I’m going talk a bit about the problems I feel are endemic to teamwork. This is not an attack on teamwork, or an attempt to say that solo work is always better. That’s nonsense. Most of the great things the human race has done were done through teamwork and could never have been done alone. Imagine if one person had tried to build the Empire State Building by themself! This is more of a rant than anything else. An attempt to vent some steam and point out that for all the good that can be done with teamwork, it does have problems of its own. Especially in an unstructured environment.
When put into a team the first thing that happens is that everyone just sits or stands around nervously. Mumblingly trying to make some kind of common ground while including all people. It’s awkward. But it’s still better than the alternatives.
Normally what happens is some extrovert with more balls than brains (regardless of gender) starts doing all the talking for everyone and doesn’t let anyone-else offer a point of view. If an individual has an idea of their own or just sees a problem with the extrovert’s plan and tries to voice it he or she will be beaten down. The extrovert will not consider the other idea because it did not come from them, and just discards it. So they beat down the opposing idea. Not through logic, but through refusing to use it. This strategy of never looking at any other POV or ever admitting to doing anything wrong is how modern politicians keep their minions in line. Logic and empathy are human traits. So by disregarding them the extrovert makes himself/herself superhuman in the eyes of others. Or maybe it’s just too much effort to fight back for the rest of the group. And when the final product has real flaws, or just falls apart altogether the extrovert takes none of the blame for it. As i’ve said before. This scenario turns the other group members into effective slaves. And the slaves end up suffering for the extroverts mistakes, and even get the blame if things go really wrong.
The other scenario is the Instant Clique.
In this one Two or maybe Three group members start talking and find themselves so interested in each other that no-one-else matters. The other members become invisible. Sometimes these people know each-other, sometimes it’s a first meeting. It happens more often with girls, but does happen with boys. But I’ve never seen it happen with a set of people of both genders. But the effect is always the same. The new clique becomes the group. The other members are divided and conquered, and then reduced to hangers on. Often struggling to keep up with the clique’s ongoing progress. While the Clique is less averse to new ideas than the Extrovert, any idea that goes against the clique’s preset idea or that they just don’t like will be shut down immediately on the grounds that “We’ve all agreed on this!” Even if the clique makes up less than half of the group.
But the end effect is much the same. The other members just trudge alone. Being little more than unpaid interns for the clique. But The Clique-centric group is less likely to be met with disastrous failure, and if failure there is the blame is more fairly shared.
But let’s talk about some problems that can be found in any group.
For starters. No one ever puts the objective or need of the group above their own enjoyment.
When grouped people only have a surface interest in the group as a unit. Their main goal is to survive to the end of the mission, the other people there are a means to an end. Tools to be used. With this in mind people tend to talk to the ones they like the most. Interact based on pleasure rather than logic. If someone isn’t doing well or feeling left out that is no-one’s problem to fix. If the team as whole isn’t doing well then that just how it is. No-one has to try to make things run better. Just as long as things run well enough.
During the planning phase you need to be on your toes all the time. Trying to keep up with what is going on requires the same kind of twitch reflexes needed for a classic 80s arcade machine. You might think you know what’s going on and what’s been agreed on. But if you stop paying attention, even for a second, and you’ll find not only has the conversation shifted completely, but the goal you’ve settled on and how you are going to do it will also have totally changed. And if you object to all the changes that have happened in the past 30 seconds you will be met with the aforementioned cry of “But We’ve all agreed on this”. So if you want any say in what goes on then treat the planning stage like hunting a tiger. If you lose your concentration, it will get you.
Speaking of agreements. Agreements are never formal but they are always binding. Things are rarely put to a vote. And as mentioned before no-one ever asks everyone-else if they agree. Two or three people will just agree on a thing very casually without considering the implications, and then it’s law. Totally irreversible. How anyone keeps track of what has and hasn’t been agreed on in this system is beyond me.
I’ve alluded to the fact that most groups have a defacto leader whether they choose to of not. These people tend to have too much confidence. But it certainly is funny when they don’t know what to do. The leader will um and err and look worried. But as often as not they won’t take any suggestions you might give them. They have a plan, they just need to figure out what it is.
The bigger problem tends to be that if the leader goes missing there is suddenly no plan at all. Everyone has to just sit on their heels until daddy/mommy comes back. I think this is why in the military there is a chain of command and usually a second in command. A opposed to general group work where there is a leader and everybody-else. regardless, I hate being so dependent on someone-else. It’s irritating and even a little humiliating.
And that’s all I have for now. I may think of more, given time.
