David

Regarding your original construct elicitation question: "Tell me how
two of these (in the triad) are the same and different from the third, with
respect to cohesiveness of the team." Is is that simple? Is it the
most potent formulation of words? Is there a better way to phrase it?"

At the time, I thought it could be simplified to something like:
"Thinking about team cohesion, how are two of these (in the triad)
the same but different from the third"
Whether it is better to ask about behaviours as Paul suggested is an
empirical question. Try both approaches and see which generates the
most useful responses.
Pilot testing is an essential part of the process.

regards

Bob



At 05:24 AM 11/12/2008, you wrote:

>In respect of your enquiry...the question you propose will not give you any
>idea of what the different managers are using as the behaviour that
>contributes to 'team cohesiveness'. (Do you mean team cohesion?)
>
>In my view, you need to be specific about the behaviours that contribute to
>team cohesion and then ask questions about those behaviours. In other words,
>you need to have a theory about behaviours that lead to team cohesion.
>
>Behind this however is something else...if you are asking about how the
>different managers contribute or otherwise to team cohesion in triads you are
>more likely to be disclosing relationships between managers that might be the
>result of behaviours that are not related to Team Cohesion.
>
>I have completed a similar project with a Management Top Team...in this case
>I was not specifically involved with Team Cohesion, but with a range of
>behaviours that were admired by managers in this team...
>
>This gave us a lot to talk about in terms of whether colleagues exhibited
>admired behaviours or not.. It was extremely useful in building team cohesion
>as an outcome.
>
>Paul Malyon
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>