Glory and hazards of group work

Does group work drain your energy, or do you gain strength from working with others? Do you feel that everything goes better alone or does working in a group lead to a better outcome?

I now address life's real or assumed shortcomings and the skill of changing perspectives. I wonder why group work must always be done everywhere.

Group work is a beloved form of collaboration for some, while others, or at least introverts like myself, have only discovered the value of group work after lengthy trials. If things can be done efficiently alone, why waste time and energy chatting with others and seeking compromises?

So, my question related to changing perspectives this time is: Does wisdom reside in groups?

The roles of group members are divided into task-oriented and relationship-oriented roles. Task-oriented roles include coordinator, energiser, and critical evaluator. Relationship-oriented roles include a compromiser, a gatekeeper who ensures that everyone has an equal opportunity to speak, and a humorist. Groups may also have a naysayer, an acknowledgement seeker, and someone who is not interested in the group's work and lets everyone see his feelings of blasée.

Kari Hotakainen, a famous Finnish novelist, has written a description of workplace types slightly more memorable than the previous ones *). Hotakainen divides employees into four main categories: Chatterboxes, Implementers, Energy drainers, and Bystanders. Chatterboxes brainstorm and toil with various ideas, they talk constantly and are not easily discouraged. Implementers translate the theoretical ideas of the Chatterboxes into practice and are realists. Hotakainen regards Bystanders as wise people because they always find faults and flaws in the work of Chatterboxes and Implementers – but Bystanders never take action to correct anything or find solutions. Energy drainers aspire to be Chatterboxes and Implementers, but they're not cut out for those tasks. Something essential is missing and they never know what. A miserable childhood and the wrong tools are insurmountable obstacles for Energy Drainers. They think everything is so wrong that it's not even worth starting the tasks: "A good idea, really? Bah!" Energy Drainers are masters at dampening others' enthusiasm.

So, how many types did you recognise, and did you maybe find yourself? I always slump mentally like the Loony Toons characters from the Roger Rabbit movie when I hear that group work is being done at work. Yippee... In Hotakainen's categorisation, my role in group work is the Implementer, because I don't like group work and want to get things done fast. I try to coordinate and push the group as efficiently as possible to the end result: agree on the roles, tasks, and schedules, get to work, and get the job done.

Paradoxically enough, during my life, I have served on the boards of several different associations, and my role has specifically been that of Chairman. Or perhaps it's not so much paradoxical: maybe others also appreciate the 'roll up your sleeves and get it done’ mentality.

Psychology professor Bruce Tuckman has described the psychological process of forming a task-oriented group: forming, storming, norming, performing. Later this categorisation was redeveloped, but let’s not get into that now. These four stages, norming, storming, norming, and performing, can often be quite clearly distinguished, for example, in new groups in the workplace.

But there are exceptions too, sometimes you don't even get to the stage of norming. Years ago, I attended a five-day so-called metapsychological training. The facilitators, two psychologists, only mentioned their names and qualifications on the first day. The course started when one of them wrote four words and a question mark on the flip chart: "When is a group a group?" I pondered this question with 14 of my colleagues for the next four and a half days.

The task turned out to be stressful: one colleague had a heart attack on the third day, and another got frustrated and left for "productive work" also midway through the course.

We didn't understand what we were supposed to come up with as an answer. The next time the facilitators spoke to us, was on the fourth day of the course, and by then, we had, in a task-oriented manner, as a group, planned how to get rid of the facilitators, that is, what would be the best way to get rid of them for good. A couple of brave souls sneaked off in a car to the nearest town to buy refreshments to help our brainstorming sessions. The course was held in an isolated training center in the middle of the woods, and leaving it was strictly prohibited. Driving to the nearest town required courage – and team spirit. This training has remained in my memory as a quite frustrating group work experience for a lifetime.

The Corona era and remote group work – oh la la – a real circus! Just getting the group together online and agreeing on schedules is one of the greatest challenges in group work. When we finally gather, we set the target. Eventually, the division of labor is done, i.e. the roles have been agreed upon, and there's some kind of consensus on the target, or at least an awareness of others' level of ambition regarding the outcome of the work. And if all goes well, by the next meeting, everyone has done their part.

There's usually someone who hasn't done anything – they have been busy! - or has done work half-heartedly. Finally, someone does the work of the free rider, because it must be done.

But let's move on to the much-talked-about skill of changing perspectives and ponder whether group work has any benefits, let alone joy:

Are there heroic researchers who develop effective cancer drugs alone? Did Elon Musk come up with all of Tesla's features alone? Or did Steve Jobs come up with all of Apple's greatness alone?

An old Latin proverb says, "Non scholae sed vitae discimus," which means, "We do not learn for school but for life." Work is a big part of life, and task-oriented group work is an essential part of working life. The work of the management team is crucial for the success and atmosphere of the entire company, and in this, the role of the CEO is essential: a CEO cannot be a modern-day Julius Caesar (veni, vidi, vici), that is, the type who says, "I did it, I succeeded," but they must be part of the group.

Usually, management teams are assembled to include individuals from different functions: production, sales, marketing, finance, legal, IT, etc. If recruitments are done ideally, the company should have people with different educational backgrounds, genders, and ages, and increasingly, there should also be individuals representing different ethnic backgrounds.

In today's working life, you rarely see Bystanders or Energy drainers in important positions. Instead, there's an abundance of Chatterboxes and Implementers, and that's a good thing. When people who think differently are put together, better solutions to problems are found than one person would find on their own.

So, you probably understand by now why I've become a supporter of group work: a collectively thought-out whole is better than the sum of its parts - and there's a danger in a lonely genius.

Finally, a philosophical segue into the meaning of group work. Social theorist Hannah Arendt states in her book "The Human Condition" as follows: "No one can be sovereign, for people inhabit the earth together." Adapting Arendt, I would say that interaction between diverse people enables open and courageously constructive discussion. Only in this way do we form a true picture of reality and do not live in illusion or isolation within our minds. Could this be the essence of teamwork? Let's all bond with our own groups! And Sisu Careers is starting a

The description of workplace types is from Kari Hotakainen's book "Klassikko" (Classic) published in 1997 by WSOY in Finnísh. Hotakainen is an acclaimed author who has been granted the Finlandia Prize for literature 2002, and Nordic Council's Literature Prize 2004. 

Hannah Arendt is one of the most important political theorists of our times. Her book Vita Activa – The Human Condition was first published by The University of Chicago (1958).