Some bosses can really be assholes. A good friend never fails to remind me, each time we meet, that I failed to warn him what an asshole my ex-boss was. Because now he is suffering under the same person. In my defence, I didn't know he was going there, and in fact I warned another good friend not to go. But eventually someone has to do the shit job.
So recently we met up again, and I told him some of my own fears - that I was beginning to see in myself some of the traits I hated most in abovementioned asshole.
To begin with, I wouldn't say he was a bad person. Just overly demanding. Usually this involved attaining unecessary levels of perfection, usually in the wee hours of the morning. Or preparing contingencies for contingencies for contingencies, at the expense of of other valued personal opportunities. Over time, I came to the conclusion that whatever other bad things I had to say about him, I could not accuse him of being a hypocrite, because if he was in my position he would probably have done everything he demanded of me. So he was merely expecting me to be as committed as he. I rejected this line of argument because if he wanted to stay in the office until midnight, that was his own business. I was going home.
Fast forward a few years, I'm still in the office at midnight a lot too. I suppose one could say I have a choice these days, but of course there are responsibilities to fulfill. And when I see the people under me cracking under the pressure I have transmitted to them, it makes me wonder if I am becoming anything like the man I loathe. Obviously I will never be as demanding as him, but then I'm also not sure if my people will be as tenacious as I was. And then I can't help but wonder if they don't hate me like I once did.
I'd like to take my foot off the gas pedal, but then I still have bosses to answer to too. The bottom line is that I actually do enjoy my work too, and the people around me. Else I would certainly not allow myself to be subjected to all this.
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Monday, October 17, 2005
small group dynamics
Every freshman in my school had to undergo a class in small group dynamics. In this class, we all learned the Bennis and Shepard theory of the Barometric Event. This is the event that pulls a groups together and forges the group identity. We all thought it was crap. But recent events in my Discipleship Group (DG) have made me realise just how telling this model can be, as I trace our transformation from a collection of individuals into parts of a whole. I couldn't find my old textbook, but an online article has outlined the theory quite succintly. This is going to be a super-long post ... you have been warned.
A sophisticated version of the developmental approach to understanding group process is the model of Bennis and Shepard. Bennis and Shepard adapted the ideas of Bion as a result of their studies of T-groups (a method originated by Lewin). They suggest that there is a progression between the different types of basic assumption group and that, in particular, the dependency and fight-flight groups tend to occur in the first part of a group's life while the pairing and work groups occur later and these two halves are divided from one another by what they call the "barometric event" which is an occurrence in which the relationship of the group to its leader/facilitator is irreversibly changed. Inter-member relations in the early phase are characterised by considerations of power whereas in the later phase the group becomes more personal (see table 2)
Table 2: Two main Stages of Group Development (Bennis & Shepard)
What Bennis and Shepard are saying, therefore, is that the group has two main stages which each have sub-stages. In the first main stage, the group members are preoccupied by their relationship to the group leader. At first the members feel dependent. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. The group moves into the phase that Tuckman calls storming. This is, in Bion's terms, a fight-flight mode. Bennis and Shepard call it counter-dependency or, simply, rebellion. A struggle ensues. Eventually some resolution to this tension is achieved and this is cathartic for the group. Bennis and Shepard believed that the resolution of this first half of the group was a crucially important event and so they gave it the portentous label "barometric". Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. The leader is dethroned.
Stage One
In the first six months that I joined this DG, almost all the large-scale events were initiated by the two leaders. While most members were strongly committed to Wednesday studies, their attendance of other events waxed and waned depending on their outside social lives. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. This is the dependency stage.
The crisis developed with the approach of our group mates' wedding. The leaders, as well as some very enthusiastic members, made the decision that the group would handle the church aspect of the wedding. Other members, whether due to unfamiliarity with the wedding couple, lack of personal talents or overburdened from other work already, were more hesitant to commit. Thus we entered the fight-flight stage. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. Each member was then faced with the dilemna of how much to contribute to this team effort, if at all. Remember that in a church setting, all contribution is purely voluntary. (This is why John C. Maxwell calls it the the highest form of leadership.)
