Problems with overbearing mentors

[ebarker]

We definitely have a lot of good jostling around with decision making. And I definitely have a nice case of "bruised ribs" from all that "elbowing". Pick fights carefully and how deeply it goes. And allow and expect elbows. Ouch.....

[Akash Rastogi]

This may sound weird to you, but you will come out a stronger student and end up a better mentor if you pay attention to the problems you face and the lessons you can learn.

A team's culture can't totally be changed very easily, so I can't offer any immediate advice. What I can tell you is to keep the positive attitude, never lose respect for your mentors, and always keep focused on what you can use from this experience to be a better mentor in the future. I haven't faced entirely the same mentor issues, but I did get a chance to apply lessons learned when I became a mentor.

In the end, communication is the biggest issue in situations like this. Talk things out with multiple people. Best of luck!

[IronicDeadBird]

When mentors aren't acting the role of "mentor" and when they aren't being a good role model you need to question if they should be there.
I have nothing against your mentors, I don't know them and I don't want to condemn them but I can relate to this when I took a drive safety class.
When I took master drive my original drive instructor showed a lot of enthusiasm, she was a wonderful person and she taught me a lot. When I had to switch to a different drive instructor all of a sudden I kept getting called out on things and that is the point when we discovered what my old drive instructor taught me, wasn't actually what she was supposed to be teaching me. I had to "unlearn" all the stuff she taught me because it was often hazardous behavior, so while mentors are valuable you need to make sure that what they bring to the team is constructive, and not drama.
Shout out to handling it like a pro though approaching adults and telling them to stop is intimidating for me.

Cheers

[nyaculak]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

#4 -- This is a tough one. FIRST is about inspiration, not the robot. Sometimes difficult decisions must be made. Is it more inspiring to let them struggle on the last weekend, hoping to get a device to work, or is it more inspiring to jump in and "fix it" so that it's working at the competition. Sometimes the pressure of trying to get something to work means you don't have the time to fully explain what you are doing at that time.

This is side of FIRST and FRC that I, as a student, take issue with. To me, competing in FRC wouldn't be nearly as rewarding if our mentors stepped in to fix all of our problems at the very end. Mentors should be there to guide the students and to help them refine and iterate over their designs.

My team has a very relaxed view on mentoring. In general, the less the mentors help us with the robot, the better. It's always helpful to hear their insight on our ideas, but we really strive to make our robot as student-built as possible. Of course, we don't always have the best robot at competition, which leads me to my next point.

When mentors "step in" to fix their team's robot, I really think they should consider what this does to the teams that don't have their mentors complete (or, in some cases, build) their robots. FIRST is for the INSPIRATION of science and technology, right? How inspiring is it when high school students are left to compete with a robot built by a team of actual engineers?

[wireties]

Originally Posted by nyaculak

When mentors "step in" to fix their team's robot, I really think they should consider what this does to the teams that don't have their mentors complete (or, in some cases, build) their robots. FIRST is for the INSPIRATION of science and technology, right? How inspiring is it when high school students are left to compete with a robot built by a team of actual engineers?

How do the mentors teach the students how to fix the robot? Leaving an energetic group of smart students to suffer (only because of their lack of education and experience) seems cruel. And if the students don't learn how to diagnose and fix problems with the robot during build season how can they fix the robot at competition?

Perhaps something like a 2-hour rule is appropriate? During build season, students spend a fixed amount of time on a single problem then they ask for help. Then what is learned in the build season is leveraged at the competitions.

How inspiring is it when high school students are left to compete with a robot that does not work?

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I would strongly recommend something my team did a number of years ago - the "No Mentor" line. Let me explain...

As a team, we had come a long way, and it was the first time we had a significant number of students on the team who had been there for 2-3 years. The captains approached us and told us how much they appreciated everything we had taught them over the past few years. They went on to tell us that they felt it was important they take the next step at competition this year - they knew everything there was to know about the robot, and were confident they could keep it running without us. So, they were implementing a new rule called the "No Mentor" line, with the line being the tape outline of our pit. They didn't want mentors in the pit during the competition so they could prove to themselves and everyone else that they had what it took to do this themselves. They still wanted us at the competition, and they were clear that the line could be broken IF they specifically invited us across to help with a problem.

