The article uses a very typical
psychology experiment to try to explain some of the issues on Economics and
Politics. In my summary, I will use two formulas to conclude: team production
equals to the sum of individual production when there is no gift exchange, or
shared rewards. The second formula is that team production is greater than the
sum of individual production when gift is exchanged in the right way, and
rewards are shared.
I find the
topic very attractive to me because a lot of thinking I am doing recently is
very close to the theory. I would have to share my story about my committee
again.
The
International Student Advisory Committee (ISAC) I am involved with is a pretty
new organization. We started from last semester with only 6 people, and we
expanded to 25 people this semester. We are events and workshops basis, which
means most of the effort we put into is plan events, make them happen and learn
from events we planned and improve. With the closure of recruitment, we finally
have a lot of regular routines, such as weekly general meeting, proposals for
events we plan to have this semester, and etc. As a Vice President, something I
really struggle with, or to say think deeply is that how to get our committee
members share resources with each other? How to motivate everyone to be more
involved with our committee?
Think every of our committee as an individual, and
their resources and experiences as individual production, so what the whole committee
has is team production. The thing is sometimes it is hard to make people
realize that if every individual product more, the team will product better. I
believe something missed here is motivation. So I consider strategies such as
giving them some great resources as a gift, and sparing time during the meeting
to exchange great resources with each other, to make everyone feel free to
share. I also consider having some rewards, both non-financial and financial.
It is restricted to give financial rewards, but I try to buy some moon cakes
and snakes to the committee, and it provides a better environment, for people
to trust each other more, and more willing to share. A lot of time, it is human’s
nature to share something with people they are more familiar with, and more
comfortable spending time with. Some non-financial rewards, such as providing a
star-reward of the month, appreciation from words are all on my radar. I am not
entirely sure how it will work, and I am sure there are more I would have to
do. I also take advantage of my role as a “broker” to communicate with my
members very frequently, to see what great ideas they have it for the committee,
or just for anything. There are some great feedbacks I get from people, which I
believe will also help me to come up to a “gift-exchange” and “reward” plan.
I agree
with the author that things are collaborative might not be fair. You have to
dig more to understand people’s behavior and people’s action through figuring out
what is the motivation behind their behavior and give them the right reward or
gift to provide them a chance to contribute to a group. In another word, to be
collaborative, it needs everyone’s contribution, but it also needs some leaders
to make it happens, to act as a “trigger.” If leaders can make it happens, they
can lead a great team with the team production is greater than the sum of
individual production.
You wrote on the post for next week, instead of writing about income risk and managing that. That is okay. Next week please go back to writing about income risk.
ReplyDeleteLet me respond to your last paragraph first. You might recall that elsewhere (from Bolman and Deal) we read that effective groups have each member taking ownership for the group. So there is a question whether ownership, as it is used here, is one and the same as leadership, as you use the term in your last paragraph. I think they are different but they overlap. In a partnership, both of the members have to concern themselves with what they produce overall, but coordinating activities happens almost immediately, as a consequence of their interaction.
Going from a partnership to larger groups, coordination become harder. And it is now easier for group members to feel excluded or to not give their all. There may also be disputes about the proper direction for the group. It's hard to separate cause from effect here, but it is clear that the issues won't necessarily resolve on their own. That's why leadership is necessary.
I think you're onto something in what you said earlier in that the gift must be desired by the recipient for it to have the desired consequence of promoting reciprocation. Otherwise, the give becomes an empty gesture.
Oh, I am really sorry that I write the wrong topic. I will definitely do the posting for last week's topic by Friday.
ReplyDeleteAbout your comment, I am glad you compare the difference between ownership and leadership, especially when the population is getting larger. I will think about it and let you know if I have further question on that opinion.
Last, thank you for your time to read and comment.