Now that we have had a chance to ‘meet and greet’ our team members, we were able to get down cracking into making decisions on the MikesBikes. I felt a little uneasy and a little inadequate compared to others – I guess this is the benefits of working in a team. It actually makes you motivated to ‘do the homework’ and do it really well to make sure that you are not the reason of dragging the team down. This is perhaps a good quality of a follower as discussed in Kelley’s article. As discussed in the article, leaders or even members of the team should be able to:
- Manage themselves well
- Committed to organisation and to a purpose, principle, person outside themselves
- Build competence and focus efforts for maximum impact
- Courageous honest and credible
I feel like that my teams have portrayed these elements so far, and enjoy working with them. However, I have noticed that some students are more submissive than others. We haven’t really assigned a “leader” either, although I guess our CEO is the appointed ‘leader’. “Groups with many leaders can be a chaos, groups with none can be very productive” (Kelly, 1988) I agree with this statement because if there were many conflicts and arguments, then we would probably have ended up just running around in circles. I’m not sure at this point if we are agreeing on an opinion without any disagreement because we actually agree with the idea, or whether we agree on something because none of us know any better solutions. Either way, everything has been running smoothly with a profit of 3 dollars and few cents in terms of shareholder value. Everyone has been setting good examples so far, and I feel like that we are all leaders and followers in a way. We have all been coming to meetings having done all the required tasks –i.e. reading the manual. Hopefully we will not have many conflicts with the group and that everything will work according to plan having fulfilled all four of the elements discussed above as well.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142—148