Androgynous Collaboration

I thought The Androgyous Collaborator: The Impact of Gender Studies on Collaboration was a great article; very informative and relevant to collaboration. I collaborate on projects at home, work and school and on several occasions have witnessed the impact of gender on collaboration. As I read the student emails, I began to make judgements as to whether a male or female wrote the email. While I sensed the gender, I was not always correct.

Students traditional gender roles: fulfill or deny. Result of collaboration: difficult or not.

S, A [females]. In my opinion, these two students fulfilled the traditional gender role. They did not appear task oriented in their emails. Although they refer to the project, the emails point out what & who is wrong with their process. While it's okay to state failure, one should be objective and provide some balance by stating successes too. I found S to be emotional, expressive and in search of group harmony. For example, the length of her email demonstrates her inability to focus on the task. She goes on and on about the problems with her group. A appeared emotional, sensitive and a little aggressive (accusing group member of wrong doing). For example, she labels herself as the 'black sheep of the herd.' This indicates her sensitivity. Most men I know wouldn't worry about consequences associated with their disagreement with others. As a result, I feel they had a difficult collaboration with no 'real' goal in mind and zero results accomplished.

W [female], K [male]. In my opinion these two students demonstrated qualities of androgynous collaborators. Upon my first read of their emails, I thought W was a man and K a woman. Boy was I wrong. However, that demonstrates their ability to take on opposite gender roles. W showed listening and relationship skills of a female. On the other hand, demonstrated task oriented, logical, and objective skills of a male. She has the ability to state what the group did well and where they needed work. K initially presented male role of objectivity and task oriented. Then showed emotional and expressive qualities of female collaborators. As a result, I feel they collaborated well. I had a better understanding of the group dynamics and project issues after reading their emails. They seemed balanced and able to see the big picture from both sides of the equation.

Course collaboration in traditional gender roles: fulfill or defy. Am I androgynous collaborator; how so?

After reviewing my emails, I generally defy traditional gender roles and am an androgynous collaborator. Male traits: task oriented, objective, logical, self-confident and competitive; Female traits: helpful, sensitive, intuitive, tactful, listener, maintain relationships (personal & business), aware of others feelings and focused on home/family. I feel my profession has played a huge part in my ability to be an androgynous collaborator. Corporate culture demands professionals to be objective, task oriented and competitive. In order to survive in this community, a woman needs to learn these traits and have a good balance of the two gender roles. In my office, I often see women who take on mostly female roles. They are viewed as nice, sweet and too emotional/expressive in some cases. These individuals don't move far in the company. Females that have a balance are often more successful. On the other hand, I see many men that struggle to adopt female traits. They appear cold and insensitive. People, especially women have trouble connecting with these individuals. It's all very interesting to watch.

Anderson and Burnett Articles: Response

I found both of these articles relative to my profession. Anderson makes valid points regarding collaborative challenges that take place in the workplace. He discusses the challenge of organizing group v. individual responsibilities and offers four guidelines to help teams out. These include: 1) encouraging debate and diverse ideas; 2) efficiency; 3) detailed guidance and 4) project schedules. In my current job, I relate most to guidelines 1 and 4 above. Working for a corporation, I've come to realize the value of a project manager. I have taken part of projects that included individuals from various points of the organization. The project manager is responsible for keeping the project organized, scheduling regular meetings, ensuring that objectives are established and met. There are a lot of variables to juggle and it's not always a pleasant job. One must be very persistent because individuals seldom focus on their own agendas rather than the groups. With regards to encouraging debate and diverse ideas, I agree with Anderson's comments on inviting others to speak and listening with interest and respect. I personally have been in situations where I am afraid to speak up and share my thought. Likewise, I see many others that struggle with this. People are afraid to sound stupid or say the wrong thing. What I've learned is that there really is no wrong answers. Your idea may not be chosen but they are all worth tossing around. Everyone has a different perspective on the subject that makes a valid point or may inspire a new idea.

Burnett on the other hand, does a nice job of distinguishing between the types of conflict that arises out of collaboration. At one point or another, we have probably been part of affective, procedural and substantive conflict. I have seen all three at work but obviously the goal is to have substantive conflict. Substantive conflict allows colleagues to disagree about the subject but in a constructive manner. Generally each party has their view/beliefs but works together to find a middle ground. Substantive conflict happen quite often in corporations and while it is productive in its end result, the problem I find is that it can generate meeting after meeting. I have been to involved in projects where multiple meetings are required in order to work through the disagreements before a solution is reached. Perhaps that is the corporate way. Furthermore, Burnett makes a good point about competitive v. cooperative context. While competition is a motivational force in itself, is usually creates more problems than are necessary because no one wants to lose. The idea of a collaborative context where ideas can be challenged but respected all the same, is much more professional and productive.