Identifying and finding worthwhile associates.

[Lights]

This one has been throwing me for over a decade--if anyone knows the solutions, please help!

 

How does one identify, find, and recruit and be sought out and recruited by worthy teammates and associates?

 

In my college days I never was able to intelligently choose my associates (in some ways, maybe I wasn't ever able to choose them at all). Whenever a group assignment came up in classes, I was limited only to neotribalism, proximity in the form of the "whoever's around" approach, or random/external selection when it came for methods to find people to team up with.

 

As it turns out, being limited to this is almost always a very bad idea. Unless one's existing friends and acquaintances were actually disciplined and had a clue, or if whoever was around also was actually disciplined and had a clue, or luck is on one's side (for each of the respective approaches), taking those approaches to creating groups yields results that are the stuff of nightmares.

 

A month ago I found that after all these years, it doesn't end. I was at a training seminar, and it turned out that the lessons were to followed on laptops provided, and people were to work in pairs.

 

And that's when it happened all over again. Unable to rapidly identify who was worth teaming up with and who wasn't, I ended up teaming up with the nearest person and ended up fighting through another session with another fool who would not pull her weight. And it happened again the very next day with another one (this time it was randomly selected by the instructor, who did not want the same people working together more than once). It didn't end at all except by pure luck on day 3.

 

I'd have saved myself years of frustration if I could have figured out immediately who the sharp, ambitious, disciplined people were, and quickly and efficiently recruited them or been sought out by them.

 

For anyone who's succeeded here: how's it done?

[Guest]

See, the idea of 'teamwork' is that people who are, in their opinion, 'sharp, ambitous, and disciplined' often have excellent people skills as well and understand how to work with people of all sorts of abilities. Therefore they work with the people near them without rancor or hostility.

 

You might wish to try adopting a new attitude next time you are in one of these situations.

[dgiirl]

If the same situation is happening over and over and over again with different people, you are the common denominator.

[Lights]

See, the idea of 'teamwork' is that people who are, in their opinion, 'sharp, ambitous, and disciplined' often have excellent people skills as well and understand how to work with people of all sorts of abilities. Therefore they work with the people near them without rancor or hostility.

That might be the case, but I can't necessarily prove any correlation with people skills from what I've seen. (And I'll admit that what I've seen is limited; I often can't tell who the people in question are until too late--this is a significant part of the problem.)

 

There is, of course, more to it than mere range of abilities. There is also the matter of effort.

 

We should keep in mind that teamwork is teamwork. It is not to be confused with dragging one or more people singlehandedly, or being roped into being someone else's rear-end-cover. In my opinion, teamwork is about synergism in effort--without that, why not simply go it alone?

 

You might wish to try adopting a new attitude next time you are in one of these situations.

Perhaps. I haven't figured out what that attitude is, however. What kind of attitude lends itself to accomplishing what I have specified? (That is, rapidly identifying who would be good to team up with and recruiting them quickly or being recruited by them.)

 

If the same situation is happening over and over and over again with different people, you are the common denominator.

That's as it may be, but that really doesn't offer anyone any solutions or help unless it tells me what methods I need to put in practice to get this in motion.

[Guest]

Good leaders motivate others to work for them. It's not about their personality but rather about how you interact with them. Once in a while you'll run into someone who won't pull his weight, but not to the extent you claim to have.

 

I suspect your disdain for others is fairly evident and therefore the people you try to work with become unmotivated and de-energized by the negative dynamic. Try to approach everyone pleasantly and act as though you expect well of them.

[dgiirl]

It means that perhaps it is your attitude to the whole situation that needs to be changed. You're only focusing on who will be a good teammate. I assume, someone who has the abilities to meet a project to your satification or do it the way you think it should be done? The purpose of working in a team is to learn different abilities from each other, and clearly you fail at this since the last two teammates you have got into arguments with? Dude, you gotta chill. I get the impression you're a bit of a bully who wants to be in charge of the group, and when they dont work the way you want, all hell breaks loose. Stop thinking everyone's a moron and maybe humble yourself just a little. You can learn from other people too. If you do this, then maybe you'll start to see things in a different light.

 

When the same things happens over and over and over again, it's time to do something different. And since you are the common denominator, you're the problem. When you think the whole WORLD is wrong, chances are it's you.

[monkey00]

not really sure how its going to work for you, but generally it should be easy to tell what kind of person someone is upon first impression.

