peer evaluations are a part of a student's grade, I
> also feel students should have the right to know how their final grade is
> determined. I do let students know their average score, based on how they
> were rated by the group, but I don't let them see the comments, or who gave
> them what rating.

Tom Sullivan here ...

While I think the peer feedback is an excellent idea, I would be
concerned about the influence of this subjective feedback on the grade.
The rating criteria is very subjective. I would be concerned on the
"value" placed on "how" one student might participate in the group's
project versus how another student might contribute.

One of things that I have really learned to appreciate in teams is that
everyone contributes differently. Their individual contribution is
largely depenedent on learning styles, personality differences, and
behavioral preferences. Again, I would worry about valuing one type of
participation versus another. How can a student know how to value such
differences and then rate them. The best they can do is rate another
person based on how they themselves would participate.

I have used a learning tool (Innovate with CARE Profile)that helps
members of the team learn and appreciate the various roles people play
on a team and to recognize the unique individual contributions. In
other words, some folks are not natural "creators" and therefore will
sit back and do more listening during the creating/brainstorming phase.
Others are better at refining the ideas and furthering them into a
reality.

Will your students know enought to "judge" one another's contribution?
Feedback is one thing. Grading is another. We should be careful not to
get the two confused. Grading states "right" or "wrong", "less" or
"more". Feedback is a subjective report on what others have observed
and how they experienced anothers behavior from their postion.

If you would like more information on the Profile, I'd be happy to
provide you with information.

Tom Sullivan, M.P.A. TRAINER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF
Learning and Training Specialist CARLSON LEARNING COMPANY PRODUCTS
Professional Growth Associates http://www.carlsonlearning.com
P.O. Box 453, Library, PA 15129
412-835-7341 email pga@bellatlantic.net

My solution to the peer evaluation dilemma is as follows:

1. Don't do peer evaluations. Use exercises that give each
student an objective score.

2. If you can't do #1 (You usually can if you look search hard
enough for the right exercise.), then evaluate the students
yourself. If you can't but your students can, that says something
you don't want to hear.

3. If you can't do either #1 or #2, then intersperse your judgment
between the students' peer evaluations and their grades, and TELL
THEM THAT. Tell them that they should not expect a defined link
between their peer evaluations and the participation scores YOU assign.
If they don't like their participation scores, they can challenge
your judgment. Definitely don't link peer evaluations to grades
by a formula. I used to do that, until a bunch of students wised up
and colluded to get what they wanted. Those kids are smart! Don't
give them a chance or some of them some day will get you. I
got burned; I learned. You can learn from my mistake.

Precha Thavikulwat, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Dept. of Management |
| Towson University ~\\ ~\ |
| Towson, MD 21252 ~\\\ \\ |
| USA \\ \ |
| Telephone: 410-830-3230 ~ ~ |
| Fax: 410-830-3236 |
| E-mail, message only: pthavikulwat@towson.edu |
| E-mail, with attachment: precha@saber.towson.edu |
| URL: http://www.towson.edu/~precha |
+---------------------------------------------------+

In response to Denise Bane, I find myself at the opposite pole from Tom
Sullivan. Much depends on your environment; many of my traditional,
undergraduate students come into my Management and Organizational
Behavior course more interested in 1) each other and 2) grades than they
are in the subject matter or in what I have to say. I believe that
management begins with reality. Since peers and grades are most real to
them, I delegate grading. Furthermore, I have them do a lot of grading
and require almost all grading to be done by rank order, no ties
allowed.

Some aspects of this system are described in "Experience Base" Learning:
A Classroom-as-Organization Using Delegated, Rank-Order Grading" (Jrnl.
of Management Education; vol 16, #2, May '92).

My students grade each other because they teach each other, so they are
not rank ordering solely on contribution to the work group. Tom asks,
"Will your students know enough to 'judge' one another's contribution?"
Yes, because they are looking for rather specific behavior. But more
important to me are vitality and reality which peer ranking brings.
Sure, there are problems with fairness. The students deal with them,
nose to nose.

