Team Proshore is Straightforward!
We’ll have a look at how Team Proshore is straightforward in delivering the connections and what impact it makes on a team.
It was an hour before the sunset when I came out of the house, along with my junior homies, to enjoy the cool atmosphere outside. Like every other day, we were planning games for today — probably a new one. “Why don’t we play chess?,” said Bibek, “We have a chessboard and pieces so let’s try it”.
After that, Bishal brought the chess-board from his drawer. Sitting on the grass facing each other with a board in between, Bibek — who was the school chess champion — moved his white pawn two-steps towards the enemy fort. The game continued and in the end, surprisingly, Bishal was the winner. Bibek was amazed!
“I’ve never confronted these tactics before and I was completely outplayed,” said Bibek, “I didn’t know if such tactics exist- this is completely new to me and I want to learn from him”
I was working on my college project. Alike a normal bachelor, I wasn’t familiar with the programming languages. Although, I had a good foundation, but didn’t know how the stuff works on the web. I decided to go then, to the table of experienced guys — who were here for more than 3 years. I wanted to explore the ideas, advice, and suggestion from the competent guys.
I asked them: how will this work? why not that? What about others? How should we go? They gave precise and frank answers to the question which they’ve experienced so far. They gave the quality piece of advice for the things they accomplished. And for the unfamiliar: “I don’t know. I heard it for the first time, would you tell me more about this?”
Team leads often communicate with their team members — whether at their own table or in a meeting room — about their progress on the projects. Both Junior and Senior developers share vulnerabilities — in the sense of weaknesses — at some point. Even if the senior developer identifies everything about the stuff, he’s saying: “I am not sure if it works, and even if it works, I don’t know how it works”
What have all these scenarios in common?
They are all straightforward; clear, open, and frank.
How are they straightforward?
Let’s consider a scenario: You’re meeting a stranger for the first time and you need to break the conversation. Which of the following question you’d ask?
- What’s your dream? (A)
- If there’s any dream of yours, why haven’t you accomplished it? (B)
The A looks pretty simple, it allows you to be in a comfort zone. It generates simple information. But what ahead of this question? Your conversation may end soon.
The B, which we usually practice, is a little tricky one — it generates discomfort. Your heart rate would increase. You would blush and hesitate. It generates the authenticity that breaks down the barrier between the two and tips them into a deeper connection. It generates clear and frank signals.
What impact does it make?
A clear and open connection has a key role in igniting the co-operation and trust. It’s not easy to realize how powerful and reliable this process works, particularly at the team-interactions. The experiment — The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings — was conducted by psychologists Arthur and Elaine Aron gives insight to a deeper connection. The result of the above research suggests question B made strangers feel closer to each other — more than 24% than that of question A.
Moreover, being open, it sends a clear signal that you have weaknesses. If it turns out to be the model for other people, then you can set the insecurities aside and work together, start to trust each other, and help each other. If developers are not frank or open, then they try to cover up their weaknesses and insecurities start building up, co-operation couldn’t be effective, and you can imagine rest.
But, being open — or frank, sometimes, might not be effective if the person in the receiving end is not willing to be the same. Here’s what Dr. Polzer says:
Dr. Jeff Polzer, a professor of organizational behavior at Havard, points out that vulnerability is more about the receiver than the sender. “The second person is the key,” he says. “Do they pick it up or reveal their own weaknesses, or do they cover up and pretend they don’t have any? It makes a huge difference in the outcome”.
The main aim of a clear connection is to practice a shared exchange of openness. It’s the most basic building block of trust and cooperation. People are always in the search of safety, and being open could be key in achieving this.
Being open seems swift and spontaneous from a distance, but if you look closely, they follow some steps: ‘A’ Sends a signal of openness, “B” detects it and responds with their own signal, “A” detects “B’s” signal, the norm is established, closeness and trust increases.
What we think is, first we need to build trust with each other, and then leap in. But the opposite happens. Leaping into the person causes solid trust to be established between the team members or between the strangers. What we need to change is “Leap and Trust” rather than the opposite.
