Blog 9: Team Conflict

Now that I have had some time to think about it, I would like to tie my 8th Blog Post to the idea of risk preference. My hypothetical construct, Econ Land, was an egalitarian commune living away from mainstream civilization that had to produce all of its own goods. In retrospect, I would like to think about the kind of person that would join such a commune. Would the kind of person choosing to live in Econ Land be risk preferring, risk averse, or risk neutral? On the one hand, Econ Land would have little to no crime or any other form of people acting individually or colluding to the detriment of others, meaning that it might attract the more risk averse. On the other hand, Econ Land's situation would mean that it is more vulnerable to the elements -- a harsh winter might cause severe problems for everyone living there. Additionally, Econ Land would be far away from modern hospitals, armed police, and likely even a wilderness rescue station, which is likely a situation preferred by the risk preferring sort. But if Econ Land's isolated situation is the risk, what is the reward? Maybe the reward for the risk could actually be Econ Land's less risky aspects, namely a more peaceful and less violence prone society. I suppose this shows that, as said in class, people can be risk-preferring in some ways and risk-averse in others. As I have shown here, sometimes different categories of risk preference can be connected, and additional risk in one area can reduce the risk in another.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Names have been changed to protect the innocent.)

            Last year, I worked with an organization called Engage that was a part of the University's Office of Volunteer Programs. The organization's mission was to encourage interested University of Illinois students to serve local communities while fostering connections among those students. Engage accomplished this by setting up service projects for groups of approximately ten students at a time with not-for-profit organizations in the Central Illinois area. These projects would often last about three days going from early Friday afternoon to Sunday evening. Students that volunteered for a given project would serve the organization during the day and at night would return to a nearby motel for rest and group bonding activities. Students doing a service project with Engage would be led by a student leader, which was a position people applied for, who was expected to help organize service tasks during the day and facilitate group bonding activities at night. The whole project was overseen by an Office of Volunteer Programs employee who made sure things ran smoothly and drove the students to and from the service event.

            The particular service project I am speaking of was one where I was a student volunteer rather than a leader. The service project was with Habitat for Humanity, and the group would go to a construction site during the day to help to build a house meant for an underprivileged family. The student leader on this project was Nora. Throughout the project, the professional worker on site, who helped direct our group's construction activities while accomplishing the construction tasks requiring more risk and skill, was named Larry. Larry's approach to interacting with our group was to give our group several simple tasks that needed to get done, such as starting the house's walls by hammering plywood onto the outside of the house or carrying roof slats up to the roof area, before going to his own work. He left us to our own devices when it came to dividing labor. The bulk of this task naturally fell to Nora, since the University employee assigned to us, named Lynn, preferred to allow students to manage themselves while remaining as a source of general help and advice in the background.

            The problem began when Nora started assigning tasks that needed to be done to Lynn, the other engage members, and I. A pattern developed where Nora would consistently assign tasks that required the most physical strength to Jim, an African-American man who, it is worth noting, was tall but of about average build. Tasks such as lifting the heaviest-looking packs of boards or being the one to hold the plywood as we were hammering on it reliably fell to Jim. At that point, Jim was not giving any outward indication that he saw anything out of the ordinary. However, from my view of the group's "water cooler talk", by the middle of Saturday several other people in the group were noticing this enough to quietly talk about it with other group members besides Nora, Lynn, and Jim. This continued until that night, when our group decided to play some board games. The big box with all the board games was in our van, so Nora asked Jim, "Hey Jim, can you get the board games for us?"

            Jim turned and said, "You know, I'm awfully tired from today, can someone else do it?"

            Nora paused before giggling and saying, "Come on, Jim, you're the strongest guy here, you can do it!"

            Jim stared at her for a few seconds before snatching the van's keys off the table and walking out the door saying, "Y'all will never pass up a chance to work the black man." At that point, everyone's eyes widened, with no one sure of what to do. Nora stared after him, mouth agape. Some other students had a very surprised and quizzical look. Yet other students and I gave each other an "uh-oh" look that suggested we were savvy to what had been happening.

