Where's the Gracious Professionalism?

[Seth Mallory]

My team did have this happin to us a few years ago. The first thing the team was told was it had happened and accept it. How the team handled it is the real mark of the team. We as the mentors chose to use it as a learning experience in life and our students gained from it. Yes winning would have been nice but learning to live to high standards is more important.

[KevinG]

Gracious Professionalism is about building up the quality of work, emphasizing the value of others, and respecting individuals and the community. It's about building things up, not tearing them down. But at the same time it's not about platitudes or sugar coating issues. I spent the entire weekend inspecting robots and telling people what they did wrong (hooray robot inspection!), but I then told them how to fix it. Probably one of my best experiences this weekend was working with a rookie team, going over the inspection process with them, and then ensuring that they passed by helping them make the necessary changes.

Giving honest (and IMO deserved) criticism about the way things are done is an essential part of GP, and the game is not free from that. There's a major difference between saying "the refs suck!" and "this game is impossible for people to referee perfectly." This year's game was poorly implemented and people have a right to complain about it. It's impossible to expect people to not be disappointed when the final match of their season is lost because a ref missed a possession (which is what happened to my team). There's no lesson to be learned when something like that happens; everybody already knows life isn't fair.

That said, GP is about how you respond to that adversity. In our case the team came together and talked about how we felt. We agreed on the game, let it go, and then focused on what we did well. There was a lot of improvement to consider between this year and last year, and I believe we'll continue that direction in 2015. IMO that's how GP is supposed to work.

[Dave McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by J-Blondie

FIRST was NOT established to be a competition based on winning.

Then why does FIRST host competitions every year that establish winners?

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by J-Blondie

...FIRST was NOT established to be a competition based on winning. It was established to give kid of all ages a way to learn about science and technology and how it could lead them into careers that would pay off for themselves and their greater communities, countries and the world. I have been a part of FRC for 8 years and I have been in FIRST for 11 years. I have seen plenty of teams get upset about losing, or about bad calls over the years, but this year has been overwhelming with the lack of compassion I have seen and the lack of gracious professionalism. I have only worked with two different FRC teams, and the experience was great. I may not have the fame or experiences that other people have who regularly post here, but I have always been someone who needs to say something when I see big problems arise...

Janelle,
I guess I’ve seen more examples of the opposite occurring. We are all passionate about the “sport” of FRC. Even under the stress of change, uncertainty, and miscommunication; the essential principles of Gracious Professionalism have held this season together.

Where is Gracious Professionalism this year? How about this example.

David Allred
Mentor 4451 ROBOTZ Garage

[Lil' Lavery]

"Gracious Professionalism" is an ambiguous term, with no set rubric for what defines "GP" behavior and what doesn't. I can only assume this is purposeful, as it should be. It's not black and white, and is often difficult to apply to many situations. It's an ephemeral guideline to what the culture of FIRST, and hopefully the rest of society, should be.

Barry Bonzack posted the definition of "grace" once in a thread at another time the FRC community was facing adversity.

mercy; clemency; pardon: He was saved by an act of grace from the governor. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.

Likewise, "professional" can be defined as follows.

a person who is expert at his or her work: You can tell by her comments that this editor is a real professional.

Neither term directly correspond to one another, and just the definitions of the two words do not encompass all of what Gracious Professionalism is. But you can begin to glean the intent, and more insight can be gained by listening to Woodie Flowers speak about it. Woodie and FIRST often use terms like "kindness," "respect," "creativity," "integrity," "sensitivity," "mutual gain," "standing on the shoulders of giants," and "high quality" when describing GP. In particular, Woodie's sentiments about avoiding humiliation of others echo particularly strong with me this year.

It may be cliche, but adversity is a test of character. While it's far from the first time in FRC history, this year has had plenty of adversity. And like the times in the past, some have handled the adversity better than others. Many have shown that Gracious Professionalism is indeed ingrained into their character. Others have handled it with less grace and less professionalism, and their actions have not contributed to our mutual gain. I do not blame them, this has been a very stressful year and a lot of people have seen their hopes derailed by events fully outside of their control. It can be difficult to manage.

Yet, I do find it hard to reconcile how some of these attitudes are in line with our mutual gain, mutual respect, or avoiding humiliation of others. Throwing temper tantrums or publicly degrading individuals, whether they be volunteers or professionals, does nothing to help the community. The spite and vitriol exhibited by not only the scorned parties, but others in the community, does not seem healthy to me. Just as I do not blame these individuals for their negative attitudes, they should not lay the blame on others. Often, the same emotionally-charged, high-stress environments that led to their emotional states were often involved in the decisions that they disagree with. None of these decisions were made with malice in mind, and nobody is happy about these scenarios. Empathy is tremendously important here.

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin

Then why does FIRST host competitions every year that establish winners?

