How to tell whether you are a constructive team member or not

Observing group dynamics shows that participants are often unaware of their less than helpful behaviour. FILE

By Mike Eldon


IN SUMMARY
Examine how you seek, make or comment on suggestions in a group.
   
Many years ago I attended a wonderful training programme called “Profile Learning”, in which I and my colleagues were tasked with building structures out of lego bricks.

As we contributed to the discussion an observer categorised each of our contributions, and at the end he fed what he had noted into a computer which analysed the data.

We then received print-outs of our respective behaviour profiles, showing the extent to which what we had said had been identified as “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”.

How were we judged between these three? It’s more straightforward than you might imagine. Each time we spoke it was in the context of a suggestion. The first category was seeking suggestions from others — the role played by a leader, or coordinator.

Then came making a suggestion, and building on a suggestion that someone else had made. Next we might have either criticised a suggestion, ignored it or replaced it. A final category was reserved for “multi-speak” — talking at the same time as someone else.

Guess which category was the most neglected. It was building on someone else’s suggestion, while criticisms and replacement of other’s ideas were in abundance.

Before launching into further lego projects we examined our behaviour profiles to figure out how to become more constructive team members.

Simply, this involved focusing more on what was good in what we had been hearing and making it better. Not just finding faults and flaws; not merely ignoring what a colleague had proposed or replacing it.

The way we behaved in our activity was far from uncommon. We had come with our inflated egos, using our mouths more than our ears. When we did listen, too often the purpose was merely to sense when the speaker had finished so we could jump in with our disconnected input.

At our most impatient and presumptuous we would interrupt speakers before they had completed their thoughts. By and large, listening served to help us belittle what we had just heard. Not to build on it.

As a consultant, much of my job involves observing group dynamics, and I have seen that this is how most groups interact. Participants are unaware of their less than helpful behaviour profiles precisely because they are so normal.

It’s only when they have their patterns and styles pointed out to them that they realise what has been happening, and with what consequences. Some find it possible to adapt to more constructive ways quite quickly, but for others old tough-guy habits die hard.

People don’t want to be viewed as mere “Yes-men” and “Yes-Women”. After a lifetime of behaving as professional critics they’re frozen in that role. The giveaway clue is the pervasive use of the word “but” as their opener.

This immediately and explicitly flags their intention, which is to take away from rather than add to what has just been said.

They may not intend it that way, but in all likelihood that is how it will be perceived, probably generating resentment and defensiveness and making it more difficult to build a collaborative atmosphere within which the best overall solution can emerge.