First off, I’d like to continue and thank you all for your highly appreciated input. Thanks!
Now, I’ve raised all the issues mentioned here at our meeting today, which discussed our new hierarchal structure. The structure presented (by me, thanks to all of you) has been open-handedly accepted by all team members. However, this year being our rookie one and all that, the thing that did not go as smoothly was how to incorporate next year’s younger students (reminder: this year, it has been only us, 11th grade working on the project).
The team pretty much split into two different sides, each with its own rightful agenda:
The ones who put the team before themselves. They think that in order to create a stable, continuous team, we, as its makers, have to sacrifice our roles for the greater good of the team. According to them, this can be accomplished by giving the younger students at question a direct experience of how things run. To do that, they propose that we, as the experienced fellas, should step down from our duties and pass it on to the younger students at question. Each of us won’t have any practical duty, but instead, will supervise and “mentor” the younger student, who will be doing all the practical work and making the decisions.
Allows for the team to run in a continuous manner, even after we are gone, as those who are subject to run the team next year(s) will be prepared thanks to the direct experience they are given.
Does not allow the team to reach its “maximum”, as experienced personnel won’t be in a decision-making position, but will only be considered as “advisers”.
The ones who put themselves before the team. They think that in order to achieve the maximum out of the team (competitively), the experienced fellas (us) should retain their positions, simply because we are more experienced. In order for the team to run after we are gone, they suggest that the younger students will earn their experience in an indirect manner. The younger students at hand will be hierarchically under the experienced ones, and won’t have the final say in any decision whatsoever.
Now, the way I see it, our team is going to go through hard times with this decision as we’re pretty much split. This question will affect both ours and the team’s future in an irreversible manner.
On the one hand, sacrificing ourselves for the team is the appropriate thing to do as we would like to have our creation exist even after we’re gone.
On the other hand, we would all like to squeeze the maximum out of our team and achieve even better awards and recognition next year. However, doing so will hurt the team once we are gone, as there would be no one experienced enough to actually do anything.
Eventually, all teams, organizations, institutes and even states reach the same situation we’re currently in - aspiration conflict. One side aspires to achieve this, and the other aspires to achieve that. The real question at hand is how to settle things between the two, and that’s where I’m currently clueless.
Gah… we’re all so frustrated over this. Hope someone could help out with some insight or better yet, previous experience in this sort of thing.
Thanks in advance,