Interpersonal
Interact effectively with others as peers, subordinates and leaders to accomplish goals
EDTEC 684 – Management of Educational Technology
Artifact – SDZoo Project – Successfully dealing with a potentially volatile situation
EDTEC 684 – Management of Educational Technology
Artifact – SDZoo Project – Successfully dealing with a potentially volatile situation
Click the image to see the presentation
Context
In this project our 4-person team responded to an RFP from the fictional SDSZoo organization. The team seemed well suited for the project as we each had unique strengths to bring to the project. Responding to this forced us to delve deeply into all of our past EDTEC experiences as well as our professional experiences.
Our final project proposal specified a total solution for the creation of a CyberZoo, a web-based virtual learning experience using the zoo’s proprietary educational technology called Animaltics.
Outcomes
The project started out very well and the four of us were all doing our part to contribute to the project. Two weeks before the project due date, one of our team members sent an email to our instructor stating that he felt that he was doing most of the work on the project and copied the team on the email.
I was very upset after reading this. We had all been working many hours and late nights. My first instinct was to respond defensively because I knew that he was incorrect and I felt that he was invalidating the work that I and my other teammates had done throughout the semester. I stopped myself from responding right away. If I had written what was in my head at that moment the project could easily fall apart, but I also knew I wanted to respond before any of my teammates responded emotionally. We had two weeks left to work together and there was a lot left to do. I did not want to further alienate anyone on the team. I focused on two very important things that helped me gain clarity.
Initially I reflected on my past group projects while going through the EDTEC program. Although I hadn’t experienced any issues quite like this one, I had learned to communicate effectively and professionally and I had seen other teams deal with similar issues and had seen them resolved in one way or another. I had seen that differences of opinion can escalate easily if not handled appropriately. This past experience working in groups and seeing other groups helped me to consider my teammates feedback objectively and professionally and to let down some of my defenses.
The second point on my mind was something I try to bring to all my interpersonal communications. The message is in the receiver. This means that as a communicator, you must be aware that the message you intend to communicate, is not always received with the meaning that you meant it to carry. With this in mind, to tell someone that they are wrong, is not usually the best course of action, as it invalidates the way they feel, which is real to them, whether it is based on facts or not. Instead, if I believe that someone is wrong, meaning we are looking at the same thing and seeing something different, I try to describe what I see and ask the other person to describe what they see. In doing so, this allows both parties to focus on the facts being described and take some of the emotion out of it and hopefully come to a consensus.
After thinking through the items described above, I crafted an empathetic, but factual, email explaining why I thought that all teammates had contributed fully and equally. I also asked him to share the basis of his beliefs that the rest of us were not contributing as much to help me understand. The team, and the instructor received an email back a few hours later with a full apology explaining that he had a bad week and took it out in an inappropriate manner. He further explained that after reading my email, he had to admit that we had all indeed been contributing equally. I also received individual responses from my teammates and our instructor thanking me for handling the situation so well.
Over the next 2 weeks we had many other calls and communications but this situation never came up again, and did not have an impact on our work. We went on turn in a very good product that we were all proud of and we were able to present that Proposal as a cohesive team. I believe that if I, or any of my teammates, had responded defensively, the situation would have escalated. If it had escalated, our final product would have been in jeopardy and would not have reached the level of quality that we needed.
Lessons Learned
This particular situation took place over 3 years ago and happened over a 24 hour period, but it still stands out in my mind as a great example of being able to interact effectively with my peers, and instructor to accomplish a common goal. I still think back to this situation whenever I need to communicate in a tense or sensitive situation.
I have been working with clients and working with teammates on projects in the EDTEC program at a distance for several years. There are many benefits to working at a distance, but I believe this project experience displays one of the disadvantages. Successful interpersonal communication is more difficult when communicating at a distance. Individuals tend to treat peers and subordinates better and communicate more easily when working together in face-to-face situations. Miscommunication and misinterpretation is more likely when communicating at a distance as opposed to working face-to-face. As educational technologists, it is important that we recognize this as more organizations move toward working at a distance.
In this project our 4-person team responded to an RFP from the fictional SDSZoo organization. The team seemed well suited for the project as we each had unique strengths to bring to the project. Responding to this forced us to delve deeply into all of our past EDTEC experiences as well as our professional experiences.
Our final project proposal specified a total solution for the creation of a CyberZoo, a web-based virtual learning experience using the zoo’s proprietary educational technology called Animaltics.
Outcomes
The project started out very well and the four of us were all doing our part to contribute to the project. Two weeks before the project due date, one of our team members sent an email to our instructor stating that he felt that he was doing most of the work on the project and copied the team on the email.
I was very upset after reading this. We had all been working many hours and late nights. My first instinct was to respond defensively because I knew that he was incorrect and I felt that he was invalidating the work that I and my other teammates had done throughout the semester. I stopped myself from responding right away. If I had written what was in my head at that moment the project could easily fall apart, but I also knew I wanted to respond before any of my teammates responded emotionally. We had two weeks left to work together and there was a lot left to do. I did not want to further alienate anyone on the team. I focused on two very important things that helped me gain clarity.
Initially I reflected on my past group projects while going through the EDTEC program. Although I hadn’t experienced any issues quite like this one, I had learned to communicate effectively and professionally and I had seen other teams deal with similar issues and had seen them resolved in one way or another. I had seen that differences of opinion can escalate easily if not handled appropriately. This past experience working in groups and seeing other groups helped me to consider my teammates feedback objectively and professionally and to let down some of my defenses.
The second point on my mind was something I try to bring to all my interpersonal communications. The message is in the receiver. This means that as a communicator, you must be aware that the message you intend to communicate, is not always received with the meaning that you meant it to carry. With this in mind, to tell someone that they are wrong, is not usually the best course of action, as it invalidates the way they feel, which is real to them, whether it is based on facts or not. Instead, if I believe that someone is wrong, meaning we are looking at the same thing and seeing something different, I try to describe what I see and ask the other person to describe what they see. In doing so, this allows both parties to focus on the facts being described and take some of the emotion out of it and hopefully come to a consensus.
After thinking through the items described above, I crafted an empathetic, but factual, email explaining why I thought that all teammates had contributed fully and equally. I also asked him to share the basis of his beliefs that the rest of us were not contributing as much to help me understand. The team, and the instructor received an email back a few hours later with a full apology explaining that he had a bad week and took it out in an inappropriate manner. He further explained that after reading my email, he had to admit that we had all indeed been contributing equally. I also received individual responses from my teammates and our instructor thanking me for handling the situation so well.
Over the next 2 weeks we had many other calls and communications but this situation never came up again, and did not have an impact on our work. We went on turn in a very good product that we were all proud of and we were able to present that Proposal as a cohesive team. I believe that if I, or any of my teammates, had responded defensively, the situation would have escalated. If it had escalated, our final product would have been in jeopardy and would not have reached the level of quality that we needed.
Lessons Learned
This particular situation took place over 3 years ago and happened over a 24 hour period, but it still stands out in my mind as a great example of being able to interact effectively with my peers, and instructor to accomplish a common goal. I still think back to this situation whenever I need to communicate in a tense or sensitive situation.
I have been working with clients and working with teammates on projects in the EDTEC program at a distance for several years. There are many benefits to working at a distance, but I believe this project experience displays one of the disadvantages. Successful interpersonal communication is more difficult when communicating at a distance. Individuals tend to treat peers and subordinates better and communicate more easily when working together in face-to-face situations. Miscommunication and misinterpretation is more likely when communicating at a distance as opposed to working face-to-face. As educational technologists, it is important that we recognize this as more organizations move toward working at a distance.