Managing writing teams to increase project quality

Material Information

Managing writing teams to increase project quality
Dennison, Craig Calvert
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
ix, 103 leaves : illustrations ; 29 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Technical writing ( lcsh )
Authorship -- Collaboration ( lcsh )
Group work in research ( lcsh )
Authorship -- Collaboration ( fast )
Group work in research ( fast )
Technical writing ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Science, Technical Communications
General Note:
Department of English
Statement of Responsibility:
by Craig Calvert Dennison.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
24561706 ( OCLC )
LD1190.L67 1991 .D46 ( lcc )


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


I, I I : i TEAMS TO INCREASE PROJECT QUALITY I by Craig Calvert Dennison 'I a.s1., colorado state university, 1976 :I A thesis submitted to the I of the Graduate School of the of Colorado in partial fulfillment I requirements for the degree of I Master of science I' I Technical Communication 1991 I '! i :


I This thesis for the Master of Science ,. degree by Craig Calvert Dennison has been approved for the Technical communication Program ,I ., by Charles Beck Tessmer Da te____;;,.t_/1.....:. ..;..:;lf')"_.;;.j? /!......---


Dennison, Calvert (M.S., Technical Communication). M W I. ti:l T t I P t 1 t anag1ng ng eams o ncrease roJec Qua 1 y I :: Thesis directed by Associate Professor Charles Beck I' technical writing teams are becoming I I I' common in high-technology industries because of I ., pressures to bring complex technical products to market . I :: rapidly. teams are necessary to divide the workload I :1 plus provide varying skills and viewpoints for the project. I ;: In examining teams, this study describes (1) a model of the team process, (2) the benefits to project :I quality provided through the team writing process and envi-.1 il ronment, (3) tne ways social conflict detracts from project I IJ quality, and (4) the ways the team leader can control social 1 conflict team performance project quality. I The research process compares the author's experience in I r -il team writing with research and theories in I I cal collaborative teaching/learning, project management, \and related fields. A model shows how these I !I elements the team writing process: the team writing and situation, interaction, organization and partlcidan# tasks, and leadership and management. These elements beJefJt project quality by creating team synergy that enhancJs Jotivation and of team members, providing !:compl.ete and accurate technical information, I I I


I 1 and providibg social dimension that creates publications I : I 'I more sui ted. fo:r their intended audiences. However, many of I I' these are also the sources of affective conflict i .I : that hurts pro:ject quality. Affective conflict can occur I i from overali influences, criticism, and differences I. :. in types, work styles, writing and project roles.: Major guidelines found for team leaders in should be applied during planning I stages and writing process itself. The Myers-Briggs I' personality: indicators serve as a major tool for leaders and researchersito!use both to analyze sources of conflict and to before and during the writing process. I :. More researlh ts needed on the function of personality types in writing and as sources of conflict. I :. ,1 I The form and c0ntent of this abstract are approved. I recommend ,! :: 1 Signed 1 : Charles'ieck I' I ,,. I I I I [, i I I J I I iv


CHAPTER 1. 2. ' I I I CONTENTS I i I ,. INTRODUCTION I i! The Reality I of Technical Writing Today I Benefits of Team Writing I I Conflicts in Writing Teams ..... I I Wry Writing Research Is Important Study Parameters-Operational Definition :1 Team:, Writing ............. I 1 Collaborative Writing Collaborative Team Writing Research Focus ': WRITING MODEL ... 1 2 0 5 6 7 of 0 0 9 9 10 13 0 14 : ,I Team,Writing Environment ......... TJam:organization and Participant Tasks . 15 18 Tasks Described in the Literature Observed During My Experience i l Tasks of Team in Larger Project i I I ... o o o I : Leadership and Management The Team Writing Process 18 19 20 21 26 0 28 : of the Individual Writing Process 28 l of the Team Wr 1 t ing Process o o 29 summary I' : 3 2 I I I


3. 4. I , SYNERGY, AND THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF TEAM WRITING . ;, Motivation-A Major Benefit I Team, Synergy I The Social Dimension of Team Writing I How the Social Dimension Evolved in Writing Groups ...... 33 3 5 3 6 38 40 Audience Awareness -A Major Bene it . . 41 Drawbacks of Team Writing . summary . . CONFLICTS IN TEAM WRITING Discussion of Conflict in Team Writing How Conflict Is Revealed Conflict from Team Interaction Substantive Conflict Affective Conflict Conflict from Criticism Conflict from Writing Environment 43 . 44 46 4 6 47 48 4 9 so so and Situation .............. 51 Conflict from Team Organization 1 and Participant Tasks Work Styles. Roles . . Writing Styles .. Skills Disparity vi 54 . 55 57 58 59


5. I -I I i :: i! I. :i I :i Pbssil1ble underlying Reasons for conflict I II ih Teams I I I. ,, Sui mm.;:try . . . . . . . I :: I I I I . 60 63 GUIDELINES FOR TEAM LEADERS . . . i :: . .. 65 Leadership before the Project Begins I I I I i I I I I I Designing the Team and Selecting Members . . . . . Laying the Groundwork with the Team Cultivating Management Styles Conflict and Promoting Synergy during the Project ........... Maintaining Team Synergy and Motivation ...... Solving Social Conflicts summary of Guidelines for Team Leaders i. :1 . I Teams and Selecting Members .. I I I. 66 66 72 76 79 80 84 8 7 87 Involving the Team to Determine Project work :style . . . . ........ 88 I Proper Management Style for the ProJect . . . . . i : 89 I .I R1sol,ving Conflict MJinBaining Team Synergy and Motivation I I 89 90 i I .. 6. AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... ... 92 LIST I I I I I I I I. I i I .I . . . . . 100 vii


I' I I I FIGURES Flgurej. I 2.1. The team writing model 6.1. ,. I The: team writing model i , I I I I i I i I I I I I I I ,. I I I I I viii . 15 9 4


Table 1.1. 4.1. I ,. I I TABLES I I Performed by Wr1ters on a Team and Alone . . . . I . Sources of conflict Versus Project Phase I I I I I I I i I I I I. I I I I I ix 5 54


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I Most people picture a writer as someone who labors in I isolation, tin9ers poised over the keys of a typewriter, ' small illuminating an otherwise darkened room, knocking out almasterpiece just before deadline and finish-' I I I ing in of glory. Ede and Lunsford (1990) explain this : I "myth of sblitary writer" quite eloquently in Chapters 2 I I I and 3 of "Singular Texts/Plural Authors." Apparently this I myth is well established in our culture, arising mostly from I I :1 historical reasons. The myth evolved from concept of I "ownership" and from the traditional practice that payment I .[ I for commercial and recognition for scholarly work I I requires authorship (Gere 1987). I i' such as Gere point out that "collabora-tion," where or more people work together on a project, I 1 I is a term opposed to what most envision as writing. Most people of writers as "solo" performers who isolate in their work. Even writers think of [' s!olo themselves performers, despite evidence to the contrary. Fpr in a survey of writers in industry by Ede and ; i (1990) respondents that writing L!JnS':ford swore is a solitary saying that they wrote alone between 75 I to 85 the time. 60 percent of these I


1: ii same respontlenits contradicted this solitary notion in a I :. later survey b:;y saying that work with a group is a i : significant! of their jobs (Donehy-Farina 1985). I But writing, especially technical writing, has always I , ,: been a collaborative effort. Writers collaborate with I ', I, I technical potential readers, and reviewers to I. accomplish t Many times they work on integrated teams, information and working together toward a common completion of a finished manual, I :1 report, or other form of technical communication. I I Although 0ne of the most ignored topics in technical I cbmmunicatiJn is interpersonal relations (Toph 1967), a I I. technical document by its nature is a product of a group or I. : . several As such, interpersbnal relations must have i :: a high in technical writing teams and in technical I .: I communicatiln programs. I :: ihe lReality of Technical Writing Today In the few years, as technical products have more collaborative writing has become wide-1 spread. work is too complex to be handled by individual erp,rts; group solutions and synergy are required" 1991). In a survey of 1,200 people I :. in six groups write as a large part of I' I : their job, reported writing sometimes as a member I I I I I 2


i I I iof a group (EdF and Lunsford 1990). Those surveyed included technical social scientists, I !: scientists,iand other professionals. Some 59 percent felt I : that this was productive or very productive. I Survey statistics for technical communicators are included I : I in the Table b 1. Burrer and Lepp ( 1990) stress that "the I I days of thelsolitary technical communicator working alone, I i pencil in amid a stack of-papers, has passed along I with the da{ of one person working alone on aproduct" (WE-9 3) II: I I in the marketplace and more complex I .. products reated the need for product development teams I II !t that can bring products to the market. Because a i : product's d9cumentation must also be available, writing I teams neede, ensure rapid production. There is a very clear trend frequent collaboration in certain fields I I I I jl and types o especially documentation, reports, I articles, and policy statements (Debs Engineers in a survey spend 19 percent of their I time percent of that time involved collaboration with other (Debs 1986). Time pressures and i ., -. organizational :complex! ties often necessitate more than one I I. I -technical to complete a project (Fry 1986). For I example, a product may need developed in le_ss than I a year to bekt products to market. To write I j I I 3


' 1. \ . I I for this product, technical communicators must work with layers of management and many departments. For the complex projects in the aerospace industry I have yielded a,' long tradition of large, multidisciplinary i writing As an editor in that industry, I can attest I I to the concjntrated team efforts of many scientists, I' managers, marketeers, technical communicators, I j and others on proposals. Also, large-scale I I, computer products often require collaboration by I : many and software developers. I, : With frequency, organizations use writing 1: : teams rangilg two to fifteen, or even more writers, who work in tandemwith a technical project team to produce for a new technical product. Results of a survey of in industry by Ede and Lunsford (1990) shown in the fdllowing table highlight this trend. The table shows tasks alone ., andi I I I \. I I I I I '1. i ; :! percentage of respondents performing writing with teams. 4


I l Table 1.1. Tasks Performed by Writers on a Team and Alone : i Percent I Task 73 work with different people to produce docuIi'lents (2-20 people per team) I 40 I P.erform brainstorming partly aione and part-I ly with a team. I I 30 I I brainstorming with a team. 40 information gathering partly alone and partly with a group. I information gathering 30 I. as part of a team. Benefits of Team Writing I noted several project benefits from my experience : I with team projects. My most vivid of these I I projects was the "synergy" among team members that enhanced the team's and motivation throughout the project. i ' I I This motivation often spread to other team members during ,I I the projecti example, when a group of writers working on a of the project became discouraged, they I gained and become more motivated by mixing with I I more motivated ,writers, technical project personnel, and I team leader1 meetings. This motivation had much to do with pro,ect success and product quality. Craig and :craig (1974) provide an appropriate I I definition synergy for writing teams: ' I I. 5


i I I I By power we mean: the capacity of an individual or grotip to increase the satisfaction of all participants lby intentionally generating increased energy and creativity, all of which is used to co-create a more and future (Craig and Craig 1914, 62). I. .: Synergy and motivation during my team efforts were I ; I particularly evident during brainstorming sessions. These sessions more complete outlines and project plans .I and in a better quality product. In I I addition, forces and concentrating writers on dif1 I I ferent subject and writing areas,. yielded more i detailed, and complete information. Communication researchers and writers have also point-ed out benefits of the team approach (Brufee 1984, I Debs 1986, qinsmore 1984, Duin 1990, Ede and Lunsford 1990, 'I 'I Gebhardt Gere 1987, Machan-Gorham 1991, and Spear ,. 1988). theorize that these benefits may result from the "social !context" created when a group of communicators I I collaborate !on a project. I will discuss these ideas more fully in 2. I I Conflicts in Teams Along the benefits from team projects, I noticed a I fair amount of ,personal conflict over many issues dui ing a project. :1conflict can spread to many areas of the team I I process and,l ittends to detract from the synergy and motivation. It is a major enemy of project quality. 6 ,1' I


I Researdhers and educators in team management have also I ranked conflict high on the list of problems that can the of a team project. In one study of teams, out of all project problems personality were the most difficult to solve or the most persistent time (House 1988). Conflicts based on I I personality br emotions (affective conflict) tend to be I destructive divert a team's energies from the task (Warburton This hinders a exploration of ideas, I so the quality pf the group product suffers. and studies on the education of technical have stressed the need for classroom I tion on relationships, managing 6onflict, I . interaction,' and effective collaboration in small work I I groups to ready, technical communicators for the world of I work (Allen others 1987, Brufee 1984, Connors 1990, Potvin 1984,1 and Warburton 1987). i Why Team Writing Research Is Important I I Although research recognizes that collaborative writing exists in indus.try, it has not examined the process and benefits of the team approach in producing technical communicatiohs I A review df research on c6llaborative writing since the .i early 1980s determined that little is known about the ; 7


