I came across another post on a Six Sigma blog that I found to be quite interesting and applicable to most. The author writes about an interesting group exercise taking place during a class she was teaching. The exercise was about personality preferences with regards to team management, and you can read about it here.
This got me thinking about many, many, many meetings I have been involved with over the years. I have always been aware of the difficulties in working within a group dynamic, but seeing this blog made me realize that I do not spend enough time reviewing how to work with people effectively, especially in a group setting. Those soft skills can set you apart from the herd, which is very important when you need to make your ideas known, or more importantly to make your ideas popular and accepted.
How many times have you known the right course of action on a subject, but were not able to get a group to see things your way? Understanding how group dynamics play a role is the first step toward success in that area. Some people try to get their points across forcefully, and will simply raise their voice, or call into question your merits on the subject, putting you on the defensive. My former boss was very good at handling such situations. He would remain calm and simply re-explain his position. I do not always have the same level of patience, but I am trying to get better.
I am usually a good devil’s advocate, I can see both sides of an issue and often take an opposing view simply to engage someone to understand more about their point of view. I remember one time doing an exercise where we were paired off and given a topic to debate, then we had to switch and argue the counterpoint. I was paired with my supervisor at the time and I won both arguments, which either says something about my skills at persuasion or says very little about hers. At any rate, it was at that moment that I understood that any issue has two sides, and you need to see things from both points of view.
But then I come across this blog and I now see that issues often have more than just two sides. In this case, any one issue could have three or more sides, as each group could see an issue from a distinct point of view. I suppose you could expand this and say that one issue could have so many different points of view that bringing everyone to the same table could make discussions very, very difficult.
I guess that explains why the UN is often times quite useless. If you cannot get twenty people working for the same company to decide upon some basic design concepts, why do we expect the UN would ever be able to solve any issue presented before the Security Council? I am amazed that they are able to function at all. Same thing can be said of Congress, or any Government body. I guess at some point you need to have a person in charge and let them make the decision and everyone follow, hoping that the decision was made with the best intentions for everyone.
Another point of reference with regards to group dynamics can be found in the book “The Jelly Effect“. I read this a few months back and found it fascinating with regards to networking, public speaking, working with groups, etc. If you have some time it is a quick read and well worth the trouble.
I think the most important piece of all of this information is that people will react to you for a variety of reasons. If you start to develop skills that allow you to interpet these reactions, or anticipate them, then you are well on your way to being an effective communicator in any type of setting.