Is it that inconceivable that the competition is only a portion of what FIRST is about, and a means to the end of the ultimate goal of changing culture? It's an easily understood and exciting event that draws attention and gets participants and observers excited. It's using the sports model to create attention and excitement for STEM programs. It's not the core emphasis of FIRST.

[J-Blondie]

By making this post, I no way intended to "sugar coat" the issues that teams faced this year. It is clear that there were plenty and yes, teams have the right to be upset. But as others in this thread have stated, it's about how you respond to the situation that shows who you really are. Teams have every right to be upset when they lose a chance to play as at SVR, but as I told one of their mentors, it was amazing how their team responded. They accepted the decision made, as heart breaking as it was. I have no issue with teams being upset whatsoever.

What I have an issue with is people just assuming that certain people are to blame in such a situation. I understand the need to place blame with someone when you feel wronged, but I think that the entire situation needs less "blame" and more "solution". I fully expect tensions to be high into championships and into the post-season, it's part of what happens. My post is just a comment on the lack of understanding I have seen this year and a lack of compassion for the volunteers who are largely getting the blame for situations that most of us know nothing about directly.

The advice I have to this community specifically is that, it's fine to ask why, but it is NOT okay to make premature accusations and assumptions about individuals who you don't know and situations you don't know anything about. It's better to question what happened, but wait for an explanation before assuming that someone is not worthy of a Head Ref position or question their intentions or intelligence. This is a good thing to remember into championships as well, especially for those of us not attending. Watching via webcasts or even just being in the audience, you aren't going to know all of the details until they come out.

Once again, I have absolutely no issue with teams being angry, and I get that there is a lot of money at stake with each season for all teams and that there is hours of work put into building the robot, but that time is also spent building a team, and if your team is still standing at the end of everything, that's great, but as a competition, my point is that not everyone is going to win, and honestly I have seen much more grace and compassion out of teams who have suffered the worst of the season than I have from some individuals assessing a situation without all the facts and details. I have personal experience with having hope crushing situations both in and out of FIRST, so I'm not just someone who wants to preach the whole gracious professionalism value without having any understanding of what it means or how it feels to feel terrible with actions resulting in something that crushes everything you have worked for. I REALLY DO GET IT I PROMISE.

[Grim Tuesday]

With respect to my opinion on winning: I think it's a ways to a means. It's an incentive to get people excited, it's a goal. It is how FIRST achieves its mission of inspiring respect in STEM. Everyone should try to win, and the game should make it fun to win - and fun to lose. I think what happened at SVR is crazy. But to think of any season as a failure when you don't win is downright wrong.

[popnbrown]

I want to add to Janelle's post briefly so those that read next get her point. She's not upset at any of the teams in the 2 (?) big issues. I don't think we've even seen a wee bit of un-GP actions from teams that got those ridiculous calls made on them.

There have been other posts calling names and being not very nice to volunteers. Pretty much saying that's not good and don't post if you feel that way. Wait on it, sleep on it, think it through then post.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

"Gracious Professionalism" is an ambiguous term, with no set rubric for what defines "GP" behavior and what doesn't. I can only assume this is purposeful, as it should be. It's not black and white, and is often difficult to apply to many situations. It's an ephemeral guideline to what the culture of FIRST, and hopefully the rest of society, should be.

Barry Bonzack posted the definition of "grace" once in a thread at another time the FRC community was facing adversity.

Likewise, "professional" can be defined as follows.


Neither term directly correspond to one another, and just the definitions of the two words do not encompass all of what Gracious Professionalism is. But you can begin to glean the intent, and more insight can be gained by listening to Woodie Flowers speak about it. Woodie and FIRST often use terms like "kindness," "respect," "creativity," "integrity," "sensitivity," "mutual gain," "standing on the shoulders of giants," and "high quality" when describing GP. In particular, Woodie's sentiments about avoiding humiliation of others echo particularly strong with me this year.

It may be cliche, but adversity is a test of character. While it's far from the first time in FRC history, this year has had plenty of adversity. And like the times in the past, some have handled the adversity better than others. Many have shown that Gracious Professionalism is indeed ingrained into their character. Others have handled it with less grace and less professionalism, and their actions have not contributed to our mutual gain. I do not blame them, this has been a very stressful year and a lot of people have seen their hopes derailed by events fully outside of their control. It can be difficult to manage.

Yet, I do find it hard to reconcile how some of these attitudes are in line with our mutual gain, mutual respect, or avoiding humiliation of others. Throwing temper tantrums or publicly degrading individuals, whether they be volunteers or professionals, does nothing to help the community. The spite and vitriol exhibited by not only the scorned parties, but others in the community, does not seem healthy to me. Just as I do not blame these individuals for their negative attitudes, they should not lay the blame on others. Often, the same emotionally-charged, high-stress environments that led to their emotional states were often involved in the decisions that they disagree with. None of these decisions were made with malice in mind, and nobody is happy about these scenarios. Empathy is tremendously important here.



