Friday, February 15, 2008
Lone Rangers
Post contents to be reposted.
- Fates (10/11/2008)
- Not Smart People (10/02/2008)
- The Ick Factor (09/12/2008)
- When Did That Happen (09/12/2008)
- Fleeting (09/11/2008)
Posted 02/15/2008 12:50 PM CDT • Print Vers.
Comments
-
Your excellent essay did not mention the two big “advantages” of group decision-making and group action: individuals don’t get blamed if the entire group fails (instead they have a group rationalization session) and the lazy or incompetent employees can successfully leech off the other members of the group. An “advantage” for managers is that blame for failures is diffused to teams or committees instead of just to the bosses.
Up until last December I worked at a VA medical center and was amazed by how many worthless workers had kept their jobs for years. Our VAMC loved committees and subcommittees: groups of workers who met often, wrote up minutes and reports, but rarely accomplished their tasks.
Dr. T | 2/15/2008 03:33 PM CDT -
+1 to Dr. T. Of course, we have ample evidence, dating to the inception of the Great Society, to tell us that We Nation is a great place to be a free-rider.
MiddleAgedKen | 2/15/2008 03:54 PM CDT -
Only you could break this down into terms that a watcher of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles could understand.
Bravo. Teams are important. But this country was built on the prospect of celebrating the accomplishments of the individual, and that philosophy needs to stay. What the TMNT’s failed to show was the inevitable weakening of some members of the team, and the rise to dominance of others. When those genX’ers get into the real world and see that most teams include some heavy backstabbing, maybe they’ll realize what this means.
In the meantime, we can hope they don’t screw it all up for the rest of us.
og | 2/15/2008 04:41 PM CDT -
This boomer had to participate in a work group exercise that demonstrated the superiority of group decision making. First we made individual decisions on a case, then combined together to make a group decision. Then all decisions were evaluated by those who made a living in that field. My individual decision was the only one to pass muster. Group think - gotta love it.
Frank | 2/15/2008 04:55 PM CDT -
“Contrast all of that with the heroes of Gen X.”
Like Rocky Balboa, John Rambo, Mad Max, John McClane, Martin Riggs, Harry Callahan, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Thomas Magnum, Maverick from Top Gun or Chuck Norris? As a Gen Xer, I can attest to plenty of Lone Ranger types who were popular with my age set. For those of us who had cable the list gets longer, because we too had Bruce Lee, John Wayne, Bruce Wayne and still more Clint Eastwood.
I could be wrong here, but you may be attributing to a generation something that was simply a function of youth and inexperience. Then again, maybe it was a function of where I grew up that I never got a report card for a group. Just for me.Dex | 2/15/2008 07:20 PM CDT -
I didn’t know Gene Autry was a war hero. I thought he was just a singing cowboy.
Guess us GenX’ers just don’t know our pop culture
calorie pimp | 2/15/2008 07:54 PM CDT -
Obama is a Boomer. He’s 46. All those born through December 31, 1964 are Boomers.
He’s just an unaccomplished weasel token, is all. That’s why all the socialist “we” crap.
It’s the GD Boomers who gave us Boy Clinton and his so-called wife, whose “experience” amounts to organizating bribery and sitting at home being cuckolded by teenage molestees of her husband. It’s the Boomers who tried to brainwash cultural collectivism on the Xers. It has mostly failed, from what I’ve seen. The only thing they accomplished is that Xers learned less.
TraitorHater | 2/15/2008 09:14 PM CDT -
Interesting thoughts. I wonder just why this “group mentality” took over so pervasively?
Maybe a reflection of folks fooled into thinking “The New Deal” was a good thing?
I notice that in my grandparents. They love big government politicians (we’re from Taxachusetts).
They would have been young when the Great Depression hit, so I “get it” but sorta don’t at the same time.
Michael Maier | 2/15/2008 09:36 PM CDT -
You wrote: “...without paying difference (or lip service)...”
Err, is that meant to be “deference”?
Sendarius | 2/16/2008 12:00 AM CDT -
In the 1980s there was a considerable amount of analysis in my profession (Change Management/Training) regarding the Gen X folks who were just entering the workforce.
It should be mentioned that the usual range given for X’ers is roughly 1965 through 1975.
