Another Culture Change

[IKE]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Go for it, Ike. Teach us.

Jane

Don't say I didn't warn you....
****************************
If you are trying to get someone to change, then you have to have answers for some questions:

Influencer talks about targeting 6 key aspects:
Personal Motivation
-Overcome Reluctance and Resistance by Connecting with Values

Personal Ability
-New behaviours require new skills. Overinvest in how to master skills and emotions.

Social Motivation
-Enlist Leaders, Partner with Opinion Leaders, and become a Leader Yourself

Social Ability
-Amplify Influence through Just in Time Teamwork

Structural Motivation
-Modestly and Intelligently reward early success. Punish only when necessary.

Structural Ability
-Using Environment to Support New Behaviours

This is a really good read that talks about some of the difficulties of erradicating dangerous or unwanted behaviours.

************************************************** **
This thread is basically a call to action for the Social Motivation and Structural Motivation. Enlist opinion leaders, Punish unwanted behaviours. What it is not covering is Modestly and Intelligently rewarding early successes.
I would argue that in many cases telling someone they are wrong will be significantly less effective than embracing that group and engaging them. If you just berate the behaviours, then at best you will convince them to change. This will be a change due to fear of persecution rather than a change of willfully wanting to change. More than likely, you will actually may make a stronger foe now with justified reasons. There are a few teams in the area that have a rather low opinion of a great team I personally have a ton of respect for. I talk with their team leads on a regular basis about what their processes are like, and what we do. When negative talk comes up about the great team, I often ask where did that information come from? I explain that hasn't been my experiences with the team, and then sight specific positive interactions I have had versus the second stories they have been told. It is still a work in progress, but it is work that is progressing.
*****************************************
Another really good tool to use the anecdote that relates to that behaviour. The "i once felt the same way as you" is a very effective means of Personal Motivation and Personal Ability. Instead of directly telling someone they are wrong, sharing an anecdote of when you were a "hater" or how you have dealt with jealousy in the past in both negative and positive manners. Showcase how the positive jealousy response improved the situation and how the negative response did not.

There are a lot of great examples in this thread. The anecdote is powerful because it explains your motivation to make a change, and that you were able to do it.

*************************************
Another key aspect that we are getting here in Michigan is some Structural Motiviation, and Structural Ability.

If you are "moderate to low resource" team in the rest of FRC, you typically only go to 1 event. Going to 1 event does a couple things. It adds a lot of pressure to your performance and expectations. You have spent a lot of time, money, and effort to compete at this 1 event only to have your hopes and dreams shattered due to XYZ failure. When you look across the pits you see a team that rises above those issues and kicks your butt. What you don't know is they have already had those issues and fixed them.
The XYZ failure also gives you an excuse why you weren't better. If we hadn't had XYZ break, then we would have been really awesome. Of course we had a kid do XYZ, so we are better by having the kid do XYZ and it fail, then to have mentors make the same part/code, and it not fail. In reality it has very little to "who" did XYZ, and is more of a matter of when and how XYZ got tested and fixed (Build week 4, build week 6, on the practice field, in compeition...). Good teams break their season enders before they compete. They learned this by competing at multiple events and broke things at the first event, fixed them at the second, did better, and then vowed to test/break it before their first event next year.
Here, because every team has 2 events, this gets rid of the excuse, and you have to prove it. Yes teams still have a lot of trouble at their first event, but almost everybody improves by their second. Because of this, they have a better appreciation of what it takes to be really good. This has been an underlying "personal motivation" adopted by many teams to get better. They also have a better understanding of the difference between really good, and Great. Any team can be really good with modest resources, hard work, and SMART work. Greatness is much more difficult. Greatness does require more resources (than modest). These resources include experience, funds, and contacts mostly.
I cannot think of a great team that competes at only 1 regional. There are several good ones, but I cannot think of a single Great one.

The district sturcutre also has more events which allow for more teams to share in a win. There are certain regions that would be excessively difficult to compete in. Michigan was one of these. Even with 3 events, the same teams always took the top spots. Now with 9 events, there is more sharing. There are 27 event winner slots. There are 9 District Chairman's award slots.

The district structure is not a cure to this issue, but I do believe it helps quite a bit with the structural motivation and ability aspects.

Other Structural Ability/Motivational items would include teaming with young teams. Both rookies and other young teams. The Jealousy response is quite prevalent throughout all of humanity, so just assume it will be a natural response. Through partnerships and mentoring, you can work against these natural tendencies. You can also help make the teams stronger. Which reduces the jealousy potential.

***********************************************

The key to change is strict adherence to covering all 6 categories.

