Surviving "group work"

[Tabitha]

This is more of a rant than anything, but I'm also looking to hear how other people get through forced "group work," "tasks forces," "team building," you-name-it BS.

I work as a school psychologist. The administration has somehow suckered me in to joining a "school improvement counsel," which involves an ambiguous purpose and a hefty chunk of time. To make a long story short, I spent the better part of the afternoon sitting around and listening to rhetoric on the value of collaborative thinking, working towards common goals, and so on and so forth. But, for what? I left with absolutely nothing new.

I know I'm not the only one that experiences the same angst and muddiness after "group work." But of course, when you qustion its value you risk accusations of "not being a team player."

The problem is that, as Rand said, there is no such thing as a "collective thought." I think that if something needs to be improved, it would get accomplished much more effectively if one person drafted something in writing, and then ran it by a couple other people for correction and improvement. Sitting around and chit-chatting about it only breeds confusion. Is your school (or insert organization) really going to benefit from this time-wasting mumbo-jumbo?! I think not.

Does anyone have any good talking points or strategies they use to articulate the purposeless of this stuff?

Edited March 1, 2007 by Tabitha

[DarkWaters]

Collaborating with others towards a mutually beneficial goal can be an enriching experience provided that both parties have something to offer and make a sincere attempt towards contributing to the concerted effort. Many individuals who are hardworking and intelligent often have unique experiences to share. When many such individuals cooperate in an appropriate setting, an auspicious learning opportunity is created. This is particularly true in the academic community. As a graduate student, I enjoy the opportunity to work with others at times.

However, problems arise when collaboration is forced. The situation is then no longer a voluntary agreement between individuals who have something to offer but is instead a fiat organizational effort that might not have otherwise been voluntarily embraced by some of the participants. Forcing individuals to work together is obiviously bad. In some cases, in particular with some of the undergraduates in my department, it leads to individuals creating more work for their other group members through their inaction. Sometimes it is worse when a group is forced to include someone who is incompetent and aggressively demands responsibility.

Another common fallacy is the belief that collaboration is inherently good because everyone has different perspectives. To extol this is to suggest that nobody can ever be wrong and that everyone has something meaningful to contribute. This is again wrong for obvious reasons as some individuals do not nearly keep themselves well informed or sometimes just are understandably inexperienced despite being diligent.

It is definitely true that collaboration has its benefits in many cases. Furthermore, there are many cases of mentors or academic advisement that are primarily to the benefit of the more inexperienced party that are still generally good. However, to devote several hours to vacuous and monotonous seminars on how group work is good not because the individual participants are good but because group work is inherently good is just ludicrous. It also prevents individuals from fulfilling their actual responsibilities as these seminars can waste vital hours.

I in particular like the following quote, which has been attributed to President Woodrow Wilson:

I not only use all the brains that I have, but all of the brains that I can borrow.

In other words, brainstorming sessions can be great, presupposing that the other individuals have (well-cultivated) brains!

I am not sure if any of this is what you expected to hear. I hope that it was at least amusing.

[softwareNerd]

I think that if something needs to be improved, it would get accomplished much more effectively if one person drafted something in writing, and then ran it by a couple other people for correction and improvement.

That's almost always the case. Most groups end up producing sub-par results.

Does anyone have any good talking points or strategies they use to articulate the purposeless of this stuff?

From your post, you seem to be saying that the problem is the process, not what they're trying to acheive. Is that true? In other words, you do have some ideas related to school improvement, but the way they're going about it, there's little chance of anything really happening. If that's it, then making a case for the purposelessness of the process will probably not work unless you can suggest a better alternative.

How one handles it depends a lot on the specifics of the situation: the mandate that has been given to the group, the nature of the leader, the other people involved...the overall politics of it. So, it's hard to say anything specific. There's always the option of "going with the flow". At the other extreme, there are some such situations where people are actually looking for someone to take leadership, and will be happy to follow if you step up and tell them: here's the way we can make this more productive and best achieve our goals.

[JMeganSnow]

At the other extreme, there are some such situations where people are actually looking for someone to take leadership, and will be happy to follow if you step up and tell them: here's the way we can make this more productive and best achieve our goals.

