Social alignment
Social alignment refers to the development of a common understanding between individuals towards achieving outcomes more effectively together. It can occur in dialogue between two or more people, where it refers to attaching the same meaning to words to achieve a common understanding within conversations.[1], and also in an organizational setting where it refers to a shared understanding of the teams’ environment[2]. In addition, social alignment refers to task cohesion, which has been defined as “the shared commitment among members to achieve a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group”, and appears to be an important ingredient for team success, the development of shared mental models and team learning, where cooperative efforts, compared to competitive and individualistic ones, tend to result in higher outcome levels [3].
Origins[edit]
Social Alignment emerged in the field of Social Sciences arguably beginning with social constructivism, which takes the view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent on human practices, being constructed in and out of interactions between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context.[4]
According to social constructionism, meanings are constructed rather than discovered, and people may construct meanings in different ways depending on their ‘social relativity’, as all human knowledge is developed and transmitted in social situations, in specific socio-historical contexts. [5] Arguing that meanings are constructed and are not absolute, social constructionism is seen as 'relativist': it is not focused on ‘the way things are’ but ‘the sense people make of them’. Neither is it concerned with the validity of meanings, but the ways meanings are generated in socio-historical contexts, by people, from culture, through language.
Social alignment focuses on the latter part, discussing alignment within dialogue “If two people are socially aligned, it means that they understand each other.”[6]
In early studies of language use in dialogue, Alignment was described as a process of adjustment during conversations where individuals integrate and process information to come to a common understanding [7]. The concept of alignment has since evolved and is used to describe a broader spectrum of multi-level, dynamic, and interactive mechanisms that explain the sharing of people’s mental frameworks and representations in all kinds of social interactions as a means to better achieving shared goals[8].
Alignment in Teams & Organizations[edit]
Alignment is also mentioned in an organizational context. In the research literature there seem to be two approaches to the subject of alignment [9]. The first focuses on the strategic part examining the strategies, structure and planning methodologies in organizations [10]; [11]; [12]. The second investigates the actors in organizations, examining their values communications with each other and ultimately their understanding of each other’s domains; the social dimension of alignment [13]; [14]; [15].
While It is believed that both dimensions are equally important, a lot more attention has been given to the strategic part of alignment. Especially in the IT sector, where alignment between Information Technology and organizational objectives is a crucial factor for project success [16]; [17].
Compared to strategic alignment, a team that is socially aligned not only share the same specifics of their relevant environment, but also have the same understanding of this environment [18]. This allows team members to work more effectively towards their shared goal and make effective decisions in the interest of the team [19].
Being socially aligned yields many benefits for teams. Teams who have a shared understanding of the task, team, or knowledge distribution within the team have been shown to be more efficient and effective than teams that did not have this understanding [20]. Furthermore, A shared understanding promotes efficient team behaviors (coordination, cooperation, communication) and therefore increases performance [21].
Becoming socially aligned[edit]
The building of a shared perception of their environment is a continuous process of team members acquiring similar knowledge through communication and participation in team activities. Face to face communication in a trusted environment is essential in this process. Only when individuals are able to share and question other members’ ideas, a shared understanding of the situation at hand can be reached [22]. Furthermore, shared domain knowledge, open communication and a clear business direction is crucial for social alignment [23].
Moreover, failure in communication and coordination behaviors as well as deficient cooperation (i.e., motivation or desire to work as a team) derail the process of building a shared understanding of the situation between team members, which leads to poor performance and errors."[24]
Within a team setting, several distinct social alignment methods can be identified, four of which are below:
Reflexivity involves an analysis of what the group has accomplished, what it needs to accomplish, and how it will achieve this. Teams only learn effectively, when their learning helps them to reach their goals over and over again [25]. In order to do that, they need to develop a clear vision on where they stand (current reality), what they want to reach (ultimate team goals), and how they want to reach it (team methods and instrumental team goals) [26].
Team activity is the process of team member working together, mobilizing physical and psychological means required for goal attainment. It generally leads to the gradual adaptation of team behavior towards a higher degree of coordination and efficiency [27].
Boundary Crossing is a process of seeking or giving information, views, and ideas through interaction with other individuals or units. Boundaries can be physical, mental or organizational.” Teams can neither learn nor work effectively if they seize to share knowledge, competency, opinions or creative ideas across their boundaries with the different stakeholders in the learning process (such as other teams, customers, teachers and trainers, management, other organizations, etc.). This is mainly because team effectiveness is not solely determined by the team itself, it is negotiated on the boundaries between the team and its environment [28]
Perspective Comparison is a more diagnostic process that captures anonymous perspectives from team members and compares those to show alignment gaps and opportunities for dialogue. In 2016, a proprietary commercial process designed specifically to enable improved social alignment in teams using a perspective comparison process, called Mirror Mirror, originated in The Netherlands.