Is it that inconceivable that the competition is only a portion of what FIRST is about, and a means to the end of the ultimate goal of changing culture? It's an easily understood and exciting event that draws attention and gets participants and observers excited. It's using the sports model to create attention and excitement for STEM programs. It's not the core emphasis of FIRST.

^^^^^^^

This over and over again. Thank you Lavery, I believe you summed up exactly what I have been feeling this year.

[MooreteP]

In Life, you're .500

Thank you J-Blondie for your post.

Now, let's get ready to rumble!, or assist!

[J-Blondie]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

I want to add to Janelle's post briefly so those that read next get her point. She's not upset at any of the teams in the 2 (?) big issues. I don't think we've even seen a wee bit of un-GP actions from teams that got those ridiculous calls made on them.

There have been other posts calling names and being not very nice to volunteers. Pretty much saying that's not good and don't post if you feel that way. Wait on it, sleep on it, think it through then post.

This is true, thank you for understanding. If I could, I guess I would edit this thread to be titled "Where's the respect?". But in ways, this post has enlightened me to a realization that people aren't happy with the term "gracious professionalism" and that I think we need to come up with either a better term or try to figure out what has happened with our culture as of late. If gracious professionalism isn't the term we think we need to use anymore, maybe we need something better? I don't know, I can't have all the answers, but I wanted to address what I had personally noticed.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

FIRST: The I stands for Inspiration.

I stand firm on everything I've said so far, simply because of this:

Many things that have happened this year are simply un-inspiring. Sure, we all like to win and some of us compete very hard to do so, but at the end of the day, I realize this is a by-product of the program. However, when we fail to uphold the very credence of our program, when we go against the very core of the Mission and Vision of FIRST, then something has to change.

I agree with Navid. I think the issue is not that teams are losing unexpectedly, but the way that they are losing. We lost in the SVR final due to our own actions while facing a superstrong alliance so we came away satisfied; 1323 didn't have an opportunity to play for a win in the semi-finals because of what appears to be arbitrary officiating decision. And we all can cite other examples where teams lost because of factors created by individuals outside of the playing alliances. That makes it difficult to be happy about the experience for many students and mentors. We are the consumers of what FIRST is offering, and we have the right and obligation to ask for a better product when we see problems. Most of the problems are fixable (and there will always be issues--look at the NFL which has many more resources to bring to this.)

BTW, my understanding from someone close to the game design process is that the original design called for two more scorers to assist the referees.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

BTW, my understanding from someone close to the game design process is that the original design called for two more scorers to assist the referees.

Any idea why that wasn't so for the first few regionals? I've heard they started to add them in after sometime. Midwest Regional (week 6) had 2 additional refs as scorers (or 4...i might just be referring to elims).

[J-Blondie]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I agree with Navid. I think the issue is not that teams are losing unexpectedly, but the way that they are losing. We lost in the SVR final due to our own actions while facing a superstrong alliance so we came away satisfied; 1323 didn't have an opportunity to play for a win in the semi-finals because of what appears to be arbitrary officiating decision. And we all can cite other examples where teams lost because of factors created by individuals outside of the playing alliances. That makes it difficult to be happy about the experience for many students and mentors. We are the consumers of what FIRST is offering, and we have the right and obligation to ask for a better product when we see problems. Most of the problems are fixable (and there will always be issues--look at the NFL which has many more resources to bring to this.)

BTW, my understanding from someone close to the game design process is that the original design called for two more scorers to assist the referees.

I agree, 1323 in no way can be happy at the results and the reason of why they missed out on playing. Most of this post is not directed to their team. Even in the end when they realized what had happened and were forced to stay on the sidelines, their mentors and students accepted it at the time. I'm not saying they need to accept it, but I know they will follow up with FIRST and I know that FIRST will respond accordingly, be it to their team personally or to everyone.

And I agree that there should be feedback on what happened at the regionals, and I think that people have every right to ask for better circumstances in the future and for FIRST to use this season as a learning experience. However I just don't think that posting negatively towards individuals and being as awful toward situations as people have been is not in the best interest and not the type of feedback we want to pursue.

[J-Blondie]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

Any idea why that wasn't so for the first few regionals? I've heard they started to add them in after sometime. Midwest Regional (week 6) had 2 additional refs as scorers (or 4...i might just be referring to elims).

As far as this, I think that volunteer numbers were low at many regionals. I know FIRST was still calling for volunteers. In the end, I think it's possible they had a lack of experienced volunteers who were willing to referee. Reffing is a tough job, and I'm sure to most volunteers it's extremely intimidating to most people. I won't volunteer for that position in small competitions I've helped out with in the off-season because even then it's tough and the only thing at stake then is glory and a trophy and it's mostly for fun.

That said, the negativity against the refs this season isn't going to help volunteer numbers for reffing either, which is also a thing to consider. Whether what we need is more volunteers, an easier game to referee or more training in that aspect, that is the feedback you should give to FIRST. Information on how, from a team perspective, things went wrong so that hopefully in future seasons it can be fixed.