I process and that studies have not fOcused on the special of group authorship (Allen and others 19 8 7 )j. :One reason for this lack of research could be that academia still stresses the role and writing process of the writer. In subjects of teaching and in areas I of research,, colleges fail to consider the social aspect of the collaborative process (Gere 1987). The enh:ancement of project quality through the team approach is well documented. Many writers have described the "social of the team effort and how it enhances writer and the quality of the end product. However, this social context must be managed correctly by an astute team The social interplay and magical synthesis (Dinsmore 1984) of a functioning writing team can also lead to1 personal conflicts, unbalanced participation I . and input, and result in reduced quality and even project failure. In my experience the writing team leader can have much I I control over: maintaining team synergy motivation. This maintenance results from the proper handling of team mem-bers, the management of interpersonal conflict I and communication. Few studies have been conducted or articles on writing team leadership. studies and I articles are. especially absent that tie together the team writing process, the benefits produced from a team's social 8


I I context, how conflict detracts from team writing benefits, :. I and leaders to control conflict for optimum productivity arid quality. I Study Operational Definition of Team Writing Since are many variations of writing teams in I industry, I 'would like to offer an operational definition I I i '1 for this A writing team is a group of two or more I technical cdmmtinicators who share planning, organizing, writing, and tasks on a common project. This project could be one publication or several groups of publications in a do6ument iet. Larger writing may be organized under a team! leiader who acts as a fac i 1 i tat or and project manager. leader also links the writing team to an ,, overall project group and to management. I Although "team" means that several writers actuaLly ,. produce a team writing is more than the number of writers involved. It is not just collaborative writing, but with special characteristics. Collaborative Within discussion of collaborative writing in : industry, and the commercial arenas, is I collaboration ih work groups. Work groups have existed ., since Francis Bkcon and the science writers of the Royal I society. single authorship was the rule for I. I 9


, I 5clentlflc collaboration was the necessity for I research. Collaboration in science is "part of the inquiry process that combines resources for a better chance of success" (Debs 1986, 33). Today, technical writers in science and industry tend to with others during the course of a project, I . whether they are working with a technical expert to obtain information,1 questioning another writer about how to handle information, or obtaining comments from document reviewers. I I Many others in industry, especially scientists, engineers, and technical writers, produce text through collaboration. Collabotation in these examples often means that one or several deliberate about what to write, how to write I lt, and what the writing means. A written product may be a I series of communication interactions and perceptions of people inside and outside an organization. In this form, I "Collaboration activities require reciprocity, a mutual exchange; something given or something taken in return" (Debs 1986, 6). Collaboration occurs when participants I I orient their:.actions to a common end-a finished text. Collaborative Tam Writing I The special characteristics of "team" collaboration in I this thesis relate to discussions by Weiner (1986) and Debs (1986) where team consensus is noted as a characteristic of true For example, Weiner lists consensus as 10


major I factoi I of successful collaborative writing. I He also quotes John :Tr]mbur who writes that consensus "is the I negotiation which leads to an outcome through a process of taking responsibility and investing collective i judgment authority" (Weiner 1986, 55). The writing task must reach an end that represents as nearly as possible II the collective judgement and labor of the writing group. I I "The effort to reach consensus by their own authority is the major factor that distinguishes collabI orative from mere work in groups" (Weiner 1986, 54). I I I 'I I feel this "consensus" distinguishes team writing from mere coilla,.boration on a writing project. Several writers prodlcing pieces of information, thensticking them I .. into with few questions asked do not form a team writing: pr.oject. However, writers discussing and reaching consensus on what to information include, how to organize it,i an9 how to write it does constitute a team writing apprpach. Allen emphasizes that group consensus group work (such as peer response to an I or collaboration during information gathering tasks.) from collaboration on a shared document. I : Allen three characteristics that distinguish shared I I ., document from group work that I feel are I 11


I I central to team writing: I I I of a shared document. The group of I has a goal of producing a single document, which gives the group unity and focus to engage in consensus to reach decisions. interaction among members. All members contribute to the document at all levels, I style to global organization and content. Shared decision-making. Each member shares I I responsibility for decisions and works through a process to help make decisions. I other characteristics that distinguish true collaborativ1e effort from group work, as revealed by Debs I I (1986). A c:ollect'ive or collaborative writer must reach consensus oJ points with other writers in a team: Thf that the end of the team effort is the ' dotument and that all writers share responsibility for its completion. The composing styles and roles of team members. A team writer may take the role of composer, editor, transcriber, or reader. These roles may change I. throughout the life of a project with changes in time,.. distance, perceptions members competence, I I and maybe interpersonal communication style. I I !" 12


responsibility for the document's meaning 1and effect on the reader. I. Research Focus A main purpose of my research is to clarify the nature of team writing with focus on three issues: I Benefits from team writing. 'Of conflict in detracting from the bene its. of the team leader. on enhancing benefits. I The will draw on writers in the technical communication, ,project management, psychology, and other I I I fields. Pers!onal experience from team writing projects wi 11 I illustrate c1onc'epts from this rese.arch. F.rom these sources, the research will identify the following: e A mociel of team writing-the process of team writing, how projects are organized, how team I I members interact, and stages of team projects. benefits of team writing over an individual and why these benefits occur. I ,, A discussion of that conflicts occur during writing and how these conflicts subtract from team I I I performance and project quality. I Guidelines for team leaders or managers to use in I conflict for optimum team performance quality in the project. I 13


CHAPTER 2 A TEAM WRITING MODEL I This describes a model of team writing that forms a base for the remaining chapters of my study. This model a synthesis of major team writing charac1 ter is tics fr'om my own exper lence and from published sources such as artifles, books, studies, and dissertations in the fields of technical and non-technical communication, team management, psychology, and education. A modeli of. team writing contains the following parts: I 1. I Enr1ronments and situations where team writing is used. 2. I :. or9anization of team and tasks of participants. 3. Team interaction. 4 and management. I. 5. Wrltlng process. Parts of the model influence the type and intensity i of social conflict that occurs during the writing process I itself. I discuss team writing conflicts related to these parts bf the model in Chapter 4, "Social Conflicts 1n Team In 5, "Guidelines for Team Leaders," I discuss how team leadership and management can have the I


J I : most impact lon .controlling social conflict before and during the writing for project quality and success. The I I o the parts of the model to project quality is illustrated !in Figure 2 .1 . Input I Writing Leadership I I Process Team Writing Process Social Interaction Conflict and Synergy Figure 2.1. The team writing model I I Outputs Tangible Project Quality Team Document Intangible Sense of Accomplishment Group Image The writing environment, including team lead1 ership, and participant tasks, provides major I input into tQe team writing process. Social interaction, I conflict, and synergy are major elements influence this ' i input duringithe process and create the tangible and intan1 gible outputs of the process. Tangible output from the I writing .. includes project quality, while intangible I output 1ncludes'the teams' sense of accomplishment and image. Team Writing Environment The writing environment includes the overall project I I sitUation, sdch'as project scope, size, and reasons for 15


applying thJ' tJam writing approach. It also includes team organization, participant tasks, team interaction, and team I Allen and others (1987) investigate the writing activ-ities study when: of exP,erienced collaborative writers on the job. The I :, I reveals that collaborative writing applied to projects I I I I Pr,oject person. I ariea ,of ' size or time limits require more than one scope requires benefits from more than one expertise. would result from molding divergent per and I Fry discusses collaborative writing in largescale projects that require many writers and software!: developers because of severe time pressures and organizational complexities. such are "too large I and complex one author to describe" (35). As an exam-ple, while w,ork'ing for a telecommunications company, I was part of a writing team of about twelve writers. Reasons for I ,, a team on this project parallel characteristics I I just cited by Allen and others (1987). I A large! team was necessary to produce a large set of publicat,.ions to describe hardware and software modifications an existing product. Publications included a I I I I i j, 16


i series of smaller booklets and four major manuals on plan1 ning, installation, administration, maintenance, and trou-bleshooting!tasks. The writing team itself was only part of a much project team consisting of software develop-i ers, trainers, services, marketing, and customer support personnel. The project required a team approach because the it I required several areas of expertise. on one hand, the I project required documenting complex and interrelated tech-' I ; nlcal subjects. on the other hand, the documentation itself required input and experiences for product over; views, site ,planning and ordering tasks, installation tasks, administration tasks, testing, and product verification I procedures. I. To divide tasks, the project leader assigned individual writers to write specific procedures, such as troubleshoot-ing or installation, and to document a technical I I subject such as networking software. Writers produced their own chapters dealing with their assigned procedures, I plus on their subject areas for. chap-' ters by other writers. Often several writers I shared writLng for a single chapter. In the long run, this approach provided a more concentrated effort than would be possible with one or a few assigned to the project team. 17


Team\Organization and Participant Tasks The orqan1zation of the writing team and the tasks of I I individual vary with the size and complexity of the I project and lthe subject matter. Gere ( 1987), who studied writing groups (not groups of technical writers), I said a group can range from three to forty writers. Work I roles and ta!sks vary: in some groups individuals plan and I I write then exchange them for comments; other groups write as a g:rou'p, helping each other generate ideas and plan I approaches. 1 My research and experience produced variations I on these tasks as discussed next. Tasks pescribed in the Literature In a on .a large I process used by a group of chemists collaborating I I project, each of ifteen writers worked I on individuai as portions of the entire project. Each draft was by the entire group (Ede and Lunsford 1990). In aj prbposal prepared for a grant competition, I researchers collaborated during brainstorming, drafting, and I revision. Through attending meetings and reviews, writers I prepared drafts, then synthesized them into a final propos-al. other of tasks noted during the Ede and Luns-1 i ford survey of I I writers include four varia-tions: i 18


I I I team member assigns writing tasks, each member carries out tasks, one member compiles parts and entire document. I ,. I I The team plans the project and writes a draft I together, then one or more members revise the I person plans and writes a draft, then the team revises the draft. I ' I The team plans and outlines, one member writes a then the team revises the draft. I' Table '(Chapter 1) shows a breakdown of how individ-ual tasks ar:e performed among a group of technical writers interviewed Jn ,the survey. ,, Tasks Observ.ed During My Experience The team project I worked with in the telecommunlca' I I tions provided an excellent example of breaking down a large1 complex task by dividing specialized tasks among Instead of one or a few writers I I producing an! entire manual, writers were assigned specific I procedures write about and a technical subject area to research. For I wrote software installation procedures and specific pieces of the network communi' I , cations hardwar:1e and software. I wrote these installation I tasks for the manuals and supplied information to other 'I writers on m particular technical subject. Another writer I 19 I I' I


I I. i' wrote hardwlre:installation tasks and, for a technical area, I I provided on a computerized system planning and i Still another writer developed network administratlon.tasks and researched a specific software i ' aspect of the product. I I Besides research and writing duties, writers took the I I role of editorfor peer-editing of rough drafts. Writers also became !leaders occasionally to orchestrate a subproject, such designing help screens for software developers I or standardizing format for troubleshooting information. I I I ., Just as Debs found in the 1986 study, these tasks may change I throughout life of a project according to I I such as from the project, perceptions of each team and maybe interpersonal communica1 I tion style. i I The used in this project mirrors the "division I of labor" antl models described by Killingsworth and Jones (1989). The integrated team model described in I that article: emphasizes that writers have tasks clearly de-fined by their training and specialization. Also in that I : model, from various specialties often share in efforts to cpmplete a task. I Tasks of Team ip Larger Proiect Discussion; of a team writing model would not be 1 I plete the major tasks of the writing team I 20


a3 part of larger project team. The5e ta5k5 vary, of course, with. the size and complexity of the project. In the I I telecommunications industry project that I described previ-ously, the overall project involved nearly forty people, besides the members of the writing team. These forty I people were divided into smaller teams according to various I aspects of the product. Members of the writing team inter-acted with one or more of these smaller project teams. Most I I of the time,:the writing team leader or a representative I I interacted with1 the larger project team for global documen-tation issues. The team leader also interacted with the writing department management for global manual and person-nel issues. In a smaller, less complex project, two other writers and I each wtote a manual. Each writer represented manual concerns to an entire project team of about 15 people during I formal and informal meetings. A leader was chosen from among the us to represent global issues with project team management and the technical writing department I management. Team Interaction A of the group process that distinguishes it from the individual writing process is the frequent I interaction team members. Since this interaction can 21


' contribute toward greater productivity, and it helps enhance the quality of the end product. Much interaction occurs in I formal meetings and brainstorming sessions involving a I I few writers :or the entire team. However, much interaction also occurs ,in.small, informal, impromptu meetings between I I two or seveial writers. i Interaction is an important element of writing groups I that toward project success. Through interac-tion, writers motivate each other, share necessary informa l tion, define project strategies, and quickly reach important I conclusions.! The most significant feature that groups i contribute our understanding of writing is that they I provide that writing involves human interaction as i well as solitary effort (Spear 1988). It is n:ot jthat group interaction causes better it does in the long run), but that in larger context of writing, it acts as a vehic;le 'for learning and thinking. Group interaction writing by stimulating thinking (Spear 28). I i Team interaction generates the "social" aspect pf writing pointed out by communication researchers and as a major aspect behind many benefits of I the team (The next chapter discusses how this I social aspecf yields better quality and completeness in a writing For now, I will describe team interaction and show that does occur often during a team writing project. 22


