Reflection on Teamwork and Gender

Reflection on Team depart and GenderIntroductionAs the only masculine in a group of four female running(a) on a display, the instruction cognize gained reflectively looking spikelet was invaluable. How I got on in the working process while booked in the completion of this presentation represented a process of projecting the difference in kinetics of working within a group power whereby my initial impressions of the mature being made differed from the manner in which each person approached the situation.The undermentioned will offer a reflection on this situation.At early, I felt as if I was the only one actively engaged on the project, gauging that the others were being flippant in their approach. Tavris and Wade (1984, pp. 71-73) offered some cortical po cardinaltial into this as they advise that men are more aggressive than women. They betoken to the example that this difference is detectable as early as age three when children baffle playing with one a nonher (T avris and Wade, 1984, pp. 71-73). Their analogy verbalize that little boys from the start show more physical aggression, play aggressive, reach fantasy aggression and utilize verbal aggression (Tavris and Wade, 1984, pp. 71-73). This, they point to is the male aspect of winning, which means getting started earlier and taking over (Tavris and Wade, 1984, pp. 71-73). Fay and Tokarczyk (1993, pp. 78-79) actual my understanding further in adding that women approach work in a different manner, as they are more social beings. Dale and Lynne Spender (1986, p. 32) devolve the mythical talkativeness of women indicating that in mixed sex conversations that women only talked ten to twenty percent of the time gauging their situation. They added that women, after cutaneous senses comfortable in a group setting will then set or so the task at hand, however, they have privately thought slightly the bother and have definitive ideas and approaches to discuss when that time arrives (Spender a nd Spender, 1986, pp. 34-35).Lunneborg (1990, p. 21) offered the following insight to this start of the project situation that I seemingly was so preoccupied with. She states that women prevail to spend time gathering and thinking more about the tuition aspects in singular fashion, gauging the situation against their take personal skills and formulating approaches as they take aim what they either know or have gleaned from other members of the group (Lunneborg, 1990, pp. 23-28). These dynamics helped me to understand that my learning style was simply too male point to at first take in the significances of how women approach problems and solutions.I learned that the first thing I should have done was approach the first session as an introduction to my co-workers, asking for inputs on how to set about the presentation as a group process, instead of feeling that I was the only contributor. Novarra (1980, p. 51) advised me that women manage in a less donnish fashion. They, women, are accessible, unstuffy, sluttish, direct in getting to the point, spontaneous, averse to wrangling, sympathetic and not long winded or pompous. Nickles and Ascroft (1981, pp. 206-207) referred to the foregoing style as beta. They, women, utilize power for the good of the group as strange to the individual, and that good management represents sensitivity in the creation of a work environment that fosters growth and learning (Nickles and Ascroft. 1981, pp. 206-207). They offered additional insight in that of import power cares more about the quality of work life and uses plastic schedules, job sharing and the decentralization of authority (Nickles and Ascroft. 1981, pp. 206-207). Leaders are not needed at the top of the hierarchy in making decisions, as it is a shared process.Howe (1975, pp. 127-171) advised me that women are more democratic, egalitarian and cooperative. In working with men, or in this case a male, women tend to slow up things down to create a pace that refle cts thinking and sharing. She added that women have an ersatz view of power that is based upon sisterhood, and that in a group situation the usual first steps in the process entail an informal discussion as the parties get to know one another for subsequent interaction as opposed to the male method of the big cad taking over and letting other things fall into place.As I saw the collective approach take hold later in the process, the understanding I gained after the fact made me better understand the dynamics of working with women and how my initial impressions were male based. The difficulty I felt I had in maintaining group focus was my male approach as opposed to the reflective and group sharing approach women utilize to steer working situations, which are similar in context to their approach of problems in either form.ConclusionThe apprehension I experienced in working with a group of four females taught me that there are differing ways in which the approach to a working sit uation can be handled. As the only male member I thrust myself into thinking into feeling that I needed to take charge, even though I held back on that action. Upon reflection, that was a wise choice as the group dynamics later showed me that the work at hand was being handled, but in a different manner than I was accustomed to. The lack of individual conflicts, the overall courteousness of the group, and the process of producing the piece was an enjoyable and productive session. My feelings of getting a late start did not account for the accelerated pace of culture as a team whereby ideas, solutions and contributions flowed naturally without power struggles, thus trim the time frame to get things accomplished.In retrospect the entire experience enabled me to take away from the process a new set of techniques and understandings with keep to group dynamics that was not just applicable to women, but groups of any sexuality composition. My concerns regarding being the only male in the group were facets of my own imagination as the females did not and were not focused on gender differences, they were focused on meshing the group into a cohesive unit, whereby the synergy would be greater than the parts.BibliographyFay, E., Tokarczyk, M. (1993) Working Class Women in the Academy. University of Massachusetts wedgeHowe, F. (1975) Women and the power to change. McGraw HillLunneborg, P. (1990) Women Changing Work. Bergin and GarveyNickles, E., Ashcroft, L. (1981) The coming matriarchy. Seaview BooksNovarra, V. (1980) Womens Work, mens work. PraegerSpender, D., Spender, L. (1986) Scribbling sisters. Camden PressTavris, C., Wade, C. (1984) The longest war Sex Differences in perspective. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich