Teams: Contributors and Those Seeking Validation.
As I read various discussion boards, I notice something not at all unusual. Some people repeat what has already been said--repeatedly.
Other people give evidence of not having read comments posted by others.
As with the Twitters and Emails to News People, some people just want to say something whether or not it is worth anything. Except, perhaps, for the therapeutic effect. Case in point: I blog because I can't sing and I'm not cute.
We learn to acknowledge what someone has said, provide some response to it, sometimes ask for amplification, and solicit comments from others. (Of course, I learned that when majoring in elementary education.)
Employees will find satisfaction for contributing something of value--as evidenced by others in the group responding to it as if it were valuable. This is different from positive reinforcement and other "techniques".
Employees who do not contribute something of value will not be satisfied. Team mates may say nice things, but the absence of value in the contribution will become evident.
One thing that may help is to have the challenging members of your virtual team track his or her own development, advancement, improvement to achieve a higher quality of input.
A second is to give the bright ones more challenging assignments; to tell them that it is a more challenging assignment; and letting them know that achievement is the issue. If they fail to pass muster, they must do a self evaluation, find the flaw in their contributions, and fix the problems so the quality of their contribution rises.
Ownership of a project too often causes its own set of problems. People tend to become territorial, possessive, defensive, and hyper-sensitive. Actually, that can be said better. Let me say instead, "people tend to become attached to the project. They may resist change due to that attachment." Much better.
Sometimes we can have brain-storming sessions, do the fish-bone thing, do consensus building, find a shared vision; however, other times it is necessary for a boss to implement a change--Quickly!--in order to get the project moving again. Despite what some people have to say about the last suggestion, That does have a powerful effect of energizing the whole team and the project. People still do like leaders.
[The Constitution declares the President of the United States to be the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military. It does not declare the President to be the Chairman of the Committee--in-Chief of the Military.
Regards,
Slim
PS. If you find anything here to be helpful, please don't hesitate to send me
a really tricked-out Mac Book and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along
with the thank you note. Sincerely, Slim.
Bob Asken
Box 33
Pen Argyl, PA 18072
slimfairview@yahoo.com
Copyright (c) 2011 Bob Asken
All rights reserved
Showing posts with label group think. Show all posts
Showing posts with label group think. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Can We All Come to a Consensus on Group Think?
We must liberate ourselves from the notion that a gutsy leader will arise to save us. Remember the admonition: "...a confederacy of dunces will rise up around him..."
I am now 4 decades into discussing group-think.
Let's assume for the moment that:
a. W still have group think.
b. We must get rid of group think.
Now, we are still discussing group think.
Is is possible that all the methods to get rid of group think have failed? As evidenced by the fact that we still have group think--yes.
Do we ever come up with a new way to get rid of group think? No.
Is that group think? Yes.
By constantly clutching to the notion that we must get rid of group think, and constantly pursuing the sames methods to get rid of group think, are we not merely perpetuating group think but also reinforcing group think?
The focus is always to narrow.
Bring as many different people into the group to get as many different ideas as possible.
Cultivate a culture of shared vision. (Shared vision?)
The visioning process.
Team building. (Cohesion)
Consensus building.(Group think)
Get rid of as many different ideas as we can until we have consensus.
Call this Leadership in Action.
I will be the leader. I will get as many different people on my team as I can. I will lead the group to share a vision. I will engage in team building exercises. I will achieve consensus.
If it works, I am a visionary leader. If it fails, I fell victim to group think.
And, now, you can see the process for what it is.
If you treat everyone to lunch, you will have achieved "Bread & Circus".
Regards,
Slim
Mail: Slimfairview@yahoo.com
Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview
Thursday, May 5, 2011
GroupThink 2.0
I sat on an economic development committee for over two years. In that time, I observed a group of people, some professionals (CEO banking), economic development, etc. and community people. (Business people.)
I observed the group. There was no group think. It looked like someone trying to herd cats.
After two years of attempting to stimulate investment, attract business, deal with green fields and brown fields, we finally had the opportunity to entertain a state official of the department that hands out grant money. (It's their job to give money away.)
We put on a great presentation, tour, helicopter, luncheon, the works. We got shot down--unceremoniously. (As Mrs. Slocum used to say, "How ignimonious" sic)
Upshot. "We give money for projects, not plans."
They licked their wounds. Still, they did not accomplish much.
On another committee, (Finance committee of a government programme.) I opined on moving funds into technology related projects. Website development, improvement, etc. People listened to me. We voted, agree--unanimously--funds were moved. Subsequently, the web presence and technology use became vital. We were that much ahead of the game.
Group think is a result of consensus building which was a consequence of the absence of leadership. Too, an absence of followship.