To my mind, our barometric event started on the eve of the wedding. Although there was no compulsion, almost the entire group gathered in the church around 11pm, to see how they could help. Surrounded by flowers, satin, and other assorted decorations, we were finally faced with the full prospect of our responsibilities. In addition to the decorations, various members also had to coordinate the music, the ushers and the cars. The situation was not helped by the absence of the leader who was in Europe. Fatigued from a week of work, but comforted by each others presence and the sense of shared purpose, various talents began to emerge as we saw sides of each other that would never have been unveiled on a typical Wednesday night. The wedding itself was very poignant, and as we listened to the bride and groom on stage, each person was filled with the sense of shared joy and accomplishment that we had made this happy occasion possible. Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. We also had the chance to indulge in more intimate conversations with group mates we might not have spoken to before, over several glasses of wine. (Wine always helps.) And hence we passed into the second phase of the group's life.
In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. Immediately after the barometric event, the group is likely to settle into a degree of complacency. What they have been struggling with now no longer seems like an important issue. This roughly corresponds to Tuckman's "norming" phase. Members agree with each other more readily. The group feels smooth, agreeable and unpressured. Bennis and Shepard regard this as a "flight" phase, and it may well be, in Bion's terms, a time when the group is unconsciously working on the "pairing" assumption. Relationships have become more important than work.
Stage Two
The second stage for us is a direct outcome of the barometric events. Lunch gatherings after church began to see record numbers of attendance, as did our Sunday afternoon games which even include DG-mates from other churches. We also began hanging out far more on the weekends, forsaking relationships with other cliques. In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. We are revelling in our new-found togetherness, and indulging in other group activities such as the recent DG Sharing on Oct 16. In this cruising mode, there is a risk that our new friendships may overshadow the original purpose of the DG: as a support group for Christ-centred bible study.
As this goes on, however, time pressure once again begins to be felt. Members begin to be aware that they do not have forever to do things. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. A new phase of struggle results. This time, however, members do not assume that it is the leader's responsibility to get things done. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. Finally, if all goes well, the group reaches a phase in which there is a sense of completeness and mutual affirmation for work completed and the bitter-sweet feelings of parting have to be lived through.
And Beyond
The model seems to fit so far. If so, it should imply that we are finally ready to take on a greater participatory role in the larger church body. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. Let us not wait too long to remember this. A cohesive team performs far more effectively than a collection of individuals, and could be a vital force in driving many ministries forward. We already see some of our members undertaking roles in the upcoming BB/GB and Children's Church camps. We also see many other members organising meals, and even chalets. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. And if this is the most productive phase, we should give serious thought to what we want to produce, rather than random ad hoc events.
Not all groups achieve this, however. If, through the weakness of members or the intransigence of the leader, the barometric event is not achieved, the life of the group will stagnate and members will not find the group to be an environment in which they can mature. They will remain in a dependent condition and the group will never reach what Tuckman called the performing stage.
For Leaders
I think there are some clear lessons I have had the privilege of learning from being in this DG. First and foremost, if a group is 'doing ok', it may be time to initiate a crisis to move the group forward into the next stage. It will take a brave leader to initiate a change in direction and face up to the resultant rebellion, but it is through these shared hardships that friendships are forged. If not, the group will stagnate in the comfort zone until it withers away.
The full text of the Bennis and Shepard model may be found here. Search for "Barometric Event" on the page.
