I didn’t quite wanted to let a great productive evening and a mind saturated with ideas go to waste, so here I sit down to write down my very first blog ever.
I always thought I am not a team player. I do not do so well in teams as I would do by myself. I prefer solo work rather than group work. Like we discussed in class today, personality, culture, they all make a difference. People’s personality matter a lot. Some people work alone while some work well in groups. I often wonder whether it is the inability to coordinate or just being out of tune with the group. I always wondered why? Even in my undergraduate courses, when we had to work in teams, I used to loathe it. I would rather ask people to assign each a part of the group work, I would then work on that part individually and just submit it to the group, that is how I could work in a group. As I read the article, why teams don’t work, I agreed on most of the things Hackman said about the teams. When I read the part about the deviant, I literally said to myself, yes that’s me. I am the deviant; I do not always go with the group flow. I have a tendency to ask questions; Why? Why? Sometimes people do question me, why do you always have to disagree? Why can’t you just agree with us and then we can go ahead and work together. If I had read that article before, I certainly would have the answer, Oh yes I am the deviant! Hackman writes, every group needs a deviant so that the group can be forced to think outside the box, think critically. However I do not agree that every team needs a deviant. Sometimes those so called deviants could be a real impediment for the group progress as the group might not get anywhere, simply because it is stuck at the very first questions posed at the group. I think my blog is getting long but I feel like I must add this piece to my blog- a question I faced in an interview for a job. The question started after my answer to the previous question, which I had replied; Yes two heads are definitely better than one. “So you are working on a team, the success of the team depends on each and every member doing his or her job well and contributing to the group, what if one of your team member lags in his/her responsibility and simply underperforms, how will you handle that situation?” I secretly thought that person could easily have been me but I answered, “well in that case, I would want to speak to that person in private and ask what was the underlying problem with him or her that had hindered him/her from performing at his/her level best. Then, may be we could resolve the problem that person was focusing on.”
By the way I didn’t get that job and I joined MPA program; hoping to be better equipped to answer any questions an organization may have. Tonight I leave you with the same question, “What would you do if one of the members in the group is underperforming, hampering the group’s overall success?”
When I find myself in that situation I try to identify an area of strength for that person and assign a task that is somehow related to that strength. This technique doesn’t always work but it can be helpful. I’ve also tried in the past to have that person mentor someone else as a method of jarring them out of apathy. Honestly, sometimes you have to just ignore them and focus on the job at hand.
I agree. If i were in a situation where one of my group members was not pulling their weight, i would pull them aside and speak to them privately. I believe that communicating is the key aspect. In this situation, as an adhocratic team where every member needs to pull their weight for the team to be successful, they cannot be afraid to have an input. Maybe they just needed a member of the team to speak to them before they can open up.
Great topic!
“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”
Henry Ford quotes
If you think of this quote and its implications,please consider this theory: among all else, a team needs a ”coordinator”…i know.!..why not call him/her a “team leader” ?? it actually more often works better not to 🙂 most importantly,this ‘c’ person should have a clear understanding on the matter at hand or fully appreciate and accept the team’s goal; be able to communicate very,very well ;keep his/her ego in the pocket so to speak..this “c” person wears a recruiter’s hat as well..
he/she should be able to match different team member’s unique strengths to maximize team’s success..
lastly,the team’s ‘c’ person ,should be comfortable with his/her executive role;for example, making final decisions in a divided team environment while being able to articulate his/her reasons,thereby maintaining team’s cohesion and following.
“When a team outgrows individual performance and learns team confidence, excellence becomes a reality.”
