Growth: A new perspective of team failure
When it comes to the end of a project phase, seldom will someone sanely want a show of sabotage. Yet, one week before the professional year concludes, I have an urge to let it explode.
Finding solutions vs. Letting it fail
No matter how big or small, most of the time, a problem has multiple solutions. Under the pressure of time, we can find workarounds after workarounds. They are not always clean and straightforward. They do not always follow the processes. Nothing breaks the law or challenges moral principles. They simply require more steps and efforts to achieve the same thing and sometimes create ripples in plans and schedules.
Often, people will stop in front of a blocker. When there is no regular process to follow, they get stuck. They will try to apply the same protocol again and again, and wish to see a magic force moving the rock away. When the magic doesn’t happen soon enough, they will gradually stop trying. It is the cause of lots of things: low motivation, reduced scope, lack of experience, etc.
As a leader, there are typically two choices in this circumstance under the pressure of delivering. Find the solution and guide the activity back to normal speed, or focus on other important topics and let the individual try.
However, the individual will certainly learn nothing.
And I certainly choose mostly of the time the former option. “You are covering for them; you are covering too much.” “You have to delegate; you have to learn to delegate.” Said people over the dinner table with a glass of wine in hand.
Soft landing
Before we dig into why no learnings happen, let’s have a look at the learning condition. In [Book Club] Flow and Internet Attention Market, we see that to reach the flow state, two things have to match. The skill level and the challenge level. Simply put, we need a small step outside our comfort zone. It is challenging enough to keep the tension while not too difficult to be demotivated. This is also exactly the zone where we start to learn.
The tolerance of failure and the allowance to try.
The environment of my team, however, is far from a growth condition. Every decision leads to a high-stakes situation. It is a dependency deeply entangled with the environment, but responsibility is a completely isolated condition. To be or not to be, that is a thin line.
The sense of having a team can’t be simply summarized as to form the teamwork, see Personality Reinforcement: The Boss vs. A Performer. To lead also means to create room for growth. Survival mode is hardly a mode for enrichment. That’s the sad truth.
Self-motivation
Nevertheless, a lead can’t claim all the credit for an individual’s growth from a team. Through my experience of both sides, the growth is mostly emerging from the internal instead of being forced by the external. A few members who have grown the fastest are the ones who grow the quietest. Not much to be reminded of, no lengthy appraisal sessions or hard-truth time, and no hand-on-hand support needed. Months later, I felt a sense of reliability from those individuals. I get used to being open to those first when a crisis arises.
However, the majority of cases are resistances. I can’t help a person who doesn’t want help. The unwillingness comes from life state, family condition, personal interests, etc. The focus is not here, and nothing can be done. People get frustrated with not knowing, not learning, and not progressing. They are passengers on a fast train, but their eyes are only on the phones. Time passes, location changes, and no more.
In the end, I know I will not let the year end like a disaster. And the sacrifice is also hardly distinguishable between the pursuit of a heroic act or masochism. It is more than responsibility. It is a state of powerlessness of a great power.