South Park Episodes Streaming Quicktime

The lack of trust within teams and feedback

was a sunny May morning in San Sebastian de los Reyes (Madrid), working at the headquarters of a multinational organization with subsidiaries in several European countries ; the Regional Director told me the problems the regional steering committee felt it was his team.

This committee consisted of directors of the different sites and met once a month but had not achieved a good level of teamwork and the general opinion was that it was due to the great mistrust between the different members of the group.

"Nobody seems to really enjoy our meetings," he said people are very cautious about self-expression and it makes our discussions is artificial and full of formalism. Every time we're becoming more complex, any decision we make is almost certain to be reviewed in the next meeting. I honestly do not think we're doing things right. "

After listening for several hours, I suggested that to supplement the information allowed me to interview someone in your team. After a couple of weeks shared with the main data from these interviews and then summarized:

• At the regional meetings was rare for members disagreed among themselves, had apparently great kindness in the group, no major fights or tension.

• In addition, members were known for several years and had fraternized many times in different events. They were not friends really, but get along.

• However, whenever a committee member had a problem with another member instead of discussing with him what he did was to request an individual appointment with Regional Director to present their complaints and ask for your mediation.

• Similarly, the Regional Director tended to interrupt the few discussions that were generated during the meetings, saying "we will treat it in private when the meeting ends."

• Some group members felt more comfortable if the meetings were held in silence and devoted their efforts to follow the conversations of others. The Regional Director was a man of tolerance and understanding that some people tend to be more reserved in public, so that by the end of the meetings used to invite these members to visit or call for you comment their views on the topics covered in the meeting.

• Not surprisingly, this group usually always approve the proposals of the Director Regional, her voice was the voice of the group.

The real problem was that, once back at their respective centers, the Directors do not necessarily put the agreements reached during meetings. No decisions are openly challenged, but it opposed a subtle and effective resistance to their implementation through various systems.

Sometimes asking for further clarification on the terms of the agreement, sometimes called a moratorium on the implementation of the agreement because it was incompatible with another project that was still in progress. In

final, displayed all the creativity of a multinational company director is capable when it comes to boycott central decisions but making sure that no one can point a finger for it.

In view of this I suggested to the Regional Director that the lack of trust was not the real problem that faced the group , but his problem was lack of honesty and courage to speak clearly. That led the meeting participants not to openly dissent from the decisions that are not shared, but giving the impression to the rest of the group that accepted and then secretly boycott. In the same way pretending that there was a cordial personal relationship between them but then had its dirty laundry to your Regional office to complain, stealing and the other party the opportunity to explain their point of view and try to reach a shared solution to problems.

They created the appearance of being good team players, anxious to maintain harmony among them, but actually emptied the power equipment and content to establish a parallel path of conflict resolution and decision making with the Regional Director .

Truth is the currency used on computers to exchange information, but if the people sitting around a table thinking that some of these occasionally put coins in circulation, then the whole system is corrupted: nobody believes anyone every new information is received with caution and checked to see if true or not.

This also makes the discussions do not flow easily and that there is no incentive to share views and give opinions. Little by little, team members lose faith in it as an effective mechanism to solve problems and achieve results, what leads them to create alternative parallel pathways. And at the end meetings equipment become pure theater.

The lack of sincerity is a powerful acid that eats away the foundations of teamwork.

When a team is dominated by the lack of sincerity, then the dominant political game on the true purpose of work, and not about doing things right, but to do well in the photo, create the appearance that things are done well. Take precedence individual interests for the purpose of the group, takes advantage of others, establishing rivalries: the war

But what was the lever that made this group becoming a real team?

One of the things that drive to this gr upo to become a team that began was using the feedback technique, as practiced common to relate to all , I know of no better way to restore trust among team members. feedback

A well done is one of the best ways to grow as an individual and as a team.