Peer grading puts tremendous pressure on students, more pressure than
they will feel from their reference group at work. Like boot camp, my
class puts them through an experience tougher in some ways than what
they will face in the work world. In my department, for instance, we
could not come close to evaluating each other's work as professors.
Traditional undergrads, to their credit, are usually willing to undergo
this experience. It becomes a rite of passage; they end up being proud
of being able to evaluate each other face-to-face.

I have come to see organizations differently by teaching this way.
Evaluation in the work world, as I now see it, has been delegated upward
(abdicated) to management not because peers cannot do it (Tom's concern)
but because employees - WE - are petrified of hearing the truth from our
peers.

Roger Putzel
St. Michael's College

I used peer evaluation as part of my courses for more than 22 years (I'm
now retired from university classroom instruction). Originally I just asked
students to "give each other feedback." I would review this feedback and
make a subjective judgment as to the degree such feedback might have an
impact on the final grade. The feedback was used, in part, to determine the
grade of both persons involved in the feedback: both the student giving the
feedback and the student receiving the feedback.

What I learned during the first few times I tried peer feedback is that
there were two key factors that influenced its success or effectiveness.
The first factor was the degree to which students giving feedback had
concrete, specific criteria they could use to give feedback, and the second
factor was the degree to which the students receiving the feedback were in
control of what they wanted feedback about. The system I developed with the
help of the students worked very well, eliminated any sense of threat
(although it could create strong feelings and reactions), and was viewed by
the students as both challenging and informative.

Here is how it worked. First students were asked what areas of their work
they wanted feedback on from the instructor and their peers. They were then
asked to construct some type of evaluative scale or continuum that would
help another person give them feedback in the area(s) they chose. They were
then asked to select two other people in the course that they could
exchange feedback with. Their task was to then "teach" the other two how to
actually carry out the feedback (what the criteria were, what level of
accomplishment the person was hoping to achieve) and any other things
necessary to make their peers "experts" in giving feedback in that area).

The students did not give each other "grades." They gave each other
feedback. Even if a student opted to use the "letter grade" system as a set
of criteria, they had to "teach" their peers how to judge whether a
particular work, action, or product was worthy of an "A", "B," etc.

When the students gathered the feedback from their peers, they then
prepared a brief report summarzing the feedback, providing their own
assessment, in part, based on the feedback, and then turned the results in
to me (along with their work portfolios, etc.). In most cases the student
assessment and my assessment were identical. This wasn't the case when I
first started out, just being vague about "giving feedback." Students also
reported a higher degree of satisfaction with the grading procedure,
including students who received lower grades than they "wanted."


***********************************************************************
Peer Resources is Canada's Leading Authority
on Peer Program Development and Mentoring for Schools and Business

Rey A. Carr, Ph.D. Tel: (250) 595-3503
1052 Davie Street Fax: (250) 595-3504
Victoria, British Columbia V8S 4E3 e-mail: rcarr@islandnet.com
Peer Resources: http://www.islandnet.com/~rcarr/peer.html
Directory of Healing Arts: http://www.islandnet.com/helpful/Index.html

Denise,
I'm a Faculty Associate (part-time faculty) at Johns Hopkins and I also
use a peer evaluation in the Case Studies Practicum OD/HRD course I
teach. At mid-term the team does a team check-in discussion. I give
them a team assessment scale (I think one from one of the UA/Pfeiffer
Annuals) which they complete and discuss as a team in class. We spend
time discussing forming, storming, etc. I also encourage each team to
Walk their Talk by establishing their own group norms/ground rules at
their first meeting and revisit/revise them as needed. All of which
seems to help in giving feedback throughout the team experience.

The final peer evaluation is done confidentially at the last class
meeting. It is worth 10 points of the final grade. I use an instrument
adapted from my former boss, Dr. Larry Nash. It is simple and seems to
address the major functions/issues of the team. It has only 5
categories:
* helped to keep the group cohesive
* contributed useful ideas & analysis
* quantity of work done
* quality of work done
* attendance, punctuality & participation

(I want to check out the instrument you are using though.)

Students give themselves and their team mates a numerical score which
corresponds to Hopkins' letter grades for each category. The scores are
averaged. They must also have written comments to support each score.
The evaluations are confidential (I try to have the team members not
even be in the same room while completing it. That is the same policy
JHU uses for students doing a faculty eval. also. If a student would
ask I would share the scores, but not the comments nor the rater's
name. If the peer evaluation affects an individual's final grade--and I
were asked--I would probably paraphrase/summarize the comments as well.

