Hi there, I just found out that my friend and a few of the core members of my team are planning a coup of sorts, and I was hoping for any advice on what to do.
Our current leadership system is similar to a student government, with a few key members acting as a board of directors. In the past these have been chosen by sitting board members. Our mentors want to move to a more democratic system, essentially mob rule. In response the board members and a few other students have decided they’d like to take as many team members as the can and create their own team.
I’ve been invited to join, but I think it’s a bad idea. I’d like to take this to a peaceful conclusion with a unified team. To that end any advice is welcome.
It is. While the mentors may not be justified in what is essentially overthrowing the student leadership, I would not immediately jump to starting a new team. Starting an FRC team requires a lot of financial and material resources that you may not have access to if you abandon the old team and start fresh.
I would also consider why the mentors are trying to change how your team’s leadership works. Is it effective in its current form? Is the board making decisions that are good for the team? I would look at their side or see if the board and mentors can try to come to a compromise before going with the new team.
Have you considered finding other teams in the area that have a little more stability and a more refined process? Sometimes it’s best to look out for yourself and make sure you’re getting the best experience you can be in this program, and in certain circumstances that can mean leaving an unstable team for a team that can provide you a better experience.
Absolutely at least try to find a compromise that will keep the team together. This is great advice any year, but with diminishing resources likely this year and next, it’s more important than ever.
Having a schism in the team should be a last resort. If the mentors are dead-set on moving to a voted election system for governance and the student leaders are dead set on keeping power oligarchical then you’re in between a rock and a hard place. But if there were this drastic and irreconcilable clash of ideologies I would think there would be more noticeable discussion between the two sides.
And if the mentors, and I assume the other adults like parents, teachers, and administrators, are all staying behind then how is the new team going to do anything? Where will budget for equipment and registration costs come from? Where will you meet to build the robot? I hope they have a really good plan if they’re taking the nuclear option.
First thing I’d try and do get the full story from both mentors and the existing board, because something smells fishy.
4414 was born from a similar (although less extreme sounding) situation.
Please note, although a handful of passionate students were involved the separation was mainly mentor driven. I would advise against doing your own thing if it means sacrificing all your resources (mentors, funding, facility). 4414 is a unique situation where we gained MORE resources by leaving the old situation.
I know how frustrating this stuff can be I battled it as both a student and college mentor, I urge you to try as hard as your can to work through any structure disagreements and if all else fails try one more time before starting a seperate program. The last thing you want to do is start a new team and have less fun, (because that’s what the student experience is all about right?)
I had my share of leadership clashes in my day… I’d ask this. Why are the current leaders so afraid of more democracy? From what I’ve seen, typically it’s the mentors who show more intransigence, and the students err on the side of radical reform.
I understand the leadership-type students will have opinions about the quality of decisions that other students would make (I was one), but if they think that letting everyone else in on the decision making process is so bad, two things come to mind—either they have no confidence in their ability to convince others of their ideas, or else they are concerned that the mentors are scheming to put their thumb on the scale in some unfair way.
If it’s the former, I’d ask how good of leaders they think they are. There’s no divine right of kings here, so having to deal with other people’s opinions—and bring them to your side—will be good practice for the real world. Usually, in an FRC setting, if you really are right about how something important has to be done, you can convince your fellow students. The team I was a student on had a policy not of “mob rule” but of consensus—we would not vote on choices, on everything from robot designs to fundraising strategy. I’m guessing that’s more what your mentors mean. We would talk (and talk, and talk) until every single student said they were content with the plan. If anyone refused, we would listen to their concerns and give feedback—why this idea takes care of that point, or how that isn’t as important as you think, but this is—until they came around. That doesn’t mean our decision was everyone’s first choice, but no one could say they weren’t listened to or considered, and that was appreciated. (And ultimately, most of the decisions were what they would have been if we had a leadership group making them anyway) We never once had to break that rule in my four years, and we won seven blue banners doing it. It’s a fine way to run a railroad. Other teams (including those I’ve mentored) do things various different ways, but if you follow it, this route will not be your team’s downfall.
If it’s the latter, I’ll offer this opinion. We mentors can be flawed people—sometimes stuck in our ways, or blinded to alternatives, or not great interpersonally. And we don’t always see things the same way as the students or even as one another. I’ve disagreed and argued vehemently with my fellow mentors about things on my teams. But I’ve never worked with a mentor who I honestly believed was selfish or spiteful toward students. We’ve always tried to work things out to find the best resolution for the team as a whole, because that’s what we’re here for. I had my four years of fun—it’s about you guys now. I think most mentors work toward that same goal. With that said, your mentors have some reason for what they’re trying to change. Try to go stand in their shoes and understand it. What facts, from their perspective, would make you think that what they’re proposing is the right answer to this situation? Ask your fellow students to do the same.
Probably one of the biggest things I’ve gained since my time as a student is an appreciation for the immense universe of knowledge that I don’t possess.