A sophisticated version of the developmental approach to understanding group process is the model of Bennis and Shepard. Bennis and Shepard adapted the ideas of Bion as a result of their studies of T-groups (a method originated by Lewin). They suggest that there is a progression between the different types of basic assumption group and that, in particular, the dependency and fight-flight groups tend to occur in the first part of a group's life while the pairing and work groups occur later and these two halves are divided from one another by what they call the "barometric event" which is an occurrence in which the relationship of the group to its leader/facilitator is irreversibly changed. Inter-member relations in the early phase are characterised by considerations of power whereas in the later phase the group becomes more personal (see table 2)
Table 2: Two main Stages of Group Development (Bennis & Shepard)
| Dependency -- Fight-flight | Power relationships |
| Barometric event | |
| Pairing -- Work group | Personal relationships |
What Bennis and Shepard are saying, therefore, is that the group has two main stages which each have sub-stages. In the first main stage, the group members are preoccupied by their relationship to the group leader. At first the members feel dependent. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. The group moves into the phase that Tuckman calls storming. This is, in Bion's terms, a fight-flight mode. Bennis and Shepard call it counter-dependency or, simply, rebellion. A struggle ensues. Eventually some resolution to this tension is achieved and this is cathartic for the group. Bennis and Shepard believed that the resolution of this first half of the group was a crucially important event and so they gave it the portentous label "barometric". Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. The leader is dethroned.
Stage One
In the first six months that I joined this DG, almost all the large-scale events were initiated by the two leaders. While most members were strongly committed to Wednesday studies, their attendance of other events waxed and waned depending on their outside social lives. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. This is the dependency stage.
The crisis developed with the approach of our group mates' wedding. The leaders, as well as some very enthusiastic members, made the decision that the group would handle the church aspect of the wedding. Other members, whether due to unfamiliarity with the wedding couple, lack of personal talents or overburdened from other work already, were more hesitant to commit. Thus we entered the fight-flight stage. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. Each member was then faced with the dilemna of how much to contribute to this team effort, if at all. Remember that in a church setting, all contribution is purely voluntary. (This is why John C. Maxwell calls it the the highest form of leadership.)
To my mind, our barometric event started on the eve of the wedding. Although there was no compulsion, almost the entire group gathered in the church around 11pm, to see how they could help. Surrounded by flowers, satin, and other assorted decorations, we were finally faced with the full prospect of our responsibilities. In addition to the decorations, various members also had to coordinate the music, the ushers and the cars. The situation was not helped by the absence of the leader who was in Europe. Fatigued from a week of work, but comforted by each others presence and the sense of shared purpose, various talents began to emerge as we saw sides of each other that would never have been unveiled on a typical Wednesday night. The wedding itself was very poignant, and as we listened to the bride and groom on stage, each person was filled with the sense of shared joy and accomplishment that we had made this happy occasion possible. Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. We also had the chance to indulge in more intimate conversations with group mates we might not have spoken to before, over several glasses of wine. (Wine always helps.) And hence we passed into the second phase of the group's life.
In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. Immediately after the barometric event, the group is likely to settle into a degree of complacency. What they have been struggling with now no longer seems like an important issue. This roughly corresponds to Tuckman's "norming" phase. Members agree with each other more readily. The group feels smooth, agreeable and unpressured. Bennis and Shepard regard this as a "flight" phase, and it may well be, in Bion's terms, a time when the group is unconsciously working on the "pairing" assumption. Relationships have become more important than work.
Stage Two
The second stage for us is a direct outcome of the barometric events. Lunch gatherings after church began to see record numbers of attendance, as did our Sunday afternoon games which even include DG-mates from other churches. We also began hanging out far more on the weekends, forsaking relationships with other cliques. In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. We are revelling in our new-found togetherness, and indulging in other group activities such as the recent DG Sharing on Oct 16. In this cruising mode, there is a risk that our new friendships may overshadow the original purpose of the DG: as a support group for Christ-centred bible study.
As this goes on, however, time pressure once again begins to be felt. Members begin to be aware that they do not have forever to do things. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. A new phase of struggle results. This time, however, members do not assume that it is the leader's responsibility to get things done. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. Finally, if all goes well, the group reaches a phase in which there is a sense of completeness and mutual affirmation for work completed and the bitter-sweet feelings of parting have to be lived through.