Great post. I have been involved long enough to recognize this as a great metric for a team that understands that it is not about the Robot you place on the field as much as about the team you are able to mentor to a degree of competence.

In all of my incarnations within FIRST, one of my favorite activities is to walk through the pits and witness the level of mentor control.
The truth is hard to hide in the pits.

Check out some of those "powerhouse" teams that we envy who are able to enact comprehensive high school programs that train students in all of the skills available through FIRST. Observe their pits at a competition. You will be inspired.

Most of us teams are an amalgam of schools, local professionals, a lathe or two, some energetic parents, a variety of teachers, and a statistically biased sample of students. The types of teams are manifold.

Go with what you got. the sports analogy of FIRST tricks us into to trying to become better in Engineering and Project Management and Marketing.
In life, your .500.

Remain in a state of becoming better.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I would strongly recommend something my team did a number of years ago - the "No Mentor" line. Let me explain...

This is a great idea! As others have alluded too, there is a big difference in the soft skills required to be an engineer and an engineering mentor. In general engineers have a strong drive to get things done, which can occasionally be quite frustrating when the go-to activities for the worker bees is idly chatting. Very rarely do engineers actively leave students out, they just get wrapped up in solving problems (engineering), and forget why they are there!

We had lots of new mentors this year, and there was lots of adults talking early on in our strategy meetings. So we instituted a mentor gag order until the students had thoroughly chatted it out among themselves while we listened. Worked great. Students had a chance to really drive the discussion, and the mentors learned that the best way to get students involved and interested is to let them do the heavy lifting and get invested in the final outcome.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by nyaculak

This is side of FIRST and FRC that I, as a student, take issue with. To me, competing in FRC wouldn't be nearly as rewarding if our mentors stepped in to fix all of our problems at the very end. Mentors should be there to guide the students and to help them refine and iterate over their designs.

OK, Let me clear up what I said:
I did not say mentors should step in and fix ALL the problems. My statement was that there is a difficult decision as to what is more inspiring; letting the kids struggle and (hopefully!) fix the issue, or to step in and HELP fix the issue and have a fully functioning robot.

To me, a running robot, showing off that the design ideas of the students can work, is usually more inspiring than a dead robot on the field (or worse a no show because they are trying to fix it).

Originally Posted by nyaculak

My team has a very relaxed view on mentoring. In general, the less the mentors help us with the robot, the better. It's always helpful to hear their insight on our ideas, but we really strive to make our robot as student-built as possible. Of course, we don't always have the best robot at competition, which leads me to my next point.

Then you are missing a big part of FIRST, which is the partnership and interaction between mentor and student.

Originally Posted by nyaculak

When mentors "step in" to fix their team's robot, I really think they should consider what this does to the teams that don't have their mentors complete (or, in some cases, build) their robots. FIRST is for the INSPIRATION of science and technology, right? How inspiring is it when high school students are left to compete with a robot built by a team of actual engineers?

FIRST is about INSPIRATION, not the ROBOT. How a team is inspired is not relevant. Whether you would be inspired by their method of inspiration is, also, not relevant (unless you are on that team). Whether someone is inspired by watching a real engineer ply his trade, or by putting his own hands on a project is a very personal thing, and one that the mentor has to be acutely cognizant of (and most are).

Inspiration comes in many forms, and what inspires one may not inspire another ... and learning that will make you a better mentor in the future.

[nyaculak]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Then you are missing a big part of FIRST, which is the partnership and interaction between mentor and student.