Someone born in 1965 would be 18 in 1984, and if they went to a 4-year college, they’d be entering the workforce for the first time in 1988. This is significant, keep it in mind.
[...]
If there were Gen Xers on the team, no single person took responsibility for a single task, even if it was in their area of expertise. They were generalists, not experts.
Who’s an expert in anything at 18? Or fresh out of college? Yeah, you’ve got book learning, but not much in the way of practical experience.
There’s a difference between ducking responsibility and riding others’ coattails- and I’ve seen plenty of boomers who are experts at both- and being acutely aware of your lack of experience and trying to draw on the more knowledgeable members of the team to keep yourself from making newbie mistakes.
I could be wrong here, but you may be attributing to a generation something that was simply a function of youth and inexperience.
-DexRight on.
With regards to TMNT… well, I would have thought that if they studied the show, they might have picked up on the group dynamics, but apparently the people doing the ‘research’ weren’t equipped to process social arrangements more complex than the Lone Ranger/Tonto and Batman/Robin relationships.
Here’s the executive overview-
Leonardo (the one with the swords) was the leader- it was very informal, but he was the leader.
(for some reason, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles do not take themselves very seriously. This may have thrown off Boomers, who seem to place much more importance in hierarchy than Xers)
Michaelangelo (nunchuks) was the upbeat, wisecracking comedic relief.
Donatello (stick) was the ‘smart one’.
Raphael (sais) was the moody and pessimistic one.
Each member of the team had their role. Leo led, Mike kept morale up, Don solved puzzles and built gizmos, and Raphael was really, really good in a fight.
They also had weaknesses. Each one was prone to making a certain kind of mistake. A big part of the value of the rest of the team (which the researchers do not seem to have picked up on) was how the team could compensate for the shortcoming of the individual members- the group was stronger than it’s component parts. When they tried to stand alone, things went badly.
.....
As far as Obama is concerned… he was born in ‘61. The guy is a tail-end Baby Boomer, not an Xer. The reason you don’t get his message is not because he is of a different generation, but because he’s a leftist, of the kind that hasn’t been seen on the national stage in around a quarter-century. Remember, Bill (and Hillary) are people who put power ahead of principle and ideology, and this has compelled them to take centrist positions. We haven’t had a genuinely leftist President in a very long time, if ever, and it’s been decades since one was a serious contender to be nominated.
The ‘youth vote’ Obama is appealing to are Echo Boomers, not Xers. Most of us are much too cynical to take his platitudes at face value.
I know wikipedia is not highly regarded around here, but there are a couple of quotes from the Gen X entry I’d like to point out. Perhaps they might provide some reassurance to Ye Olde Typse that the world won’t end when Xers begin to assume senior roles....
“Generation X, or the “Reagan Generation” as some have termed it, grew up during the end of the Cold War and the Ronald Reagan eras. As the first of their cohort reached adulthood, they experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States of America’s emergence as the world’s lone superpower. Generation X has been the largest generational military service block in American history and the most educated military force fielded by the United States with more enlisted and officer ranked persons holding Bachelor and Master’s degrees than their World War II grandfathers. Generation X doesn’t suffer the “Vietnam complex” fatigue of its parents and is more likely to identify themselves with their World War II grandparents in values, morals and practical living skills.”
rosig | 2/16/2008 04:55 AM CDT -
From my experience I see these attributes in the later Gen Xs and the Gen Ys who make up much of my social circle. I was raised in a semi-country atmosphere where children were told to go outside and play. While there were a few organized activities (like band and baseball) most of the time we had to make our own fun. Not so for all of my Gen X friends. While many of them grew up in an independent atmosphere a few did not.
Those Gen Xers who fit this mold and the Gen Yers I spend time with are so group oriented that it can be infuriating and exasperating at times. The main problem I’ve discovered is that being a independent type I still desire to have some social contact. So when my social group is trying to figure out where to go eat for example it can often take half and hour. I on the other hand am willing to take 1 or 2 people out of 20 and just go somewhere or do something. Everyone doesn’t have to be involved. One the my best friendships developed because we were two in a group of 20 or so who found in one another someone we could have friendship with but at the same time not have to be beholden to a group for social contact.