I've found that this is almost always the best strategy when faced with a "group project" or "team meeting" or whatever. Know what you're doing and have options prepared to present and you will be off and running before anyone else even has their shoes on.

[DavidOdden]

My suggestion might be difficult to implement, depending on you and your work circumstances, but perhaps you can extract something from it. My approach is based on the simple assumption that I am a rational person able to recognize objective value. I also assume that others are like me, but that they may make errors, usually base on a false premise, which when pointed out would cause them to eliminate the error. Group work then reduces to the notion of error correction, via intellectual trade. I recognise that I have a talent for identifying errors and solving problems, so I offer my solutions in trade (I assume others have some talent, the devil is in the details). Rational men will then recognize the value I offer, and will accept my proposal.

There is no such thing as collective thinking, so if a meeting starts that way, I urge you to change the topic. A meeting whould have a purpose, and talking about collective thinking cannot possibly be the real purpose of the meeting. If the school needs improving, then there must be some evidence that it does: that could be a purpose of the meeting. If a particular problem has been identified, focus on what causes the problem and how to eliminate that cause. It is easy to politely take over and run a meeting, no matter how obnoxious the chair of the committee is (well, up to a point, which I assume you don't really have to deal with). People simply need to be reminded that they are gassing and should get back on track. Passively waiting for a solution to come out of the swirling void will leave you with a swirling void tinged non-solution, whereas, actively identifying and solving the problem yourself and then unrelentingly asserting your solution will leave you with a former problem.

It is a nuisance to have to drag slackers along, but a bit of polite dismissiveness can eliminate their objections, and you can then work on getting something done. Never, ever, ever have talking points or even presume to understand that meaningless expression. Have something to say, and say it.

[Tabitha]

These are some statements from the handouts that I’m having difficulty with:

“Team members are interdependent – they are accountable to each other on an equal playing field.”

“Have more faith in people than they do in themselves…”

“Recognize human diversity as a gift, and the human spirit as a blessing.”

I’m all for brainstorming ideas, but I don’t see how fostering codependence and dumbing oneself down (“diversity” of thought implies that some thoughts are not as good as others, but should be considered regardless) is supposed to help the individual improve.

I have never liked group work, especially in college and graduate school. It always took twice as long to do and the final (ie: collective) product was never as satisfying, most likely because it wasn’t a product of my mind alone. I also used to dread classes that were run primarily by discussion, as opposed to lecture – based on the premise that “you learn as much from each other as you could from me (the professor).” I always felt like saying, “Um, no. I’m not paying thousands of dollars to listen to certain classmates that like to hear themselves talk. I’m paying to learn from a fully credentialed expert – you.” Sure, sitting around with peers and hearing people’s learning experiences can be helpful, but if that’s something I could have easily found on my own, and for free.

Forming classes and “Professional Learning Communities” around does little for the growth of the individual. And if the individual isn’t the focus of the improvement, how does one suspect the given “society” to improve?

[Tabitha]

Another common fallacy is the belief that collaboration is inherently good because everyone has different perspectives. To extol this is to suggest that nobody can ever be wrong and that everyone has something meaningful to contribute. This is again wrong for obvious reasons as some individuals do not nearly keep themselves well informed or sometimes just are understandably inexperienced despite being diligent.

Yes; well said....

I also wonder if a lot of my frustrations are simply due to lack of patience on my part. Groups cannot accomplish anything immediatly after forming, as there is a process of general acclimation (getting a feel for others' personalities, etc.).

[DavidOdden]

I always felt like saying, “Um, no. I’m not paying thousands of dollars to listen to certain classmates that like to hear themselves talk. I’m paying to learn from a fully credentialed expert – you.”