' Group writing Includes the following tasks done In I ': collaboratidn with one or more persons: brainstorming, I organizing, Jout;lining, note-taking, drafting, revising, and editing (Ede arid Lunsford 1990). In describing stages from my 'r will show that interaction among team members does occur at all these phases. I During the earlier indoctrination stage many, highly interact! ve jmeetlngs help wr 1 ters learn more about the prodI uct being documented. These meetings are often group learn-lng experiences, as questions areasked by team members and answered by iproduct specialists and members of the writing team. All in these meetings share knowledge and help eacih other understand the product in relation to I manual content audience. I 'I In during the planning stages, team members I brainstorm tb produce a publication plan, style guides, and 'I !' 'I detailed outlines. This process is quite productive when all members can reach a consensus about where to place I content (such as in chapters, sections, or books) and compare their aissigned writing tasks. After drafting process begins, periodic planning I I meetings members to regroup, solve team problems, and solve indivipua,l writing problems. Host interactions ,, during this process, however, involve two or more members 23 j,


I :1 who discuss:ho their assigned writing assignments interAt interaction is critical, as some I -writers material for the same bbok and sometimes the ' -same chapter. -Writers also meet to share information from their reseaich\on an assigned technical subject area. I. :t During the drafting stage, they also interact to discuss I changes in the product being documented. These changes I often affect writing and information gathering tasks on I .. several parts of a manual or several manuals. During jrevision stages, interaction is especially heavy l. II as manual ch:apters and sections are reviewed by peers, and members discuss reviews by the overall project team. The I most occurs during discussions of feedback the I team receives from the overall project team. Two of the tentative conclusions from a study on inter' action in groups indicates that (1) groups vary in interactions according to their project roles and (2) the ]. equivocalitY].of a project positively affects the intensity I of interactipn 1(Debs 1986). Interaction in a team project I was involved did vary throughout the project as I members different roles such as book managers, I I subject matter experts, or representatives to the project I -team. One project produced a great deal of interaction when I -all team members obtained equal zesponsibility through the efforts of the team leader and team structure. I 24 I I I


As did betis (1986 .), I found that during the team pro-cess, much of the information exchanged by group members concerns thel. pr,oduct being written about. Also, members tend to "negbtiate" individual interpretations of the rhe-torical situation as more "marketing" information is learned I I about that product. In other words, writers learn specific facts about the project that affect the rhetorical situa1 tlon, such as t'he product's purpose, users, and intensity of I competition in the marketplace. other from the study by Debs concerns I interaction puring the various stages of the project. The following conclusions from the study are also shared by my experience: I For new manuals, much of the interaction occurs the planning stages and near the project : i end when the need to complete writing for dead-lines. supersedes individual responsibilities (Debs 1986, 199). tend to negotiate their own interpretation of the rhetorical situation as the project devel-i For example, upon learning of a new group of potential product users, a writer may argue how to a manual section for a particular audi or redefine the role of the team in providing information.


I .i: and revising manuals, there is less I idteiaction because the writers fit work into an ,: struciture of product and manuals. ,. : I I always try otit ideas on each other to 'II the rhetorical act. Leadership and Management i Proper lte:m leadership and management are key factors in donflicts during the team writing process and II enhancing qualities of the end product. I will discuss :' I, guidelines :team leaders in Chapter 5. This section outlines of writing team leadership and management from my experience and published information. Although a considerable amount of research on manage1 I . ment d ; integrated project teams, very 1 i ttle about of it leadership of a specialiied team, such as a I writing iTherefore, much of the following describes my I experience ,itti team as related to current theo-ries of team management. I Gere writing groups in a range from autonomous gemi-autonomous. In the groups, author 1 ty within individual. members, as members must 1: be willing t:o give up authority over their own writing to for a successful project. When they can ,: i, l J : I , 1: j ; 26


I release this members trust and respect each other. In both writing teams of which I was a member, teams I were in relation to project management and even I' I writing management. The leadership style in teams can be classified as I i "collaborative" or "delegative" (Finch 1977). This type of style the potential for increased productivity, I I satisfaction, growth in a work group. "Traditional" I' .. functions ot management like planning, organizing, and directing is vested in the group. In this style, a writing team leader :carries out project manager functions, has overall project responsibility, acquires resources, resolves j ;. conflicts, and,supports other groups within the company I' ., (Barrett In my writing teams, the team leader often was at team meetings. In this task, the leader helped members focus energy on solving problems, helped the group toward consensus on key issues, and helped ensure balanced input.from all members. I I A major task of the team leader was "boundary maintei nance" as by Finch (1977). In the teams where I I worked, the ;leader performed this task by bringing the goals I and issues from the writing team to the project team and I I writing department management. The leader also brought I I goals and issues from management to the writing team. As an interesting note, the role of team leader just described 27


1: I resembles tHe emphasized of a teacher in classroom colI I. : laborative A collaborative learning teacher I effort by synthesizing a group's re-sults, helpibg see and reconcile difference, and directing of both sides of an issue into consensus The teacher, like the team leader, must represent tl academic community (management) at the team level alnd :;represent the team at the academic level. The team like the teacher in a collaborative setting, helps igrdup members realize how their consensus does or does not into the consensus of the larger group. I The Team Writing Process Parts the team writing model discussed so far in I I chapter! the writing process and, in turn, the I 1 success and of the end product. To describe the I team writingl!pr:ocess, I will contrast the stages of the team process wi thl: st:,ages of the individual writing process. stages of thb Writing Process I :; ,, The process outlined for a single engineer is I' :, one of process used by some technical communica1: : tors. This process includes the following stages (Selzer .I 1983): I I I .I. I li j : I 1 : I I , 26


'! I_ I I, I' I, 1. and inventing -A focus on audience and ,, :analysis. Brainstorming is used exten-1 i I slvely through a private heuristic or experience I' obta1ned writing certain documents. I 2. A:tranging -Organizing material on hand and ar-3. 4. 1 according to audience needs. This stage I i determines information needed to produce an out-il 1: I Dr:aftingWriting the document. I' the draft. This of an individual process is similar to I :I others in writing studies, except that many in the I ; field stress. that some writers practice recursive writing or : revision dur'ing all of the preceding stages (Clifford 1981). I I 1: : The engineez:: studied by Selzer wrote in a str let linear 'r fashion and revised slightly during the final 'stage of the process-!' ,. I Stages of the Team Writing Process i Some of the team writing approach also occur I, I during writing. However, a major difference is that several writers may be involved several stages ,. of a team project. Also, different writers may be I involved in stage depending on how tasks are assigned I' I . in the team.:, For example, an individual writer may draft a portion of but others in the group review it, 'I i' 29


' I. : and still others may be responsible for final editing. I During!all stages of a team project, writers must reach consensus share responsibility for project completion, th il t 1 d t k f b d th d t' e compos s y e an as s o mem ers, an e ocumen s meaning and!effect on the reader (see Chapter 1 under "Collaborative Team Writing"). I have1borrowed from the literature and my experience to describe!major stages for a team writing process: 1. Indoctrination-This stage includes some tasks I the "Front-End Work" and "Writer Indoctrinastages of Walton (1968). Other tasks from I belong in the "Planning and Design Stage" I described next. The indoctrination stage includes I meetings that define the product being docubrief writers on project purpose, define scope of the project and major milestones, for contact with major sources, locate work out interfaces with other groups, anp define initial research. 2. and Design-This stage can include orga planning, content planning (outlining), publication specifications and style. 30


I I stage includes considerable group brain: .I storming, both written and spoken (Ede and Luns1, I ford. 1990). This stage also involves heavy colI I laboration among team members (Killingsworth and I Jones 1989). I, I 3. Drafting -This stage includes more detailed re I 4 5. I information gathering, writing, and furof the product and how it zelates 'I t6 the manuals. In the survey by Allen (1987) i I, mbst'writers report working individually in this I I to gather information and prepare a draft. I -In contrast to the earlier stages, revision is typically accomplished by an indlvid1 ' ual vriter after his/her draft is reviewed by I I team peers and members of the technical I ., I' pr;pject team. I I editing and production. This stage I I I quality control for the It can in.1 peer editing by other writers or an as$igned eJitorial expert. This stage also can include I filna11 editing, testing, verification, and customer I ac'ceptance (Walton 1968). 31


team I Several' I writing I Summary environmental elements provide input into the These elements include the overall project for a team-writing approach, such as project scope, time and complexity; how the team is orga nized to per.for:m different tasks at various stages of a I; project; writing team works with the larger project team; how team members interact during various I project and the role of team leaders during the I I writing .! Many of these elements provide sources of I social This conflict detracts from the benefits of the team team synergy, and the social dimension of team that so much impact on project quality i and a teams: sense of accomplishment. The benefits of team I writing, synrg, and the social dimension are detailed in Chapter 3. i I I I i I 32


I CHAPTER 3 BENEFITS, AND THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF TEAM WRITING Various writers and researchers in technical communica-tion have many benefits of team writing. For example, twenty 'writers interviewed about their feelings on I projects (Allen and others 1987) said that al-though the time and cost are greater for team projects, document was better than for an individual effort. They also themselves satisfied to very satisfied with the experience. 1: A of writers in collaborative projects revealed I other to team writing (Ede and Lunsford 1990). Some respondents stressed advantages of varying viewpoints I of team memb,ers on a project. In ad_c:H tion, they indicated I that the experience, writing and : variety of aippr!oaches tends to enhance completeness and accuracy, a better sensitivity to the audience, and produces a clearer, more understandable document. Data from the survey tends to support conclusions that most professionals think collaborative writing is generally a producI I 'I tive way to lhan;dle writing tasks. I The survey also identifies several reasons for satis1 faction for writers. Respondents


i indicated a !positive sense of team building, group accom-plishment, shared final product, and mission or purpose. Also contributing to satisfaction was the sense of I I' success on particular project. This success depends on the I degree that :writers can clearly express and share goals, have over the text, acknowledge credit, and can I initiate a procedure to resolve disputes. My sense of satisfactioJ with my team projects directly results from 1: these as well. I Ouin ( 1;990) 1 ists several advantages to collaborative I writing efforts that I also observed. As some examples, collaborative teams help join resources and divide labor, I I alleviate isolation, sustain motivation through commitments i I to other create energy through interpersonal agreements to complete projects, and encourage collective I creativity. :Collaborative writing also tends to provide a I clearer ideaJof project purpose as goals and objectives are discussed byi team members. It also reduces distance between I readers, or fosters critical thinking, and develops!audience awareness. As a final benefit cited by Duin, efforts help members consider their writirig on a social level so they can see the role that I the project in the organization and the world outside I the organization. Since this final benefit is quite I I tant, I wlll;provide more detail on it later in this chapter. I I I I 34


' Goldner: an'd vogel ( 1987) provide even more advantages of team A important advantage is that team writing eliminates writer's block and isolation-common I hazards in the .individual writing process. Other important advantages a:re that team members can spark each other's I creativity, I a stimulating atmosphere for the work, I I and support each other during crises. Motivation -A Ma1or Benefit I A signi,ficant benefit of team writing from my experi-ence is I discussed this briefly in Chapter 1 under "Benef:its of Team Writing." I observed that motiva..;. I tion was higih on teams where I was a member, and this mot1-vation tendeb to be self-generating. If one writer became unmotivated :during a tedious part of a project, working with I more motivatied writers in the team tend to re-motivate the writer. I I Team molt i ion has major benefits on project success. For example, in some group projects at IBM, supervisors I encourage members to manage their own tasks based on perceived needs and expectations (Machan-Gorham I 1991). Team fmotivation for project success from this encourI agement group communications at a high level and encourages members to provide each other with informal sup-port and work strategies without management help. I ; .1. 35


I In the benefits of group interaction for ' I creativity scientists, Abelson (1965) writes that the i major interaction is motivation. Motivation is essential for creativity and provides the self-control for team members that they must draw on for inner resources. I : !I Team Synergy I As I in Chapter 1 under "Benefits of Team I I Writing," my most vivid memory of team writing experiences I was the generated in the team. This quality pro-1 duced many benefits of team writing, especially productivity and creativity. Others !have described synergy and its benefits in activities. Emile Durkheim, 19th century i the importance of synergy in collabo1 rative work : (Gere 1977). Durkheim said that when individual minds are not isolated, but come into close relation with each other, occurs from which arises a new kind of intensity .. Gere explains that this intensity clearly I I differs the experiences of the solitary writer. The I I' intensity ahd the closer relationship between team members I yields more ]frequent reunions and assemblies and the active I exchange of lideas. The of team synergy are not exclusive to writing The synergy of "co-creating" within a I I I 36


