Talk:Crews
Jump to New / Older / Archive. Note: issues with the site as a whole can be registered in list of current issues
New
The current text is weak on identity and the ritual that supports the person taking on the identity associated with a role - needs further development and elaboration - --Gregbtalk 11:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
ritual
A thought just occurred: I cannot immediately think of any crews who do not wear a uniform/certain type of clothing when in role - if this is the case, it links to the difference between crews and teams (which appears to have been tricky delineation) in a very overt way... might this hold water? Davina (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is the case for many traditional uses of crews but doesn't hold for the cases in the field guide - see the examples listed --Gregbtalk 09:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Crews in recreational dinghy sailing may end up with rituals... but is that any different to the way individuals end up with ritualised approaches to things? I suggest we focus on ritual as something those developing crews may want to leverage ---- Singleblade✆✉ 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there's any real difficulty in delineating a crew from a team. The crew is based on commitment to interacting based on wearing role-based-hats which come with key expectations (accepting that individuals can wear multiple hats but without reference to who is wearing the hat). The team is what we get (to a greater or lesser extent) as people's commitments to seeing things through together reach a point where the those concerned each start investing their sense of who they are as individuals. ---- Singleblade✆✉ 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
risk
Connected with the above, is the tight nature of a crew directly connected to attitudes to risk mitigation (arguably a way of controlling possible outcomes when mission command is perceived as being about control rather than trust but also an almost muscle memory, deeply rehearsed type approach to situations which might otherwise induce panic and thus chaos) - roles are highly constrained with little room for manoeuvre where individual choice within them is limited and very much regulated and "by the book"... Davina (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- If we're going to stay coherently within naturalising sense-making, don't we need to focus on the reality of how tight or loose (or how deeply rehearsed, or how highly constrained) a crew might be rather than on some idealised form? ---- Singleblade✆✉ 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Added by Chris Bauer
We should consider that crews are much more temporarily (time-based) and probably also task-bound (referring to the concept of a vessel) constructed i.e. assembled than teams.
- Is that always true? Do we want risk generalisations here? Some crews in sailing clubs have been together for decades... and some the extent to which a crew could be considered task-bound or constructed would seem to be something to explore in each context. ---- Singleblade✆✉ 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I guess we implicitly already agreed to the temporal aspect of the existence of a crew. I would argue that, except for street lingo probably, the crew exists only for the limited time of engagement.
Added by Richard S
How are we defining team vs crew? Seems an important distinction. Definition from field guide maybe not tight enough.
"A crew is a diverse group able to focus and act without preparation. It is based on clear roles and identities". Especially when considering non-native English speakers - how is that different to a team? In other usage a crew is associated with a defining boundary (a boat, the starship enterprise, an operating theatre) which is important but not a unique marker.
We don't seem to be emphasising the need for clear shared connections for a team to be effective. Clear individual roles are not enough.
There is also a need to distinguish between crew cross training (e.g. so that anyone can steer the boat) and crew co-ordination so that they work well as specialists working together. (e.g. the paramedic in the back of the helicopter checking for obstructions as the helicopter lands for them to treat the casualty).
I think there's a point here about shared outcomes that can't be accomplished by individuals except as part of a process and the operational subjugation in the short term versus it being a permanent state of affairs.
- Suggested definition of "Crews are assemblages in which the coherence is given in the connectivity between roles (in the linkages between impersonal roles)" - and I am not sure we can word this any more strongly. Crews are not always diverse, are not always able to focus and act without preparation. Crews may or may not be clear about roles, and identities are connected with teams rather than with crews. Having clear, shared connections is a matter of embedding established practice, but the extent to which this is significant will depend on the context and our focus in complexity should be on the nature of the actual connections rather than on the idealised condition of them being clear and shared. Cross training (so that individuals can swap into different roles) may be of value, as may specialists, but again, those are context-specific considerations: a junior crew of 8 year olds learning to sail on a calm day with a safety boat in close attendance will neither have nor require either!---- Singleblade✆✉ 22:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
added by Richard S
A crew is a diverse group able to focus and act without preparation. It is based on clear roles and identities: we need to secure at least an expert, a naive and an operational role.
We can use a Belbin test to detect the primary and secondary traits of each partcipant.
To turn generic groups into effective crews we must ritualize interactions, to help members of a crew to enter in their role and maintain it or shift it when needed.
