To give a little bit of background, I was not a social kid for most of my life. Of course, I had my friends and acquaintances here and there, but I wasn't exactly "first pick" when it came to invitations, dodgeball teams, and group works. As such, over time I developed the habit of hanging out in the background, overhearing and occasionally laughing along but never drawing attention to myself. These habits eventually found their way to my school work; whenever I was in a team, I basically only ever asked, "what should I do?" and see who among the other group members would be the most assertive before the leader was unofficially chosen and had my full backing. I pitched in ideas from time to time, but overall I was the one who simply did what was told and as such, I ended up with the most mundane tasks. Over time, I realized that it's probably better if I wasn't the world's number one follower -- I had to be a leader! At least, that is what all the adults were always telling me anyway. As such, I attempted to push around my weight more and wanted to be the one who told everyone what was going to get done, by who, and how. Being shy as I am, it took me a while to get to that point, as well as an awkward transition, but I got the job done. Of course, it didn't work in all teams since a lot of people were also taught to be a leader. As I grew older, I realized that it's not always about being the leader all the time, but rather my role in a group or team depended heavily on the context.
Ignoring the leader/follower labels, I realized the importance of building a rapport with the group members first, brainstorming ideas and getting to know them better, before settling down to a structure or flow. Some groups have rigid roles and timetables, others are more laissez-faire but everyone gets the job done by doing what they want to do the most. Other groups, on the other hand, were simply lazy, and our work was usually very bad. On another occasion, the team was always plagued with fighting as there was more than one person who wanted to be president, CEO, and chairman -- the work was also poor. Outside of school and in the world of 'minimum wage', similar dynamics also existed. Having good compatibility or at least tolerance with one another, setting goals, promoting fairness in terms of workload & expectations, but also pushing people (metaphorically) when it was appropriate were all critical in maintaining a well-oiled unit. People are complex and come in many different shapes, colors, ideas, experiences, etc. But, to be honest, if everyone at least tries to get along and have something to work towards, it is actually not that hard to get a pretty good squad going.
On that note, one of the most common types of disagreements involves values and identity. (Dingwall, Labrie, McLennon, & Underwood, 2015, p. 121). It happens when not everyone in the organization sees eye to eye. It can't be helped in many situations so it is important to know the skills necessary for managing this. The best advice is for you to learn through experience, to see what works in which contexts and scenarios. Though it is probably best to follow the majority opinion, it is imperative to avoid anything that will unnecessarily offend the ideological minorities on the team. In addition, it is also important to respect people's differences since the essence of what a person is are their experiences. Having everyone be on the same page and showing empathy are all important keeping the team intact.
Dingwall, J.R., Labrie, C., McLennon, T.K., & Underwood, L. (2015). Interpersonal communication in the professional environment: Professional communications OER. Olds, AB: Campus Alberta.
No comments:
Post a Comment