However, I also typically do some class and group exercises throughout
the course and at the last session to encourage feedback to team
members, other teams, and to me. I don't think there are many surprises
in the peer evaluations. The teams also get feedback on their final
project (a proposal) and presentation from a panel of outside experts.
Students are probably on feedback overload by the end of the semester.

I've found the mid-semester team check-in to be very helpful and would
not do a final peer eval without that process. It seems to surface
issues before they come up at the end of the course. I also require
student learning logs/journals so I am typically aware if a team or team
members are having troubles or could use some assistance. I also try to
make sure I have smaller team assignments submitted throughout the
course so the team doesn't get all of their feedback from me at the end
of the semester. That also gives me some sense of how well the team is
doing. In-class presentations (individual or team) are debriefed openly
in class. I might use plus/delta or have each student/team specify what
they would like feedback on prior to a presentation. These are also
practice sessions for how to give feedback to a client.

One of the benefits from peer evaluation is that the students get to see
how difficult grading is. JHU uses a grading system with plus and minus
and I watch students struggle deciding between A- or B+. (My brief
moment of getting some empathy.)

Sorry for such a long-winded response to your brief question. Is the
evaluation you use copyrighted? Can I get more info on it?

Susie
--
H. Susie Coddington, Ph.D., Coddington Learning Co.
410.992.9563 hsusie@erols.com
LEARNING NEVER ENDS . . .

Thomas J. Sullivan wrote:

> Denise Bane wrote:
> In addition to giving
> > each team member a numerical score, the students are requested to include a
> > paragraph on each person, describing the individual's contribution to the
> > team.
> >
> > This is the dilemma:
> >
> > In order to obtain truthful assessments of team members' behaviors, I feel
> > that the evaluations should remain confidential. I doubt students would say
> > anything negative about their classmates if the evaluations were not
> > confidential.
> >
> > However, given that the peer evaluations are a part of a student's grade, I
> > also feel students should have the right to know how their final grade is
> > determined. I do let students know their average score, based on how they
> > were rated by the group, but I don't let them see the comments, or who gave
> > them what rating.
>
> Tom Sullivan here ...
>
> While I think the peer feedback is an excellent idea, I would be
> concerned about the influence of this subjective feedback on the grade.
> The rating criteria is very subjective. I would be concerned on the
> "value" placed on "how" one student might participate in the group's
> project versus how another student might contribute.
>

Hi,Jim Dobbins here. One of the things I find missing on most of the student
evaluations of either peers or teachers is a valid criteria for evaluation.
Just joined the group, so please excuse me if you have already covered
this. The criteria has to go beyond just a category or kind of thing against
which the person is evaluated (like quality of slides, spelling, demeanor, etc.)
but the underlying understanding of what each of these *should* be has to
be understood. If a student says someone did or did not do a good job
on some task, how subjective are they being, and against what criteria is
the judgment made? The evaluation may be subjective to an extent, but
the criteria should not be; the criteria should be well understood and as
objective as possible. There should be a clear understanding of what a
"good" or "excellent" job means.

> One of things that I have really learned to appreciate in teams is that
> everyone contributes differently. Their individual contribution is
> largely depenedent on learning styles, personality differences, and
> behavioral preferences. Again, I would worry about valuing one type of
> participation versus another. How can a student know how to value such
> differences and then rate them. The best they can do is rate another
> person based on how they themselves would participate.
>
> I have used a learning tool (Innovate with CARE Profile)that helps
> members of the team learn and appreciate the various roles people play
> on a team and to recognize the unique individual contributions. In
> other words, some folks are not natural "creators" and therefore will
> sit back and do more listening during the creating/brainstorming phase.
> Others are better at refining the ideas and furthering them into a
> reality.

I have also seen many coast an dlet others carry the load, and thus bringdown the
whole team "grade". This may be something against which the
loafer is graded, and may influence future assignments, but that doesn't
help the current other team members who all suffer as a result, with little
hope of recognition of their own individual contribution, for they are
identified with the team project; you know, the one that "bombed".

