Tuesday, March 18, 2008
It's All Joey's Fault
I titled this blog not based on my actual feeling (I got your back Joey), but on what a uniformed aggressive response the class initially displayed in the decision making "exercise". We got to witness an assortment of personalities when it comes to how people handle conflict. Some people embodied the definition of these personality traits such as the "compete to win type" (and I won't mention names). Besides the affirmative personalities, from a position in front of the class, I got to witness all of the personalities described by the professor. However, I went to the front of the room with a firm personality I wanted to portray. It was to be a culmination of compromise, accommodation, and collaboration. This effort was turned into a display of compromise as I tried to include everyone's points in the effort, which was not received positively by everyone. I mainly became a defender of people's right to be heard, even though I did not necessarily agree with the ideas. I guess that it a form of accommodation. I felt I handled the situation decently, but what I would have like to have done is been the "compete to win", solely due to the fact that I really felt I knew what was best for everyone and I really was starting to not care if other people did not understand that. Thankfully, other voices spoke the same strong emotions that I was on the verge of conveying, and I was spared from acting immaturely. What I would have liked to do differently based on the understanding of our class dynamic does not demonstrate the best management skills for most job positions, so I am most satisfied with the role I actually played in this process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Self-appoint leadership is no basis for government in a democracy. I did not vote for you. OK, that is a joke. You guys stepped up. Even though it was not the best form of leadership, nonetheless it gets the job done.
The following is just my view, which you do not have to agree, and it is not to aim at anyone but what I think in general:
If one wants a decision to be made and not run an organization down, then all ideas and opinions should be consider first before making a final decision. So the voting should be a final vote and not voting twice. The voting should be after reviewing all the ideas on grade modification as well as the structural modification of the test. Whether agree or disagree, all opinions and ideas should be listen first. Have yet people learn from the splattered egg?
Secondly, unanimous consensus is usually not the best for this type of decision making. Unanimous consensus is more for if one wants to vote on taking a break or going forward with a motion that is explicitly obvious and self-evidently harmless. Since the rule was deliberately set to have an unanimous consensus, then what is to blame of wasting time is the voting method, not any individual. The voting method was by raise of hands, and to raise one's hands meant "yes" or doing otherwise meant "no." Under this method, how do people who have no opinion one way or another, who choose avoidance, or who wants to think more and not vote so soon do? What can these people do? They do not want to vote yet, they want to think more and see if there is alternative, but at the same time do not want to vote "yes" or "no" on a certain issue. What can they do?
Thank you.
Heii Stefan!
you are right. from 'up there' you could observe more than anyone else who was sitting amidst the chaos of voices yelling of disagreement and discontent. Well, despite I was on the 'other end'--my seat-- I too saw personalities who matched exactly the professor's descriptions..
I just think that many people wanted to act differently than how they actually did but they just tried to keep out of everything so that they wouldn't be in anyone's way of getting the maximum possible benefit. I was one of the people who disagreed on taking both 'curve and drop' because I believed and still do that the professor was being WAY too generous. It's like we didnt do our part and we were being 'excused'.. It is against my values to 'take advantage' of someone like that but eitherway for practical purposes though I 'went with the flow' as the others who chose 'compromise' and/or 'avoidance'..
I guess this exercise wasnt a bad example of a chaotic decision making exercise.. but i've seen worse. hehe. Anyway, I have to say that all the people who took on leadership positions did a great job; u included. You all managed to get the job done in a relatively smooth way. soo, kudos!!
See you in class!!!
Post a Comment