I'. group. is sucpeslsful in education and therapy (Machan-Gorham I I' ,I 1991, 1). A[sd, synergy _has been an important ingredient I I for in scientific projects for years. Perhaps I, I this is besi by the team of Enrico Fermi, Franco Rosseti, Emillio, Segre, and Edoardo Amaldl -the team that I I developed bomb (Abelson 1965). Synergy is also I apparent in "teamwork" concept of sports where a cooper r ative, close-knit group of players who are I I I sensitive each other's ability often overpowers a loose-. I I knit players (Dinesmore 1984). I The process described by DeMarco and Lister I (1986) sounds v:ery similar to the synergy that I experienced in team According to DeMarco and Lister, a group of people together may not be a team. What makes I them a team ;is J"gel." The production from a gelled group of I people is than from the same people who are not I. gelled, and possibility for group success goes up dra-matically. I : What's :in 1the foreground of most of our prized work is team interaction. When a group I of people .fuse into a meaningful whole, the entire the work changes. The challenge of the fs important, but not as an end of itself; ft important because it gives us some thing to focus on together. The challenge is the instrument of our coming together. In the best I work the ones in which people have the most fun and perform at their upper limits, team interactions are everything. This is the reason I I that people stick it out, put their all into the work, enormous obstacles (Gere 1986, 121). 37


The sytiergism that develops in any professional team effort aids :the project by motivating the team members and helping gel ideas. In effect, synergism provides an I environment foi better creativity and productivity. But what of team writing projects enhances the .I .: quality of the :end product? This characteristic is the "so-cial have they Many writteJ about this aspect I I I all carl it by different I I and theorists in the field of collaborative writing, but names. Among these names are the "social (Bruffee 1984), "social dialectic" (Spear 1988): and "social dimension" and the "social activity" (Gere 1987i. I I iThe social Dimension of Team Writing to theorists, if a document is to adequately I I communicate ito a specific audience the writing process must involve fqrm of human interaction, either with real or ' imagined audieqces. Theorists differ, however, about where in the this interaction or "socialization" I occurs. argue that communication actually originates in the i then is externalized in a written form. I I During this !externalization, the writing becomes socialized I to help the language. Other theorists argue that is social in nature: communication first 38


occurs as a social activity, then is further developed in I the individual : (Gere 1987). I The bas1is ,of writing-group theory is that groups en-hance the individual effort by creating a social dimension. I This dlmenston occurs through group invention, discussion of i writing in and the peer response to individual writing. social discussion during the team process, I the writer "invents" communication and internalizes it. I i Then, during the individual writing process, the writer it. studies on collaborative writing in the similar findings. Bruffee (1984) states that is internalized conversation, and writing is I internalized conversation that is re-externalized. Writing, I in effect, conversation back into social context. A I writer's to talk through an while writing depends on the ability to also with people I. in a social lsi tuation about that issue. Bruffee adds that I collaborative writing provides a social context, a community I in which discourse occurs, a community of knowledge: able peers. : i According to Spear (1988), writing is actually a commu1: I nal rather than a solitary activity. Writing is really I thought palpable to an audience, part of a "social I dialectic" that allows us to check our perceptions against I another perceptions then modify our thinking. '39


I' i Whenever seek responses from others by sharing i writing ideas and exchanging drafts, the writing process I .I becomes social,. The writing team provides a good environ' I ment for social activity. I : In to writing groups outside of industry, I I writing groups1 in industry, such as technical writing teams, I I produce through a social activity between the writer and (Debs 1986). During discussions i of writing,:.technical writing teams not only base their I decisions upon the end audience, but the overall project I team and company context as well. I I H6w the SocialJpimenslon Eyolyed in Writing Groups i A review of the history of writing groups can show how I I the social dimension may have developed in writing groups 1: ., today. Although writing groups in education started gaining I prominence the 1960s and only recently are being written about in the industrial setting, they are not a new phenome-non. I Writing discussion groups in academic settings have i been around :for centuries. Groups outside of the academic [, setting started in early America as "mutual improvement I societies." of these early groups was Benjamin Franklin's which met to produce and read essays. Mutual of the I societies flourished in the Lyceum system 1800s!, the chautauquas of the late 1800:...1900s, and [. I I, I 40


i. I t the of the 1900s. Members of mutual improvement societies had two distinctly qualities, an egalitarian view of knowledge I : and motivation; toward joining with others to initiate I change. societies required members to and share their work, whichladds vitality to the group by investing writing I with a dimension. These societies lent proof to the notion that lwr i ting is not an entirely isolated activity. They also a social foundation for today's writing groups. I .I Audience Awareness -A Ma1or Benefit A mainbenefit that individual writers obtain from the I .: I social dimension of team writing is an acute awareness of their audleAce. I I In my experience with teams, audience concepts were discussed continuously, from the planning I : stages up through final draft stages. The final concept of I audience to metamorphose from the experiences of many I writers project and through peer reviews and reviews with audience representatives. I i Bruffee ( 1973) had similar thoughts about students in a I I I class. He said that through the process, students learn to be an astute and I demanding audience. They become increasingly capable of I detecting a 'lask of clarity, organization, logic, and sub-41


: I I stance in a: fe:;llow team writer's work. Respondents in a study of collaborative writers (Allen 1987) said that writ-I ers gain ani.idea of audience much easier when they must I articulate ideas and make decisions on them in a group. The interaction among writing team members is often centered on members acting as an audience for a document and I helping tailor the document to the I I I To writing and reading in a group's social I : I context riters define and readers as active human beings, distinet from idealized and projected authors and I readers (Gere 1987). Collaboration brings writers out of I I the alienation common in an individual effort and reorients them toward their readers. The most important benefit of the social process of team writing that the group process reinforces the conI ;' cept of audienee (Spear 1988). Although writers are aware of audience !intellectually, they only fully realize audience I when the share.writing with the team. I : As discussed in this chapter, the team writing approach yields many benefits for a writing project. The synergy I. : from a group of gelled team members enhances interaction and I I mot! vat ion, : ing an environment of creativity and product! vi The social dimension of the team effort I I I promotes communication for a specific audience. In I I 42 I, I


I effect, the process of motivated team members sharing writing, responsibility, knowledge and experience pro1 I I duces a qual1ty end-product. I Few Drawbacks of Team Writing i' Team writing is not without its problems. I will I discuss thejproblems that occur because of conflict in the I I next chapter. This section, however, briefly discusses some I of the othet drawbacks of team writing projects. i Many of the problems cited by respondents in the Ede I. and Lunsfor4 srirvey (1990) are similar to the ones I enced in writing projects. For example, one engineer in that survey described the problem of combining several I I writing into one. In another example, conflicts I I about writi1g were listed as the most frequent con-flicts. are the increased time needed for the group process, unequal divisions of work that sometimes create _the of being "ripped off" for those members :i : doing the most work, and a loss personal accomplishment for I I having to snare responsibilities. To the disadvantages I would like to add the following from my experience: I of being powerless when a majority of disagree with your ideas. conflicts that tend to disrupt your 43


motivation and performance. I Frustration at the sometimes slow process of gain1 i I .I ilg 1roup consensus and solving problems. I l summary i The team process yields benefits that enhance project quality and .a team's sense of accomplishment and image. I Varying viewpoints and skills, combined with a combined team L I effort ylel4s *any benefits. Among these are a more com-i plete, acculate, and document. The shar-ing of also provides a team with satisfaction and I I promotes and creativity. ' I Team and synergy are major benefits of the I, ,, team process. ,Motivation maintains group communication, ' and creativity. synergy in a team can allow I triumph obstacles not possible in.individual efforts. I' I I The social fostered in a synergistic team effort greatly project quality. This dimension allows writers to then externalize a clear concept of audience fs important for clear communication. Al-though there ate many benefits, there are also drawbacks to the team Such drawbacks include increased time to complete loss of a sense of individual accomplish! ment, and at the slow problem-solving process of teams. Of social conflict can cause the most 44


damage to quality and success. I 1 : I I i '. { I r I! I ,I 1: I' 1: r 45 !' I I I' : I I


CHAPTER 4 I SOCIAL CONFLICTS IN TEAM WRITING I I Despite the lmany advantages of team writing, the very envi-. ronment I and situation that fosters the team synergy, I motivation, lanq social dimension for productive writing also creates an environment for conflict. This conflict ultimate! ly affects ,ne quality of the final product and keeps the project from its full measure of success. The nature of technical projects, such as those I involving technical writing teams, can create an environment well-suited conflict (Dinsmore 1984). Although many of the same occur in any project team, the reasons for these conflicts occurring in writing teams are unique. i I Conflict occurs not only because of the team writing envi1 I I I ronment and but from team interaction, organi-zation, and tasks. A greater awareness of these I social conflicts, why they occur, and their effect should I I help team managers, and members better manage I conflict to better project quality. I of Conflict in Team Writing A revijw the literature and research, as well as my own experieJce:on writing teams provides insight into the I . nature and conflict on teams, and how parts of the writing I


I I I model can influence conflict during the writing process. I : Conflit appears as a struggle between team members. studies reveal _that other factors I ,: other C?n cause conflicts, even though these conI' flicts stilt affect people, their motivation, and the social I dimension of writing project. Conflict is a natural Product of bhange, it can foster positive or negative reI:' sults depending on how it is handled (Dinsmore 1984). In 1: the contemparary view of project management, conflict occurs I . -when someth(ng is at stake. If an opposing petson or posi1 tion reduces another person's chance of winning the stake, I. conflict occurs. This conflict has negative effects on a I project when resources are applied to solve the cofiflict, I but little or no forward progress occurs. I II How conflict Revealed Most of theltime, conflict appears during team meetings when I one or argue about different sides of an I issue. At other times, the whole writing team may side against project team. When conflict and arguments occurlduiing a meeting, tension escalates among all I: team member, and interaction or progress on other issues I. ,, tends to slqw, 1even stop. Abelson (1965) also describes the I conflict enyironment. He says that in closely knit groups, I. tensions and-rivalries are always latent, and the greatest I !: hazard is internal dissension. According to Ableson, when 47


! tensions rise, creativity comes to a standstill. I :1 Serious clashes of will often turn to hatred, to the detri1 ment of all1around. I I But conflict often manifests in less obvious ways. For I example, I team members who felt they were at odds I with the whble. group or at least the leading faction. Sometimes these1 members didn't vocalize their complaints; rath1 er, they interacting with the team, taking part in team or sharing information. This lack of I slows the team writing process in later I stages of project. For example, if critical information such as maintenance chapter is not required," is not I shared, team may waste valuable time researching I I maintenancelinformatlon when it is not really needed. In I addition, uncooperative members may create hard feelings in I other team members who depended on interaction and informal' I tion for work. I I I Conflict frOm Team Interaction I Confli6t I often occurs as team members interact with ' each other tn meetings and smaller groups or as a team with a another group in the project. I Social1confllct from this interaction can be lntraper1 sonal, interpersonal, or group to group. All of these I I occurred onjthe team. projects where I worked. Intrapersonal i I 46


i I conflict ocrurs in the individual when personal, profession-al, or expectations are frustrated. This conflict may related or have nothing to do with the I. I project. people. conflict occurs between two or more Aniexample of group to group conflict is when the I I writing tea is aligned against an engineering group on the I I I project This opposition can result in interpersonal i friction between group leaders, but in all members of each group. I . also can manifest itself i to warbuton (1987), two kinds of conflict exists in gfoups: substantive and affective. Substantive Conflict. This conflict is beneficial to a I team effortl It occurs between individuals or groups to I generate discussion or solve problems. For example, perhaps I I one team member argues to include a certain piece of infor1 I mation in a:manual chapter. Other members may argue for or : ,I against thi' writer, but the main purpose is to consider I options andl.rerch_a conclusion. type of conflict I benefits a effort because it promotes effective discus-i sions. In a healthy team where members commit to collabora1. tlon to best solutions, a difference in opinion I I often a broader understanding of a problem, gener-i ates more solutions, and even creates excitement to keep I. members involved. I I I I I 49


This type of conflict occurs when 1 ,, members take on ownership of ideas. It is different than I : substantive1conflict, because. it tends to create more emo1 ., tionally charged arguments between team members. This type 1: ' of conflictdoes not yield better information or conclusions ,, in team env+ronments. It is destructive to a team effort I because it diverts the team's resources and energy from the I task. their time taking sides and attacking I I or defending positions rather than exploring new avenues. Since affective conflict creates a win-lose atmosphere where I I issues are thought out, the quality of the group product suffers. I have 1 noticed both types of conflict in team efforts. conflict seems to occur in team meet-' I lngs where ground-rules encourage members not to I become pers0naily attached to an idea and to openly chal1 I lenge each 0thers' ideas. From my experience, these rules were more in project teams involving engineering and scientific'personnel. Writers tend to react more per-i . I sonally when their ideas were challenged, creating more i affective i Confliet #rom Criticism. Writers tend to take criti1 I' cism of their work more personally than other members of a I I project team (Souther 1971). This is because writing is I I such a human that writers are highly ego-involved I I 50 i:


