I Can't Call It

I immediately became aware that the next thirty minutes were going to be challenging. We had spent the first half of class reviewing and discussing a midterm in which our class test average was below fifty percent and were now to decide a "curve and extra-credit proposal"  which we would present to Professor Kurpis at the end of the allotted time.
I announced to my peers that we should separate into smaller groups in order to address our ad-hoc situation.  My suggestion was received differently amongst my classmates.  Some people agreed, some people disagree, and some people seemed confused.  I could feel the pressure building throughout the class.        As I observed the class' chaos as we negotiated how we were going to go about getting the extra-credit-points, my initial idea to divide the class into groups was then, in my head, reinforced - I believed that there was no chance of the class making progress if we did not do so. Many of my classmates were very adamant about what they wanted as extra-credit points and what was the best away of going about acquiring them. It's hard to say, but I'm pretty sure that the immediate thing I told myself was "Vincent, some of the people in here may be a little more passionate about this process than you right now." At that point I stood down, without giving it much thought, and allowed someone else to be the leader of the entire class - I was willing to lead a smaller leader/group interaction since we had success doing so in a previous class exercise, but for some reason I was not willing to be the leader of the entire class.  It is the latter here that fascinates me:  although my initial instinct was to lead, why did I ultimately choose not too?

Initially, I attributed my disengagement of the exercise to "just not caring" since I had scored well on the exam.  This sounds cool and hip, however, I now question: is that all there was which influenced me to withdraw?  

By definition, the above would suggest that due to  the frustration of this decision making process, my behavior was avoidance-withdrawal from process when no making progress is suspected (I felt that the class would not progress if it did not break into groups and plainly did not want to deal with it).

However, I generally do care.  I have always been comfortable assuming responsibility in group settings.  Although I did not lead the class, I did not totally disengage-I still discussed alternatives and gave input.  This illustrates that my behavior could be described as accommodation-seeing issues more important to others than yourself and allowing them to make decisions for you when your interests are not critical.

It can be argued that we ultimately "succeeded" as a large class group since we did get more extra-credit points passed than other classes.  

I am not satisfied with my behaviour during this process.  Too often in life do I accept responsibility when something pertains to me and disregard it if it doesn't.  I sometimes even justify in my mind that something doesn't pertain to me, when it in rationally does perhaps to avoid responsibility and uncertainty.  This is a valuable lesson that I will consider in future decision making processes.  In hindsight, I would have tried to clearly define who in the setting ultimately had the power: the group or the leader.  It would then be possible to determine which decision making process to apply based on power distribution.  I was in an unbiased, low-emotional position to act since the points did not apply to me, and instead of "shutting down" with self-serving behavior, it may have been more ethical for me to take a utilitarian approach for the betterment of the entire class.  In a perfect world I would have implemented some kind of voting system to ensure that every voice in our class was heard - ultimately I felt that the more aggressive, perhaps more business-experienced students had the most say and influence.

Are you satisfied with the decision we ultimately agreed to?  Given the time constraints, were we not "successful"?  Did your score on the exam affect your behavior?      

   

Scrambled Planning

My “eggs-cellent” management professor held an impromptu, in-class planning assignment on Wednesday.  We split into groups of four or five and were to plan, design, and construct an “egg-protection device” that would prevent the egg from breaking when dropped from ten feet onto the classroom carpet (don’t worry we had a tarp).  Since this “social experiment” took place before our planning lecture, it is interesting to compare known academic theory on planning with the class’ planning culture and how we ultimately performed.

What are we doing?

The first step in the planning process is to define your goals and objectives.  The entire class was initially somewhat confused about what the goals and objects of the assignment actually were (we did not receive a formal handout).  We must be specific in order to be effective in achieving our goals.  This takes structure.  Luckily, roles naturally emerge in group settings.  Hence, the first “bureaucrat” of our team was “elected” a Secretary, in order to immediately pen the rules and record our progression in design and implication.  We all soon became aware of what we wanted to achieve.  The goal and deadlines were already specified by the professor - we just had to figure out the “best way of getting there.”

Who can do what? What can’t we do?  

I threw around a few questions: Does anyone have engineering background? Is anyone an artist? Google it?  Step 2, determining current status compared to objectives, does suggest to examine group strengths and weaknesses and apply each members skills accordingly.  However, when I asked, nobody had any relative skills, so they thought.  I was subsequently elected the “Leader.”      

What is the best way to do it?

Something told me to brainstorm.  I instructed the group to sketch ideas for at least our first five minutes.  However the group’s roles were further emerging and half of the group focused on the design aspect of the contraption while the others acted as “overseers” of the design - constantly checking our use of the resources, reminding the group of time deadlines, and making sure the group was satisfying all requirements.  Ideally we should have developed a premise by comparing the pros and cons of various premises and should have had several alternative strategies (if for some reason our strategy does not seem to be working).  However, time constraints narrowed our choices.

How can we do it the best way?

Step four in the planning process suggests to analyze alternatives and make a tactical plan.  Our pyramid-design plan was the plan most likely to complete our objectives, since it was our only plan.  We allocated jobs so that everyone could play their role in the actual implementation - two of us were to construct sides, one of us was to deliver the device and test it, one of us was to check and oversee our process, and one of us was to record and edit.  However, these roles were not ideally based according to the person’s skills or experience.  

Do it, correct and revise.

Out of necessity for completion, our implemented plan was constantly corrected and revised during the 10 minute construction phase.  The overseers repeatedly edited the fabricators construction and questioned the professor about design requirements.  Group roles even were somewhat revised - my hands were shaking so much during fabrication that Greg jumped in to help me.  

All in all, our group planning culture, which was largely based on previous life experiences, did not totally achieve its goals - the egg slightly cracked when the apparatus was dropped.  The underlying obstacle that repeatedly caused hardship was the time constraint.  Teams that were successful were not necessarily better planners than the teams that were not successful.  The divider in this case was an idea - to connect the straws and tape so the eggs would be dropped from only two feet (both winning teams shared this theory).  Perhaps if we had more time to draw-up and compare different strategies, we may have had been able to choose a more effective application.