I want to begin with The Marshmallow Challenge. The project was intended for us to see the differences between leaders being assigned, chosen, or not mentioned. While our class failed to include this component in our tasks, it is very important that the differences in projects would have been noted. By assigning leadership, Professor Schroeder is unaware of leadership styles within the group and the dynamics of how they work together. He may think that is the person most capable: however, when actually implemented, someone else may restrain themselves because they are not the designated leader. Additionally, by having the groups choose their leader can cause conflict early on over a struggle of power. Our class has not interacted with each other enough to know immediately who the best leader would be. If not mentioned, there may be power struggles throughout the exercise. So by incorporating the power at all, he places the groups at a disadvantage and it was in our best interest to not follow those directions.
Nye's main argument that incorporates situational leadership and situational adaptability is very interesting in that it relates back to one of the first discussions we had in class: are people born great or do they become great? This reminds me of Shakespeare's "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." Situational leadership definitely applies most to the third portion of that quote. One may not typically be a leader, but if no one else steps up, they may become one. This is what I would have expected to happen in the Marshmallow Challenge, as that is what usually happens with group projects. Our group was very power balanced though.
Finally, what I gathered most from class today was the concept of facilitating disagreement between people working to achieve a common goal in order to make sure the decision is the best. With JFK leaving the room during the Cuban Missile Crisis debate, groupthink was eliminated and people were no longer trying to convince the person in charge. I know when I would go to board meetings in high school, this would happen where people were so passionate about their own idea that they would eliminate all other possibilities in their head because they had to convince the person in charge to go with them. Upon further discussion in committee meetings, their ideas would evolve and opinions would change. Similarly, Lincoln's inclusion of his political enemies encouraged great discussion so that he would end up with the best results possible, looked at from a variety of perspectives.
I like how you mentioned that leadership would've been an issue if it was to be designated to one particular person or if the group had to come up with one leader. For our group, no one person was designated the leader so we were able to equally contribute ideas to make the tallest structure. Although, I do think we tried to battle of the leadership role throughout the experiment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both your and Cammila's points on the bebefits and downfalls of assigning leadership versus earning it. Similar to Cammila's point, I would also note that in such a small group and in project with short time constraints, having a leader could be harmful then helpful. In my group, we did not see the piece of paper which assigned a leader and worked collectively fulfilling different roles which worked out well. From the last part of your post, I would think you would agree that the existence of a leadership role is sometimes detrimental.
ReplyDelete