I' in their wo!rk In fact, they are so involved that any criticism o'f t'heir writing is often difficult to face: sub1 stant ial pe;rso.nal con 1 ict and animosity results. Although writers agree to changes before thoughts are I on paper, once crystallized, change ls dlffi-' i cult crystallization is a highly personal act. I I As mentioned previ9usly, I observed a great deal of I conflict ocburring during review stages of a writing pro[; : ject. Most' of this conflict can be attributed to comments I I or criticisms of writing by the engineering project team or by assigned. "editorial experts." Conflict from peer reviews I I by other writers, however, did not seem to generate as much I I conflict. This may be because writers' accept criticism better from other writers or because peer review sessions I and set up to provide more positive feedback in a less critical manner. \. Conflict fr9m Writing Environment and Situation Conflibts arise from several sources during the team i I efforts. tend to be human influences like I I and human behavior (discussed in other sections oflthis chapter). More significantly, Dinsmore I (1984) cites studies that describe the hard sources of I conflict Hard source of conflict are the reali1 : ties of PfOjects in industry that seem to effect team 51


' Hard sources of conflict can be project prior-' ' I I !ties, procedures (such as reporting progress I I 'i and defining technical issues, manpower I I I :1 resources, These sources of conflict, and I :, I .] the stages whete they occur, closely match my experience. I : I i Hard sources of conflict are mostly caused by the team writing environment and situation. These sources can cause I : I conflict all stages in the writing process discussed I in Chapter 2, "The Team Writing Process." I I Early in the project, during the planning and design stage, tend to cause the most conflict. Scheduling and1manpower issues become more prevalent as the I project progre$ses, but scheduling causes the most persis1 I I I tent From my experience, scheduling changes in I manuals were a1major source of writing team versus project I team However, Dinsmore cites sources that list : I scheduling the most persistent conflicts, followed by 1 project pri9rities and manpower, then "soft" sources of : 'I conflict differences. I I : Hard sources of conflict from the project team or I . I writing department also caused a great deal of conflict on : I -the teams where I was a member. These sources include I I 1 changes in documentation due dates or style edicts. Coni fiict from outside sources more frequently during I j by the overall project team. For me, I 52 I I


I conflict from these sources affected my motivation, produc-tivity, than from any other source. I In a survey of 100 project managers on the intensity of conflict during various project stages (House 1988), managers rated the intensity of a conflict source on a scale I of from 1 (least intense source) to 7 (most intense source). I These results parallel my own experiences and the lnfor-mation (1984) that I cited during the first paragraphs of this section. The following description of project stages pertains I I information: (H6use 1988) in Table 4.1, "Sources of Conflict Versus Project Stage." To this list, I have indicated the I I I vriting phase that I think corresponds to each of the general project phases. I Project Formulation -Conception of project to commitment of funds and staff. I Build-Up-From assignment of first person to full I of project. For a writing project, this I I stage encompasses the indoctrination and planning I aeslgn stages. I I ProgramFull staff working to complete I primary objectives. For a writing project, this I I encompasses drafting and revision stages. I -Completion of primary objectives to rlassignment of last person. For writing, this I I 53


encompasses the final editing and production I :1 stages. I Table 4.1. illustrates that personality was the most I intense source'of conflict, rating a 7 in the formulation and main phase' stages of the project and a 6 in the buildup I stage. also had an intensity of 7 in the I phase-out stage. Technical issues were the next most in-! tense conflict, rating a 6 in the buildup and phase-out Priorities and schedules averaged the I I least intensity for conflict sources across all project stages. Table of conflict Versus Project Phase l I I Project Stages Source of c0nflict Formulation Buildup Main Phase I, Phase Out Schedules, 3 2 1 1 I Priorities 1 1 4 4 Manpower 4 5 3 3 Technical1Issues 6 4 2 6 I Administrc;ttion 2 3 5 7 Personal! ty ., 7 6 7 2 Conflict frOm 1eam Organization and Participant Tasks I Much conflict on writing teams results from the people I that staff writing team. For example, conflict can result i from the skills, writing or work styles, and i 54


i I I 1, I I' I I I bring to the team. conflict can I also result the different roles and tasks that writers have during writing process. Work Differences in individual work styles I : were a source of conflict for me during one of a team project. This conflict occurred because another wri t:er .thought we should each use a specific work I :. style to a project task. The other writer I I ., me to write sec'tions in order as listed in an outline. I I . wanted to jump .around from section to section. Neither of us could a compromise, which led to strained relations I throughout the and a reluctance to interact, ex1 change or reach consensus on other issues. 1: Four tps of individual work styles that I observed I in writing are revealed by case (1985): pr6duces material in a linear fashion, with chapter 1, then proceeds to chapter I' 2,1 3,: and so on. One chapter is not started until I anbther is completed. I : Wr:i produces material in chunks, not necessar ily!liinear, then fits them together in a linear I i at certain points in the project (my pref1 I for writing). I' writer outlines a document in advance, I : ,. then according to the outline in a linear I. I I I l 55 I' I I I


1985) fashion. Each paragraph is polished before pro' I to the next. I I Whol)st writer creates a complete first draft I without a detailed outline and without polishing I each paragraph while writing. The writer then I revises the draft heavily. I There1are general work styles (Grahm I that are also typical to individual writers: I I work' is completed as time elapses and deadlines I I ., i approach. This usually occurs in projects that i have1been done many times. I W9rk is completed rapidly, then bogs down in the middle of the project, then speeds up. I .I Wfrk is completed slowly until most of the time passes, then production quickly increases. This i sometimes called the "term-paper" style, i I occurs in projects where considerable study is I I required before production occurs. Since triters in a team can have these varying work i styles, conflict arises when team leaders and writers bel : lieve that everyone should have the same work style. Team I members a certain amount to be produced at a I certain time and be overly critical of those who do use the I work style they prefer. I 56


I I 'I conflicts often occur in classroom writing of conflict are cited as differences I in writing tyles in students with different personalities I (Jensen and:DiTiberio 1984). Writing style conflicts occur when some members think that everyone must do things I I the same way, everyone can't. Depending on their personality:type as described by the Myers-Briggs I ty index, may use a work style similar to one of the following: Writing ideas down, helter-skelter, without worry! .I I ing about organization, grammar, style, or spell-' I ing. I in advance about audience and purpose putting pen to paper. I Using brief outlines and notes while writing I ;' Using detailed outlines and plans while Jensen and DiTiberio (1984) conclude that writers become emotionallylblc;>cked when forced to use an alien work style early in writing process, but that they may be able to I adapt a different style in later writing stages. I I Roles. 1 Project and writing team members with different project their own project concerns. Conflicts I often they review the work of those concerns. The following describes the writing I with contrary concerns of I members with various roles (Debs 1986): 57


1 WriterPersonal preference, reader ease of use, I I precedent, logic, product image, company's intent and concerns, professional standards and ; norms, and being an advocate of reader. I I \ Manager (or team leader) -Time, costs, preceI quality, and implementing company goals. Developer or Engineer-Technical accuracy, defi1 niti9n, representation of product quality, person1' ,I I al preference, and professional standards or I norms. ; ,. I E4itbr -Consistency, logic, company standaids, I I and guidelines, past practices, a?d updating tasks. Writing styles. Differences in writing styles were I I I intense sources of conflict in the team projects where I worked. I' I arguments about organization, grammar, I punctuationl usage, word usage and other issues are I quite whenever any type of writers discuss style. I, I 'I In the.survey of collaborative writers by Ede and I Lunsford respondents frequently mention conflicts I ,! over writing style as a problem. In another survey of I ,I I i collaborative writers (Allen and others 1987), conflict over I style in several writing groups interviewed. One I group that tried composing a draft during meetings could not I [ I I. ' i 58


even get ideas on paper because of constant hag, gling over and sentences. I ; One of discourse traits of writing in large-scale i projects brought out some interesting I I how varying ideas of audience cause con I flicts over. writing style (Fry 1986). Conflicts occur beI, cause software documentation does not have a single, simple that writers can address throughout the documentatipn. To make matters worse, writers have to pro-' I 1 vide a technical description for software developers i and a general, nontechnical description for a i audience inl the same publication. No two writers have the I I same idea about how to provide language, illustrations, and i I for each audience. I Skills1 Dfsparity. one of the problems with the tech1. nical commuhications field is that there is no unified I academic orl exper ience base unique to the field. As a I I result, wriiters with varying skills tend to populate writing teams. I If t'he company (or project team) values one set of I, I skills over! another, conflicts arise. In "homogeneous I comparison models" such as technical writing groups, writers I may feel infetior to peers with more impressive credentials I I I (O'Neill Conversely, writers who feel qualified may resent with different backgrounds. When writers I feel by another's expertise, they may see their j I I I. 59


I i I goals of job security and peer respect as unobtainable. When needs are satisfied, writers' attitudes fluctuate I arid they erratic output and inconsistent quality. These retard personal interaction to weaken group cohesion-and productivity. PossibLe Underlying Reasons for Conflict in Teams I As a method of classifying personality types, catego-! ries defined by the psychologist carl Jung were later re-fined into tool by Isabel Myers-Briggs. Jung I I. I defined a tdtal of sixteen personality types based on combi' I nations of four personality traits. Four traits are select-. I eacH, from the following opposing trait pairs: I Extroversion (E)-Introversion (I) ed, one i I sensing (S) -Intuition (N) (T) -Feeling (F) Judgement (J) -Perception (P) The different traits (either E or I, s or N, T or F, J or P) occur lin individuals because of their unique vay of looking at and dealing with the world. Much of the conflict sources desribed under the "Discussion of Conflict in Team Writing" sectiQn can be attributed to conflict between I : members of a writing team having opposing personality types. 1: Although these sixteen personality types are interest-' inq to studt, providing detail on all of them is beyond the I I 60


I. I I I' i scope of this thesis. Instead I will discuss those types I :! that have identified in research task groups and I : writing.teams and how these types can cause conflict. I' In oneistbdy of personality types (Hackos 1990), seven-ty-five of technical writers sampled were intro-! (IN) personality types. As intuitives, these I' : writers pref,er; to address a problem, and as introverts find I a solution to a problem on their own. Only after details I. . are finalized they willing to communicate their ideas to I ,i others. IN types were equally divided as having I I thinking orlfe7ling (T or F) traits and judging or perceiv-ing (J or P) traits. Therefore, technical writers could I'. either INTJ, INTP, INFJ, or INFP personality types. I A strong percentage of those sampled where also lntro1. : I cs) types. I' realistically. Presumably, writers could IS types prefer to see the world IS types ihlnking or feeling and judging or perceiving I . I : traits, much the preceding combinations for the IN types. they could be ISTJ, ISTP, ISFJ, or ISFP 'I ,, I types. .I ,: A study 6f personality types in research task I (Doering that disorganized progress, poor I . strained relations can result when people i. :: with personality types together. This I f I 61 1: l


reaction occurs because different personality types have I 11 'I I, different ways1of perceiving and judging in a given situa-tion. 'I By from Doering's study, research task I ;; groups would. tend to have a similar distribution of person-ality types as1technical writing teams: INTP, INTJ, and 'I ISTJ. Therefote, Doering's description of how these types I cause working could also be true for I ; technical in a writing team. I ;I In study, subteams were created from each I personality and team members were questioned about their conflicts when working with members of a different :1 subteam. intuitive, thinking, judging (INTJ) subteam,complained of difficulty in working with the introverted l sJns i ng, thinking, judging ( I STJ) s ubteall. The INTJs felt that the ISTJs were reluctant to embrace new I ;I concepts and f6cused on limiting details. They also felt .1 :1 that the ISTJs:were skeptical, pessimistic, and sought I .; practical I Conversely, the ISTJs complained that the INTJs and 'I :! INTPs overlooked details, deviated from the plan, did not see and had unpredictable work habits. I : Doering concludes that the complaints of sensing and intuitive are typical of those with a different preference for a problem. In essence, the INTJ, 62