***********************************************
The reason I compare it to the "guinea worm", is the guinea work is a painful plague that has been around for a long time. The worm causes painful sores on the limbs that can only be soothed in developing countries by submersing yourself in water. Once in the water, the sores release tihe microscopic larvae into the villages water supply, and thus infect others, and so the cycle continues.

The comments made that originated this thread are a plague as well. Rookie teams tend to start out appreciate role model teams and the assistance that team may have given them. The assistance goes away (usually to support a different rookie), and the team is left on their own. The pain of not doing well is frequently soothed by mentors or parents explaining the reason that team is better is because the mentors do everything. This infects the students and spreads like the guinea worm among their team. Within a year or two, the plague matures into taunts, boos, and bullying statements. This is overheard by others. Some know to get away from that sort of behaviour, but others are infected. And so the cycle repeats. This isn't helped when teams that have a fair amount of success look down at other teams. Yes, it does happen that way too.

Please note, I am not saying that student-"only" teams are the plague. They are cool in my book. Teams that look down on other teams are the plague. This comes from any and all directions (up, down, left, and right).

[Koko Ed]

There are many ways people measure excellence in FIRST. To some it is all about the robot and I am impressed with the work and organization of teh "elite teams". they are amazing to watch compete on the field.
But time in and time out the one team that never ceases to amaze me when I am in their presence is team 365 MOE. It amazes me how their presence at a regional takes the place over and affects so many teams. They are always in other teams pits helping teams get their robots ready for the competition. They may not always have the best robot but they are thorough and professional inn every aspect. they are enthusiastic and gracious in victory and defeat ( and I've seen plenty of teams in my travels who do not take defeat well at all. This is one lesson they should truly take from MOE). To me they are the pinnacle of what FIRST should strive to be.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

To me they are the pinnacle of what FIRST should strive to be.

I think the Chairman's Judges agree with you...

[pfreivald]

clap clap
clap clap
clapclapclapclap
GO MOE!

[PayneTrain]

^They are so infectious, other teams did their cheer when MOE won awards at Chesapeake. Top to bottom class act. No disrespect to the 08-10 Chairman's Winners, but MOE is very in sync to the goals of FIRST and will likely become the second team to win two Chairman's Awards.

[David Doerr]

The mentor-built student-built debate reminds me of the struggle I had getting my mind around my change in roles in moving to FRC after coaching FLL. In FLL, coaches are admonished that 'kids do the work'. FIRST clearly spells out the role of a coach in the coach's handbook which says "the team must design and build the robot, not you or any other adult", and in the FLL Core Values which reads "We do the work to find solutions with guidance from our coaches and mentors". Even with those reasonably clear statements there is still an endless debate in FLL over what level of "guidance" a coach should provide.

Reading discussion here on Chief Delphi, the mentor/student relationship seems to be regarded as one of the central foci of FRC. Dave Lavery is quoted as saying that you've missed the point without it. Also, it appears to be a component unique to FRC. But, as a new mentor coming into FRC and looking into the mentor resource materials I found nothing to indicate that the FRC mentor/student relationship is any different than that in FLL or any other similar program.

I do admit I don't see anything in the FRC Mentoring Guide saying that mentors should not design or build part or even all of their team's robot -- "It doesn't say you can't...", to borrow an often-used FIRST phrase.

But...

I don't find it surprising that some -- even many -- are not aware of a special mentor/student relationship that is unique to FRC where mentors do some or a lot of "The Work".

I learned about my role as an FRC mentor by watching and listening to other mentors on my team. Had I talked to mentors from other teams I probably would have a heard different stories about the role of a mentor.

It seems to me that since the FRC mentor/student relationship is special and unique it should be featured and explained prominently in the official mentor resource materials, along with specific examples of how it is implemented by various teams. People shouldn't have to search for a speech made by Dave Lavery that's buried somewhere on Chief Delphi or have to read between the lines in the FRC Mentoring Guide. There should be a FRC Mentor-Student Relationship chapter, or even a book.

Reading about "I Do, You Watch, ... You Do, I Watch" in the mentoring guide leaves me with lots of questions about what exactly should I do and when should I do it. I admit I'm one of those Aspergers-types that often has to be hit over the head with an idea spelled out to me, but it would really help if I could see something official -- even a paragraph -- letting me know if it's OK for a mentor to dirty his/her hands with 50% building, 100% building, a subsystem, the software, or nothing at all. I've had conversations with FRC leaders who I respect who opine on opposite sides of this debate.

Maybe there could be a mentor rule book.

It could be very short with an entry like:
<M0> Anything goes -- you and your team decide

Or:
<M0> Mentors shall keep their hands behind their backs always.