>
>
> Will your students know enought to "judge" one another's contribution?
> Feedback is one thing. Grading is another. We should be careful not to
> get the two confused. Grading states "right" or "wrong", "less" or
> "more". Feedback is a subjective report on what others have observed
> and how they experienced anothers behavior from their postion.
>
> If you would like more information on the Profile, I'd be happy to
> provide you with information.
>
> Tom Sullivan, M.P.A. TRAINER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF
> Learning and Training Specialist CARLSON LEARNING COMPANY PRODUCTS
> Professional Growth Associates http://www.carlsonlearning.com
> P.O. Box 453, Library, PA 15129
> 412-835-7341 email pga@bellatlantic.net

Jim Dobbins
associate dean
Defense Systems Management College

In response to the following comments from Precha Thavikulwat (this is only
part of Precha's response):

>My solution to the peer evaluation dilemma is as follows:
>
>1. Don't do peer evaluations. Use exercises that give each
>student an objective score.
>
>2. If you can't do #1 (You usually can if you look search hard
>enough for the right exercise.), then evaluate the students
>yourself. If you can't but your students can, that says something
>you don't want to hear.

I should have mentioned in my original post that my OB class has 60 students
in it. That is part of the reason I feel it is necessary to rely - in
part - on peer evaluations. I cannot always make a just evaluation of every
student, because it is impossible for me to keep up with the group
contributions of every student in a class of 60.

Also, even in small classes, I still believe in the importance of peer
evaluations. I can evaluate participation in the classroom, but I think it
is important for students to realize that they have a responsibility to each
other, as well as to me.

Are others using peer evaluations with large-size classes?

Denise Bane
Assistant Professor of Management
Baruch College, The City University of New York
Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net

I really appreciate the thoughtful ideas about the pluses and minuses
about peer evaluation in the class room. I am particularly struck with
the comment that we expect the students to do what we as a faculty fail to
do, namely give each other feedback on our performance. What I have been
doing in courses which has helped the peer evaluation dynamic is to
average the individual scores of everyone on the team and the average is
the score for everyone, so if there are four people on a team and in their
exercises, exams and so forth, two people get a 95 and two people get an
85 everybody gets a 90 for the exam or exercise. Then what happens is the
"better students" teach the others so that their grade improves. As a
consequence, it becomes clear who is making the greatest contribution to
the team. It also fits what is going on in many organizations today
where team performance is rewarded more than individual performance.

Peace,

Harry

Harry J. Bury, Ph.D.
Baldwin Wallace College
275 Eastland Road
Berea, OH 44017-2088

Tel: (216) 826-2395
Fax: (216) 826-3868

E-Mail: hbury@bw.edu

Hi,

Like others I'm curious to know what criteria your students are using
throughout the review? Is it based on how they (as individuals) feel
about the contribution etc. of other students? If so, how can the
subjectivity of this be measured and weighted when, for example, 30
students give feedback leaning one way and the remaining 29 give
feedback leaning the other? What if there are 59 different opinions -
which has primacy? Yours? What weighting will your opinion have when a
number (anything from 2 or 3 upwards would, to me, be a significant
number) of others might see things differently?

Also, if you have 60 students, there are over 350 separate feedback
reviews that you have to go through. How in heaven's name do you do
this? If you don't have time to do 60 yourself, how do you go through so
many that others do with any certainty that what you come up with is
going to be valid and reliable? If there is some process whereby these
can be sped up by chunking responses (eg, computer scanned, key word
search etc.), what allowance is made for issues throughout the feedback
that can't fit into the particular categorisation used?

Finally, as an overall rating, how do you maintain reliability of
outcome from year to year? For example, how do you determine the worth
of a student's contribution this year when the same person may have been
rated differently last year - or would be rated differently next year?
And what of the student we all hate - the average student who does
his/her work well, doesn't hassle or make waves, is content with the
overall processes, and passes with little fuss or fuddle? If you and I,
as professionals, have trouble providing feedback on this type of
person, how will 59 non-professionals do this - year after year?

Sorry to be dumping so heavily on what must be a perfectly good system
for your environment. I'd love to know how it works - not so that I can
do it (I agree with many of the contra arguments) but so that I can have
a better understanding of why others might want to.

