My family is an interesting collection of perfectly capable individuals who, when with strangers, can assimilate themselves into the perfect leaders or followers, usually whichever the situation may call for though they each have clear preferences. They are, in fact, quite a collection of personable and successful people, and many of them are even in professions dedicated to helping others or teaching others how to get along and are noted by their communities or companies for such achievements.
So it offers nothing more than a bit of mystery that when they are paired with other family members in groups of 5 or more (this is definitely the number; I've seen them function perfectly well in circumstances even with only one less person), they lose all ability to get anything accomplished in an efficient matter.
The problem is that my family is actually quite often in groups of five or more.
As I am a member of my family, I cannot claim immunity to this strange phenomenon.
If it is a casual get together where some preliminary structure was previously laid down, say a party or bbq, they do fine, mingling, cooking, and interacting with whoever comes their way. But if someone where to say suggest a game, in most cases it is going to be nearly an hour before the game actually "begins" and that is only if everyone knows the rules and how to play beforehand.
While in a party situation you could simply throw your hands up and say, "well I'm out" (Though even this causes issues because if one person then creates a new option, everything will likely take twice as long because now we need to figure out who is playing or who is doing this or if a game is even worth it at all), but in a vacation situation when say 5-7 of us are crammed in a van or hotel room or a random city street, there is no escaping and the options are endless. Don't even get me started on directions. Trying to throw something like a Garmon into the mix is about as good as adding another individual to the van.
With perhaps the exception of directions, the problem is not that everyone is fighting over what it is they want to do, but that everyone keeps trying to concede to someone else. If one person asks, "What do you want to do next?" or "Where should we eat?" it will be followed by a cascade of "I don't care"s, "I don't know"s, and "Is everyone hungry?"s. No one will be able to get the group to commit to anything because everyone is committing to nothing and anything and no one wants to be the one that says "We ARE doing this." The problem is that everything besides "Whatever you want to do" is offered up in the form of a question. Nobody wants to be rude or bossy.
This leads to a conversation that might as well be as good as standing in the bottom of the Tower of Babel and screaming LA LA LA.
This is frustrating to everyone involved at which point we move into the deductive phase. We each try to figure out what it is that will make everyone happy and stop all the noise. This of course requires more questions.
Now, all this questioning (though inefficient) does usually lead to the sharing of information and a few break downs of what the best possible solution could be and the varying outcomes. Now, while we may have all began this mess firmly believing in our "I'm good with whatever" stances, just like when more information is gathered about anything, opinions begin to form, and now, at the end, everyone has decided what they personally will like to do and/or what would be the best solution for the group. Of course, it is rarely ever that everyone comes to the same exact solution.
On a bad day this could result in an argument, but more often it results in a compromise that leaves everyone feeling a little bit slighted. The slighted individuals, not wanting to create anymore fuss but feeling the need to vent will then confide in a select one or two other member(s) how they think it should have gone or what they had really been trying to say. The members who do not feel slighted fall into one of two groups: the ones who feel bad because they got their way the most and feel that someone else is slighted (whether they feel so or not) and the ones who have accepted their fate but regardless are pestered by the guilty parties who feel bad and therefore need to continually question the resigned's happiness.
What is amazing is that, after years of this, a solution has not been devised nor has a "leader" been designated. We just continue to function in this haphazard diplomacy driving ourselves and the occasional in-law a bit batty.
I suppose the issue is that what makes us so adaptable in "unknown" groups is actually the very same thing that makes us so dysfunctional within ourselves.
When entering into a group project with strangers, the instinct to first hold back is preferable or admirable. No one perceives us as pushy or bossy and those who tend to take the lead in all situations are given the opportunity to do so. However, in steps our adaptability. If no one is willing to be a leader or an issue arises or there is a clear disfavor of current leadership, we shift out of follower mode and into leader mode, easily stepping in or fixing the problem.
We adjust to the situation, deciding our actions based on the actions within our group.
But for some reason, we all have the EXACT same process. It happens in the exactly same way. We all try to be the follower, which doesn't ever work if there's no leader. Then, at the same time discover there is no leader or that there is need for discussion and step into that role. By the time we are all trying to be leaders it is, at worst, a disaster and, at best, a negotiation between now separate countries (or units), so to speak, and not a group working together within itself.
Since we're so insistent and adaptable we eventually come to a solution and inevitably have a good time, even if occasionally slighted by compromise.
I have recently discovered that such fiascoes can be avoided by stepping immediately into the leadership role, or convincing another member with a good idea to do so, to say "Let's do this specific thing," or survived by shutting up and remaining a happy follower from beginning to end refusing to adjust to the situation.
I have heard students and friends remark that they fear conflict or that so-in-so always takes charge of everything (whether they are happy about it or not), but that is not the case in my family. There are the rare few of us who genuinely dislike conflict and will hold post in their follower modes longer than others, but their pure distaste for conflict eventually makes them intervene (shouting alright already, everyone do this!) giving them the skills to intervene more calmly with strangers.
My family may bicker or argue or turn into bumbling inefficient fools, but somehow, someway, this seems to make us better people, better able to cope with and integrate with other people and the general society and our professional fields, better able to not fear stating our opinion or causing a bit of necessary scuff. This is not unnecessary patting on the back but due to actual notable accomplishments pretty much across the board. It also makes us incredibly comfortable with each other. Hardly any topic, if any, is off bounds and we know the odd little preferences of all involved.
So, while one part of me desperately wants to fix this wrench in our traveling plans, make us more agreeable, better planned, and more efficient when we spend time together, another, perhaps more logical, side of me says, why bother?
Even if those on the outside looking in don't always understand and even though my family is full of a bunch of crazy individuals each equipped with their own peculiar quirk, I wouldn't trade them in for any other.