References[edit]
- ↑ [1] Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. In Research on Language and Computation (Vol. 4, pp. 203–228). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9004-0
- ↑ [2] Schlosser, F., Beimborn, D., Weitzel, T., & Wagner, H. T. (2015). Achieving social alignment between business and IT - An empirical evaluation of the efficacy of IT governance mechanisms. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.2
- ↑ [3] Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.02.002
- ↑ [4] Crotty, M. (1998), The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE.
- ↑ [5] Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1971). The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
- ↑ [6] Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. In Research on Language and Computation (Vol. 4, pp. 203–228). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9004-0
- ↑ [7]Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056
- ↑ [8]Dale, R., Fusaroli, R., & Duran, N. D. (2013). The self-organization of human interaction. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 43–96).
- ↑ [9]Benbasat, B. H. R. and I. (2000). Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81–113.
- ↑ [10] Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., Barclay, D. W., and Cope- York, 1992. land, D. G. "Business Strategy Orientation, Information Systems Orientation and Strategic Alignment," Information Systems Research 8:2), 1997, pp. 125-150
- ↑ [11]Henderson, J.C., and Venkatraman, N. “Strategic Alignment: A Model for Organizational Transformation Through Information Technology," in Transforming Organizations, T. A. Kocham and M. Useem (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.
- ↑ [12]Tallon, P., and Kraemer, K. "A Process-Oriented Assessment of the Alignment of Information Systems and Business Strategy: Implications for IT Business Value," in Proceedings of the Association for Information Systems Americas Conference, E. D. Hoadley and I. Benbasat (eds.), Baltimore, MD, August 14-16, 199
- ↑ [13]Dougherty, D. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science (3:2), 1992, pp.179-202.
- ↑ [14]Nelson, K. M., and Cooprider, J. G. "The Contribution of Shared Knowledge to IT Group Performance," MIS Quarterly (20:4), 1996, pp. 409-432.
- ↑ [15]Subramani, M. R., Henderson, J. C., and Cooprider, J. 'Linking IS-User Partnerships to IS Performance: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective," MISRC Working Paper WP99-01, University of Minnesota, 1999
- ↑ [16] Benbasat, B. H. R. and I. (2000). Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81–113.
- ↑ [17]Schlosser, F., Beimborn, D., Weitzel, T., & Wagner, H. T. (2015). Achieving social alignment between business and IT - An empirical evaluation of the efficacy of IT governance mechanisms. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015
- ↑ [18]Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (1990), “Cognitive psychology and team training: shared mental models in complex systems”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Miami, FL, April.
- ↑ [19] Mesmer-Magnus, J., Niler, A. A., Plummer, G., Larson, L. E., & DeChurch, L. A. (2017). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A continuation. Career Development International, 22(5), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2017-0140
- ↑ [20] Mesmer-Magnus, J., Niler, A. A., Plummer, G., Larson, L. E., & DeChurch, L. A. (2017). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A continuation. Career Development International, 22(5), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2017-0140
- ↑ [21]Gardner, A. K., Scott, D. J., & AbdelFattah, K. R. (2017). Do great teams think alike? An examination of team mental models and their impact on team performance. Surgery (United States), 161(5), 1203–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.010
- ↑ [22]Van den Bossche, P., Wim H., G., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments, 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938
- ↑ [23]]Benbasat, B. H. R. and I. (2000). Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81–113
- ↑ [24]Stout, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Milanovich (1999). "Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link Is Established". HUMAN FACTORS. Vol. 41, No. 1: 61–71.
- ↑ [25] Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective leaders. Amsterdam: Business Contact.
- ↑ [26]Van den Bossche, P., Wim H., G., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments, 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938
- ↑ [27] Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development and adaptation. CA: Sage.
- ↑ [28] Sips, K. (2006). De grenzen van teameffectiviteit: uitzicht op een relationeel perspectief. In J. Hovelynck, S. De Weerdt, & A. Dewulf (Eds.), RelationeelOrganiseren. Samen leren en werken in en tussen organisaties (pp. 125–157). Leuven: LannooCampus.
This article "Social alignment" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Social alignment. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
