How should leaders be selected?

[DELurker]

Originally Posted by vhcook

... but we may have been having a Monty Python moment.

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[treffk]

We do an election process, we always have since 2007.

On our website (that is horribly outdated, we lost our student that was working on it) we have an nifty graphic showing how the team works and it explains our elected roles. The link is http://piperrobotics.com/operations.html

[cmrnpizzo14]

3173 does an application process, but not nearly to the degree that MORT does. Essentially the students are nominated by their peers with the mentors adding in anyone to the process that they feel has been overlooked. Then we let people consider the options for a few days (we generally nominate on a Tuesday or Thursday and then vote at our meeting on Saturday). The lead 2 or 3 mentors will count the votes and make necessary adjustments in case someone who really should not have been chosen is selected. We have never had an issue with that but it is clear that they reserve the right to do it. I think that the thought that "If I make a joke vote it might get tossed out" is enough to make people just think that they will take their vote seriously.

We have not had an issue so far with this process and having been a leader since my sophomore year in 2011 I have heard from people that they were happy with everything that myself and the other leaders had done for the team.

[KrazyCarl92]

Team 20 does a nomination process, followed by an application process which is reviewed by mentors, then a democratic vote from the students decides which of the eligible candidates will be named team co-captains. The nomination and application parts of the process ensure that students that want to be leaders and who have earned the respect and recognition of their peers and mentors will be vying for the leadership position. The democratic voting allows the students to be the ones who ultimately choose who will be the leaders on the team.

This was our first year with this system, and so far it seems like it works well. This year we did the voting for the student leaders in the fall, but we will try doing to voting in the spring this year so we will have the established leadership transition over the summer months.

The role of the co-captains is to represent the students in the organization, help run meetings, and to be role models for other students on the team. The great thing about this model is that it still allows students to take on leadership roles throughout other parts of the team regardless of whether or not they are a co-captain.

[mega900997]

The way we have it in past years is that our Team captain is selected by popular vote(he/she's the person you want to follow) and then our department captains(mechanical, programming, electrical, communications) were nominated by receiving 20% of the team's vote. From this pool of nominees, the newly elected team captain selects his department captains so that they will work together.
I know that there are a lot of flaws in this system, but since our team is not at the point where I believe can have an application process, etc, this is what we do. Though some other members on the team and I who are going to be next year's officers are changing how our team works.

[bs7280]

Fight to the death

[EricDrost]

It should also be noted that we often change the leadership "structure" from year to year to better adapt to the current crop of upperclassmen's talents and abilities. There's no one-size-fits-all solution to team structure, and different students react differently to positions of leadership.

Originally Posted by bs7280

Fight to the death

This too.

[ttldomination]

This thread is particularly interesting because, for the first time, I'm on a team that use the mentors/leaders appoint the new leaders.

In the past, I've been a part of the voting system. This system has its merits when monitored closely by mentors (as it was), but if let wild, then the system can easily devolve into a popularity contest.

- Sunny G.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bs7280

Fight to the death

No. To the pain.


The teams I've been around typically do a student vote.

[BJC]

This is an interesting discussion.

On 33 we don't select leaders per say. While the mentors meet to discuss who will be on the pit crew, drive team, scouting, CA presenters, etc. this is really more of acknowledgement of the respective students' hard work. The truth is that leaders select themselves through their actions -- encouraging other students, putting in the hard work, and generally showing a passion for the program beyond their peers.

Each year that I've been on the team I've thought to myself, "Man we lost some great seniors this year," and each year younger students have stepped up on their own to fill those leadership positions.

Regards, Bryan

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

It should also be noted that we often change the leadership "structure" from year to year to better adapt to the current crop of upperclassmen's talents and abilities. There's no one-size-fits-all solution to team structure, and different students react differently to positions of leadership.

I think this is a great point. A lot of times it is just easier to keep the same structure year after year, but sometimes it isn't right for the current team. Some years the leaders may be focused in mechanical, or programming or scouting or business. Some years you may have three qualified leaders while other years you struggle to find one. It is probably best to organize your team/leadership structure to match your students stengths instead of forcing them into roles or positions that isn't right for them so they struggle to fulfill.

[hiyou102]

Originally Posted by BJC

The truth is that leaders select themselves through their actions -- encouraging other students, putting in the hard work, and generally showing a passion for the program beyond their peers.

This is the system that our team currently uses and it seems to be working. Is it sustainable? Only time will tell.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by hiyou102

This is the system that our team currently uses and it seems to be working. Is it sustainable? Only time will tell.

It is obvious that leaders emerge on their own in most cases, but I think the application process (with variance each year as Eric stated) is a good way to bring organization to the whole thing. It also allows students to apply who aren't as well known amongst their peers but the mentors can all see potential. Overall, I think the application process allows the mentors and the graduating seniors to really get a feel for what direction a student wants to take the team in and through an actual plan, not false promises like most elections.

I'm a bigger fan of application/interviews + graduating seniors' recommendations because I've seen it yield more consistent results when it comes to team leadership.

[hiyou102]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

It is obvious that leaders emerge on their own in most cases, but I think the application process (with variance each year as Eric stated) is a good way to bring organization to the whole thing. It also allows students to apply who aren't as well known amongst their peers but the mentors can all see potential. Overall, I think the application process allows the mentors and the graduating seniors to really get a feel for what direction a student wants to take the team in and through an actual plan, not false promises like most elections.

I'm a bigger fan of application/interviews + graduating seniors' recommendations because I've seen it yield more consistent results when it comes to team leadership.

In my opinion leadership isn't something chosen, it's earned. I think the students that are already leaders on the team should be the ones taking these positions. An important aspect of leadership is, well, the ability to lead. If students aren't well known amongst the team the probably don't have many leadership traits. Is that true all the time? Of course not. I just find leadership is something is reliant on peers. I think this strategy might work well for assessing technical skills of team members and seeing who should lead smaller aspects of the team.

[fuzzwaz]

Being on a team that has always had a nomination/student vote way of doing things I am curious as to how a leader is chosen when using an application process where the mentors decide.

Specifically what decision is made when there are two attractive applications. One of which contains the most deserving student on the team who has always done what he/she needed to do and beyond. The other whose lights just turned on recently and became this strong motivated force that is demonstrating a real knack to lead (more so than the first student) yet lacks a lot of the effort put forth by the first.

Basically how does one decide between the person who deserves to have a leadership role vs the person who would best fit the position. Or maybe, in your opinion, these are the same thing?