#WIP 3 of 3

March I’m going to write about my transitions from, at work, being wary of caring a lot, deciding to care a lot, caring too much (and being basically told to stop caring so much), (then in response) deciding not to care, and finally settling back on caring a lot (and if it’s too much they can tell me to leave or I will leave on my own accord.)

MARCH


FEBRUARY

#WIP: haha I hate that hashtag but yes, this is a work in progress.

The biggest thing that I’ve been wondering about in Feb is TEAM CHEMISTRY.  My team at work is making some transitions both in people and in roles, and both because we have to make those changes due to structural changes (people taking other positions, leaders going on leave) but also because of growth desires (me learning to be lead, others taking on more management…)

I felt at the beginning of Jan at my performance review that I was pie in the sky, puppy dog in love with my team and told my “big” boss that I felt fiercely loyal to them (was that phrase? I felt so emotional when I used it. My awesome team was also on the cusp of some big changes, maybe my emotions were foreshadowing that…)

It’s funny now because at the end of Feb I’m still wondering about the importance of chemistry but I also feel let down a bit by my “everyday” boss (read: leader).  The leader of our team…but then I ask, is she?  Am I actually the leader?  How does team chemistry come into play when people and organizations are stressed? Teams change; when do you decide to change a team despite the terrific chemistry? Whose job is it to recognize and bolster the chemistry? Is chemistry a factor of person? Two people interacting? By definition everyone involved? (I don’t truly believe that last one - there are plenty of situations I can think of when a few good chemistry active people can carry a whole team / other participants just kind of float on the waves of good chemistry.) Are the good chemistry valleys actually more emotional if a team has good chemistry? Does good chemistry mean emotional involvement as well as professional care? Partially I would think that good chemistry means you are more resilient to challenges because you can interact with the people involved on a variety of emotional levels. Maybe you do take things more personally (bad) but then are able to resolve them more personally (really good) - which strengthens the interpersonal relationship on a whole and then adds even more to the chemistry.

Do I need a working definition of chemistry? Probably.

I googled “importance of team chemistry” and all the results that come up are for sports, specifically basketball and football. It makes me feel urgent to write about the phenomenon of chemistry in a creative and highly collaborative field like design + build / construction in general.

IMG_1766.jpg

JANUARY

#WIP: haha I hate that hashtag but yes, this is a work in progress.

Roles I play and coming the realization that I’m at a point in my career that I’m “NOT QUITE…” a lot of things. Trying to be okay with that because there’s really no other choice but to embrace and move through it. Being not quite means I’m growing and learning.

About being asked by your boss to focus on certain things vs what you want to focus on - being self aware of what you want out of your career and place of work, understanding that that doesn’t always jive with others expectations of you, wondering then how to push back to “save your self / protect yourself” which is all a larger conversation of what you value.

  • the above is also a conversation of roles played

  • it was learning about what good goals look like (SMART)

  • what was also pivotal to me and directly an example of what I said above.  I realized that my goal setting is so focused on making sure that my life and career look / feel good 6 years from now, 10…25.  There’s no way to know where I’ll be in 25 years.  So the pivotal thought was where do I want to be in 3 years, 2?  Who cares about year 10, I bet it looks great if my year 2 looks great and was great.  A former colleague made me realize that by posting a comment about realizing the opposite, that she doesn’t think often about the far future.  And maybe that’s the trick, because she gets shit done.  

  • I was also charged with being a leader / exhibiting more leadership and it lead me to really begin to think about what that meant. The phrase “lead without authority” came up and the idea that middle managers" are the in the best position to enact change within an organization.

Roles Playing.jpg