PHIL RUTHERFORD
robnphil@ozemail.com.au




Denise Bane wrote:
>
> In response to the following comments from Precha Thavikulwat (this is only
> part of Precha's response):
>
> >My solution to the peer evaluation dilemma is as follows:
> >
> >1. Don't do peer evaluations. Use exercises that give each
> >student an objective score.
> >
> >2. If you can't do #1 (You usually can if you look search hard
> >enough for the right exercise.), then evaluate the students
> >yourself. If you can't but your students can, that says something
> >you don't want to hear.
>
> I should have mentioned in my original post that my OB class has 60 students
> in it. That is part of the reason I feel it is necessary to rely - in
> part - on peer evaluations. I cannot always make a just evaluation of every
> student, because it is impossible for me to keep up with the group
> contributions of every student in a class of 60.
>
> Also, even in small classes, I still believe in the importance of peer
> evaluations. I can evaluate participation in the classroom, but I think it
> is important for students to realize that they have a responsibility to each
> other, as well as to me.
>
> Are others using peer evaluations with large-size classes?
>
> Denise Bane
> Assistant Professor of Management
> Baruch College, The City University of New York
> Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net

Harry Bury writes:


>What I have been
>doing in courses which has helped the peer evaluation dynamic is to
>average the individual scores of everyone on the team and the average is
>the score for everyone, so if there are four people on a team and in their
>exercises, exams and so forth, two people get a 95 and two people get an
>85 everybody gets a 90 for the exam or exercise. Then what happens is the
>"better students" teach the others so that their grade improves. As a
>consequence, it becomes clear who is making the greatest contribution to
>the team. . . .

What if you have one student who doesn't want to get an A, and is happy with
a B (or even a C). Sometimes students just want to pass the class--they are
not trying for high marks. Why should "A" students be punished when others
choose not to study?

This is not an attack of your system. I think that it is a good idea, but I
wonder how to overcome this issue.

Denise Bane
Assistant Professor of Management
Baruch College, The City University of New York

Phil Rutherford wrote:

>. . . if you have 60 students, there are over 350 separate feedback
>reviews that you have to go through. How in heaven's name do you do
>this? If you don't have time to do 60 yourself, how do you go through so
>many that others do with any certainty that what you come up with is
>going to be valid and reliable? If there is some process whereby these
>can be sped up by chunking responses (eg, computer scanned, key word
>search etc.), what allowance is made for issues throughout the feedback
>that can't fit into the particular categorisation used?


The 60 students are divided into 10 groups of 6. The students work in the
same group (which I assign) all semester, both on a semester-long project
(paper & presentation) and in group exercises. I use an experiential-based
learning format, so they are working with their groups at least one class a
week. As a result, they are able to assess who is coming to class prepared,
who is contributing to group decisions, who has added quantitatively and
qualitatively to the group project, etc.

In my course, we have a lot of discussions. I know the quality and quantity
of comments made by those students who participate in these discussions, but
I don't want to punish those students who do not feel comfortable sharing
their ideas with everyone in a large classroom setting. In particular, I
have a largly international student body, with many students who come from
cultures where they are not expected to talk in class.

Working in groups gives students the opportunity to share their opinions,
and gives their team members an opportunity to assess their participation
(and the other criteria I mentioned earlier).

Denise Bane
Assistant Professor of Management
Baruch College, The City University of New York
Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net

One way to overcome the issue of slackers on a team--those who just want
to pass the course, for example--is to allow a team to fire a member who
is not pulling their weight. I announce that a team may fire someone and
if I approve, that person will flunk the course. That gets their
attention.
Dick

Dick Dailey
Department of Management
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812-1216 BIG SKY COUNTRY!!
406 243 6644/Voice-Office
406 549 6876/Voice-Home Office
406 243 2086/Fax
rtd@selway.umt.edu

We mirror the business world. They can fire, they must identify each
members work in their written materials and they can not "pay" all equally.
John

