Bob and James are working on a Chemistry project that involves writing a research paper due in 3 weeks. They decided to split the workload, with Bob taking on the task of writing the research paper, while James bearing the responsibility of gathering relevant data. Both of them agreed that James would hand Bob the data at the end of the first week for him to write out the full paper by the end of the second week. Both also agreed to edit the paper together in the last week before turning the paper in.
James scoured intensively for the relevant data and diligently submitted it to Bob by the end of the first week. The problem aroused when Bob did not follow the agreed timeline. Instead, he brushed away James’ constant reminders in the third week that they should be into the editing phase of the project with the reply that he needed more time to think about the structure of the paper instead of writing it out. Tensions grew between the two friends as a result.
The main cause of this conflict can be owed to trust and different working styles of the two friends. James’ orderly and timeliness nature clash with Bob’s eleventh-hour working style. On one hand, James feels worried about Bob not being able to finish the project on time, but reminds himself that Bob has a track record of straight ‘A’s. Bob, on his part, feels that James does not trust him enough to produce quality work by the deadline and is rather irritated with James.
How can the two good friends come to an agreement in this situation?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
My Blog List
Blog Archive
Eugene Sim
- simwl
- 'I believe that dreams should be lived, company enjoyed, and most of all, water saved by drinking beer.'
4 comments:
Hi Eugene,
If Bob had intended to leave things to the eleventh hour, he should not have agreed previously with James that he would produce the first draft by the end of the second week.
He should have managed his time in a better way and in the event that the writing was more tedious than expected, he could have explained the difficulty to James and together they could work something out. Since James was so eager to meet the deadline and the matter was not as easy as they first thought, he would not have minded doing more work than was agreed initially.
James, on the other hand, could have helped out by sketching a skeleton structure of the paper for Bob's reference. This would hasten the process but James would have to explain that he respected Bob's decision in including or excluding any point in the skeleton.
By doing so, Bob would reduce the amount of anxiety James felt and James would ease Bob's burden to an extent. Friction between the both of them would be minimised and the paper could be completed on time.
Just my two cents' worth!
Cheers,
Xueli
Hi Eugene,
This is a classic example of how teammates should understand each other's habits in order to work together effectively.
If James had understood Bob style, he would perhaps be more forgiving and allow Bob to work at his own pace.
However, Bob should have better accountability and finish his tasks on time. This is a classic example of how prioritisation is important in our life. He should prioritise group work tasks over individual tasks so that other teammates will not be left waiting and fretting.
I think James should have a private and serious chat with Bob to let him know his unhappiness so that Bob will better understand his position.
Bob, on the other hand, should let James know of any obstacles that is preventing him from finishing his part on time so that James might be more forgiving.
It is only then that they can work together more harmoniously.
Hey Eugene,
I've dealt with a similar scenario. I was in James position and at that time all I could think of was how irresponsible my team mates were and after trying to reason with them, I just left them to their own devices and hoped. At the end of the day, we did get the job done but there is always tension between us. But, when I think about it now, I could have handled the situation better.
Considering James and Bob, when they were discussing the time line for the project, Bob should have mentioned his working style. He shouldn't have agreed to the deadlines. If he was having problems with the structure of the paper, he should have consulted his team mate for help. It is a team project after all.
James on the other hand, could have gotten together with Bob and could have drafted out an outline, once the relevant data was collected. Being a friend, James may have known Bob's working style,then he should trust him to do his part of the work.
The best way for these friends to sort out their problem is to talk it out.
What you have described is a typical scenario between friends/tutorial mates who have to work together on a project. I would have liked to find out what happened when tensions grew. What were the feelings of Bob and James as a result of the tension/conflict?
By the way, I think you meant “arose” rather than “arouse” in this sentence: “The problem aroused when…". Also, since the rest of the first paragraph is in the past tense, you should change the tense of the first sentence to the past tense too for consistency.
Clearly and concisely written. Good!
Post a Comment