 

im still in college and occasionally have those classes where we have to form groups to work on projects. you've got your slackers, procrastinators, ones that dont care about the grade, and ones that do the work yet lack exchange of information through communication, and you've got the very hard working ones. Then there's the team leader, the one who attempts to organize, take charge, accept responsibilities, coordinate/cooperate, and break down jobs to each individual (or allow them to pick their own).

 

Anyway teamwork is a complicated situation as it can only really be most successful if each person puts in a certain amount of effort and accepts responsibility. There are even those who have secret agendas of their own.

 

in one of my business classes, my professor introduced 2 great books to us:

The questions behind the questions

16 essential qualities of a team player

 

The first one is worth reading imo, the 2nd one i havent had a chance to read but it's also a great book as i've skimmed through it.

 

Basically the philosophy of both books teaches the individual a certain way of thinking to help him become a better person when dealing with others and how to move forward when faced with certain obstacles. you can even apply these principles to any form of job/business/entreprenuership.

 

Lights you are right about one thing, when creating connections to get ahead in life, you do have to identify the correct people.

 

good luck

[Lights]

Good leaders motivate others to work for them.

Quite true.

 

Note, however, that I might not be a leader in the situation, or someone whom the other(s) work for. The relation often is one of working alongside one another. I don't doubt that motivating others in such a situation can also quite relevant, but I don't exactly know how to do so any more than I already might do in those situations.

 

It's not about their personality but rather about how you interact with them.

 

Here I must disagree.

 

I agree that there's definitely something significant to be said regarding, as you pointed out before, having sufficient people skills to interact effectively with people of various abilities and, as you point out here, personalities, or whatever else.

 

However, some attributes, whether they are a matter of personality or of interaction-specific goal or whatever-else-have-you, simply make some potential teammates/partners/whatever more desirable than others for a given task at hand regardless of one's people skills or the way one interacts with them.

 

At the live-blade martial arts conference, would you not prefer to practice along with someone who tends toward being ready and able to exercise control where necessary over practicing along with someone who tends toward recklessness?

 

In the academic environment, one just might find it more advantageous to be study partners with A students instead of C- students.

 

And so on...

 

Once in a while you'll run into someone who won't pull his weight, but not to the extent you claim to have.

 

I suspect your disdain for others is fairly evident and therefore the people you try to work with become unmotivated and de-energized by the negative dynamic. Try to approach everyone pleasantly and act as though you expect well of them.

 

Sorry, it's not once in a while. They aren't the majority, but it's far from rare.

 

I have found good teammates in some cases using the poor methods I described, and some middling ones also. However, the good experiences just aren't common enough, so I'd like to know how to choose people more intelligently.

 

I do not have disdain for people. I'm just frustrated because the bad experiences are preventable, but I don't know how to intelligently find and join forces with the right people quickly enough, if at all. Maybe that frustration shows through my attempts to suppress it, but there's not much I can do about that until the source of the frustration's gone.

 

You're only focusing on who will be a good teammate.

Yes.

 

I assume, someone who has the abilities to meet a project to your satification or do it the way you think it should be done?

It may or may not be my personal satisfaction that matters. In constructing an e-commerce system, for example, it's the more about the client's satisfaction, not necessarily so much one's own, that matters.

 

But I do seek quality, reasonably just allocation of effort, and synergy. Without the former two, it's not teamwork but one-sided rear-end-covering and short-handed team-dragging. Without the latter one, the team exists in name only and each individual might as well work alone.

 

The purpose of working in a team is to learn different abilities from each other, and clearly you fail at this since the last two teammates you have got into arguments with?

This is a non sequitur. Having an argument with someone is not implicative of failure at having learned any given skill or ability from them during the course of the teamwork-related action in question.

 

I get the impression you're a bit of a bully who wants to be in charge of the group, and when they dont work the way you want, all hell breaks loose. Stop thinking everyone's a moron...

 

Your impression is wrong.

 

It's not about leading or following. It's about teaming up with high-quality people, regardless of who's in what resultant social position.

 

I do not think everyone is a moron. I'm merely frustrated that after all these years, finding associates is purely fortuitous due to lack of knowledge of intelligent identification and recruiting strategy on my part. I'd like to learn something better, because my current methods aren't holding up.

 

When you think the whole WORLD is wrong, chances are it's you.

Yes, we can always sit back and wonder at what today's world would be like if Henry Ford, outnumbered by his detractors, allowed himself to believe that it was his own goal that was wrong and thus decided to follow everyone else's advice to buy a horse.

 

not really sure how its going to work for you, but generally it should be easy to tell what kind of person someone is upon first impression.

I've never been able to do this. How specifically is it done?