And Beyond
The model seems to fit so far. If so, it should imply that we are finally ready to take on a greater participatory role in the larger church body. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. Let us not wait too long to remember this. A cohesive team performs far more effectively than a collection of individuals, and could be a vital force in driving many ministries forward. We already see some of our members undertaking roles in the upcoming BB/GB and Children's Church camps. We also see many other members organising meals, and even chalets. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. And if this is the most productive phase, we should give serious thought to what we want to produce, rather than random ad hoc events.
Not all groups achieve this, however. If, through the weakness of members or the intransigence of the leader, the barometric event is not achieved, the life of the group will stagnate and members will not find the group to be an environment in which they can mature. They will remain in a dependent condition and the group will never reach what Tuckman called the performing stage.
For Leaders
I think there are some clear lessons I have had the privilege of learning from being in this DG. First and foremost, if a group is 'doing ok', it may be time to initiate a crisis to move the group forward into the next stage. It will take a brave leader to initiate a change in direction and face up to the resultant rebellion, but it is through these shared hardships that friendships are forged. If not, the group will stagnate in the comfort zone until it withers away.
The full text of the Bennis and Shepard model may be found here. Search for "Barometric Event" on the page.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
engineering philosophy of friendships
Having been through some emotional rollercoasters lately, I think it's interesting to correlate one's sense of wellness with the company one keeps. In particular, I think the presence of friends is a large component of happiness, and different types of friendships can be graphed where x is the amount of happiness and y is time.
Errata: y is the amount of happiness and x is time. Apparently no one is really reading my equations.
I'd do the graphs but I'm on a public terminal, so I hope you remember your math.
Old Friends
Old friends are always there for you. Not very exciting, but hanging out is always positive. This can be graphed as x = a where a > 0.
Hangout Buddies
Hangout buddies drift in and out of our lives, depending on time and space. The getting to know each other part is very exciting, and it can be plotted approximately as |a.sin(x)| where a > 1, for an indefinite time period, until you part ways.
Edit: I have to correct my equation to a[sin(x)+0.875] because there is a slight negative component at times when you feel your buddies don't care about you, although this is often due to misunderstandings. This isn't really noticeable unless too many people make you feel bad at the same time.
Long Distance Friends
It's hard to graph this because it's really erratic. Most of the time, x=0 but during those occasional telephone calls or visits, x can shoot up to astronomical values. It is best describes as a[sin(x)]^b where a and b > 1, and the value of b is correlated to the length of time between meetings.
Girlfriends
This one is simple. It is just a sinusoidal waveform, although the amplitude (both positive and negative) varies with time.
One Night Stands
This should be |-1/x|. If you catch something, you can remove the modulus.
So look at all the friends in your life, find the appropriate waveforms and add them all together. If you're at a point when the peaks coincide, hope it lasts! If you're in a confluence of valleys, hopefully someone new will come into your life. And thus ends the mathematical guide to navigating friendship's ups and downs.
Errata: y is the amount of happiness and x is time. Apparently no one is really reading my equations.
I'd do the graphs but I'm on a public terminal, so I hope you remember your math.
Old Friends
Old friends are always there for you. Not very exciting, but hanging out is always positive. This can be graphed as x = a where a > 0.
Hangout Buddies
Hangout buddies drift in and out of our lives, depending on time and space. The getting to know each other part is very exciting, and it can be plotted approximately as |a.sin(x)| where a > 1, for an indefinite time period, until you part ways.
Edit: I have to correct my equation to a[sin(x)+0.875] because there is a slight negative component at times when you feel your buddies don't care about you, although this is often due to misunderstandings. This isn't really noticeable unless too many people make you feel bad at the same time.
Long Distance Friends
It's hard to graph this because it's really erratic. Most of the time, x=0 but during those occasional telephone calls or visits, x can shoot up to astronomical values. It is best describes as a[sin(x)]^b where a and b > 1, and the value of b is correlated to the length of time between meetings.