Have you considered talking through with these mentors why they are making the moves they are? If I was willing to bet, there is likely a lot of good reasons why a change in leadership structure might be good for your team. An open conversation can help to find the BEST solution for your team, which everyone is happy with.
I know this may seem like a redundant question, but how did the situation get this bad and has there been any efforts to deescalate the situation? Basically, what actions have each side taken that have led to such a dire situation?
One of the things that suck about adulting is having to make difficult and unpopular decisions.
Experience is usually correlated with age, but age alone does not confer wisdom.
Open up a dialog with your mentors.
There may be external factors that are influencing their decision that you are not aware of. Alternately, they may not be considering your opinions or viewpoints as much as they should. It could also easily be a mix of both. Conversation can easily help resolve these differences.
Splitting a team right now would likely be a pretty unwise decision, so that option better be a last resort.
IMHO, too many adults write off the opinions of teens as being “children”, and too many teens think they have the answer to everything already figured out. Personally, I don’t trust anyone who can’t look back and think “geez, five years ago I was really dumb!” regardless of their age.
Most of the advice here is sound. You need to open up the dialogue to find out why this is happening. The entire team and all of the mentors need to have a Zoom-type call and clear the air about what’s really going on. This is a terrible time to split up a team. Also, which team will take ownership of current resources? Will this be handled like a divorce, where each side keeps part of the whole, or will one team keep everything and the other team start from scratch? Who gets the 2020 robot? Splitting a team isn’t easy in the best of times.
I often find myself thinking “man I wish 17 year old Stuart was here he’d know exactly what to do, that guy knew everything”
A few years ago we had a few students not like the direction our team was going and they ended up taking a few students and starting their own team.
With out going in to the details it was regulations the school and mentors were not willing to negotiate. ( And we still ar’n’t)
I wished them the best and gave them some community contacts ( even reached it to some community team mentors that might be able to reach them in a way I couldn’t)
But without mentor support and founding documents that read like a list of grievances they more had a plan to not be on our team rather than a plan to be a team on their own. I don’t think they made it past October.
If I could give the OP advice
Founding and running a team is hard. It’s emenaly harder with out a mentor to show you the doors that are open for you. It would be easier to convince the the mob( or convince yourself the mob isn’t always wrong) and roll with what you have rather than start over.
You have described briefly the structure of your team leadership. Many teams use a similar structure. What you have not described is the quality of their leadership. Were they able to make decisions effectively? Did they make good decisions? Did they make good use of the resources that were available to them? Are the team leadership the “in-group” with other students in the “out-group”?
Other than “a more democratic system” and “essentially mob rule”, you have not described with sufficient detail what the mentors are proposing for people to understand what their proposal really is. Do you and the other students understand what is being proposed and why the changes are being proposed?
I remember my coup days. Good times were had by none.
The team did split the year after I graduated. Everyone was much happier. Open up a dialogue with the mentors if there hasn’t been one, but if enough students feel that the team is toxic, the schism may never truly go away. Frankly, if I was in a “student-run” team where mentors could simply change the leadership structure at the drop of a hat, I would quit too.
If the split group doesn’t have funding though, they’re not going to come out of this very well. But the old team might be a lot happier with them gone either way.
I think you need to sit down and have a third party (non-robotics teachers perhaps, do you have a government teacher?) help you create a decision matrix or a pro-con list and try to objectively compare the two systems.
There are definite problems with the system you have in place. The formost being entrenched power and a ‘good old boys’ club at the top who don’t have to follow the wishes of the team because they have no fear of repercussion. There are positives too. But until you sit down and try to objectively evaluate it, I don’t think you’ll truly understand the differences.
I think it’s critical that you review your original post too and understand exactly what you are saying. You have a small group as leaders, who appoint the other leaders. The population is dissatisfied with that leadership but has no power to change it. You’re calling it a ‘coup’. See if you can find parallels to different styles of government around the world. Then look at the plusses and minuses of those governments. Look up democracy, republics, authoritarianism, communism, dictatorships and other styles of government.
Consider why the American revolution took place. You may find it a startling parallel to your situation. Do you want to be a revolutionary?
So the goal is to move from your team being run by a board of students (who are appointed by the board itself…) to being run by the team as a whole, through some kind of democracy.
If I was on that board, of course I would be upset! My power is being taken away and given to everyone equally!
I say this, because we actually attempted to have a similar student board our 2nd and 3rd year. And it was an absolute disaster. We were mostly afraid of having real appointed or elected positions with real responsibility. So it was easy to just create “The Elders Council” made up of the students who already “did the most”. With a group like that no individual is really required to take responsibility. You can always pass the buck.
Should every position and decision be made by a vote? Certainly not. I kind of doubt that’s what your mentors want. But, like tons of people have already said, you need to sit down with them soon and figure out the details of what they want, and why they want it.