I addressed that issue in another discussion where a budding expert was giving examples of how he/she helped groups avoid group think. In short, this individual encouraged group think.
It is somewhat disheartening to watch (as I watched the members of that economic development committee), people discussing the same issues that had been discussed, have been discussed, are being discussed and will continue to be discussed.
I've studied groups, been in groups, been in a group that studied itself, worked in groups, on committees, on a committee to form a committee to set up a programme to form committees, and I dissected the different structures used handle projects and explained why each does not work. However, as I am adamant in my opposition to articles that are descriptive and not prescriptive, I also set up an organisational chart that will work for one of my ppt. presentations.
As I read in clever book on management just the other night (While waiting for my cat to come home) Come Together: The Business Wisdom of the Beatles by Richard Courtney and George Cassidy.
"Parks are full of statues erected to honour leaders. There are no statues erected to honour committees."
"This too shall pass."
In the heat of battle, no one turns to a committee. Everyone looks to a leader. See who they are looking to. That is a leader. That is the leader.
In my much younger days, when I took a holiday job while I was working on a novel, the VP came in, furious, because the department was in a chaotic state. For the second time. He asked my supervisor,
"What do we have to do to get this straightened out?"
My supervisor looked to me. The VP looked to me. I had a second operation (holiday) up and running the following day. And I was not even an actual employee of the company. Only a holiday temp.
The VP did not say, let's form a committee to find a solution. I did not receive a smiley face key chain.
I observed the group. There was no group think. It looked like someone trying to herd cats.
After two years of attempting to stimulate investment, attract business, deal with green fields and brown fields, we finally had the opportunity to entertain a state official of the department that hands out grant money. (It's their job to give money away.)
We put on a great presentation, tour, helicopter, luncheon, the works. We got shot down--unceremoniously. (As Mrs. Slocum used to say, "How ignimonious" sic)
Upshot. "We give money for projects, not plans."
They licked their wounds. Still, they did not accomplish much.
On another committee, (Finance committee of a government programme.) I opined on moving funds into technology related projects. Website development, improvement, etc. People listened to me. We voted, agree--unanimously--funds were moved. Subsequently, the web presence and technology use became vital. We were that much ahead of the game.
Group think is a result of consensus building which was a consequence of the absence of leadership. Too, an absence of followship.
I addressed that issue in another discussion where a budding expert was giving examples of how he/she helped groups avoid group think. In short, this individual encouraged group think.
It is somewhat disheartening to watch (as I watched the members of that economic development committee), people discussing the same issues that had been discussed, have been discussed, are being discussed and will continue to be discussed.
I've studied groups, been in groups, been in a group that studied itself, worked in groups, on committees, on a committee to form a committee to set up a programme to form committees, and I dissected the different structures used handle projects and explained why each does not work. However, as I am adamant in my opposition to articles that are descriptive and not prescriptive, I also set up an organisational chart that will work for one of my ppt. presentations.
As I read in clever book on management just the other night (While waiting for my cat to come home) Come Together: The Business Wisdom of the Beatles by Richard Courtney and George Cassidy.
"Parks are full of statues erected to honour leaders. There are no statues erected to honour committees."
"This too shall pass."
In the heat of battle, no one turns to a committee. Everyone looks to a leader. See who they are looking to. That is a leader. That is the leader.
In my much younger days, when I took a holiday job while I was working on a novel, the VP came in, furious, because the department was in a chaotic state. For the second time. He asked my supervisor,
"What do we have to do to get this straightened out?"
My supervisor looked to me. The VP looked to me. I had a second operation (holiday) up and running the following day. And I was not even an actual employee of the company. Only a holiday temp.
The VP did not say, let's form a committee to find a solution. I did not receive a smiley face key chain.
The flip-side to one aspect on group think is that people propose new ideas, however, 1. due to group think the ideas are rejected; 2. due to a lack of ability demonstrated by several members of the group, the new idea is rejected; 3 lack of ability of the "leader" the idea is rejected; there is a divisiveness among the group (for and against) we move into the mode of consensus building and the new idea is watered down to where it is palatable....
However! The biggest problem with respect to "group think" is hiding in plain sight. The word "group". In addition, if you do "win over" the other members of the group and all embrace your new idea you end up with [wait for it]
GroupThink 2.0
Now you have two conflicting ideas at play. 1. Getting rid of Group Think and 2. Consensus building. On the corporate level, you have Risk Management and Risk Assessment. There is a cost-benefit analysis that new ideas must go through.
Finally (or not) there is the needy member(s) of the group who, after having an idea rejected, refuse to accept that the idea was rejected on the basis of a lack of merit, but who feel personally demeaned, diminished, marginalised and so on.
A greater reason that people do not propose new ideas is a personal one--the lack of ability to make objective assessments.
Regards,
Slim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)