((I split the above post and this one, because as a single post it was just too long!))
Alright, back to the beginning:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Baker
Dare I ask... Which "team" is better? What defines "better"?
|
When I first started in FIRST I would have said, "A team that is 100% student-run is the best way to go!" The last few years on my high school team I realized, "No, having a perfect balance of student and mentor contributions is the best way to go!" Now, I don't think either of those statements is correct because there
is no best way.
Rich pointed out before that the key is flexibility. What works for team A doesn't work for team B. Similarly, what works for team A one year, might not work for them the next.
Let's take a closer look at teams A and B:
Year One
- Team A is almost entirely student run. The students have elected other students to lead individual subteams, and everything seems to be running very smoothly. The mentors decide to help out, but take a back seat when it comes to the majority of the work. Ship day comes along, and while the somewhat frazzled students struggle to get everything packed and ready to go on time, they make it. Team A competes at two competitions and places thrid and eighth, respectively. At their team banquet, they reminisce about the great year they had and everyone is sad that the student-elected leaders will all be graduating. In the end, the students have inspired the mentors with their fantastic designs (some of which the mentors would not have thought of themselves!) and the students were inspired by other students on the team for taking such a big leadership role.
- Team B is mostly run by mentors. The students have a hand in some PR stuff, and occasionally are allowed to cut basic parts in the machine shop. The robot is finished by week four - mostly built in the main sponsor's workshop. The robot is brought to the high school where the mentor's show off their creation. The students are amazed at what an awesome job the engineers have done - not only does the machine run perfectly, the welds are immaculate and the graphics are perfect. Team B competes at a few regionals and takes first place, then goes on to win the Championship. Even though the students didn't have a huge part in builidng the robot, winning the competition and seeing what a great job their engineers did excites them and inspires them to pursue a more active role in the team and in engineering itself.
In both instances, the students are inspired to continue with FIRST and engineering. Both teams had "good years" and did well in the competition. For these two teams, the way their respective teams were run worked. Now, check this out:
- If team A were run like team B, the mentors would run the show. No student elections would be held, because there would be no student leadership positions to fill. Students who were once eager and willing to take the lead either quit or don't do much of anything, since they've been given the distinct impression that they are not needed. The engineers come in with their robot and, while some of the students ooh and ahh over it, the majority of students think, "Why did they do this thing, this way?" They question the engineers and get the answer, "Because this is the way it will work best." Conflict arises when the students think they have a better solution, and since the robot is finished two weeks early they still have time to implement what they want to do. The engineers won't have it, and take the robot back to their shop to make sure the students don't "mess with it". The students have no time to practice driving and end up placing last at all of their competitions. They have no team spirit and a lot of the students aren't sure they'll come back the next year. The only way the students have been inspired, is to go to the other extreme and make sure they're in charge next year, because "they know they'll do a better job."
Case in point - what works for one team doesn't necessarily work for another.
Going back to teams A and B; the teams are in their second year now. The rookies on both teams are hearing how wonderful FIRST is and what a great time the teams had the previous year.
Year Two
- Team A holds the student election but the elected students aren't all that concerned about their positions. The mentors start to worry when it's week three and practically nothing is done. Concerned about thier team, the mentors start to step up and help with design and building of the robot. Unfortunately, they are met with resistance from students on the team who were around during year one. These students insist that they can build the robot on their own again so the mentors back down. Week five comes up more quickly than anyone expected and all the robot consists of is a shoddy frame, some wires and a couple of half finished wheels. The mentors finish the robot - again, with much protest from the team veterans - and the team goes on to compete at two regionals. They place 20/22 at their first regional and dead last in the second. The team goes on to the Championship but doesn't do well there either, since everyone is so physically and emotionally drained. The end of the year banquet isn't nearly as fun, because everyone is thinking, "wow, where did we go wrong? It worked last year - what happened?" No one is inspired and half the team quits because they had such a miserable time.
- Team B goes on being mostly mentor-run. Like the previous year, the robot is done in 4 weeks to allow the students more drive time and the students are yet again amazed and what their engineers have come up with. This year, the students are allowed to take a slightly larger role with PR and are allowed to put together the Chairman's Award presentation. Again, the team dominates the competition and places third at the Championship. At the end of the year, the team celebrates and thinks, "this works for us - it's the way our team should be run!" The students have been inspired by the engineers' design and by the fact that they did so well - again - in the competition.
Team A is a good example of "what works for a team one year, may not work the next." Had the students stepped back a little bit, and realized that they did need help, they might have done much better and had a lot more fun.
Team B is a good example of "just because a team is run by mentors, doesn't mean the students come away uninspired." Team B found what worked best for them and ran with it. Both years the students walked away feeling inspired and wanting to know more about and do more with engineering. They're two for two on successful* years.
Bottom line:
The cases above are just two ways things could go. There are a thousand different scenarios and a thousand different ways to run a team, and neither of them is "the best way." There is no formula to figure out what will inspire people the most, what will win you the competition the easiest, or how to run the team as smoothly as possible.
The "best" way to run a team isn't by having it all student run, or all mentor run. It's not splitting the "power" 50/50 and having students do their half and mentors do theirs. It's about finding what works best for the
team - finding what inspires team members and having the ability to realize that you may have to change the way your team is run slightly, from year to year.
As soon as you can do that, you've truly found the best way to run a team.
* = successful, as the students on the team were inspired by what they saw and learned.