At one of my previous job positions, the contribution of a group of individuals produced more effective and efficient output than the contribution of the individuals themselves. There was 10-12 of us working identical, front-line positions in the office earning the same hourly wage. With the type of substantial projects our managers assigned in order to offer services to a diverse population, we needed each other’s help. Typically, our team progressed towards a common goal with each project, all the while completing our own individual, specialized tasks. Cooperation and communication were the two most important elements in completing the larger, collective duties. Weekly meetings, e-mail updates, and an understanding on how to collaborate aided in fulfilling deadlines and objectives.
The main endeavors that required the most collective work
revolved around large events and programs where everyone needed to contribute
in order for the organization to pull it off. Particular tasks did not need any
sort of specialized skills to complete; therefore, since everyone had the
ability to accomplish the bulk of the preparations it was easy to hand off
responsibilities. This sometimes created problems of tracking who did what.
Organization of which employee contributed to what task was probably the most
difficult endeavor to pinpoint for our managers, as monitoring us was not
always possible. This also allowed certain individuals to be credited for some
projects they only worked an hour on. On the other hand, others working on the
same project contributed their entire shifts to try and complete it. Unless the
managers specifically assigned an individual to finish the assignment, whoever
is in the office at the time and completes it is usually credited, despite the
number of people working on it before.
This also gets complicated when something goes wrong or
there are mistakes found in the work. Sometimes we cannot backtrack unless
responsibility is taken and another individual who was doing a majority of the
project mistake-free has to go back and fix what was messed up. Not being able
to distinguish individual contributions can make motivation for completing
large tasks difficult. But being able to filter certain decisions down to all
the employees, allowing us to participate in the decision-making process. This
enables us to feel that our opinions actually matter.
In regards to the opinion article, “How to Get the Rick to
Share the Marbles,” there were a few concepts that I believed coincided with my
experience. While my co-workers and I are not monetarily compensated based on
our performance, as we are contracted to an hourly-wage, our version of “share-the-spoils”
is employee recognition. If everyone does their “fair share” and pulls on the rope
just as hard as everyone else, everyone deserves credit and recognition.

This post is late. After this week, I will not accept late posts for credit.
ReplyDeleteOn the merits, you treated this as an opportunity to talk about team production. But the experiment reported at the beginning of the article was really not about that. Instead it was about whether one person regards another as deserving.
From what you described, it sounds like often times people don't actually get credit for a particular task even when they did 'pull the rope.' I wonder if this ever gives people less incentive to work hard because their work is sometimes not recognized or 'rewarded' by means of credit for completing the work. On the other hand, if the group members view working with the overall goal of completing all the tasks that need to be done, and the amount of credit people are given is evened-out in the long run, I can see how everyone could be deserving of the reward.
ReplyDelete