At 01:08 PM 12/14/97 -0700, you wrote:
>One way to overcome the issue of slackers on a team--those who just want
>to pass the course, for example--is to allow a team to fire a member who
>is not pulling their weight. I announce that a team may fire someone and
>if I approve, that person will flunk the course. That gets their
>attention.
>Dick
>
>Dick Dailey
>Department of Management
>University of Montana
>Missoula, MT 59812-1216 BIG SKY COUNTRY!!
>406 243 6644/Voice-Office
>406 549 6876/Voice-Home Office
>406 243 2086/Fax
>rtd@selway.umt.edu
>
>



John Sullivan
San Francisco State University

Professor and HR Program Coordinator

Richard Dailey wrote:


>One way to overcome the issue of slackers on a team--those who just want
>to pass the course, for example--is to allow a team to fire a member who
>is not pulling their weight. I announce that a team may fire someone and
>if I approve, that person will flunk the course. That gets their
>attention.


Have you ever had to enforce this?

Denise Bane
Assistant Professor of Management
Baruch College, The City University of New York
Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net

Denise Bane wrote:

> Richard Dailey wrote:
>
> >One way to overcome the issue of slackers on a team--those who just want
> >to pass the course, for example--is to allow a team to fire a member who
> >is not pulling their weight. I announce that a team may fire someone and
> >if I approve, that person will flunk the course. That gets their
> >attention.
>
> Have you ever had to enforce this?
>
> Denise Bane
> Assistant Professor of Management
> Baruch College, The City University of New York
> Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net

Many people have such rules for "divorce" and firing in their courses. I have
had groups "fire" a group member approved by me and while the students didn't
all get an F (at least one did), they did poorly, having received no or
little credit for team/groupwork. Usually, slackers pick up the pace
considerably as their teammates move toward resolution of dysfunctional
situation and the group works it out. The worst thing, I think, is not to
let a group go through the storming process on their own. It's only an
extreme case that would result in severance.


--
Bill Ferris
Professor of Management
Western New England College
Springfield, MA 01119

Phone: (413) 782-1629
Fax: (413) 796-2068
E-Mail: bferris@wnec.edu

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Denise Bane wrote:

> Richard Dailey wrote:
>
>
> >One way to overcome the issue of slackers on a team--those who just want
> >to pass the course, for example--is to allow a team to fire a member who
> >is not pulling their weight. I announce that a team may fire someone and
> >if I approve, that person will flunk the course. That gets their
> >attention.
>
>
> Have you ever had to enforce this?
>
> Denise Bane
> Assistant Professor of Management
> Baruch College, The City University of New York
> Denise-Bane@worldnet.att.net
>
Fortunately, no, and I hope I never have to.
Dick

Dick Dailey
Department of Management
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812-1216 BIG SKY COUNTRY!!
406 243 6644/Voice-Office
406 549 6876/Voice-Home Office
406 243 2086/Fax
rtd@selway.umt.edu

Dear Denise,

I can concur with the responses of the others to this issue. First of all,
I explain the pinch theory, so that team members clarify their
expectations up front. Then, people choose their team members knowing
that people are out to get an A, B, or C (unless they lie). Then, the
team has the right to fire a member if they simply do not cooperate.
Rarely does that happen. But it has occured a few times and just last
week in the Executive MBA program the person involved just did not have
her life together well enough to make all the meetings or contribute her
share. One of us professors facilitated the meeting of the team and in
the end she dropped out of the program. In our EMBA program people can't
continue if they are not part of a team. In the regular MBA they could,
but as indicated by one of the other responders, they will loose points
for not participating with the team and the next course they can try to
find a different team. There is no panacea but the process itself raises
issues that are often found in the work place and effective discussions
follow. I am still experimenting with this concept and I have a lot to
learn.
Thanks for asking, Denise.

Peace and Love,

Harry



On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Denise Bane wrote:
> What if you have one student who doesn't want to get an A, and is happy with
> a B (or even a C). Sometimes students just want to pass the class--they are
> not trying for high marks. Why should "A" students be punished when others
> choose not to study?
>
> This is not an attack of your system. I think that it is a good idea, but I
> wonder how to overcome this issue.
>
> Denise Bane
> Assistant Professor of Management
> Baruch College, The City University of New York
>

Harry J. Bury, Ph.D.
Baldwin Wallace College
275 Eastland Road
Berea, OH 44017-2088

Tel: (216) 826-2395
Fax: (216) 826-3868

E-Mail: hbury@bw.edu