INTP, and ISTJ personalities do not "see" the same problem, I so invariably occurred. I :i ,, The use of personality types to explain underlying reasons for in writing teams may offer a unique tool for more synergistic and productive writing I I teams that better quality material.. It may also I offer a tool for leaders to use in solving and avoiding I :; conflicts the writing process. I will provide more 'i information anq discussion on this towards the end of the :i following chapter. 'I summary ,i The dynamic nature of technical can create an environment lwetl-suited for conflict. The affective conflict that project quality can be interpersonal, intrapersonal, or group-to-group. Because of the nature of I :.i il writing tasks and technical writers, a team-writing project I 'I 'I I can foster unique sources of conflict. Conflict is revealed I. : by arguments, a decrease in interaction or information I ,i sharing, and general dissention. I In writing environments, conflict can occur from team interactionJ elpecially when writer1s criticize each other's I :1 work. Conflict can also occur because of the writing envi,1 I ronmerit and siiuation. Hard environmental sources of con,, I 'I flict include scheduling, administration issues, project !I 63


priorities, and style edicts. These hard sources of con-flict are more intense at different stages of a project. Conflicts occur because of team organization and participant taJks I In this category, conflicts can occur because of differences in work styles, roles, writing I j styles, and Possib]e underlying reasons for most conflict can be I differences linjwi_iteis' personality types as defined by the Myers-Briggs personality index. Writers with certain per-I '! -sonality have unique ways of approaching writing tasks and solving problems. Because of this, conflicts can I ,, arise in ma1y reas during team-writing projects when these writers work together. Recent studies of personality traits -for writing and research team members indicate that a possi l ble tool can developed from personality indexes I :i to structure writing teams for greater synergy, productivi-ty, and quaJitj output. 64


CHAPTER 5 r: I FOR TEAM LEADERS I Although team effort offers many benefits to a writ1 J ing project) social conflict often subtracts from these -1. I benefits. application of proper techniques, the nega.[. tive affective conflict can be avoided in teams I or at In many groups the team leader can do i much to curtail social conflict and motivate team members. ,I ,' I I Leaders seem to reduce conflict by proper techniques of I 1: delegating to the entire team, assigning I I projects, structuring subteams, rotating authority to team I I members thrduggout the project, acting facilitators, I I I structuring and reviews, motivating and uniting the team, and with members in conflict situations. I I I to the literature, for a successful team effort with social conflict, the team leader must I lay the groundwork during planning stages, before the proi II ject beings.! process involves selecting team members I and decidinJ' ort their roles and projects, cultivating team, I ,, I building deciding on techniques for working with ,I the technical project team, and a host of other tasks. I I In chapter I will first discuss the planning and I . groundwork that the successful team leader must perform .I :: before the P.roject begins, then I will detail some of the I I ,, I I I


1: I I I: I methodB to UBe during the project to avoid Bocial conflict, 1 1 manage conflict and enhance the synergy and social dimen-sion of thelteJ: effort. I before the Pro1ect Begins Authors, as Dune (1990) and Johnson (1986) point to I the planning process as an effective way to solve problems I I I in team effott. However, the bulk of research and arti,. I ; cles provide information about planning team projects in I' :. general, ra,her than writing team projects. But this infor-mation can easily be transferred to the team writing en .. viI I ronment. I [wi+l supplement this information on teams with i I the limited 'material available on writing project planning and with my experience. I 1: i Designing Teams and Selecting Members I . In man1: conflicts occur for various reasons, but especially of differences in personality types, .I l I I dubject ievels, preferred assignments, and work I styles. Although much of this conflict is difficult to I I foresee when structuring a team, especially when team lead. i I ers are not with team members, many writers in the I I field stress the need to carefully consider membership of I : the writing I I I ,. 66


I I i i For projects requiring multiple areas of expertise, leaders should choose members by their expertise (Duin I 1990). the group's strength depends on collective I expertise, embers should not change tasks during the pro1 ;: ject If the"project requires molding divergent perspec-tives into common solution, select members according to I I, their diverse viewpoint. During the writing project, as members collectively write and review, they will synthesize I I these I I Leaders' and team members should develop a systematic approach for. building future interpersonal relationships and I avoiding conflict during the planning process of a project I (House 1988). approach: \ Four main steps can help implement 'the team interaction needed to get the best r,sults. For example, structure meeting agendas 'invite member participation. Provide rules I I f9r P,eer reviews to avoid negative criticism and I conflict. I how expectations about control and prefererices in human relationship styles can affect I I success. I Prbvide for continuous care and feeding of the I ' prpject team. I I I 67


I .! I interpersonal conflict arid plan ahead to I d.eal:: with it. I The suggestion for implementing the preceding i steps durin9 the planning process is to spend considerable I time and getting to know the team members. Also, select people for the team, especially those who I have workedltogether, and organize information about key members and1 how they interact. To organize this knowledge, analyze styles, possible relationships between you as the team leader and others on the team, and possible I pressures resist your ideas. : I Aldag Brief (1984) offer suggestions similar to l I Duin's (1990) about selecting members based on their exper-tise or divirg:nt viewpoints. They stress group size and composition las ,keys to better interaction and consensus. They conclud'e t;hat five members make an optimum group size I that qoordination problems. Small groups of less than eight with compatible personality types should I yield a high: te,am spirit. Avoid members who have obvious incompatible traits because they can lead to an anxious, atmosphere, not conducive to group cohesion. The authors suggest looking for good blends of I personality fra,,its. For example, authoritarians (demanding, assertive, and fit well with submissive types. I 68


i. I Also, look members with similar characteristics, such as I ,. I job status,!backgrounds, attitudes, values, and position. Team leaders should learn extensively about individual I team members when building a team, especially how members \' function working on a problem as part of a group (Doer-ing 1973). IThe author goes so far as to suggest characterI izing potent.ial team members with the Myers-Briggs indicator test to their personality types. (Personality 'I types as to technical writers are discussed in Chapter 4.) i Dqering suggests that identical profiles will I produce communication and cooperation because prob-lems are peiceived in the same dimension and judgement logic i is on the other hand, structuring a team with I all members the same personality type does not make I I I the strongest team because members are prone to the I same errors and can overlook the same solutions to problems. i I o a balanced team of selected profiles is best. I All members sho.uld have at least two or three common charac-, teristics inl'their profile to ensure communication and team control. I different personality traits also have different ; I' work styles. Team leaders should also consider I this when teams. Work styles of students anal lyzed by Jensen and DiTiberio (1984) relate well to team '. I 69


writers in These researchers reveal that differ-' I ent writing prpcesses are preferred by each of sixteen dif-. I ferent types. I I Although 8ensen and Ditiberio conclude that you can't .I I readily how a personality type will work, knowledge .:: I of how a trait influences writing can broaden : I the way one deals with writers. Like teachers and their I students, must recognize that team writers each : I I have valid ways of dealing with the world and their writing I project. aioid conflicts they should avoid forcing i writers to lter their styles if possible. As discussed I under Groundwork the Team," later in this I I chapter, can acknowledge and legltimatlze.different writing I of lnd i vidual members with the team during i planning mee.tinlgs. I The list identifies some of the major per i sonality typbs their work style preferences: versus introverts (general orientation life)-Extroverts tend to write with lit, I i tle initial planning, but plan from talking to I and by generating ideas through the writing i I process. Introverts consider and contemplate I I I more. They tend to follow the classical prewrit1 pattern taught in composi! I tion classes. They do extensive on-paper planning i 70 1.


I I I before writing and rarely bounce ideas off of I ', I I I versus intuition (ways of taking in infor; i mation) Sensing types write best when given I explicit, detailed, and specific instructions. of data and work best I .,, wfth:concrete information, preferably in a sequen:. I tiallstep-by-step fashion. Intuitive types write I given general instructions from which I create their own goals. They need to be original in approach to a topic. They tend to : I quickly, paying little attention to mechanics or concrete examples. I versus feeling (how a person makes evalu.1 I judgements, and decisions) -Thinking types need clear, objective performance standards I meaning from an assignment. They focus on of content instead of audience impact. must follow an outline to make organiza1 : I I decisions as they write. Feeling types Ito have a topic that relates to personal i I They tend to connect another human to : I communication so focus more on audience reaction .. I of content and organization. Feeling I may develop outlines at first, but are less 71 I I' I I l .'I


i l)kely to follow them closely as thinking types. I versus perceiving (how people approach Judging types selectprojects that they I can get done and work on tasks one at a time. Theyi must limit their topics quickly and set I They need plans, schedules, and completed 1 to get things done. Perceiving types leave tasks unfinished until they can gain a better understanding. They like flexibility and sponta so need enforced deadlines to them I towards closure. Laying the GroUndwork with the Team i I As I discussed in Chapter 4, environmental issues such as scheduling provide persistent sources of interpersonal, I 1 intrapersonal, .and group conflict during a project.. Indepth project can eliminate these and other "hard" I sources of conflict that occur as a project progresses (Dinsmore I I 1984). The softer sources of conflict, such as I I the human and behavioral issues, can also be solved during planning During this time, team leaders can sort out communication barriers, conflicts of interest, and differences 'in !managerial philosophy that cause this type of I conflict. Involving the team early in the process also 72


I I I generates t:he i\r personal commitment and thrashes out poten-tial and personality conflicts instead of waiting for these to cause the most damage. Hopefully, leaders can: develop action plans before conflict occurs to I remove barriers to collaboration and the hard and soft 1: ' I sources of conflict. I Leaders spould meet with team members during planning stages to issues that can enhance satisfaction and productivity throughout the project (Duin 1990). The folI I lowing list provides some examples: Deteimine the degiee of control each member has I I over the final product and how each member's work l can to the whole. I Determine each member's the ability to meet with the team and to respond to the work of others on ,i the team. I i Establish procedures for resolving disputes. : l constraints facing team members such as de,adl!ines, project duration, writing styles, audiI I ences, purpose, and quality. I I each member's feelings about the surface I of text, format, document specifications, I I and issues. 73


I each member's writing processes, from to final editing to acknowledge that member has unique, but practical work styles. I J For exampQe, some members procrastinate, lay out each I . I task in a row and check it off, write holistically, or have I other work . I catalogue members skills and expertise I Findiout member project commitment and hidden agenaas. I I should establish goals, roles, methods, and ground-rules at the start of a project to avoid conflict I (Johnson This can be accomplished through meetings I i between team members and leaders during the start of a I project. The leader and members can even publish a set of I : I guidelines for !future reference. As one good rule, team members should lnot blame others for project shortcomings to avoid interJerJonal conflicts. Additionally, members should : I not discuss other team members behind their backs. Estab-lishing thia 1Jtter rule can prevent team factions from I i. I pitting themselves against each other during the project. I I Warbuto: n (!1987) identifies guidelines for instructing I team members the project begins to avoid conflict during the I To; conflict contributing to a defensive I members should be careful not to phrase 74


I 'i I '! in a way that implies judgement, in I I ai:way that indicates a desire to find out more and I cbnsider information objectively. discussions of ideas or reviews of work, I members should avoid condescending comments like I I "That's pretty silly, or 'What made you think of I Instead, they should make statements ,' that:imply interest and suggest that they want to help:the group understand or make a high-quality I I decision. I The teacher in a collaborative learning situation.takes .I on very roles to the team leader in a team writing i situation. Inldiscussing the role of the teacher in collabI I orative writing assignments in the classroom, Weiner (1986) identifies point for clarifying tasks before I the project. He stresses that the teacher should provide ,i the collaborative writing group with clear guidelines about I ' their tasks goals. These tasks should be split into workable seg'ments and made pertinent to the groups' goals, needs, and abilities. Duin (1990) provides similar guidei I lines for wrlting teams, adding that when the project does i not require expertise on the part of a group, it may be for the team members to choose their own assignments for. the project. 75


\: In my :exp.erience on one team, tasks were discussed ,. ! ... among the team and published as a formal team document during! planning stages. This document helped guide members in roles throughout the project. Culttyating"Management Styles I i Many stress that writing team leaders and ., I managers should cultivate a management style that is more I human relations-oriented, participatory, and consultative. .I These characteristics also apply to style used by group ' leaders in the:team projects of which I was a member. This style tremendous creativity in the group and en-' \. hanced motivation and satisfaction. I l technical communication management moving I toward "self-directed" teams (Killingsworth and Jones 1969). Although Killingsworth and Jones describe a team composed of writers with the technical project team, an I integrated can also be a group of writers, graphics I I personnel, and others involved with publication I' production. The integrated team approach to management . I stresses management and decision making. It I also advocates 1the human relations approach, which stresses worker moti vatilon instead of product! vi ty. ' : I Leaders should manage groups of writers with different I backgrounds the participatory approach (O'Neill 1988). The approach dictates that members become more 76


active in that affect them. This approach increases and reduces boredom. Participation motivates because it focuses ontheir individuality I and gives them opportunities to increase their self-worth and Although should be granted to team members to I implement and actions (Johnson 1986), the group effort I I is helped if adopts a directing, instead of an style. Also, by promoting shared effort, I I shared resp6ns1bility, and common goals, leaders can I I defuse conflicF and personality conflicts. Of team-building models provided by Liebowitz and team leaders can base their management approach on1at. least two: 1) the interpersonal model, and I I 2) the role model. In the' interpersonal model, the team leader must create I a climate where conflict can be confronted and resolved and "I effective can be made by group members. To pro-vide this ciimate, the leader must initiate practices that : I develop, trust, and open communications, and I allow for feelings. This model hopefully increases cooperation 'and group cohesiveness, and it leads to higher I "I commitment achieve goals. Ultimately it should enhance I team effectiveness and productivity . I 77


