The earliest team in an organization I can remember was being on was yearbook in eighth grade. For some reason every year my school let the eighth graders sign up to help with yearbook. It was always very popular because I went to a small private school, so the only extra circulars were the different sports teams and yearbook. How this worked was there was one woman who worked on the yearbook every year who was hired by the school, and she gave the final approval before sending it along. Beneath her were about two or three moms of the kids that were on yearbook who were mostly there to keep us in line. Then there were the eighth graders who would then all sign up to work on one team that was in charge of an aspect of the yearbook. This structure reminds me the most of the simple hierarchy. Simple hierarchy is when there is a middle manager, in this case the woman the school hired, who reports to the boss, in this case the school, and in turn supervises and communicates with the others, the volunteer moms who then oversaw the kids.
Overall the teams seemed not to be very successful. We all did work and everything got done, but I feel like it would have been more productive and efficient if just the parents who volunteered did it all. I think it went wrong in the very beginning when the teams formed. I was sick when the teams were formed so my two friends who were also doing yearbook somehow decided on a team with enough spots and put my name down for me. When I did come next time I could see how all the team were basically the cliques that were in my grade. And while it makes sense that all the more techy guys ended up on the tech team and all the guys who played sports ended up on the sport team photo section team with other teams it was easy it tell that they didn’t care what they were doing as long as they were with their friends. I only remember going the computer lab to work on our section once and there was more goofing off and talking than actually doing what we were supposed to. I think the moms and the woman must have had to go through every team’s work and finish up and fix everything for us.
A more successful team I was on was this summer at the day camp I worked at. There were two groups the counselors could be assigned to and those were Arlington Adventure, which were the fourth and fifth graders, and Sunny Meadows, who were the first through third graders. Now there were new sessions every two weeks so if you wanted you could switch off on which team you were in, but I stayed with Sunny Meadows for all of the sessions. For the most part we mostly kept the groups separated except at the pool, or if we combined the two groups to play a big game. We did have site directors but for the most part they were more hands off and the teams were very independent.
This team had the structure of an All Channel Network. Every counselor was in constant communication with each other because you had to be flexible to work with kids and you couldn’t just branch out and start a new game on your own. There was always a constant stream of communication and information we would all be sharing. At the pool it was always asking each other to watch this spot while I go check on something, or in the morning when counselors who made the schedule for the day told you what games your team is playing and who is explaining each game to the kids, or which kids are in the bathroom so if they decide to do a head count their numbers wouldn’t be off, and even during drop-off or pick-up; if you recognized a parent or a kid you would tell the counselor who had them to make it easier for everyone. Overall I think that the All Channel Network was what allowed our team to be successful and stay ahead of game most days.
In the second example, was there any hierarchy at all among the counselors? When I went to sleep away camp, for example, there were a couple of counselors per bunk, but there was only one group leaders for all the bunks in the group. The group leader might have a style to encourage participation, but ultimately the group leader had more responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIn a similar vein, you said the counselors could switch groups, but something must have been done so each group had a sufficient number of counselors. So, it seems to me, you need to distinguish more between the ongoing day to day stuff, which may have been in an all channel network, from the planning/organization stuff, which probably had some hierarchy to it.
Then, since you mentioned parents in the first example, were they a factor at all in the second? In other words, did the parents ever observe their kids at play. If so, interacting with the parents some might be an implied part of the counselor job. If the parents didn't do that, but perhaps chauffeured their kids to and from camp, were there any issues with managing that?
I may have mentioned in a prior comment that I was counselor one summer. I recall at the meals there were two counselors per table. Did your camp cover lunchtime? We also had many counselors working together during swim, serving as secondary lifeguards. (We held those long poles, just in case a kid needed to grab onto one.) It wold be good in your post to describe the team production in some more detail and then how the communication made it more effective.