We are normally paid to work for an organization. And, we always bring our personal and social needs with us to our organization.
We spend time interacting with others, one on one and in groups. If the quality of our interaction with each other is useful then our result is a healthy, helpful organization and satisfied people.
My ability to listen and talk is critical for effective relationships. Others (including myself) may prioritize self-protection. And, some of us need control of others. Others of us realize that we can only influence.
But, our need is to develop an effective organization based on mutual values and learning. Our learning includes awareness of ourselves and other people. And, our learning includes the ability to handle feelings and diverse relationships.
Groups always operate with at least two channels: task and process. Both channels need to be managed - if a groups is to be effective.
See Teams
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I agree that the quality of interaction/relationships in an organization is key. I find that many have difficulty discerning between effective work relationships and "friendship." This type of an employee often misinterprets the relationship which may cause conflict. Task and process are important but difficult to enact smoothly at times.
I posted the above comment...
The structure framework emphasizes the importance of defining roles to understand the roles and responsibility of a leader. Groups come together with many times no structure. When we think of collegial planning, we have teachers that come together who may or might not like each but come together for a reason... the students. If teachers or groups were assigned roles within the group feelings would not surface as much do to the defining roles within the community or group. This makes all parties responsible and making the group have goals is critical. As a leader, defining the role of groups coming together helps the group work together to get a job done. Let's face it, many minds is better than one.
jsweitze--I agree with the article as Argyris and Schon pointed out that “individual behavior is controlled by personal theories for action—assumptions that information and guide behavior.” What people say and what they actually do. “Since the other person is the cause of the problem, get that person to change” is the most challenging of roles for the administrator because most people do not respond well to performance reviews. They become defensive and take the information personally. Leaders need to develop the skill of having the employee set their standard, and how they want to be evaluated. Reminding the employee of the goals of the organization.
It is difficult to get a person to change. I think it is extremely difficult to think that a leader can alter a lifetime of personality development in a person in one or several meetings, and I agree that the most difficult part of being a leader, is trying to get everyone on board. In my opinion, the one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of being a leader, is getting to know your crew and finding ways to make your crew function as a unit to effectively perform a goal. I agree what was said in class that you have to know your employees and (usually) the longer you have worked with someone the easier it is to deal with them. Bringing people onboard who don’t want to be is doable, but very difficult. However, once it happens, it is certainly an accomplishment.
I also think there is a fine line between “influencing” and “controlling,” and in my opinion, the two terms definitely overlap. By effectively influencing someone you are in a sense controlling them, and by controlling a person, one is certainly influencing there decisions. Also, I don’t think the terms “influence” and “control” are necessarily bad terms in all contexts, because an effective leader, in my opinion, has the ability to influence and control. It is HOW that leader chooses to use that influence and control that can make a leader a tyrant or deceitful leader or a respectable leader with a lot of integrity.
In the summary, it states that “Groups always operate with at least two channels: task and process. Both channels need to be managed - if a group is to be effective.” I think to state that a groups only operates in two channels oversimplifies the dynamics of groups. However, I am not I understand, because aren’t task and process the same thing?
I am not sure that I would agree that task and process are the same thing. A task to me could be related to something that needs to me done-a goal. The process is how that task should be implemented or carried out- step by step. If they are one, I think there would be some problems with structure.
Thw structural framework is very important in defining our roles as leaders. However, a feeling of mutual consent and cooperation of the goals is of paramount importance for the effectivelness and implementation of the goals in the organization.
As I read this theory on framework, I am reminded of a comment Bill Cowher made during the whole problem of Terrell Owens dividing the Philadelphia Eagles locker room. When asked why his team never has those troubles he stated that he would forego a more talented person in order to bring in someone that held the same values the organization believed in. Like him (and the Steelers) or not; They do put out a quality product more times than not.
tcasey- Quality relationships within an organization are vital. Many times in our jobs as educators, we are mandated to meet / work cooperatively. However, a good majority of the time no clear roles / jobs are established. I believe this makes for the domination of ideas and voice from the same person / persons. This person / persons usually try to assume the leadership position but are not formally given that position by the group. I believe in having this type of person many other perspectives from the rest of the group members are lost.
Post a Comment