I In model, the team leader must clarify member j roles project and reclarify goals during project. This will unnecessary conflict, competition, and ambiguity the project and more energy will be avail-' I able for ta1sks. I Before a team leaders must analyze their : I management style and possibly make adjustments or learn new I I skills based OJl the project environment and team membership. Theories x,iy,: and z are well-known in the field of project management. i: iefly, theory X managers assume people need : I to be directed and are motivated by security, position, I : money, and punishment. These managers impose super-. visory roles and feel controls are necessary because workers I are immature and lack responsibility. Theory Y assumes people are lazy; therefore, managers estabI lish less structure and exert less control and supervision. ;. I I These independent tasks within the best interests the company. Finally, theory z assumes people I i are responsible and capable of achieving excellence when motivated by appeals to their social well-being, self-es, I teem, and People can be trusted and work alone close supervision. To the success of the theory Y approach. a study of 200 engineers and accountants showed that job I satisfiers can elevate workers to superior 78


I I levels of perfprmance. The team leader can include four I motivators in hheir style: recognition for achievement, I I I opportunity achievement and challenges, increased reopportunity for growth. I Ackoff and Emshoff (1984) explain that managers must I i custom-tail9r use of the using X, Y, or Z styles based on the maturity level of the group they manage. I feel that I I the X and manyltimes theY management styles are outdated : I for team projects in industry today. Since I have I not worked on a team project other than those that seemed to I be managed with the theory Z or Y approach, I cannot know I for sure X approach works in team situation. I I However, I have worked in writing departments with dedicated theory X and I could not see their style working I in a team Theory Y and especially theory z seem more like an approach that would yield greater team motivaI tion, satisfacfion, and productivity. Through their del I i I. I scription effective management styles in team situations, I, I most researchers in the field must feel the same way. Resolving and Promoting synergy during the Pro1ect I Once Jleaders design the team and select members, I establish parameters with the team, and cultivate their style for the project during planning stages, carry out their plans. Then they must 79 I. 0


their plans and modify them as necessary during I the In addition, they must actively employ methods to the team, build collaboration, solve I conflicts, and enhance team synergy. I From m!y e\xper ience, the practice of holding frequent meetings and other events for team members to socialize, plan approaches, discuss project issues, and find out what I others on the project are doing helps to head off conflicts and enhances motivation and synergy. Several authors I also mentioned the importance of establishing regular team sessions for this purpose. : I Maintaining Synergy and Motivation I several for maintaining and enhancing motiva-tion and team synergy during the project are discussed in I I : technical writing and project management literature. Aldag and Brief suggest creating a climate conducive for I group I :. I Create situations where members get to know each other and observe each other's behavior. Encour-'! age them to communicate freely. I I : group energy on a common goal where all members can share the output. I I possible for all members to experience succrss. 80


tasks so members can share the work a!nd :!rewards E:nco[urage members to use the democratic decision process instead of relying on a dominant team; member. Other (Broadwell and House 1986) elaborate on the preceding suggestions: Pulll the group together by complimenting group The do this, leaders must fill in gaps by lnitkating tasks, seeking opinions and informal tion, providing information, summarizing and coor1 I dinating, encouraging, gate keeping, and express-ing group feelings. 'I feedback that is goal-related, visual (when possible), and immediate. Reward group effort, remembering that different I J work for different people. Some sugges tions of rewards are group parties, letters in I I files, attention to personal wishes, increasing of individuals, enhancing the work environ-. I and increasing responsibility and project_ variety. I I I one of the most demoralizing parts of working in a team ; project for the loss of a sense of personal accomplishment .. Like Broadwell and House, Gilbreath (1986) 81


I' I' I' stresses the importance of rewarding personal contributions I I tq project Although the process of identi,. fylng personal goals is difficult, must apply con-,. : stant effort t,;o the task. Rewards can go a long way toward I counteracting the negative effects of sharing work in team projects. DeMarcb Lister (1986) offer enlightening I :1 suggestions: foF enhancing synergy or helping a team to 'I I "gell." They that leaders or managers cannot make a I team gel, but only plant the seeds, act to improve the odds, and cross their fingers. The most important tactic is to let the team know that you trust them to perform tasks without People who feel they are not trusted have r: 1 little motivation to bond together. DeMarco and Lister suggest ten:guidelines for leaders or managers: the team that upper management believes in ' : i the same goals as the team does. I I ., Do not ask the team to lower their quality stan1; : : i as this lowers self esteem and enjoyment of the group process. Do not enforce phony deadlines to .enhance producThe team will know the deadline is phony I and will receive a message that the leader has no I respect or concern for them because the leader I does: not trust them to work without pressure. !I I 82


i I opportunity for the team to succeed to!! I by performing smaller group tasks, demonI s :traltions, or other projects. members to do their job, and respect their I Create opportunities for the team to get away from work to a remote site to accomplish major tasks. . Prov :ide strategic, but not tactile direction. i I Provide frequent milestones and feedback to pro-' I vide: closure on completed tasks. This creates energy for the next task. a sense of team eliteness. People need a of uniqueness to be at peace with themselves let the gelling process begin. cieat the way of administrative procedural to make it easier for the team to do I thelt job. suggesti?ns for the teacher working with collaborative I learning ln.the classroom (Weiner 1986) can apply to team I I 1 leaders in writing efforts as well: organize social situations in which collaboration : : 1 can occur. the group's ability to work together. Hake :sure limits on the group are clear and qenerallyJadhered to, but are flexible. 83


' I synthesize group by leading it towards conI' I s:ensus on issues. aJso warns that a teachers in a collaborative I setting may: hi\nder collaboration by spending too much time with a making members rely on them for consensus, I direction, decisions. Leaders making the writing team rely on writing them for I I decisions may be equally harmful to a Solving Sociall conflicts One most important functions of the team leader during the is solving the conflicts that can detract from team and result in lower productivity. Al' I I though much1 can be done during planning stages in anticipa-. I I tion of conflict still happens. The literature offers for team leaders. i I conflict can best be handled between the I group leaders 1984). Interpersonal conflict, I however, requires custom-made solutions for specific members : I in speclficsifuatlons. Several techniques for solving I conflicts include withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and I confrontinglproblem solving. Confronting/problem solving is '. I ; i the best in a project management situation. I solving stresses pinpointing the I I cause of the conflict, then resolving it objectively. This I .I : i approach requires open dialogue and a competent leader. I 84


,. I' ,. i. I' 'I I This solutrbn .is best because it offers a final win-win I I solution. fo however, it requires that the solution be all parties in the conflict, that I. . . parties be !ope:n an honest, and that all parties agree to I' I control the!: pr:!ocess for arriving at problem solution. '! I II solving offers the most I I. successful this technique may not work depending ,. I I on the people involved, leadership style, or project Other techniques may fit the situation I, better, but! usually only patches on a more deeper probI lem. you should use an approach that removes li : barriers an? C1lears the way for the project to move ahead. 1: I I 1 As in Chapter 4, criticism of a writer's work can lead bitter interpersonal confl lets. The 1 iter-. li ature offers spme guidance In this area. WaJ:"buton (1987) I : I instructs that. criticism of writers and artists must be 1: I I handled dip!;atically. This approach will maintain good I I moral and t.hit!iative in technical manual organizations. One I. I, method leaders can use to solve conflicts during peer reI : views is byj.appointing the person being critiqued as the ,, J I group leader or facilitator during a review meeting. This J, : appointmentfgets the writer involved in the process rather I I I' than the of. the process. Reviewers should provide j. : support of being critical. They should focus on I I' what the wiitei is able to change, be empathic, and focus on 85


I : I strengths of as weaknesses. Another suggestion that takes personal confrontation out of the critique I : to assign review task to each person. For i I o I example, one rleviewer could examine punctuation, another I: still another grammar. Peer of finished drafts serve as periodic : I feedback to help writers better crystalize the I' I audience in their writing. From my experience, a group consensus Judience is important to avoid conflicts, 0 0 especially !if two writers share development of a single manual. feedback during prewriting, as well as 1 I draft revie provide emotional support for writers I and a sense of audience (Gebhardt 1980). A good for this type of feedback Is to urge review l ers to act members of the intended audience when re-viewing a or during a brainstorming session. The that can projects I conclave (PDC) is another technique conflicts and other negative aspects of team 1. I 1983). In the PDC, team members review I the projecb and offer suggestions to improve future pro-: I jects. Thi:s qpportunity lets members air personal con-flicts, !members feedback on their performance and contributions) promotes better members, arid Jllows members to : understanding with other team learn the results of various 86


I I decisions their implications. The PDC also helps members to adjjust their performance for future projects and deter11ines affect of enviton11ental constraints on pro-jects. 1 L I Although .Pierson (1983) does not say when the PDC I should I think that it would be effective after completing milestones during the project. This would allow the approach to be adjusted.periodically before out of hand and solutions more diffi1 :suJmary of Guidelines for Team Leaders The provides a list of important guidelines . I for team during planning and the tea11 writing process its:elf1 I Designing t:he .ITeam and Selecting Members i I tasks during the planning stages of the project: : I members by their expertise if project re. I multiple areas of expert-ise. L members accoiding to their viewpoints if I p:roject requires diverse viewpoints. I s:pend time getting to know potential members. 1. Analyze personality styles, possible relationships I . I b:etw.een leader and team members, and possible i. ; 87 I. I. L


.I r:esljstance to ideas. P,ossible, select experienced team players who I I I have worked together. I members with similar work values, job stat:us,l and work attitudes. Char!acterize potential and existing team members i u:sin1g Myers-Briggs personality index. Analyze I i pote:ntial problems with personality mixes. : I i Inyolying Points to the ITeam to petermine Pto1ect Work style I' I during team meetings in the planning I stages the following: 1 project and team-member conflicts of control members have over product I I tasks fit into whole project I to resolve conflicts M.eeting schedules and decorum : I constraints writing processes, skills, expertise, and hidden agendas. I team ground rules. This can include how .Ito place blame, discussing other members be; I hind their backs, and how to provide comments and I c.r i t!icism during and goals reviews. Divide tasks according to abiliI ties; and interests. I :i .I 88


i fdrmal team document listing ground rules, i t'ask1s, schedules, and goals. I I Document style, format, and specifications. I and administration contacts . I Rel.tions and work with project team. i Management Style for the Project The should develop the proper management style I and skills work for a creative group of professionals in a team The following styles might work best to motivate team to enhance productivity and creativi1 ty. relations, participatory, directing, and oriented style. J and role models. Theory Y and Z management styles. : I Resolving Conlict I following tasks during the writing project to avoid and conflict situations. i Implement plans to avoid conflict and ground rules e:stalblished during planning stages. I I Re-evaluate and modify these plans and ground r'1:Jle:s as changes occur during the project. I I methods to motivate team, build collabora1 tion, and enhance team synergy. I I 89


I I I I I role as facilitator and problem solver. I I H1oldi frequent team meetings and other events so can socialize, work together to reach goaljs, learn project status and member tasks, and I discuss conflicts. I and apply techniques for solving interper conflicts such as soothing, compromising, I I conf:ronti ng. I I Handle writing diplomatically and struc productive review sessions. I U,se ,the post deadline conclave at major milestones I conflicts and other problems for next I proj!ect stage. I I the end of the project by taking members I out to having a party, -or presenting ' a1war,ds. i I Maintalnilng Team Synergy and Motivation tasks during the project to maintain the I team's and motivation: situations members can interact and I 1to know each other. I democratic decision-making. the success experience possible for all mem-. I bersl. I at periodic peer reviews I 1 90

PAGE 100

I Focus group energy on a common goal. I Proviide frequent milestones and goal-related, feedback. ,I Reward group and individual effort. I Pay to individual member goals and wish-es. know that your trust their judgement and expe:rience. .1 Db npt enforce phony deadlines to enhance produc t1i vi1l:y. Dp npt ask team to lower their quality standards ' Maintain sense of team eliteness ) I Clear away administrative and procedural obstacles I I from! members' paths. synthesize the team by leading them towards c:nsjnsus on issues. Make sure limits on group tasks are clear, adhered I tp, and flexible. l Epcofrage the team to rely on themselves for conI 'I direction, and decisions instead of you or 1: ; management. I I. r, I 91

PAGE 101

CHAPTER 6 boNCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I For writers have collaborated during the writing to gather information and to obtain reviews I of their work.: In America, collaborative writing groups may have been ingrained in our culture through formation of I mutual improvement societies and literature discussion ' groups during eighteenth through the early twentieth I centuries. types of groups formed because of two dis1 tinct American! qualities: an egalitarian view of knowledge and motivatioJ toward joining with others to initiate change. In recent years, surveys of technical writers on the I job have shown that collaborative writing teams are quite I common in These teams have become necessary be-cause of pressures getting products to market and i I the technical and organizational complexity of producing I information in: today' s high-technology industries. Teams of ' writers arei to divide tasks on large projects having I short and to provide diverse views and expertise. I Technical writers and others doing similar work in I industry have indicated that the team writing process is productive satisfying. Many writers generally feel the ,I