            Lynn, apparently finally noticing something, got up and asked, "Is something wrong?"

            A few minutes later, Jim returned before quietly asking Lynn if he could speak to her. She obliged and they went out to talk in the hallway. A minute later, Lynn opened the door and asked, "Nora, can you talk to us for a second?" Nora joined them.

            At that point, I was among the first to press my ear against the door. It was hard to make out a lot of what they were saying, but from what I could hear, Jim had accused Nora of assigning him the group's most physically strenuous tasks based on his race. Nora was distraught at this and refuted it vehemently, saying that she had assumed that he was the strongest member of the group and that it would be safest and most efficient for him to perform those tasks. Jim argued that none of the other men in the group looked any less strong than he was, and still seemed upset. With Lynn's help, Nora and Jim agreed that they both still wanted the project to get done and that they still wanted to be part of a fun, service-oriented group. They reached an agreement that Nora would distribute the group's physically challenging tasks evenly and give people more choices in the tasks they preferred to do, while Jim would calmly bring issues up right away instead of letting them fester and becoming upset. Nora, Lynn, and Jim re-entered the room, and the night continued on as planned, but there was some awkwardness among everyone. The next day, Nora's style of leadership changed. When organizing tasks, she asked if anyone wanted to do a particular task instead of immediately assigning it to someone. This way, people were doing tasks they preferred, which, as someone working in this group, I have to say was more pleasant.

            Was there a "breaking point" in this conflict? It depends on what a breaking point is. There was no yelling, and no one left the group. But it did build to the point where it had to be discussed and explicit agreements had to be reached. People became emotional over it -- Jim was incensed and Nora was upset. Jim and Nora were awkwardly polite to each other for the rest of the trip, and did not look each other in the eye much. For everyone else, a certain awkwardness permeated the group for the rest of the trip.

            From what I can gather, the source of the problem from Jim's perspective was that Nora was over-controlling the group and seemingly assigning him tasks based on his race. The subject of leaders over-controlling groups and paying too much attention to tasks without taking people's feelings into account was covered in Bolman & Deal. From Nora's perspective, she likely felt, at a glance, that Jim was the physically strongest member of the group and assigned him tasks based on what she felt would be safe and efficient. Jim, on the other hand, allowed his personal issues to fester until he had a very upsetting outburst. This is similar to the ideas discussed in Model I. From everyone else's perspective, the source of the problem was a combination of Jim's and Nora's issues -- Nora could have been less heavy-handed in her control of the group and more conscious of the implications of her task assignments from an outside perspective, while Jim could have brought the issue to light in a calmer manner. It is worth noting, though, that in retrospect everyone contributed to the problem in a way, since we were all members of the group yet no one that noticed the pattern in task assignment brought it up with Nora or Lynn, instead preferring to stick to gossip. Jim's and everyone else's silence on the matter until Saturday night reminds me of the self-protection mechanism, where people protect themselves and each other from awkward situations -- in this case, a conversation where the topic of racism is brought up -- at the expense of learning. Luckily, with Lynn's help, Nora and Jim communicated more openly and reached an agreement as suggested by Model II. This agreement ultimately led to more democratic control of the group's activities, which is more preferred by group members as shown in the textbook.

            This conflict could have been avoided, obviously, if people had been more communicative from the start. If the members of Engage on the trip had been less interested in their own self-protection and more in group learning, the important conversation could have taken place without an outburst, and the awkwardness of the rest of the trip could have been avoided. Lynn, as the staff member on the trip, could have been more observant of group dynamics and more proactive in resolving the situation. Larry, as the construction expert and Habitat for Humanity employee present, could have structured our time with Habitat for Humanity more instead of leaving us to ourselves. Finally, Nora could have structured our group more democratically and been more sensitive to appearances and feelings from the start, and not continued pushing Jim to get the board games when he showed resistance.