Joe Paterno quotes (American Football coach, b.1924)
beautiful quote to finish the post above with..I actualy play soccer,but this football quote is universal! 🙂
Nice question and so relevant to the class and everyday living & working in NYC. So I have worked on teams that really are cohesive and work towards a common goal and it was enlightening and productive. I have also worked just recently in fact with people who are disruptive and believe their way of doing things is better than the work of a team. They attempt to discourage real ideas that could help propel the team forward and actually in a positive manner which accomplishes the goal, however they refuse to compromise or even see anyone else’s point of view. So with that being said, I would first try to talk to the person in an encouraging and supportive way about what the exact problem is , if its personalities that’s not easily fixed but maybe having your supervisor can put together a team exercise where it shows how to deal with each other in a team environment in a supportive manner and show the very real ways to receive a positive outcome. If its that they don’t feel they are heard you as a team can come up with a strategy where everyone’s point is considered, then maybe vote on the best possible scenario to accomplish goals. If they don’t understand what it is they are supposed to be responsible for or just have no clue as to what the assignment is then clarification might be the best possible way of handling it. If they have never worked in a team then modeling it for them, such as what and how it should work might be helpful. However, if they are just the deviant, there questions could prevent disaster down the road so take heed. If they are just miserable and are not able to even try to work in the team maybe they need to seek employment elsewhere. If the team is expected to perform a function and one part is not fulfilling their part it makes it difficult or next to impossible to complete project and/or puts undue stress on the other individuals involved which is not fair. As we see this week in Teams that DON’T work. So let me just add one more quote that works for my teams now:
“To collaborative team members, completing one another is more important than competing with one another.”
― John C. Maxwell
Thank you all for your wonderful comments and great quotes. Just read the assigned chapters on Human Resources and realized that the answer of my above question lies somewhere between the lines of human resources management. The author talks about matching personalities and strengths of a person to that of he job assignment. If a person is good at writing and is a introvert kind of person, he should be assigned to write the report rather than do the presentation. This process of recognizing the talents and matching the talent to the job, should prevent the team from having the problem of someone not carrying their weight. If the team members are all happy with their assigned work, they would all work towards achieving the common goal of the team. See you a in class today. Adieu !
The readings and class discussion about team and group work have made me reflect on my own working style. Like the original poster, I’ve never been a huge fan of group work and I prefer it when groups I work in agree to let each individual work on part of the assignment and then bring it back together to put into a coherent whole. Jonah Lehrer’s article on the research showing that more creative ideas are generated by individuals who later pool their ideas than by brainstorming groups really resonated with me for this reason. I do understand the reality that many workplaces rely heavily on teams and I will likely need to work in many over the course of my career, though. And I also recognize the potential strengths of teams. If members are allowed to critique and debate one another’s ideas, individuals’ ideas will be sharpened; teams can generate very innovative solutions to problems because everyone brings different perspectives; and, teams may allow individuals to focus on what they do best, as in the above example of someone who’s good at writing doing that instead of making the final presentation. However, there’s a potential danger there of people playing the same role over and over again in each team they’re on and not challenging themselves by developing new skillsets. That could ultimately impact their career development and job satisfaction.
As a response to the above comment that, there’s a potential danger there of people playing the same game again and again in each team they’re on and not challenging themselves, isn’t that the strength of professional bureaucracy- where the professionals have standardized set of skills and they work towards the perfection of those skills. For instance – the skills of a surgeon where he works towards perfecting his operating skills and longer his experience in the operating room, more he becomes skilled and experienced. Thus the professionals get paid more; as they accrue their years on the job and perfect their skills over time.
Well, this is getting quite interesting how the course material is tying together from bureaucracies to teams to human resources and many more to come (probably). I never thought bureaucracies and their working style, environment would be this interesting to study, after all it is called red tape. It definitely must be our very enthusiastic class group and very passionate professor who is leading the class. When I first came to the United States, the word Bureau caught my fancy, I did not know what it meant and could not pronounce it but I thought it had a rather intimidating connotation, Bureau of.”..”
Anyway I am over it now. Bureaucracy, definitely, Bring it On!!
Personality does play a major role in how good a team or group functions, however, not everyone is meant to be a part of a group. I too dislike working in groups, I wouldn’t call myself a deviant, but I tend to work better independently. I do however like the challenge of working on a team, it pushes me beyond my limit, forces me to think further. For that person who is underperforming or hindering the group’s success, I agree it first needs to be addressed by the group. If some sort of solution cannot be agreed upon, like what others mention, then that person might as well be a silent member, the show must go. Other group members will have to pick up the slack of that member.
Sometimes when you work in teams, some feel as though it is an excuse to fade into the background instead since others may have stronger personalities. I do not believe that team work gets split up equally either. In my experience there is a dominant person who is left holding the “bag” with the final touches or pulling everything together in the end to make things cohesive while others slip through the cracks. I agree that it is important to let the dead weight know that they are the dead weight but I still feel as though the work is never truly split evenly. I guess in that regard that someone has to be the coordinator to ensure that things get done.