 

im still in college and occasionally have those classes where we have to form groups to work on projects. you've got your slackers, procrastinators, ones that dont care about the grade, and ones that do the work yet lack exchange of information through communication, and you've got the very hard working ones. Then there's the team leader, the one who attempts to organize, take charge, accept responsibilities, coordinate/cooperate, and break down jobs to each individual (or allow them to pick their own).

 

Anyway teamwork is a complicated situation as it can only really be most successful if each person puts in a certain amount of effort and accepts responsibility. There are even those who have secret agendas of their own.

Exactly. How do I very rapidly identify who's which, and quickly and effectively recruit them?

 

Thanks for the book recommendations--I'll look into them.

[Guest]

You can't. There aren't head bumps or hand sizes or anything else to 'read'. If you could read minds, you'd be able to achieve your goal, maybe. Failing that, either you get into situations which you alone control and in which you can conduct interviews, etc. or else you learn to manage the fact that life doesn't always work out ideally.

[monkey00]

 

 

I've never been able to do this. How specifically is it done?

 

im not exactly sure on how to explain, it more of an acquired skill. job interviewers already possess this skill due to ample experience of filtering out the people who should be hired and the ones that shouldnt. But generally it's a combination of reading body language and how someone dresses and his attitude.

 

Exactly. How do I very rapidly identify who's which, and quickly and effectively recruit them?

 

Thanks for the book recommendations--I'll look into them.

 

i wouldnt necessarily recommend that would be your best approach, as in the real world/workforce, often you're forced to work with what resources you have...rarely do you get a chance for open options, such as who u want on your team, as resources are already limited (people, time (deadline), budget).

 

Questions behind the questions, emphasizes on the principle of using what resources you DO have to accomplishing a task...in this case think inside the box, not outside.

 

A good point the other book makes about teamplay is focusing on each individual's weaknesses/strengths, and recruiting people in to compliment those weaknesses with their strengths.

 

But i've said enough, just read the books and you should be fine.

[dgiirl]

Yes, we can always sit back and wonder at what today's world would be like if Henry Ford, outnumbered by his detractors, allowed himself to believe that it was his own goal that was wrong and thus decided to follow everyone else's advice to buy a horse.

 

See, if you didnt have such a chip on your shoulder, you would be able to understand what I'm talking about. If I was to hire you as one of my programmers, I would fire you in a second after seeing your attitude. I dont need the self proclaimed l33t coders of the world to get the project done. I need people who appreciate the abilities of each other to get the job done. I need people who work together, not fight together. There's not much to an e-commerce system to make you feel you need the top ppl on board. I would rather a bunch of green programmers who've never programmed anything before and I can show how I want things done than one senior programmer who thinks he rules the world. It's ALL about attitude.

[JayKay]

I'd have saved myself years of frustration if I could have figured out immediately who the sharp, ambitious, disciplined people were, and quickly and efficiently recruited them or been sought out by them.

 

For anyone who's succeeded here: how's it done?

 

 

I think you are assuming that there must be a way to deal with people that doesn't cause you frustration or anger.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's an answer. Again, I would agree with some of the posters who suggested (some gently, some not so) that your attitude may be part of your problem.

 

Indeed, you ARE the common denominator in each of these 'failed' partnerships, no?

 

Sharp ambitious people come in many forms. Some are brilliant at writing but horrible to collaborate with because they don't stick to nor respect deadlines (I've had that experience !).

 

Some are ambitious and clever in terms of self-promotion and networking, but simply clueless on time management.

 

And some are brilliant visionaries who yet have no clue on how to motivate others.

 

Whatever your skills and strengths are, I'm sure there is something you also lack. You may find yourself regarding the 'slackers' in a new light when you come to realize that "Hey...you know, she's really good at making people feel comfortable" or "He's not as much of a workhorse as I am, but he knows EVERYONE and people trust him."

 

Try to appreciate people for what they are good at and encourage them to want to work with you and for you.

 

Truthfully, you will ALWAYS encounter people who do not have the same work ethic you do.

The way to surround yourself only with people you like and agree with is to form your own company and then only hire people who demonstrate the abilities you want.

[Lights]

I see.

 

When I asked the original question, I wasn't looking for a lesson how to be better at liking whom I encountered, but rather one on how to be better at finding whom I sought. Now I fear that my original goal may not have been so realistic in the first place--I seemed to have expected something closer, as Guest described, to magic than anything one could realistically do.

 

I still maintain that it's dangerously unwise for me to join forces with just anyone, but I suppose I shouldn't let those experiences burn me up so much.

 

Thanks for your time, people.