(An off-topic note to the professor regarding reflection titling: I’ve always had an aversion to titling my writing. Something feels confining about naming the entire piece, and I usually feel inclined to let the body of the text be the only area where the reader might get an idea of how to classify the work. I have a feeling this is what you were thinking when you asked us to title the pieces; without a title, I can be lazy in my adherence to a topic. In the effort of learning, I’ll try titling from now on and see how it changes my reflections.)
Last year, I was given the opportunity to teach a zero-hour, seven-week course to a class of incoming freshman in my department. The class, essentially an “Introduction To Basic University Skills” course, was basically a joke, academically. Without any credit hours, “grades” weren’t really a concern. I could assign homework and require its completion, but in the end I was just giving them a pass/fail grade (with no GPA weight.) There was little reason for these students to put any work or attention into the class.
The true reason for the class, besides the few useful skills presented (compass usage, résumé designing, job interview tips,) was to have these freshmen meet other freshmen in the class and develop contacts early on. They would, after all, be most likely to find at least one of their fellow NPRE students in each major-related class they took for the next four years. My real job was to foster these relationships. Get the students working together.
Previous teachers of this course all gave similar advice: the deplorable ceremony of “ice-breakers”. I hate ice-breakers. I consider ice-breakers the least creative (perhaps laziest) way to get conversation moving. I was determined not to fall on the crutch of “go around the circle and tell the class your favorite movie” or “line up in order of birth date in five minutes”.
Without any other reason than it amused me, I had each student on the first day tell me their favorite animal. Then I told them if I forgot their name, and forget their name I surely would, I would be calling them by their “spirit animal”. The class seemed initially confused and probably thought I was lying. Only fifteen minutes had passed, however, before I couldn’t remember a spiky-haired kid’s name in the back row, and referred to him as “The Antelope”. (As a teaching note: for reasons I can’t explain, it was and is easier to remember a person by their favorite animal than by their given name. There is a chance, of course, that this is a behavior unique to my brain, and other teachers have no problem learning human names.)
The antics continued. I made it a regular routine in my class to do something for (to?) the students that they wouldn’t expect and would generally weird them out. The second day I made them enter a vote in the decision of which is better, Dinosaurs or Free T-Shirts. The losing team (Free T-shirts, by only one vote,) had to sit at the very front of the class, the winning team got the (apparently more desirable) seats in the back. During another class period, told them we were going to end class by taking a short exam on the quad. After seating them in a big circle out on the grass, I initiated a giant game of Duck Duck Goose.
Besides chronicling the fun I had confusing a class of twenty-five freshmen, this essay should convey the lesson I learned in getting the class working together. Because they always had something to talk about (namely, their possibly insane instructor,) the students became talkative right away. I quickly observed the root of my solution: no one felt awkward talking to each other, because I had already given them a much more awkward class hour.
I think this principle could be translated to a managerial concept. The individuals, with a common “enemy”, act with added cooperation among each other. I was actually pretty surprised that this idea didn’t come up in the Drucker discussion we had on management earlier this week. While we covered the idea of a manager keeping cordiality with his or her workers, we didn’t rate the effectiveness of an “enemy” manager, someone who the workers can mutually aim their cooperation.
I anticipate the counterpoint: an “enemy” manager would only work to decrease productivity. They would alienate the workers, make them less likely to do their best work. I’m not saying it’s the best solution, but I think deliberately giving the workers something in common could prove to be a step towards good alignment.
On the title, you were a target but not the only one. This post does stick to its theme pretty well, so you may have to get over your preference or deliberately write a post with a title but that meanders to get me back with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sensing you are having more fun with the writing now. Assuming that is true, I'd like the pendulum to swing back a little in the other direction, because the reader does matter too, and some of that is work. For example, where you talk about the vote on Dinosaurs versus Free T-Shirts, there is not enough of a setup for the reader to understand this is a vote on teams. So it was confusing.
There is another part where you mention NPRE. As a writing rule, you shouldn't use an acronym unless you write out what it stands for first. I've got a guess as to what it means, but I don't really know.
Finally, on the point of your piece, you've indeed discovered a principle but it is not quite as you frame it. The principle is that people need to form a common bond before they can work effectively together. They do need a "bonding experience." So your intuition is good. They don't, however, need to hate their manager as the way to bond.
This post is super cool.
ReplyDeleteI've thought about doing oddball activities, like the ones you describe, in my classroom for the first week. I think high schoolteachers too often jump right into subject material without giving the class time to gel. The reasoning for me is "If this is someone with whom I've played Duck, Duck, Goose, then this is someone with whom I am willing to do math/English/science/etc." If I were bad with names, I'd definitely adopt the "spirit animal" technique.
Also, the "common enemy" idea reminds me of an episode of The Office entitled "Conflict Resolution." Michael tries to get his employees to get along by having the complaints read out loud in front of everyone so that they can be addressed publicly. This, of course, like most of Michael's ideas, is horrible, but somehow ends up working out. By the end of the episode, everyone is talking and united in their displeasure with Michael's management. The common enemy strategy can work, but ideally there are other means of uniting the group.