And part of me suspects other families aren't really so "normal," merely not as crazily, logically open about it. Perhaps they should be.
So it offers nothing more than a bit of mystery that when they are paired with other family members in groups of 5 or more (this is definitely the number; I've seen them function perfectly well in circumstances even with only one less person), they lose all ability to get anything accomplished in an efficient matter.
The problem is that my family is actually quite often in groups of five or more.
As I am a member of my family, I cannot claim immunity to this strange phenomenon.
If it is a casual get together where some preliminary structure was previously laid down, say a party or bbq, they do fine, mingling, cooking, and interacting with whoever comes their way. But if someone where to say suggest a game, in most cases it is going to be nearly an hour before the game actually "begins" and that is only if everyone knows the rules and how to play beforehand.
While in a party situation you could simply throw your hands up and say, "well I'm out" (Though even this causes issues because if one person then creates a new option, everything will likely take twice as long because now we need to figure out who is playing or who is doing this or if a game is even worth it at all), but in a vacation situation when say 5-7 of us are crammed in a van or hotel room or a random city street, there is no escaping and the options are endless. Don't even get me started on directions. Trying to throw something like a Garmon into the mix is about as good as adding another individual to the van.
With perhaps the exception of directions, the problem is not that everyone is fighting over what it is they want to do, but that everyone keeps trying to concede to someone else. If one person asks, "What do you want to do next?" or "Where should we eat?" it will be followed by a cascade of "I don't care"s, "I don't know"s, and "Is everyone hungry?"s. No one will be able to get the group to commit to anything because everyone is committing to nothing and anything and no one wants to be the one that says "We ARE doing this." The problem is that everything besides "Whatever you want to do" is offered up in the form of a question. Nobody wants to be rude or bossy.
This leads to a conversation that might as well be as good as standing in the bottom of the Tower of Babel and screaming LA LA LA.
This is frustrating to everyone involved at which point we move into the deductive phase. We each try to figure out what it is that will make everyone happy and stop all the noise. This of course requires more questions.
Now, all this questioning (though inefficient) does usually lead to the sharing of information and a few break downs of what the best possible solution could be and the varying outcomes. Now, while we may have all began this mess firmly believing in our "I'm good with whatever" stances, just like when more information is gathered about anything, opinions begin to form, and now, at the end, everyone has decided what they personally will like to do and/or what would be the best solution for the group. Of course, it is rarely ever that everyone comes to the same exact solution.
On a bad day this could result in an argument, but more often it results in a compromise that leaves everyone feeling a little bit slighted. The slighted individuals, not wanting to create anymore fuss but feeling the need to vent will then confide in a select one or two other member(s) how they think it should have gone or what they had really been trying to say. The members who do not feel slighted fall into one of two groups: the ones who feel bad because they got their way the most and feel that someone else is slighted (whether they feel so or not) and the ones who have accepted their fate but regardless are pestered by the guilty parties who feel bad and therefore need to continually question the resigned's happiness.
What is amazing is that, after years of this, a solution has not been devised nor has a "leader" been designated. We just continue to function in this haphazard diplomacy driving ourselves and the occasional in-law a bit batty.
I suppose the issue is that what makes us so adaptable in "unknown" groups is actually the very same thing that makes us so dysfunctional within ourselves.
When entering into a group project with strangers, the instinct to first hold back is preferable or admirable. No one perceives us as pushy or bossy and those who tend to take the lead in all situations are given the opportunity to do so. However, in steps our adaptability. If no one is willing to be a leader or an issue arises or there is a clear disfavor of current leadership, we shift out of follower mode and into leader mode, easily stepping in or fixing the problem.
We adjust to the situation, deciding our actions based on the actions within our group.
But for some reason, we all have the EXACT same process. It happens in the exactly same way. We all try to be the follower, which doesn't ever work if there's no leader. Then, at the same time discover there is no leader or that there is need for discussion and step into that role. By the time we are all trying to be leaders it is, at worst, a disaster and, at best, a negotiation between now separate countries (or units), so to speak, and not a group working together within itself.
Since we're so insistent and adaptable we eventually come to a solution and inevitably have a good time, even if occasionally slighted by compromise.
I have recently discovered that such fiascoes can be avoided by stepping immediately into the leadership role, or convincing another member with a good idea to do so, to say "Let's do this specific thing," or survived by shutting up and remaining a happy follower from beginning to end refusing to adjust to the situation.
I have heard students and friends remark that they fear conflict or that so-in-so always takes charge of everything (whether they are happy about it or not), but that is not the case in my family. There are the rare few of us who genuinely dislike conflict and will hold post in their follower modes longer than others, but their pure distaste for conflict eventually makes them intervene (shouting alright already, everyone do this!) giving them the skills to intervene more calmly with strangers.
My family may bicker or argue or turn into bumbling inefficient fools, but somehow, someway, this seems to make us better people, better able to cope with and integrate with other people and the general society and our professional fields, better able to not fear stating our opinion or causing a bit of necessary scuff. This is not unnecessary patting on the back but due to actual notable accomplishments pretty much across the board. It also makes us incredibly comfortable with each other. Hardly any topic, if any, is off bounds and we know the odd little preferences of all involved.
So, while one part of me desperately wants to fix this wrench in our traveling plans, make us more agreeable, better planned, and more efficient when we spend time together, another, perhaps more logical, side of me says, why bother?
Even if those on the outside looking in don't always understand and even though my family is full of a bunch of crazy individuals each equipped with their own peculiar quirk, I wouldn't trade them in for any other.
And part of me suspects other families aren't really so "normal," merely not as crazily, logically open about it. Perhaps they should be.
Comments
Post a Comment