Project Summary
On Saturday, 30 March 2019, Holland’s Heros (the democratically chosen moniker for our randomly-selected presentation cohort) executed our team project for the assembled class members of Dr. Zachary Green’s LEAD 619 class. Our group consisted of Sean Green, Ryan Jumamil, Jeff Myers, myself (Pete Shaner), Teresa Van Horn, and Novien Yarber. During the presentation, we administered an online version of Holland’s Career Self-Assessment Test, screened two short, self-produced videos discussing the Holland Codes and our own self assessments, and led a discussion relating the Holland Codes to leadership and human development theories. What follows is a brief discussion detailing the creation of the project and my personal reflections on the leadership dynamics of our group.
Project Creation
Immediately following the random selection of members for our group, Sean stepped up as ad hoc communications director, gathering all of our contact information and connecting us with a group email. Early in our email discussions, Teresa brought up the subject of epigenetics as a possible topic and sent out links with further information. Also early on, I offered my filmmaking skillset as an asset to use in crafting our presentation. Shortly thereafter, we had our first online conference call. During that meeting, we decided against epigenetics. Although we all agreed it was a fascinating topic, we were worried about clearly linking it to leadership and human development. We scheduled a second teleconference and agreed to continue the search for possible topics.
Prior to our second conference call, Jeff suggested Emotional Intelligence and Ryan suggested the Holland Codes as possible topics. During the second teleconference, we settled on the Holland Codes and assigned responsibility for specific codes to specific team members (there just happened to be exactly six occupational codes and six team members). We decided on the content of a video piece for our project (more on that in my personal reflections), and we scheduled an in-person meeting to finalize the shape of our presentation. And prior to our in-person meeting, I met individually with three members of the group (Sean, Ryan, and Jeff) to shoot their input for the video.
At the in-person meeting, we finalized the shape of the presentation (i.e. administer test first, break the video into two halves and intersperse with discussions on individual codes, leadership applications, and human development theories). We also assigned “performance” duties (Novien would MC, each member of the group would present their individually-assigned Holland Code, etc). And the final bit of planning involved shooting the video input from the remaining group members (Novien, Teresa, and me). The rest (as they say) is history…
Personal Leadership Reflections
For me, group projects in a classroom setting always involve a fair amount of self-control. In my previous career as a Naval (and subsequently Air Force) officer, stepping up decisively and taking charge was the expected norm (that’s not to say I would make all the decisions or ignore input from others, but just that I was generally tasked with [and responsible for] producing [or facilitating] effective results). But in a classroom setting, quickly producing sufficient (and hopefully effective) results is not always the primary goal. Often in the classroom (and actually in most of life), the journey towards results is equally (if not more) important than the results themselves. Additionally, I’m also aware that as an older, white, outspoken male, my presence can be intimidating (and/or off-putting) if I blunder ahead and blithely follow my self-assertive (and often misguided or situationally inappropriate) instincts.
With all of that in mind, at the beginning of a group project I will generally hang back and see what emerges from the dynamics of the group. If I have any relevant input or assets (such as the ability to make videos), I will offer those for consideration early on, but I won’t unduly advocate for the inclusion of my particular input. If what I offer is right for a given project, then space for it will appear as group dynamics and the project evolve. And often, the shape of the final project (and my involvement in it) is far richer for allowing this evolution to occur than it would have been had I followed my initial “get-it-done-quickly” instincts.
In the case of this project, I knew if we used video we’d have to find a way to include everyone in the group and allow them to express themselves in their own idiosyncratic way. I didn’t want to impose the structure (and possible stifling influence) of a script (and trying to co-write a coherent script with six people would be frustrating and time-consuming). Yet we also had the responsibility of conveying specific, factual information to the class in a concise and interesting manner. The solution came with the realization that there were six members of the group and six Holland codes. By assigning one code to each person, we would all share equally in researching and teaching our assigned code to class. From my perspective as the video curator, all I had to do was interview each person about their assigned code and the various linkages they perceived between those codes and leadership and human development theories. I could then edit their responses together in a way that would be more engaging (and hopefully more entertaining) than a rote PowerPoint presentation of pre-digested bullet points.
In conclusion, I’m pleased both with the final presentation we produced and the group dynamics that allowed for its creation. I feel allowing the class to discover their own Holland Codes at the outset of the presentation gave them valuable context for the rest of the discussion. I also feel that both the subject matter for our project and the mode of presentation grew organically out of a group dynamic that allowed everyone equal say in its creation and demanded an equal amount of effort by each member in order for its successful execution.