Work Team
I am a member for a “task force” at my company. And I am awed by how regular, predictable, and probably statistically definitive the Team’s dynamics work out to be the same as if this were school. High school, undergrad, masters, its all the same really. In any group situation where there are deliverables and a desired outcome invariably the team will fracture into the leaders, the contributors, the followers, and the slackers. A bell curve of effort where each participant falls somewhere between the first and third standard deviation from mean. Someone is going to lead and coordinate. Someone will make sure to do their part, plus some, some will just squeak by, and some will not really do anything except show up, and sometimes not even that. This taks force thing that I am a member of, the results are eerily the same.
It makes me wonder if this is really standard team psychology. If it does matter what components make up the team, and if it matters what attitudes are in place. I would think even if you had a team og one type, invariably conflicts and relationships would “push” some of those into the other roles.
My team has its roles clearly defined. Most often, I am the leader in my teams. History has proven that it is the best place to be if I want to get stuff done and get an acceptable outcome. Not this time around though. It is shocking, I think, what my role is this time round.
I think I am the slacker. I would like to make excuses and all that, but honestly, I don’t think it would change the result. I really have not contributed much since the very beginning, and I wonder if that bothers anyone. I would guess, no, that it doesn’t. Since it is a company and not a school thing, there are structures in place to support weakness and cover up faults.
As it is in any human system.
No comments yet.