It seems there is so much to talk about this week, but I don’t know where to start. This week started with a small turbulence; we did not do as well as we’d expected and teammates got slightly stressed. Team members even wrote in their journals, “it irks me”, “it is really upsetting”. To be honest, we did not perform super terribly; we just did average. But team members apparently have higher expectations since all of us have put so much effort into it. It is really annoying after we tried so hard and results kept disappointing us. Personally, this does not affect me too much as I have already predicted what it would be, guiding by the present team strategy.
What really irks me was this disharmonious atmosphere undermining our team cohesiveness. The person who always gives influence on our decision felt pressured and thought that others were blaming him even though nobody in our team ever thought about that. Also, another team member told me that he felt I was blaming others due to their bad production decisions.
Even though we’ve talked about leadership many times, this week’s reading brings us back to this topic again. Katz (1955) pointed out that good administrators are not necessarily born. Fortunately, I am developing this capacity. I’ve never ever bothered whether I am a good leader or not. Why would I? Since we are all equal on this paper; we are all at the same level of learning MikesBikes and MGMT 300. We were just accidently assigned to be the current role. It does not mean that I’m smarter than anyone else in teams. The only thing is that I would definitely put much more effort as I have higher expectations for myself than I do for anyone else. But I did feel a little bit pressured after the little “turbulence”. I started talking with my team members individually and sending them messages. As a result, I think it is absolutely unnecessary to worry about because they are so sensible and understand each other so well after we opened our hearts and made thing clear.
Katz (1955) emphasizes three skills in his article – technical skill, human skill, and conceptual skill. I don’t think the current MikesBikes team is complicated enough to have to apply conceptual skill to recognise the holistic entity and find out the interrelationships amongst divisions. Knowing how to play the simulation is the technical skill. Managing team member relationship is the human skill. I am glad that the little “turbulence” happened; not only did it help me learn more about myself, but it also developed my soft skills in dealing with others.
Davies (1984) said that learning from paper is insufficient; developing is a higher level of learning. It requires the confrontation of novelty and proper actions. Novelty is the thing that our team needs. It is right to see the strategy through, however sometimes when the strategy can no longer generate value, we should be brave enough to discard it and change our strategy to adapt to the environment and achieve our team goal. The five o’clock result proved that we did it right this time.
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 169-182. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00230.x
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.