Or a bit longer with entries like:
<M2482> Each student on the electrical team will be responsible for insertion of at least one power wire into the power distribution board. If there are more students than power wires, enough wires will be removed for reconnection so that each student is able to experience the insertion of at least one wire, as long as said wires comply with the rules set forth in the robot manual, and as long as the aforementioned students are of pre-college age. Post high-school age team members should refer to rule <M6855>.



However, unless the rule is <M0>, I think there will always be a debate similar to the one over what level of "guidance" is legal in FLL.


This mentor/student relationship stuff seems to me headline material right up there with Inspiration, It's More Fun To Create A Video Game Than Play One, and Gracious Professionalism. That is why I believe it's important that it be thoroughly and officially explained **and endorsed** in the FIRST mentor resources.

[Steve_Alaniz]

Originally Posted by David Doerr

I learned about my role as an FRC mentor by watching and listening to other mentors on my team. Had I talked to mentors from other teams I probably would have a heard different stories about the role of a mentor.

It seems to me that since the FRC mentor/student relationship is special and unique it should be featured and explained prominently in the official mentor resource materials, along with specific examples of how it is implemented by various teams.
Reading about "I Do, You Watch, ... You Do, I Watch" in the mentoring guide l
<M0> Mentors shall keep their hands behind their backs always.

I've never had a problem with mentors doing a large part of "the work" as you put it. This is allowed within FIRST and FIRST has struggled to keep the competition about the students and not about the robot. There was a time when sons stood by their fathers and watched to learn the trade and to someday take over. The same was true of daughters and mothers though at that time in a domestic role. The point is that they can learn by just watching... then, because they are in their teens, they become curious and want to try it themselves. I sometimes think being a mentor is easy... every brief now and then...
Anyway, case and point... you learned from the mentors by watching and listening to mentors. Same process works with young men and women in their teens....
Teens.... OK.... now I remember why being a mentor is tricky... but its cool.... ( South Park has ruined my life....)

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

After having been personally accused of designing and building our team's VEX robots,

We have 2-1/2 mentors running an 8-team, 50-student VRC program. I only wish that I actually had time to build some robots. I spend my mentoring life dealing with parts acquisition and storage, asking "are you sure that battery is charged," and doing 3-minute design reviews. If the senior students weren't helping the new ones, all of our robots would be Protobots. The success of Exothermic Robotics started with the five students who joined five years ago, and their passing along their knowledge to new students. (Don't even ask what it looks like when I try to drive a competition robot. I don't like being laughed at.)

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

The success of Exothermic Robotics started with the five students who joined five years ago, and their passing along their knowledge to new students. (Don't even ask what it looks like when I try to drive a competition robot. I don't like being laughed at.)

Not that this statement needs confirming, but I've seen Rick drive a robot.

Thankfully it was at a teachers' workshop where he actually looked pretty darn good compared to most of his fellow adults.

Jason

[Carol]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There are many ways people measure excellence in FIRST. To some it is all about the robot and I am impressed with the work and organization of teh "elite teams". they are amazing to watch compete on the field.
But time in and time out the one team that never ceases to amaze me when I am in their presence is team 365 MOE. It amazes me how their presence at a regional takes the place over and affects so many teams. They are always in other teams pits helping teams get their robots ready for the competition. They may not always have the best robot but they are thorough and professional inn every aspect. they are enthusiastic and gracious in victory and defeat ( and I've seen plenty of teams in my travels who do not take defeat well at all. This is one lesson they should truly take from MOE). To me they are the pinnacle of what FIRST should strive to be.

This type of praise means more to us than complements on our robot (although those are welcome at any time too). The MOE culture is due most of all to our leaders, especially and predominantly Mr MOE himself, John Larock. He is MOE.

[JoeXIII'007]

Great blog JVN, thanks for sharing, and my goodness I am late to this conversation.

First, my hopefully short and concise thoughts on the events you speak of seem more or less reflective of the state of culture in a fair (not all, but a handful) number of places in the US. In my neighborhood and those surrounding it there are attitudes that seem out of place. Heck, in conversation with someone at a company around here this person uttered some things about another country that frankly put a dent in things.

Then there's the state of politics in this country, but we've been there before on CD... (2004 though was frankly heaven compared to what we've seen lately...)

The solution to this mess is best left to social scientists, and I'll leave it at that. That is not to say FIRST should not bother with this problem: a culture of professionalism seems to be a mitigating factor when keeping the nasty stuff out, and the GP concept is a loveable, irreplaceable, forbidden to be removed part of FIRST.

****

Now for some perspective from being on Team 66.

My 4 years on it (2004-2007) were interesting. All of them started the same: kick-off, meeting at the 'war room' the Sunday after to go through the concept design brainstorming process (list possibilities, knock off the unlikely possibilities, end of day: have a rough idea of what we want), the following week refine the design down to specific mechanisms, and then spend the next few weeks building the practice field, learning how to use lathes, drill presses, grinders, etc. etc. etc. while getting briefed on any changes to design that occurred. A few times we got to ride in a little cart to tour select parts of the plant that we worked in, and now that it is closed, I am forever thankful for having that opportunity.