To this day I still eat alone quite often and do many activities alone because it can be difficult to find someone who is willing to separate themselves from what the group wants to do. In fact what they want to do doesn’t seem to play into it at all.Then there is the subject of trying to date within in a society where you are viewed as the divisive, curmudgeon because you don’t give a rat’s ass what the group wants to do nor understand their need to fit in.
It is a very interesting topic and one that I live in every day.
Dale | 2/16/2008 06:44 AM CDT -
In that sense then, even the team’s success depended on the pressure on the individual not to let the group down, not the group’s responsibility to keep with the slowest man.
Being able to carry your own weight so YOU were not a burden was the critical point of difference. It wasn’t the group’s responsibility to share your burden. It was your responsibility not to be one.
I think you hit it on the head right here.
In fact, it was when one of the team members made an autonomous decision that the entire group was in jeopardy, requiring that the group step in to rescue that person from their singular (foolish) action.
Sounds like a political system that I’ve heard of and that may be coming soon to a ballot box near you…
Agreement is all well and good, but there are times when a decision has to be made, and it has to be made now. - mythusmage
Speaking of Bill Whittle… scroll down to the OODA loop, or better yet, read the whole thing.
But back to the topic:
You’ve enlightened me on several past events in my life.
1. I was part of a committee to establish AutoCAD standards for an engineering office. We had three differing camps. I told them, “It doesn’t matter which one we pick, they all work. The important thing is that we’re all doing it the same way for efficiency.” Three years later, I quit the committee out of frustration. Six years later, I left the company and the discussion was still on going.
2. I worked at a place where the emphasis was on “management” rather than “production.” They had several operational efficiency problems to fix. I offered solutions, but the group didn’t like them. I said they should pick the most expert person for each problem and have him come up with a solution that the owners would back him on - then just make people do it that way. Uh uh, can’t do that. 5-1/2 years later, I decided to start my own company.
It’s just two different ways of thinking. And one of them works much better.
Weetabix | 2/16/2008 06:52 AM CDT -
Generation X has been the largest generational military service block in American history and the most educated military force fielded by the United States with more enlisted and officer ranked persons holding Bachelor and Master’s degrees than their World War II grandfathers.
When I entered the Army in the mid 1980’s, the the Non-Comissioned Officer ranks were poulated by Leaders. Some were better than others, but they all could think on their feet, and come up with a solution. If you screwed up, they were’nt afraid to tell you, and tell you how to “get it fixed”. The watchword was “Train as you’ll fight. This is how we do this. Do it.”
By the time I left the Army in the Mid 90’s, the lower level “first line supervisors” had all been replaced with managers. They planned obsessively, kept meticulous records, but couldn’t react to unforseen events. If you screwed something up, they wanted to scedule a 50 minute class on the subject...... the watchword was “The 6-50 has the test in it. We study the test until we have the questions memorized. We’ll ace it.
jimbob86 | 2/16/2008 07:47 AM CDT -
Cherrypick enough data and “templates” for generations can be ginned up proving whatever thesis is at hand.
I think the “Collectivist” X’ers, with and our heroes being noted team players John Rambo and John McClane, wonder why the “Individualist” boomers all dressed alike when they gathered together at Woodstock to chant the same peacenik stuff.
It’s all in what evidence is picked to support a thesis.
Tam | 2/16/2008 08:51 AM CDT -
Ack! Please ignore the superfluous “and” between “with” and “our”. It’s an artifact from the beta release of the post.
Tam | 2/16/2008 08:53 AM CDT -
Someone born in 1965 would be 18 in 1984, and if they went to a 4-year college, they’d be entering the workforce for the first time in 1988. This is significant, keep it in mind.
Yes, which is why I said that it was in the 1980s… as we were preparing for them to enter the workforce.
Everyone didn’t go to college and many were entering the workforce as early as the early 80s.
But it was an illustration, not intended to be taken as a finite set of conditions. I’m describing a bell curve, and with each bell curve there are those who do not fit the middle, on both sides of the curve.
They also had weaknesses. Each one was prone to making a certain kind of mistake. A big part of the value of the rest of the team (which the researchers do not seem to have picked up on) was how the team could compensate for the shortcoming of the individual members- the group was stronger than it’s component parts. When they tried to stand alone, things went badly
No, the researchers didn’t miss that. That’s exactly the point. You don’t make up for the shortcomings of individuals by putting them in a group--the shortcomings still exist only now they pull down the entire team, rather than a single individual.