- When an where we might have recourse to particular crew-formations is surely situation specific: a matter of what we perceive as possible with the resources available. Reference to Belbin removed as it duplicates content which is already in the main text. Reference to ritual is also in the main text: not sure what this adds (but I would avoid any suggestion that we *must* ritualise anything as that's at best one option among many).---- Singleblade✆✉ 22:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Somewhere in the concept piece on crews we should have a section on ethical considerations. This might firstly indicate the ethical concerns that drove the focus on Crews in the first place and the ethical arguments for crews (e.g. the case that manipulating roles is more ethical than manipulating identities). Then we need the flip side… as I'm still struggling to see how Crews can be implemented without massive issues tying back to what the Frankfurt School and others (Foucault, Lacan, Butler, etc.) have had to say about interpellation / ideological inscription / subjugation - as we're basically reducing human beings to the role they play in process-based delivery of outcomes![1]---- Singleblade✆✉ 09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Greg, I think this misses the value there is both provided and felt - the 'definition' of the role just means that we are more effective quicker and therefore you are able to support your colleagues. There is the flip of this and always recommend the How to Castrate a Bull: Unexpected Lessons on Risk, Growth, and Success in Business and the travel story - --Gregbtalk 16:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right template - I've used the Methods template, as Crews is under methods. MikeHaber (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC) - Mike the concepts template may be more relevant and then you can link to methods/practices on the setup/operation of teams - https://cynefin.io/index.php/Cynefin_template:_Framework_%26_concepts - --GregBro (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- this also feeds into potential splitting this into two, one on the theory/concept and one for the practices/methods --GregBro (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Are we now agreed on splitting? Can this be moved to #Archive? ---- Singleblade✆✉ 09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Added by User_talk:ChrisBauer 16/3/21 & linked to older talk on #Crewsvsteams
I feel there is a contradiction between the first and the second paragraph of the article: 1. „Crews are not the same as teams as the interactions between crew members are pre-defined …“ 2. „The interaction between the roles that compose a team are pre-defined …“
In general, if you look at a sports team, you could very well argue that the interactions are also pre-defined.
Since I am not a native speaker of English, I am still missing a clear differentiation between team and crew. Moreover I am missing the REASON, why we should differentiate between them. I recently read „Team of Teams“ by S. McChrystal and I do not remember a single mention of the term „crew“ … that’s probably self-evident but still …
I have the impression, that a crew is always assigned to some kind or form of vessel (again, I am not a native speaker), maybe that could be an idea to follow.
In one of the Zoom sessions, we discussed briefly the aspect of redundancy as a differentiating factor. I was surprised to learn that crews have a higher degree of redundancy of roles (the example given was the airplane crew, consisting of pilot, co-pilot and sometimes third pilot). I would have assumed exactly the opposite (teams having more redundancy built in than crews) but anyway, this could be a point we should be considering.
I would argue, however, that we are defining a very specific usage of the term „crew“ in the narrow context of engaging in complex-adaptive systems (anthro-complexity). Maybe this type of group is only associated with „interventions“ especially in the chaotic domain - with the focused task of stabilizing a situation. I would also opt for defining a crew as a group with no backup (other than a football team for example) with crystal clear defined roles which have minimum overlap and minimized redundancy. Even if we are considering a plane crew, the built in „redundancy“ is only for security reasons since no backup can be brought in during flight. This is very different from teams which may deliberately switch personnel to adapt to changing circumstances (as in an unfolding match).
- I suspect we need to take a "whence, where, where next" approach here. How about starting with an explanation of what the turn to "crew" is supposed to fix that draws out why "teams" could be seen as a problematic focus. Then switch (under "where") to why "crews" has become a focus: with the attractions of analogies with fire crews, etc. We could then highlight "areas of development" where we perhaps see unresolved tensions. Would that allow us to get a Crews piece to a good stage without resolving everything first? ---- Singleblade✆✉ 13:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
User_talk:ChrisBauer If we’re citing Tuckman (forming, storming, Normung, performing) we need to reference him: Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
- Done ---- Singleblade✆✉ 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Older
One of the key differences between a team and a crew is that the roles avoid the need to go through the forming, storming, norming and performing cycles. This means that a crew can be put together at short notice and still be highly effective because of the pre-defined roles/responisbility. This also means that people can be substituted for the individual roles without compromising the effectiveness of the group - think the navigator on a commercial flight. It is definition of the roles that also make the capabilities to perform in this context clear and unambiguous. This is deeply contextual and you can not expect a navigator who is competent sailing a boat in blue water to be able to substitute for the navigator on a commercial flight - they would need training to understand what the role of the navigator is in that context. - --GregBro (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
A key part of crew effectiveness is their shared understanding and shared language - hence the development of crew resource management used by operational crews in airlines and elsewhere. The meaning of the command "Break left!" in terms of urgency, who is going to do what and in what sequence has to be understood very precisely and have been rehearsed (although perhaps only in a simulator) to be executed successfully.