Girlfriends
This one is simple. It is just a sinusoidal waveform, although the amplitude (both positive and negative) varies with time.
One Night Stands
This should be |-1/x|. If you catch something, you can remove the modulus.
So look at all the friends in your life, find the appropriate waveforms and add them all together. If you're at a point when the peaks coincide, hope it lasts! If you're in a confluence of valleys, hopefully someone new will come into your life. And thus ends the mathematical guide to navigating friendship's ups and downs.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
on work relationships
A colleague sat down next to me and decided to give me his analysis on interpersonal relationships in the workplace.
Downward Relationships are the most satisfying because you have the joy of watching the people under you develop and mature under your guidance; perhaps even in your own image. If this is done well, you earn their love and respect and you feel damn good but you can't eat love and respect. You may achieve a lot through your team, but this will only be fully recognised if your upwards relationship is correspondingly sound.
Upwards Relationships can be extremely rewarding in the financial or career sense if managed well. However, this generally involves a lot of ass-kissing, which in turn is extremely tiring and takes its toll on the spirit. Even if you are incompetant, you can still get places if you get enough superiors to speak up for you. You can never bluff your peers, though.
Horizontal Relationships are basically the tradeoff between the two in terms of satisfaction and utility. In addition, you also need to measure the paradigm of lateral comparisons and jealousy if you are doing too well. This is why it is the easiest relationship to sacrifice.
Call me idealistic, but I am going to try for the triple anyway. I believe that my subordinates will give me trust and respect as long as I am sincerely executing my responsibilities as a leader, looking out for their best interests. I will earn the respect of my peers through my own competence, while at the same time offering the hand of friendship that does not conceal a knife that stabs the back or slits the scapegoat. And my bosses will have to respect me for my exceptional abilities, and not merely an ability to make them feel good.
In my own experience thus far, it is certainly easier to advance if you just kiss up. But what's the point of living if you cannot live with yourself?
There are three main categories of relationships: upwards (with your bosses), horizontal (with your peers) and downwards (with subordinates). Each person will have to choose one of these to sacrifice, because it is not possible to maintain all three. And citing anecdotal evidence from superiors we both know, he went on to press his thesis that for most people, it is most beneficial to sacrifice the peer level. This was not a statement I could easily accept, because I would certainly wish to manage relations on all three fronts. But as I tried to find examples of people who had successfully balanced them all, I had to conclude that a balance only occured when they had not truly mastered any.This led me to conclude that the satisfaction derived from a relationship is inversely related to its utility.
Downward Relationships are the most satisfying because you have the joy of watching the people under you develop and mature under your guidance; perhaps even in your own image. If this is done well, you earn their love and respect and you feel damn good but you can't eat love and respect. You may achieve a lot through your team, but this will only be fully recognised if your upwards relationship is correspondingly sound.
Upwards Relationships can be extremely rewarding in the financial or career sense if managed well. However, this generally involves a lot of ass-kissing, which in turn is extremely tiring and takes its toll on the spirit. Even if you are incompetant, you can still get places if you get enough superiors to speak up for you. You can never bluff your peers, though.
Horizontal Relationships are basically the tradeoff between the two in terms of satisfaction and utility. In addition, you also need to measure the paradigm of lateral comparisons and jealousy if you are doing too well. This is why it is the easiest relationship to sacrifice.
Call me idealistic, but I am going to try for the triple anyway. I believe that my subordinates will give me trust and respect as long as I am sincerely executing my responsibilities as a leader, looking out for their best interests. I will earn the respect of my peers through my own competence, while at the same time offering the hand of friendship that does not conceal a knife that stabs the back or slits the scapegoat. And my bosses will have to respect me for my exceptional abilities, and not merely an ability to make them feel good.
In my own experience thus far, it is certainly easier to advance if you just kiss up. But what's the point of living if you cannot live with yourself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