The concept is a crock. Real people are not like that--they don’t have quirks and shortcomings that are so literal, made up by finding things they can do, “to contribute.”
Real people (who are competent) are much more fluid and flexible. Their individual incompetency isn’t resolved by putting them on a team, finding something that person has to offer. They’re STILL incompetent. Now they’ll just pull down the efficiency of the team.
Why do you think there is so much focus in the corporate training realm on Leadership courses?
Because it’s MISSING. Individual decision making--having both the responsibility and accountability as an individual is how you develop leaders, not by having a team responsible for an effort where the blame can be spread around.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
You’re expected to have ability to get the job done and you will be compensated for your individual strengths, not make up for shortcomings by finding the competency in someone else, and share in the wealth that others have earned for themselves.
You’ve just illustrated the problem exactly as I’ve described.
Mrs. du Toit | 2/16/2008 09:00 AM CDT -
To add…
Prior to the 1980s if someone demonstrated they were incompetent, they were FIRED.
You didn’t have to have 6 months of paperwork showing how you tried to mentor them and get them to perform up to par, with endless counseling sessions.
Firing people has become more and more difficult since then, which is why companies are bloated with idiots (and why anyone with a clue knows you don’t hire anyone who was part of the first round of layoffs at a company).
Once hired, unless they commit a crime, it is damn near impossible to fire them.
What do you do with them? How do you get work done when you have a significant percentage of your staff incapable of doing a job ON THEIR OWN, from beginning to end?
You put them in a group and hope that in a group you can find enough competence to get something done.
Mrs. du Toit | 2/16/2008 09:10 AM CDT -
Mrs. du Toit | 2/16/2008 09:59 AM CDT
-
Goodness Mrs. du Toit,
You’ve just told a a horror story without any warning.
This “groupthink” mentality is even more prevalent in Government.
Many years ago, I was brought into a project to be the technical lead that was having some problems. When I got there, I discovered that they had 5 different groups of IT people scheduling meetings that took 4 to 6 hours without actually accomplishing anything. No one could or would make a decision on anything and these meetings just went on and on… Too many cooks and no one could do any cooking.
After two meetings, I had had enough. So at the start of next meeting, I gave them all the agenda with all the things I needed decisions/approvals on. For each thing I would only give them two proposals, a bad one, and the one I wanted.
I forced everyone, one person at a time, to voice their opinions on each item one at a time, make note of them, then quickly move on to the next. If anyone went off track, I cut them off. If anyone brought up issues outside of what was on the list, I made a note, then cut them off. If anyone brought up complete irrelevencies or spoke out of turn, I cut them off.
Meetings went from the 4 to 6 hours to under 40 minutes and things finally moved ahead.
Of course, because even the “best” decisions had someone objecting to it for some reason or another, I would say “based on what I have heard, this is the right decision and I stand by it and on my head be it should it not be the right one”
I made a lot of people unhappy because of my constantly stepping on their toes.
I made a lot of people happy because I took the responsibilty for all decisions thus leaving them potentially blameless.
I made even more people happy because the meetings would end.
The worst part is that this kind of decision making is not unusual in large organizations. Especially governments.
(no, I no longer do contracting for governments. I’ve had my fill)
pdwalker | 2/16/2008 10:46 AM CDT -
::hums to herself… kicks a little dirt… twists her hair… looks at fingernails… remains silent::
Mrs. du Toit | 2/16/2008 10:50 AM CDT -
“The worst thing a Gen Xer can do is show initiative separate from the group. “
HUGE disagreement. You’re thinking Millenials in terms of team. Me and my associates were all latch key kids. We were unsupervised (TV does not count, another example of elder generations putting their responsibilites on autopilot), and if we were going to learn something or do something, it had to be on our own.
For GenX, elders, betters, etc has no meaning except in terms of capability. Exemplifly this in the question “What are you good for?” For me as a GenX, the Greatest Generation flopped miserably when it spawned the Boomers and let them get away with being spoiled brats. Likewise, the Boomers were a bunch of spoiled brats, self absorbed, rejecting the wisdom of those who came before, and wanting to exert the same control over coming generations that they decried in their forefathers. For many GenX, there is no reverence for those who came before, they’re not intrinsicly better than the GenX, and are only valued individually by what they are capable of. Likewise, in a cut-throat job market, where you’re just another number to a company, if someone’s going to look out for you the only person is going to be you.