Allow me to clarify. Our mentors most definitely help our team in essential ways. They work with us constantly, through every step of designing and building our robot. They provide feedback on strategy, feasibility of design ideas, and implementation help. I have a great relationship with our team's mentors; I've probably learned more from them and my 3 years of robotics experience than I have through the rest of my high school career.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

FIRST is about INSPIRATION, not the ROBOT. How a team is inspired is not relevant. Whether you would be inspired by their method of inspiration is, also, not relevant (unless you are on that team). Whether someone is inspired by watching a real engineer ply his trade, or by putting his own hands on a project is a very personal thing, and one that the mentor has to be acutely cognizant of (and most are).

Inspiration comes in many forms, and what inspires one may not inspire another ... and learning that will make you a better mentor in the future.

I agree with you that FIRST is not about the ROBOT, however, I must respectfully decline your notion that FIRST should be about INSPIRATION. FRC (and all school-aged robotics competitions) should be about LEARNING. Indeed, I believe many students would agree that they would be more "inspired" if they learn more along the way.

On another note, the idea of the "No Mentor" line at competition sounds like a terrific idea. I love having the opportunity to show off that my fellow team members and I possess the skills to create the robot ourselves. It should be noted that this would not be an insult to mentor involvement in FIRST, but rather a testament to how much the mentors have taught us.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by MikeE

FRC is about giving students the best experience possible.

+1

I don't really think this thread should deviate from the original topic any more. The mentor vs. student built debate has no bearing on this issue, because at least from the information we know, these mentors are not creating a great experience for their students, and therefore not being very inspirational (as well as not teaching very much). This is a problem. This team needs to come to a solution. It really doesn't matter whether they decide to be a purely student-built team or decide to retain some mentor involvement. The point is that right now they are unable to make that decision because of these problems.

Unfortunately, the only suggestion I have would be to talk to people. If there is a head mentor who is more reserved than the other mentors, than go to him/her. If your based in a high school, talk to administration. In any case, your parents can be very influential if they are all aware of the problem and work to fix it. Sometimes, it may seem hopeless. But even if you do eventually give up hope in your team, please do not give up hope in engineering or FIRST in general.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by nyaculak

I agree with you that FIRST is not about the ROBOT, however, I must respectfully decline your notion that FIRST should be about INSPIRATION. FRC (and all school-aged robotics competitions) should be about LEARNING.

I will simply point out that For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) makes it quite clear what they are about in their name, and in their mission and vision statements--and it is not learning. Learning happens to be a byproduct--a positive byproduct, but a byproduct nonetheless.



Back to the original topic...
I might suggest, if having the team's mentors and parents talk to the "overeager" mentors doesn't help, asking the Senior Mentor in your area for advice, or maybe if they know of any potential new mentors.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by nyaculak

I agree with you that FIRST is not about the ROBOT, however, I must respectfully decline your notion that FIRST should be about INSPIRATION. FRC (and all school-aged robotics competitions) should be about LEARNING.

ny,
I think you are on the right track but...
Learning implies that a person becomes proficient at a particular task or concept. Inspiration implies that the same person wants to learn more tasks more concepts, and think beyond the original learning. I am all about learning (see my signature) and Inspiration keeps the learning going.

[George1902]

I'd like to try to reboot the discussion a bit to maybe get a different perspective instead of rehashing a topic that traditionally gets us nowhere.

How do we, as gracious professionals, deal with stubborn, overbearing individuals? When dealing with students, mentors, bosses, co-workers, employees, or any other relationship, knowing how to diffuse tense situations and patiently work through conflict is a valuable life skill.

One aspect of overbearing individuals is that they often don't listen effectively. They use pauses in conversation to think about what they're going to say next instead of listening to what's being said. Conversely, timid individuals often over-think and second-guess themselves to the point where they never get around to saying anything. To ensure everyone has a say a group can take turns, perhaps passing around an object to signal who's turn it is to talk. In one classroom setting I've used an eraser, for example. When a person has the totem of power, they can direct the conversation however they wish. They can agree with an idea, disagree, or take the conversation in a whole new direction if they choose. They're in control.