Which leads to perhaps a point to drop here: I have been thinking back occasionally wondering, what was actually more important? learning the skills necessary to build a robot? or learning the thinking process necessary to get there? a process which coincidentally can be applied to a lot of other things with a few minor tweaks.

The former, skills to build X, depend highly upon the availability of resources to get it done, and resources are limited so long as we're stuck here on Earth (thus why measure 2 or more times, cut once, recycle/reuse the rest if possible). The latter, a thought process, depends only on your mind and mine, which lasts pretty much until death, and can be used in a countless number of things (i.e. Data Mining, a personal favorite), including those which have yet to be encountered.

(Repeating that last point was not an accident...)

I digress, back to the main point. So 66 became a powerhouse after 4 years of existence (2002, birth 1998) because we had professionals, who knew their stuff and knew it well, demonstrate their craft. From 2004 on, this was the way things went. It's clearly worked, and in fact has worked so well that even without the mentor resources/other resources once available, 66 has been able to compete strongly this season.

So competitiveness becomes a norm, outreach follows, because there's a stable platform to work out from.

How has this worked? Well, day after kick off this year, I stop by the now 1 year old new nest of the team, and I discover more NXT bricks than ever laying around the room (6?). This is progress from the year I graduated, where we only had one NXT brick and a struggling FLL team (partly my fault for not doing the proper work to set up a decent structure as I was more concerned with the existence of a team... , partly the fault of a lack of resources within the district/will, and time on my end as there was school and dual enrollment).

Also, I heard that there were some 20-30 kids, mostly new ones on the team. I found that out officially this weekend. Greatest thing: it's probably the most diverse in cultural background than the team has ever been. It's _______ beautiful, and humbling, and amazing, and beyond anything I had ever imagined. Now it's just a matter of getting these kids exposed to the methods of design, the thinking involved, the teamwork necessary, and they'll have things that will last their entire lifetime if they take care to use it.

Oh yeah, an actual robotics class... good Lord it came to life. Yes!!!

Obviously, a lot of detail is missing here, and I do not have details to what all he did (beyond finding new sponsors and negotiating with the board of ed.), but the current teacher/mentor of 66 has done an amazing job.

So this should be taken as perspective. I've been in the camp of more student involvement certainly, to the point where I always help out with the other team in town at the annual festival, and as a result have made great friends over the years. We keep in touch.

This all said, there are things from the mentor built end of the world that are worth reading between the lines on, because they're important, more so than often noted. I hope to have successfully hinted on it here.

*puts two steel pennies in the can*

[SenorZ]

Every sport, even FIRST, has "jocks" that are sore losers and ungratious winners.

As a rookie team mentor in the Los Angeles regional I did notice some of the powerhouse teams (recent champs) have a mix of kind and cocky kids. The mentors all were really nice and professional, and in the pits everyone was very helpful. But, once on the field, even members of our own alliance were a bit pushy, jockying for positions, and in one instance telling my kids what OUR strategy would be. Supposed to be a team effort.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

Every sport, even FIRST, has "jocks" that are sore losers and ungratious winners.

As a rookie team mentor in the Los Angeles regional I did notice some of the powerhouse teams (recent champs) have a mix of kind and cocky kids. The mentors all were really nice and professional, and in the pits everyone was very helpful. But, once on the field, even members of our own alliance were a bit pushy, jockying for positions, and in one instance telling my kids what OUR strategy would be. Supposed to be a team effort.

I always find it wiser to defer to experience. And alot of rookies just do their own thing (just driving around and bumping into things aint gonna cut it). If you prove quite effective at executing the strategy and are a flexible talent you may catch their eye.

Positively unacceptable. I can believe the local crowd booing, I can even give the belief to students being derogatory from time to time, but to have it as the norm for even mentors is profound.

All I'll say is my advice for all: Be Aces

Aces are knights of a round table. Aces are battlemasters who give respect and receive admiration. Aces strive to uphold the virtues of hard work and humility. Aces are people who work not for themselves, but their friends, their teams and humanity as a whole. Finally, Aces work to the bitter end to uphold and spread these values.

Be Aces, FIRST.

[AmoryG]

People who make these kinds of comments against powerhouses such as 1114 aren't realizing that students on teams with mentor built robots are getting gypped out of a lot more than regional wins and awards. I've heard many complaints from students of teams that are too tightly controlled by their mentors. Some of these students even ask for advice on chiefdelphi.

You would think if 1114 or other powerhouses had this sort of problem, a student might have complained about it by now?