To be sure, the world in general requires team operations, I absolutely disagree with your interpretation that GenX is all about the Team, and is short on autonomy. It’s the millenials I have to deal with at work that are horrified about the idea of not being plugged into “the collective” by texting etc every second of the day.
crux | 2/16/2008 12:58 PM CDT -
I spent my entire career in IT. Call it EAM, MIS or IT.
I walked into the sort of condition (not gov’t) that PDWalker above describes.
One action I took immediately; In calling a meeting, I ended the memo with ‘Please be prompt’.
If a meeting was scheduled for 9:15, which gave ample time for everyone to stop in the caf and get their coffee, I locked the conference room doors at 9:15:30 and refused to open them until the meeting was over.
Guess what? Five people hated me but a meeting that normally restarted 5 times and took 2 hours was down to an hour, tops! Rarely was anyone late again.
Meetings without agendas, minutes, assignments, action items and a results summary were not permitted! Period.
Its amazing how much time is saved by this and by conducting/controlling meetings, especially large ones that end up as social gatherings.shooter1001 | 2/16/2008 03:04 PM CDT -
I’ve always thought that the “Boomer” generation was artificially extended. I was born in 1963, and I don’t think I have a whole lot in common with a bunch of graying hippies born in the late 40s. I would think that those of us born between 55 and 64 would make a better-defined group....
rnman99 | 2/16/2008 05:45 PM CDT -
Two points…
First, a political generation is TEN, repeat TEN, years, NOT twenty. ALL talk about “generations” that neglects this fact is nonsense.
Second, group effort is useful, but the superior mind will inevitably have to work alone. Small groups, if true peers are available. Adding Joe 50th Percentile to Ned 99th Percentile results in something around the 75th percentile...a net loss.
Mike of the Duelling Pistols | 2/16/2008 06:24 PM CDT -
A thought about the modern military environment:
I am a civilian trainer for military personnel. We have a system for culling out poor performers; it works pretty well. Sometimes, in spite of the training team’s expert opinions based on decades of teaching experience, some poor performers are allowed a second chance and get to start over. They have about a 25% success rate; another reason to defer to our expert opinion. The decision to allow a poor performer another chance is always a military decision, and is an example of the negative “teamwork"/lack of leadership nonsense that Mrs. d T is talking about.
Also, we had one trainee who seemed to suffer from a personality disorder. In spite of plenty of paperwork, it took forever to remove him from the program; ultimately, his removal was made by one person taking decisive action. Later, when I spoke to my supervisor’s supervisor’s supervisor (a civilian) about him and voiced my opinion that he was abnormal and needed psychiatric help, I was told not only not to “judge,” but also that I lacked the credentials to make such a judgement. This was the nadir of buck-passing escape-from-responsibility-ism, IMO.
It was also before that Krazy Korean shot up Virginia Tech. I’ll bring that up if I ever have a nutcake in my charge again.
HarryK | 2/16/2008 08:01 PM CDT -
Let’s not overlook the sea change that was happening in “management science” while us GenX’rs were growing up. The Japanese were going to take over the world! If our country wanted to survive economically, we needed to ditch our iconoclastic ways and start doing group calisthenics every morning!
TBeck | 2/17/2008 10:26 PM CDT -
I am a gen-Xer. I am not sure which is better:
1. a lone ranger
2. teamwork#1 could fail if you have a bad lone ranger. If you get a boss that just sucks, you are in a heap of trouble. We don’t always have lone rangers that are true leaders. And how do you pick one?
#2 could fail by your follow up post on the group-think story of the plane crash survivors.
I think, what would be better is balance between the two - maybe some combination thereof?
Ah, if I only had the wisdom to know the appropriate time to apply which method.
ns | 2/18/2008 11:03 AM CDT -
As a former DM, if the party starts deliberating about the ambush, characters start dieing, saving throws be damned. OTOH decisive action starts generating numberous modifiers. When I expected/desired someone to DO something I’d start a stopwatch with a loud tick and toss it out on the table. Eventually the survivors got the point.
yahyah ibn alli | 2/22/2008 10:25 PM CDT