PAGE 102

,, I' i' I' I 1: end a team effort has better quality is possi-' t ble from ad: writing effort. I The of "true" team writing include sharing during decision making, and sharing re-,. ,, document completion and effect on the .I reader. !characteristic of a team writing effort is the i sometimes interaction of members throughout the pro;: I ject's stages.' These characteristics yield many benefits I that are cdnsistently discussed in the literature. Chief 1: i I among these:ar.e synergy, enhanced motivation, a greater I . !, I awareness o:f issues and writing audiences, and a on gathering accurate information. I The syrieigy or "gelling" that results from a group of ! I people responsibility and interacting throughout the 1: I, project is !important ingredient for project success. i ,. I Team synergy works to enhance motivation in team members and I i: I creates an for better creativity and produc1 tivity. I The of writers taking their writing through the ., social dime;nsi!on of team review, then internalizing and re-, ! externalizi:ng ;their communication, places the audience i firmly in t:he ;end product. As a result, the product, whether ., a manual, article or other publication, has a better 1, I chance of with the intended audience. ' 93

PAGE 103

I 0. I Although :the collaborative writing process provides a i I good for project success and quality, it also I 0 I provides an environment for social conflicts. These con: :1 flicts can from the project quality. A model can donstructed to illustrate how environmental elements un:iqule to team writing can affect the intensity and : I type of soc1iaij conflict during the writing process. These elements (1) the writing situation, (2) team (3) team organization and participant tasks, I and (4) team 11eadership and management. see Figure 6.1. I i .I Input I Process I Team Writing Process Social Interaction I I I I I Figure 6.1 Team Writing Hodel Outputs Tangible Project Quality Team Document Intangible Sense of Accomplishment Group Image : I The conflict resulting from team Interaction is perhaps the! most intense and damaging type of conflict I I during the process. This type of conflict can be I intrapersonal, or group-to-group. Affective I I conflict from team interaction occurs when members maintain I I ownership of ideas and, when challenged, spend more time I I 94

PAGE 104

I I I attacking positions rather than moving onward. 0 This confli!bt !can spread throughout the team to detract from productivit!y. : One example of conflict from team interaction !. occurs the inevitable process of reviewing a writei's i work. Criticism during these reviews, if not handled well, can considerable and long-lasting conflict. I resulting from team interaction, or from any other I of the writing model, can create tension and I bring I to a standstill. It can cause i members to rt,p interacting, sharing infotmation, and making creative to the project. If not checked, conflict can cause team to split into factions against each other : I which can the negative effect on project quality. i I Hard slourlces of conflict are those arising from the writing and situation. These sources include project pr iior i ties, deadlines, administration procedures, ;. I technical a:nd manpower issues, and schedules. Scheduling causes the ro,t conflicts throughout the project and are a source of project team versus writing team conflict. intensity of conflict sources can change I' I I dur inq var i'ous stages of a project. A survey indicates that procedures provide the most intense source of conflict iJtJe phase-out phase of a project and technical issues the most intense source during phase-out and buildup sta,ges of a project. Personality was themost I: 95 I'

PAGE 105

I I, .[ [i :[ intense soutce of conflict during formulation and main-phase li t'. ll \ stages of a See Table 4.1 for more details. I I A of conflicts can result from the team organi1 I zation and task elements: I, ] II I in work styles can cause conflict when i' I in the project feel that all should have I I the methods of producing a publication. This I' i becomes hard to deal with because of the l 'i of work styles that writers use. 1: I I' Differences in roles during a project also causes li i Writers, team leaders, technical ex11 ,I and editors all have different concerns I. reviewing a publication draft. Conflict 1: i o6curs when concerns do not complement each other. 1: :1 Differences in writing styles and skill levels of JeaJ members cause considerable conflict during a 1: .i For example, conflict can result if cer1 I skills are seen as more valuable by team I, I or managers. Conflict from skills dispar-i: I I' I can be devastating to writer production and j: : I' I t.eam synergy. !: ; II I These whether they result from the team -,, I situation, interaction, or organization and ']: I II I participant:tJsk elements of the writing process, can be ], I 'II [: 1:. ,,. ii I 96 ,; 1:

PAGE 106

I i' '' explained through studying the personality types as de. I scribed by Jung and Isabel Myers-Briggs. Conflicting both on the writing as well as overall I project can cause either overt or subtle conflicts ' (described !in 'Chapter 4) to occur through all stages of a I project. This conflict occurs because of the way different i,l writers peiceive and deal with the world. i: :I The element of the team model illustrated in Figure 6 .1 :is Iteam leader ship and management. The 11 ter ature and on teams points to this element as I I . having the most effect on curtailing the social conflict ': I arising fror ,he other elements in the model. By applying appropr iate1: guidelines, confl let can be reduced to enhance .: :1 many of thei.benefits of team writing. Ultimately, a better I, ,. quality proreclt and end-product can result. see the "Summa ry of for Team Leaders" in Chapter 5 for a list of important guidelines. I I This thesis defined a model of team writing and how I I conflict ar1ise's in those elements of the model that have I [, input into writing process. This thesis also provides guidelines the leadership and management element of I. I'' the team wr:iting model alleviate social conflict during the I l team process. However, many more methods for avoid-ing solving conflicts can be derived from !', :1 I 97

PAGE 107

. I I J I l studying tQe personality types defined by Jung and MyersBriggs. these types can also further our under-. I standing of cJnflict situations that can occur during the I I team writing P,rocess. : I Hackos (1990) provided some needed information along I i these lines. defining personality traits in a sample of I I technical writers. Hackos also describes how writers with i different perform their work. When comparing these : I findings to.ttiose of Doering (1973), I can readily see that I I introverted, thinking, judgmental (ISTJ) writers I I I might have ,difficulty working with introverted, intuitive, I I I thinking, (INTJ) and introverted, intuitive,. ' thinking, (INTP) writers. Wheri placing these ' writers on a team, team leader would be wise to :. I examine what and Ditiberio (1984) and others in the .. I field have :found about work styles of writers with these .; personality. ti,pes. Re-structuring the team or educating the I writers about lthe work styles of their team mates may be I beneficial.! leaders can also use information about : I writer types to balance the writing team for maximum communication, and product quality, as 1 Doering suggests. Much morJ study is needed on the function of person. ality in relation to various elements of the team 98

PAGE 108

II writing-mod:fl'l particularly the team interaction and organi-zation and tasks elements. Also, more research . i I i is needed personality traits affect the individual i 'I and team process. If the work and writing styles of .I technical w:tit:ers can be more clearly defined, conflicts !: i from differences during team projects can be :i 'I i better by the team and dealt with in a more :: I productive madner. In addition, teams can be structured :. i I wl th tlhat can work with each other in a more syner1' I glstic mann;er .1 Finally, with more research on how personal; I ity traits the writing process, possibly techniques i I ,, I can be that enhance the writing process. More pro1:ductivity and better communication may result in the end. ,, i: ' I' \; I I I 99

PAGE 109

I. . LIST OF REFERENCES Abelson, Philip H. 1965. Relation of group activity to creatiyity in science. Daedalus 94: 603-14. Ackoff, c., and James R. Emshoff. 1984. Human 1as seen by the experts. Chap. in Human I . tn proiect management. New York: American Association, 31-46. Aldag, Ramoin, :iJ., and Arthur P. Brief. 1984. Managing organ!:zatHonal behavior. st. Paul, Minn.: West company. Allen, Nancy, ,Dianne Atkinson, Meg Morgan, Teresa Moore, and Snow. 1987. What experienced collaborators say abou collaborative writing. Journal of Business and Tehnical Communication 1 (September): 70-90. Barrett, Ed:war!d. 1988. Text. context, and hypertext. Mass.: MIT Press. i i Broadwell, M., and Ruth s. House. 1986. SuperyisUng technical and professional people. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc. Bruffee, Kenneth A. 1973. Collaborative learning: Some practical models. College English 34 (February): 640-43:, I I, : Bruffee, A. of 635-52';. 1984. Collaborative learning and the mankind. college English (November): Burrer, and Faye c. Lepp. 1990. surviving the team experience (1001 pages and still In Proceedings of the thirty-seventh Internatibnal Technical Communication Conference, The for Technical Communication. Washington, 0 C : WE -,9 3 Case, Donalb. Processing professional words: Personal computers and the writing habits of professors. College Composition and Communication 36 (October): 317-21.

PAGE 110

Clifford, John. 1981. Composing in stages: The effects of A collaborative pedagogy. Research in the Teaching of 15 (February): 37-53. Connors, E. 1990. Collaborative learning in the writing classroom. In Proceedings of the I thirty-seventh International Technical Communication Conference, The Society for Technical Communication. D.C.: ET30-32. I Craig, Marge Craig. 1974. Synergic power: Beyond dOmination and permissiveness: Proactive Press.:_ : Debs, Mary E. 111986. Collaborative writing: A study of writing in the computer industry. Ph.D. diss., Rdnsseler Polytechnic Institute, New York. I DeMarco, Tom, :and Timothy Lister. 1986. Peopleyare proiects and teams). New York: Dorset House Company. Dinsmore, Paul c. 1984. A satellite view of project rnanagemerit. Chap. in Human Factors in Pro1ect New York: American Management Associ:ati:lon. Doering, R D t 1973. An approach toward improving the creative ,output of scientific task teams on Engineering Management EM-20 (FebruarY:) : 29 I I Doheny-Far ina,: Steve. 1985. current research in technical Technical Communications, Fourth Quarter: !69-70. I i Duin, Ann H;. 1!990. Collaboration in project teams -theory practice. In Proceedings of the thirtyseventh Technical Communication The Society for Technical Communication. D.c. : WE 39. I Ede, Lisa, ;andt Andrea Lunsford. 1990. Singular authors. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Press. Finch, E. 1977. Collaborative leadership in settings.: Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 292-302. 101 work 13:

PAGE 111

Fry, Robert BJ 1986. The purposes and audiences of jwriting in large-scale technical projects. Ph.D diss., Michigan State University, East Lansing. : I Gebhardt, Richard. 1980. Teamwork and feedback: the base of collaborative writing. English 42 (September): 69-74. : I Gere, Anne '. Writing groups history. theory. and implicatlons. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois Press. Gilbreath, .Robert D. 1986. Winning at pro1ect management wdrks. what fails. and why. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. I I Goldner, and Carole G. Vogel. 1987. Pros and cons writing partnership. The writer (September): 24-25. Grahm, G. 1985. Pro1ect management -combining and behavioral approaches for effective New York: Norstrand Reinhold Company. : I I Hackos, T. 1990. Managing creative people. Technical! Communication (4th Quarter): 375-80. I House, Ruth S.1 1988. The human side of pro1ect manageinen:t. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Inc. Jensen, Georgel, and John Di Tiberio. 1984. Personality and writing processes. College Composition I and Communication 35 (October): 285-301. Jimmie.M., and Betsy G. Jones. 1989. Division labor or integrated teams: A crux in the of technical communication. Technical Communication 36 (August): 210-21. i Liebowitz, s., and Kenneth P. DeMeuse. 1982. The of team building. Human Relations 35: 1-18. I Machan-Gorham,i Lynn. 1991. Communicators as collaborators and leaders in team environments. In Proceedings 2!. the Western Canada Writing Conference in Banff. Alberta. Society for Technical Communication. D.C.: 1-13. I 102 '

PAGE 112

'I i I I O'Neill, P. 1988. Managing diverse competency levels: An objective approach. In Proceedings of the thirty-fifty International Technical Communication The Society for Technical Communication. Washington, D.C.: MPU-8 to MPD-10. ' : I Pierson, David A. 1983. A technique for managing creative people. Personnel (January-February): 12-26. Potvin, JarietiH 1984. Using team reporting projects to of audience and written, oral, and communication skills. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC-27 (September): 130-37. Selzer, j1983. The composing process of an engineer. Composition and Communication 34 (May): 178-87. Souther, w. 1971 The technical supervisor and the writing process. Journal of Technical Writing and communication (July): 183-202. I Spear, I. 1988. Sharing writing. peer response groups. tO English classes. Portsmouth, N.H.: Publishers. I Toph, Mel l967. A course in document management. on Professional Communication PC-30 254-57. Walton, F. 1968. Technical manual writing and administration. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. . Warbuton, 1987. The ABCs of group communication: A for effective group performance. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 17: 303-15. I Weiner, s. 1986. Collaborative learning in the A guide to evaluation. College English 48 ( Janua:ry 52-61. 103