There was a story about two people, Jag and Zac, doing a school game project. The duo sets out to make a fighting game with boss fights. After going through the Alpha phrase of the project and getting feedback from the lectures, this was how the conversation between Jag and Zac goes.
Do note that Jag is a D personality while Zac is a C personality.
They were discussing the feedback they received and now they were adapting their plans for Beta according so. Currently, they have three stages and five characters. For the Beta phrase, they had intended to create one more stage and two more characters.
Jag: “Ok. Looking at the feedback, we are doing quite well. However, the common feedback we get is that we lacking character interactions. And we got two weeks till Beta.”
Zac: “I think we can make three characters instead of two. We make the last stage boss as a character and forgo the last stage. Remember, we still have major bugs to fix.”
Jag: “No. We need that last stage. This will look good on our portfolio and shows the game can be done in many scenarios. Three stages are not enough to show character interactions.”
(Jag is being very competitive at this point and his only desire what’s best for the project.)
Zac: “But the major bugs are need time to fix them. And we don’t have time to create one more stage!”
Jag: “Look. You are not looking at the big picture. The bugs can be fixed later. We need to make one more stage and go as what we have planned. Plus, this would make us look good.”
Zac: “We should fix the bugs first before adding new content. Or else, it would lead to more unknown bugs. Don’t you understand that?”
Jag and Zac are now angry at each other for not understanding each other’s point. As the issue drags on, this leads them both to have a rocky relationship for several days. Zac was frustrated with Jag for being persistent about making the last stage. Plus, he still refuses to listen to Zac about the major bugs that needed fixing.
Posts and Commented:
Wow! These names seem rather familiar ;)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it seems to me like the two of them want different things, which is all to common in groups.
What roles do the two involved play in this project? If their skill sets are complimentary (art and code) then they'd better get along fast. If they are each capable of doing what they want, then they'd better get ready to sacrifice one week of sleep to accomplish what they want to achieve.
Ultimately, the two of them should really try to collaborate with each other. If they reach an impasse, then they should look at the feedback receive and go with whatever is best. Or ask a neutral third party.
Looking at personality types, Jag could take the initiative to come up with a sound plan and timetable for Zac. With a good, detailed plan, Zac will probably feel better about following Jag's lead.
Hi Syarief,
ReplyDeleteThe names sound familiar to me as well! After reading the description of events that have played out, I feel that both parties should use a "collaborating" stance. Collaboration is the key in any kind of work involving multiple people after all. Perhaps instead of looking at two sides of the spectrum for solutions, it would be better to find a feasible middle-ground. This would help to please both parties, as well as achieve some of the goals. In addition, as Shaun mentioned, bringing in a third party would help immensely as well. He would be able to give you a neutral assessment of the situation, thus giving you an idea as to how to proceed.
With that said, I hope that Jag and Zac are getting along well, and all the best for their Beta!
Hi Syarief,
ReplyDeleteThese situations do arise in projects very often. I think that for these kind of situations, everyone in the team (not just Jag and Zac) should take a collaborating stance. Everyone in the team should voice out their opinions. Hopefully, if both parties hear the opinions of other members, they might be able to come to a compromise or lay out priorities and do as much as they can until Beta. I believe that the other members being present and voicing out their opinions will help diffuse the situation and lessen the chances of Jag and Zac's relationship turning sour, especially when they are on the same team in an important project.
Hi Syarief,
ReplyDeleteIt's normal to have these conflicting issues that is arising in the group. By not changing both their conflict resolution, it will eventually snowball and lead to a melt down to the whole group. This in turn will cause the whole group to suffer from just one minor conflict.
To answer your question, I believe they should collaborate together. Taking a step back to realize what the other party wants could be a great step ahead in resolving the conflict. By working together, both their worries will be resolved and work out in the end. The group members could also intervene by listing out their opinions and help diffuse this conflict.
Hey Syarief,
ReplyDeletePretty sure i've met these people before but oh well~ I think this kind of conflicts happen pretty frequently while working in teams. However i do not think this is a bad thing as it is good to express different opinions that, is also part of conflict management.
I think both sides(jag and Zac) have good points within their argument. considering Zac is more of a C personality, has be ever given in to Jag before? If he has, that might also be a leading cause of why Jag, a D type doesn't like Zac not following his plans.
I think it is good for Zac to speak to Jag a bit more. However, jag should be willing to sit down and listen more rather than fire back more often than not(which seems a bit like it from this short conversation). Ultimately of cause, they have to collaborate together so it is best if they can use a Collaborating style of conflict management.
Hi Syarief,
ReplyDeleteWow, a problem so close to home! While yes, it is a common and frequent problem in teamwork, it is also a problem that is not so easily sorted out. While both Jag and Zac could take a vote among teammates to figure out which way to go, it might also lead to either of them assuming sides whenever a conflict arises between them in the future. They can also compromise and collaborate, which is better since they will get as much benefits as possible while avoiding possible pitfalls.
I would like to add that the consequences of this conflict also boil down to something I think a lot of our cohort is facing - a decision between the portfolio and the grade. One can argue that the grade is a short-term goal as it only unlocks the door to the next module, while the portfolio unlocks the door to the next job. However, there still needs to be a baseline grade the group has to attain before being able to proceed with the rest of their schoolwork. Since bugs are detrimental to grades, the group should follow Zac in ironing out any bugs that can cause the game to be unplayable before implementing the next stage.
Hi Syarief, would it not be best for both Jag and Zac to come up with a compromise? A few minor bugs present will not be too bad if the game really does require an additional level to show off its potential. I believe their problem can be solved with the careful allocation of tasks and adhering to that schedule.
ReplyDeleteDisagreements are not always bad as I can see that both Jag and Zac are trying to do what is best for their team, except both have become too religious in fighting for their cause that they forget to compromise and work together instead.
With that, I wish them all the best in their project. Do let me know of the outcome!