Search Me

Monday, February 9, 2009

Team Skills Class and The Great Escape

My Team Skills Workshop rocked! It met this last Friday night and all day Saturday. What a great mix of people -- blue collar, pink collar, white collar and no collar. Both days were very energetic. I liked the positive attitude that most students brought to class. I lost a couple of people after lunch on Saturday, but those who remained worked hard and seriously at our various activities. At the end of class I asked people to talk about how they'd change their behaviors, based on the course material, and several folks said that they would use the team constitution and work at being more open-minded.

Although I always approach a weekend class with some trepidation, I was very happy with this one and quite up and excited when I left. One of the reasons that it worked so well was that I used my own versions of two of Thiagi's favorite games. I took a course back in the mid-nineties from Sivasailam Thiagarajan and learned how to put games in the classroom. Recently I purchased a collection of his hundred favorite games. I used his "Communication Problems" game to go over issues of conflict. This is a game with six teams that write down a communication problem. The teams then start passing papers to other teams around a circle. First, the problem is passed to another team who writes a solution to the problem on another piece of paper. The two papers are passed on to a third team that writes a critique of the solution. Pass the three papers to a fourth team who writes a "testimonial" in support of the solution. Pass the three papers to a fifth team that writes an "enhanced solution." Pass the papers to the sixth team who distributes two hundred points between the two solutions.

It's a great game and the class did well with it. I was happy that I was able to get folks working so often in teams in the class and that I only had really one excruciatingly boring powerpoint lecture.

After class I went out to Bo Restobar with my friend Carolyn Esky. I drank champagne and ate a bunch of appetizers (love the mini ribs and Koba beef sliders) and ended with a huge French press pot of coffee. So I was wired when I got home and stayed up late watching The Great Escape. I loved this flic when I was a kid. It's based on a true story of allied prisoners of war attempting to escape from the Nazis holding them a WWII prison camp. Watching it after a day of talking teams and then drinking, I noticed that it offered a lot of examples of team skills in action. Every person working on the escape plan has a special role -- the forger, the digger, the scout, the planner, the scrounger, etc. They completed a long tunnel, scrounged civilian clothing, and created false passports. Everyone's skill was necessary and vital to the success of the project. People who don't necessarily like each other have to get along for the sake of the project.

Eventually, 76 men escaped the camp. Unfortunately, only three ultimately made it to safety. The rest were captured and fifty of them were then murdered in cold blood by the Gestapo. For more information about the true story behind the movie, see the History in Film website.

I remembered this film with great love. Unfortunately, seeing now it seems really dated. Many of the central characters were played by hot young actors who eventually became television or movie stars: Steve McQueen, James Coburn, David McCallum, and Charles Bronson. Older British actors Richard Attenborough, Donald Pleasance, and Gordon Jackson also had important roles. Unfortunately, at this point in time the hot youngsters all shine a bit too brightly. They are always highly lit. Their hair is clean and washed, their faces scrubbed. Their clothes are MUCH too clean for the situation. They are also carrying more weight than would have been likely in the late war period (1944) when many in Germany were starving. And not only are their clothes clean, their mouths are as well. There is no swearing. And, in this day and age, having military personnel who don't curse just seems kinda silly.

I also disliked the lighting effects. The film is shot in "high key" -- there aren't many shadows. Even in the tunnel we can see faces. The interior shots all seem to have light coming from all directions. It's not moody at all. And because of that relentless sound track, it's an upbeat film. And that makes it seem very dated, considering the subject matter.

As a kid though, I loved the movie and after seeing it I started sitting in the hallways at school, bouncing a ball against the opposite wall like Steve McQueen, the "cooler king." "To ze coolah!"

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Good teacher, bad test writer, great students?

It's a conundrum. (Which, according to the online Merriam Webster dates from 1645 and means "1: a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun 2 a: a question or problem having only a conjectural answer b: an intricate and difficult problem.")

The teams all got between B and A on their midterms. One team was through in 15 minutes with what was supposed to be a 40 minute exam. Sigh. In one way I'm very happy for them. In another way I feel like a total palooka. (thirties slang, boys and girls)

In another part of my life, a colleague wandered over to my blog and read the stuff about charmers and stoners. He's a guy whose life pretty much revolves around getting people to give money to a worthy cause so he's got to use charm or, as he put it, being "directly engaged". I'll do something a bit suspect and quote him, without his permission or his name. He said,

"Well, somehow I ended up at your blog (which I enjoyed—I quickly reviewed all the way down to stoned and charmed) and liked the thought you gave me on people being charming. Maybe the difference is that between being directly engaged and being charming, the latter having an element of working a situation. And who likes to feel they are being worked?"

He believes in his cause (as do I) and he has ferocious charm and some good looks (slender, great cheekbones, intense eyes). I told him that sometimes being "worked" is what is called for. And that made me think a lot about communication and why I love studying it and why it's such an important topic. I don't think life is ever as easy as: "Just be real." "Just be yourself." I think that's a ration of horse patootie (as Col. Potter used to say) made popular by money grubbing gurus in the 1960s, '70s.

My question is, in a postmodern world is authenticity even possible? What is authenticity? How much of our communication is "of the moment"? If I am responding absolutely authentically to you, and then tomorrow I have to respond absolutely authentically to someone who dislikes you, but I like you both, does that mean that I am inauthentic when I say I like you or inauthentic when, the next day I say I like your enemy? Are we past Aristotle? Is the virtuous man no longer the consistent one? Or is virtue only a matter of consistency within a given parameter? If communication is a matter of transactions (I give you attention, you give me attention. I give you praise, you give me fidelity, etc.) how can an economics of friendship be wrong? And yet we tend to think of relationships as being outside of economics.

And now, just to be "authentic" and "honest," I will tell him I talked about him on my blog. Heck, this set of utterances can't be only about boring classroom stuff. Gotta engage directly with some actual communication issues.