This method gives the overbearing individual a framework within which they can still get all their ideas out, but where they can also listen without feeling the constant need for interjection. It also guarantees the timid individuals their time to speak.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by nyaculak

I agree with you that FIRST is not about the ROBOT, however, I must respectfully decline your notion that FIRST should be about INSPIRATION. FRC (and all school-aged robotics competitions) should be about LEARNING

Yep, all those years volunteering and interning for FLRST have really paid off for me...

This mentor/student line discussion has been beaten to death over the years, and distracts from the original topic of the thread. As has been said a million times before: If a team is happy with how their team dynamic works, then it's not an issue. The issue is when students don't feel like it's right (this thread), or when outsiders stick their nose into clearly-not-their-business.

So let's get back on track. I like George's suggestion...

Originally Posted by George1902

One aspect of overbearing individuals is that they often don't listen effectively. They use pauses in conversation to think about what they're going to say next instead of listening to what's being said. Conversely, timid individuals often over-think and second-guess themselves to the point where they never get around to saying anything. To ensure everyone has a say a group can take turns, perhaps passing around an object to signal who's turn it is to talk. In one classroom setting I've used an eraser, for example. When a person has the totem of power, they can direct the conversation however they wish. They can agree with an idea, disagree, or take the conversation in a whole new direction if they choose. They're in control.

This method gives the overbearing individual a framework within which they can still get all their ideas out, but where they can also listen without feeling the constant need for interjection. It also guarantees the timid individuals their time to speak.

I just finished a course last semester on organizational change - and our final project as a class was to develop something 'that demonstrated the purpose of the class' (yes, that was really the prompt - no other instructions). This is pretty much what we came up with. A formalized, glamourous version of 'the spirit stick' from summer camp. Guess what? We used it in our own project meetings, and it worked.

If the OP's team (and any team for that matter) is worried about overbearing individuals, then maybe a system like that is something to take into account. From the way they're making it sound, this is a little beyond captains-sit-down-with-the-mentors, so maybe it's time to put a formal organizational structure around decisions/discussions for you guys. Just my $0.02.

[meaubry]

Conflict avoidance on a collaborative project; require some fundamental groundwork to be established well ahead of the time the project starts. That groundwork includes developing a basic organizational foundation with a well-documented mission/vision, structure, and most importantly - roles & responsibilities of all participants defined.

Once established, these need to be reviewed and agreed upon with the entire team - at the beginning of each season. Changes discussed and agreed upon, with participation from all factions within the organization (leadership, mentors, instructors, students, and parents) as needed.

2 things that will ultimately destroy any collaborative project include –
1) mistrust and, 2) miscommunication.

Once the authoritative organizational structure and collaborative project plan is defined, along with roles and responsibilities indicating whom will be doing what, everyone needs to review it - and work within it.

Trust each other, and trusting in the plan - cannot be understated.
Trusting each other allows team mates to do what they are responsible for, on or ahead of time, to the best of their ability. Trust also allows those responsible to be able to request help – if needed or wanted.

Trusting each other means, having faith that those responsible will take their job seriously and meet the deadlines outlined in the project plan – without intervention to assure it gets done. Plans and timing on collaborative projects must be flexible, and must be constantly reviewed and revised. Open, timely, and truthful communication is critical to achieving this.

Trust means having faith in those that are in authoritative leadership positions, to perform their role and responsibility in performing conflict resolution. Have faith in that organizational structure and the role that they play. Open, timely, and truthful communication is critical to achieving this.

To assure more collaboration, and less domination - make sure the roles and responsibilities are well defined. Have the organizational leadership help communicate to the rest of the team – expectations relative to how “things should be done – as well as, how conflicts will be resolved”.

Understanding what is expected, plus roles and responsibilities – should have taken care of the “not reading the rules” issue. But, make sure the issue is not one of “not understanding the rules” instead of not reading the rules.

One way to address this issue is to accomplish it collaboratively, as well as individually.

I found it is better to do that at the start of the project. One should not address a problem or challenge, without first trying to understand the requirements for successfully achieving the goal.

Best of luck in the competition this year,
Mike