It is interesting to see how a group of people to build up a structure or defacto standards, or implicit criteria for their behaviour. I have tried to convince myself before that this differs in cultures and background. Of course this effort is in vain. What I want to say is that a group of people will form a way to work together. This very way will be changed, modified or strengthened upon new joiners or leavers to the group. The odds of survival or thrival of a group in its living environment is almost entirely decided by this way formed, in my opinion. This is the fundamental reason that I always refer back to, the quality of the people you have in a group, an organisation, is the key to everything and anything else.
Based on the fitness model, if a group is to survive, it has to be able to adapt to whatever other groups and things happening around it, make full use them and develop itself further - to be able to attract more individuals who are able to transform the existing structure to a better, healthier one. This will be a continuously, brute process. As the established acts will unlikely just fade out peacefully. New blood will be tested during the struggles. No one stands better ground than others in determining what is beneficial elements to take in. So if there is to be proof, nothing beats a good fight. It's worth noting that weaker the group is, worse it is likely going to get. This will consequently lead to the cul-de-sac of the group eventually.
Naturally, the shape and belief of the group will be affected by the new blood, either positively, or negatively (in contrast to the rest of the environment, as it means nothing by stating good or evil in a plain background). New blood tends to bring better quality than previous ones (as they have proved so in the entry). However, detrimental effects could also happen that all energy has been consumed in the conflicts between those beliefs comes with new blood and those in existing system. If there is no compromise can be found, the group is over. Every group have opportunities to improve (survive), which leads to the constant requirement of taking or swapping individuals.
I guess there is this inertia thing which makes us tend to swim with the stream, darker the stream, stronger the power. Maybe it is not as dramatic as it sounds. What I mean is that more often I see people joining a new environment, full of passions and energy, as well as ambitions, determined to make contributions. It does not need too long for some to realise the difficulties and real challenges to which they are facing. Unfortunately, those unsustainable merits (passion, energetic, ambitious) will fade out just as quick as they come. Often easy routes will be taken, either join or leave the party. As far as the group is concerned, it is a double failure - they did not become a part of solution, they are now part of the problem.
Examples:
1. Should I write code as fast as possible to prove what I am capable of first or get necessary good practice in place for the sake of long term quality this team lacks of?
2. Should I introduce new ways to improve productivity or to improve my popularity and make as many allies as possible?
3. Should I focus in getting things done or making people happy?
4. Am I here to make a change or to support a decision?
5. Should I just join in the party to find someone else to blame or should I focus on the area which simply isn't good enough?
There are no easy answers to any of above questions, depending on circumstances. Thus I constantly ask myself where I am in the group, which role I am playing and whether I have given up and decide to take on the easy route to be part of the problem. Or am I looking at the wrong problem? As casual as it might sound, this is a tough exercise.
This is also my reason that the most important quality I look for in people are tenacious and honest.
No comments:
Post a Comment