Well, I think that's a serious mistake. It may well be that you have some such hope / urge, but it's not like you've actually negotiated a specific contract with the instructor. Some people are paying thousands of dollars so that they themselves can get a credential; some people are paying so that they can suck in factual knowledge; some people are paying so that they can learn a method (for example, how to reason), especially how to create knowledge on your own, rather than being a passive consumer all of your life. Personally, I think the latter ought to be presupposed and that students who don't know how to think should not be students; but it simply can't be that way, because there are too few customers who are capable of acually absorbing knowledge and actually learning. Universities simply would not be economically viable if there weren't a huge amount of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The tragedy is that more and more, students are literally incapable of learning on their own, and students are actually refusing to learn except in these crippled group-learning environments

[bobsponge]

I work as a school psychologist. The administration has somehow suckered me in to joining a "school improvement counsel," which involves an ambiguous purpose and a hefty chunk of time. To make a long story short, I spent the better part of the afternoon sitting around and listening to rhetoric on the value of collaborative thinking, working towards common goals, and so on and so forth. But, for what? I left with absolutely nothing new.

Sounds very 1984. Remember the meetings on the new version of "newspeak" where they just sat around and talked in circles because they were supposed to be there but really had no reason to be?

Does anyone have any good talking points or strategies they use to articulate the purposeless of this stuff?

I am sure you can find some great tidbits in 1984. Or, you can start invoicing them for their time. Usually when folks get it driven home that they are actually paying for their labor, they start making the use of it more efficient.

[Tabitha]

Well, I think that's a serious mistake. It may well be that you have some such hope / urge, but it's not like you've actually negotiated a specific contract with the instructor. Some people are paying thousands of dollars so that they themselves can get a credential; some people are paying so that they can suck in factual knowledge; some people are paying so that they can learn a method (for example, how to reason), especially how to create knowledge on your own, rather than being a passive consumer all of your life. Personally, I think the latter ought to be presupposed and that students who don't know how to think should not be students; but it simply can't be that way, because there are too few customers who are capable of acually absorbing knowledge and actually learning. Universities simply would not be economically viable if there weren't a huge amount of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The tragedy is that more and more, students are literally incapable of learning on their own, and students are actually refusing to learn except in these crippled group-learning environments

In no way would I ever argue for passive consumption on the part of the student (or on the part of anyone). What would happen is that the professor would give us readings and other assignments, to be discussed during the next class. Many times these planned discussions would never take place, as one or two chatterboxes would dominiate the discussion and go off on tangeants -- with themselves as the point of reference. If I wanted discussion based on "personal experiences" (as opposed to readings and intellectual exchanges of ideas), I could have easily found such a group in my personal life. The role of the professor is to present relevant material, to inspire thought in the individual, which in turn should be discussed and debated among students as appropriate. All too often, this is sacrificed in the name of screwing the books and "learning from each other."

Edited March 6, 2007 by Tabitha

[KendallJ]

I also wonder if a lot of my frustrations are simply due to lack of patience on my part. Groups cannot accomplish anything immediatly after forming, as there is a process of general acclimation (getting a feel for others' personalities, etc.).

I take a slightly different view point on it. Group work is a part of most MBA cirricula specifically because of the reason that you mention here. In business, acheiving goals does entail cooperation, especially to acheive the most difficult long range goals. As such, the science of cooperation is important. Cooperation, not as "group think" but as the ability of a group to define an objective and motivate themselves and others to contribute to the attainment of said objective.

That said, the specific senario you describe, that of a policy council is one of the worst sorts of forms of a cooperative group. Groups are lead by leaders, not panels. Leadership is a crucial aspect of teamwork. So I don't envy you.

[Toolboxnj]

Adding to the poster above, as an MBA candidate I constantly work in groups for projects and papers. I used to hate it because, coming from a liberal arts background, I did everything on my own. But the profession I'm entering is extremely "team" or "group" oriented.

The first challenge is getting over the "team myth" that most managers hold; "team" and "group" are often used interchangeably but they are totally different concepts. "Teamwork" is more mutual and dependent while "groupwork" is much more independent. Teams and groups require different levels of communication, intimacy, cooperation, etc, so it's important to figure out which end of the spectrum your collaboration is.

Also leadership is very important. I typically do not take the reins in a team setting, but I like "cleaning up" messes and controversies. So it's important to understand your leadership and personality types before assuming a role. Also, are you more of a leader or a manager? There are major differences there and groups/teams always need one of each to be productive.