Exercise
With a given set of cubes, two groups of three volunteers each
are expected to build a tower, as tall as possible. The task is scaled up
continuously adding constraints to the mode of execution.
What we saw
Each group emulated a corporate scenario, with one being the
General Manager, other Manager and one Worker. As per pertinent hierarchy, the Manager
conveyed the approach to the blindfolded worker, following which the worker was
supposed to build the tower. Also, the group was supposed to estimate a target
as per their capabilities, the resources in hand and the constraints in picture.
Both the teams gave a decent performance, in the sense that
they projected a realistic and feasible target, which they could surpass with
their efficient co-ordination and skills.
What I perceived
There are three major aspects to the entire activity. In a
corporate scenario or in purview of team performances, the binding between the
components is equally important as the components themselves.
So here I jot down the plausible critical points of a team
performance which can ‘make-or-break’ the entire structure.
·
Flow of
concept: In a group, be it hierarchical or flat, the flow of information is
pretty important. But this information is futile if conveyed as a statement. When
dealing with animate entities who can think, satisfaction and the drive to
follow comes only when some information satiates their reason, feeds to their
queries and curiosities. So, as we saw, there was a team who’s manager was constantly
instructing his worker as to how to put a block along with the phrase ‘because
this will help balance the cubes, or it’ll give a robust base’, etc. These statements,
howsoever intuitive, communicate a sense of understanding of the big picture to
the worker who was actually not able to see how the tower was shaping up in
reality.
·
Trust:
Again, be it hierarchical or flat, to induce synergy in performance of a team
it becomes highly important to maintain a state of trust across the team,
inclusive in entirety. It does happen at times, that certain amount of
information needs to be retained amongst defined echelons, with just reasons
for the same. But in a state of lack of trust, such situations would emerge as
a reason to agitate for the lesser privileged, for the ignorance they are
forced to. Rather than this, in a state of trust, we hold confidence in the
next person and a modest level of empathy as well. Citing an example from the
task, there was this GM in a team who had maintained his composure throughout
the task. He had conveyed the task with all the requisites and expectations and
was quite watchful about the proceedings as well. But didn’t interfere between
the manager-worker duo, rightly so. There was a notion of trust he was
conferring unto them. Similarly, the workers, in both teams were smoothly
integrated with their respective managers and mutual trust could be depicted. On
the other hand, there was this other GM who wanted to get involved in the manager-worker
duo, all with good intentions. But in that way, he passed on his sense of
anxiety to his sub-ordinates as well. Along with that, it came to the worker as
if he was receiving instructions from two ends, howsoever streamlined they be,
it generated confusion, hindered communication and hence caused the worker to
be a bit miffed at times.
·
Acceptance
of opinion: Beginning from the task itself, we observe that even the
worker, despite of his institutional constraints, gives ideas as per his
observation of the task at hand. And what renders an edge to any performance is
the diversity of opinions and visions that comes along with the conglomeration
of various people involved. Hence the acceptance of pinion, with respect to
their context and not with a prejudice of their positioning in the team can
always bring up a new aspect towards the unexplored territory of a situation in
hand.
·
Defining
goals, ‘SMART’ they should be: It sounds fantasizing to have the liberty to
define goals for oneself, and adding ‘SMART’ to it makes it feel all the more trendy.
Smart work, smart goals, the universe is all behind ‘smartness’. Well, there
have to be reasons for the same. ‘SMART’ as the acronym goes, implies goals
which are Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic and Time-bound. In essence, there is a balancing act while
deciding a target for oneself.
o
Need to have a realistic cognition of one’s capabilities
and bandwidth
o
Trade-off between convenience and feasibility
o
This is not the place for randomness and subjectivity;
goals should be hard-defined and should form the bedrock of the entire process
structure.
o
Defining timelines is as important as
structuring the objective.
Citing from the classroom
activity, the beauty of their target setting was in the fact that when
projecting the attainable height as 16, they considered the constraints in
picture, the count they were able to draw without those constraints and the
time given. The way the activity was performed, the target didn’t come out to
be way too easy but the teams were able to achieve it. Given their streamlined
operational skills, could also manage to go beyond their projections but not
creating an unrealistic gap; which would have again indicated the slack in
their target projection.
There are, and can be, many more conventional as well
unconventional points not mentioned here. Amongst the conventional ones are the
need to co-ordinate, communicate effectively. Also to remain poised despite the
external pressures or situations. Definitely being a social animal, an absolute
insulation cannot be called for, but a sense of efficient balancing act is
something expected for good reasons.
Note: This post
is open for discussion and feedback... value addition to say. J
No comments:
Post a Comment