For my coaching assignment, I chose to apply Kantor’s model in a team
meeting I had about a paper we need to write for a class. I think that usually
I take the role of a bystander; I am constantly afraid of making the wrong
decision, so I’m always very careful and try to see all the sides and all the
possible consequences of a choice. By doing this I notice that I often fall
into a too passive state, where I in the end am incapable of actually making a
decision. So even though I feel that being able to see things from both sides
is a positive quality and even though the bystander provides perspective, in a
democratic group, such as for a school assignment, I eventually have to figure
out where I stand. Because my fear resides in taking sides, I realized that I
should try and choose either a follower role or an opposer role. And because my
fear also lies in confrontation, I figured I would try and namely choose the
opposer role, should it fit in the context.
The goal of the meeting was mainly to figure out the structure of our
paper. When we started the meeting, it first went a little slow. Finally, one of
the guys spoke up and we started discussing different approaches. After a while
I noticed that I had, somewhat unknowingly, fallen into the role of a bystander
again. As I became aware of this, I tried to look for opportunities to break out
of my role.
Eventually we came to a critical decision, where the choices we made
would affect how the paper would turn out. Before I had a chance to speak up, the
other girl in my group came with a suggestion. Immediately after, one of the
guys agreed. I had uncovered the mover and the follower of the group. I
realized that my suggestion differed from hers, so I decided to put myself in
the opposer role and give my suggestion. I could tell that right before I spoke
up my heart started pounding faster, and what felt like louder. But I did it,
and I felt that afterwards the conversation went quite well. Having two options
to choose from enabled the conversation to be more open. We discussed the pros
and cons as a team, and in the end came to a conclusion. And even though “my”
suggestion didn’t get picked, I still felt positive about speaking up, and
opposing her view. It gave way to a good discussion and some key points that
might otherwise have been lost.
I think the reason I consider these three roles, and especially the opposer role, to be my weaker ones, are
because I rarely practice them. It’s safe to be a bystander, because you take
no sides - people can’t judge you and you won’t lose face if you choose the “wrong”
option. In this case however, I think that because we’ve now gotten to know
each other more, we feel more comfortable around each other, and disagreeing is
not so scary anymore. But just because I feel safe here, does not mean I will
feel safe in other groups. You never know how people will react, and I think
that is what scares me the most. But the only way for me to strengthen the
opposer role, and the other two roles, is by practice. Perhaps someday I’ll be
able to do it without having to warm up to people as much.
Ingrid Elisabeth Sørensen
No comments:
Post a Comment