There's also the value of shared analysis checklists (again used in aviation) which guide a crew through a predictable thinking sequence - e.g BRAUNS (benefits, risks, advantages, unknowns, what if we do nothing, what is our safety net https://twitter.com/drphilhammond/status/1319261492244566016 If everyone knows what the sequence is they can participate more readily.
Also a clear collective decision-making authority framework such as "three to go, one to say no" used by paramedic helicopter crews. Knowing your individual role and how the crew operates together are perhaps two distinct activities.
There was also a mention of rowing as an example? Rowing is known to be a very simple sport - what is required of the crew member is very direct and without much nuance. As the Irish olympic silver medalists in 2016 the O'Donovan brothers put it "Close your eyes and pull like a dog" . Not all crews have the same requirements for shared awareness - dependent on what domain they are operating in.
Changed to Template as per suggestion from GregBro :-) MikeHaber (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Alternate text for framework section - can build on text provided higher up in the page by (MikeHaber) . Crews can be rapidly formed according to predefined roles and enhance capability of organisations to respond to a range of events and crises opposed to preparing solutions for problems that may arise.
Crews vs Teams
Crews compared with team formation. Crews have the ability to delegate authority without loss of status and are better at sharing failure as criticism can be constructively applied to the role rather than the individual. Rituals are powerful entry points into crews, as they enable a change in the cognitive / imaginative capacity of the individual members of a crew. Simple heuristics can be used to set constraints that enable effective crew functioning. Roles within crews provide continuity of coherence over time, while the swapping of individual crew members provides diversity. There is less of a need to focus on enabling efficiency through crews as efficiency can dampen the effectiveness of the crews and limit the adaptive capacity of an organisation. PierreAndipatin 11:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all - added some bullet points for related concepts - needs links and narrative description PierreAndipatin 0101, 3 March 2021 GMT
Two or more articles
I'd suggest we have a concept article on Crews (this one) and I have added an entry on the main page (no Page should be set up without an entry there or the sub pages) and then a series of articles on different methods. For example:
- Using a personality test to create crews
- Narrow function crews - the Field guide has this
I haven't created articles for those as I think we need some discussion. I created a temporary entry in the Design and Innovation section of methods pointing to this talk page -----Snowded TALK 10:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that these topics naturally flow from the topic of crews - my questions include "Do we need these topics?" or is "Now the time to work on them?" User:josephbradley
Joseph, do you have any links we can mine for the theory but? - --GregBro (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have to figure out which of my references are appropriate - my literature set incudes a lot of HRO papers, and only a smattering of CRM User:josephbradley
Added a couple of links / references to a study and book chapter I'm reveiwing by Ginnett, R.C. Also looking for linkages with crew formation across organisational levels to confer on crews inherent authority to act in crisis. Goes a little way to the concept of status. PierreAndipatin 16:05, 11 March 2021 GMT
Link from Richard S so it is not lost - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI48RpWK4Ek --GregBro (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Samba schools are an interesting topic in many respects. Despite appearances, this is serious. Not talking here of places where you can learn how to dance to Latin American rhythms. Rather, how thousands of highly motivated and engaged collaborators are grouped, coordinated, and work, virtually all for free, to deliver an absolute world-class event, perfectly on time, once a year. This is about the Rio de Janeiro Carnival and its samba parade. Roles, identities, and rituals are involved. The following article by Alfredo Behrens contains some interesting hints. Though not written with a complexity paradigm in mind, I believe it's worth a read. Behrens, A., Singh, P. and Bhandarker, A. (2018), View from Practice: Managing Effectively in Collectivist Societies: Lessons from Samba Schools and Dabbawalas. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60: 137-145. (Moved here from Slack channel) -----Luca OrlassinoT-A-L-K 14:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- From the same author on the topic: Behrens, A., What Corporations Can Learn From a 4,000-Person Parade Extravaganza (Seriously) Harvard Business Review -----Luca OrlassinoT-A-L-K 14:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Archive
<-- Please relocate very old content below this line -->
Outer roles and Inner roles
I am really a bit confused how we tend to mix functional (outer) roles with teamwork type roles (inner roles).
The outer roles tend to represent an outer normalisation of the roles / responsibilities / expertise that people bring to the crew. We tend to know that we need to structure any crew with those competencies.
The inner roles are more about the soft roles that are needed to operate well as a team. Those could be associated to the Belbin profiles. Those roles are necessary, yet rarely noted in the definition of the role. Any crew will aim to find its balance with those from the natural abilities of the people. Some of those roles would be poorly occupied and people might step into the void and take the role, even if this is not their prime ability. Belbin exercise (and other team systemic exercises) generally enable some realisation awareness and intentionality about those inner roles. Some of those inner roles may not be a role for one person as well, some of those roles would be shared across the whole crew. For instance TQM or DevOps aim to bring the completer/finisher role in everybody.
Should we include a writing on this?