After being in a competitive arena for years, playing the game in life-death situations, and also being in team atmospheres at work & here at the business school, I can say that there are two types of people I have come across so far. The first types are the ones who prefer to be in a winning team regardless of their contribution to the team. The other types are the ones who go for personal glory and may choose to be in a ‘not-so-strong team’. For example I always preferred to be in a team which won rather than be a champ in a ‘run-of-the mill’ team.

The way I always thought was about getting more chances to display my talent since we will get to play more matches in a given tournament, taking into consideration that we are a good team and will reach up to finals. And more importantly a fifty in the finals of a tournament will make a big difference than a hundred in the league stage. This tactics worked very well for me all through my cricket career. I would never give up meek in any semis or the finals of a tournament. But few people differ in their opinions and options. They would rather be wanting to lead in a given environment rather than being one among few in a team without much of a contribution.

Again this is a “two-way street” situation, if you look at it more in-depth. Psychologies of people are getting into act and scrutiny. It was another matter of fact that I eventually became the captain and the best player of most of the teams which I was a part of in my life. It may also be the fact that I was good enough for the position; it didn’t make a big difference which one I was a part off, sometimes. (Only sometimes)

Even in the b-school I have noticed the same trend happening. The first class is generally the time the partners are chosen for an activity, project, assignment or a presentation. It means to say that, there wouldn’t be much interaction between the students at that given point in time, unless they know each other. This is highly unlikely due to the difference in demographics.

So at this kind of a situation, a student who impresses the class most or the peers most holds the advantage. Hence the impression at the first sight comes into picture. It is common for students to form groups from a similar type of demographic suitability. Say for instance, a Chinese student may prefer to be in a group with a fellow Chinese student, just for the case that they have certainly lot in common. But the whole emphasis of a foreign education is to have a cross-interaction among variable cultures and creeds, then what’s the point in doing the same?!

In this given situation how do you act? If I am asked this question, my strategies would be as fallows. I wouldn’t get into a group of people instantly unless I am familiar with the majority. So till that time I would wait for my turn. The most important factor in a group will be the attitude to think alike. When I say thinking alike, I mean having few common traits, like attitude towards getting a typical grade, for example Distinction. If only you want to do well and the rest are just looking to scrape through, I would recommend you to talk to it out clearly and then decide.

Communication is the most vital and liable tool. If the student is having any difficulty in communicating his thoughts across, I would bid farewell the very instant. Since my dogma lies in the vitality of interpretations and delivery. If he is not able to communicate at the time when there is no pressure then I am sure he won’t be able to do it at the desired moment.

It’s like a mini interview but here you are the interviewer and peer is the candidate. But the process is done without the knowledge of the candidate. This is very vital since 90% of the problems can be solved by having a strong and sensible peer in your team.

The guy who impresses the most on the first day will turn out to be the leader of the group, since he will have the flair for leadership more than the other team mates, simply due to personal charisma. Team mates will start looking up to him. The advantages of being a “Yaayoo” guy can be that he might receive more proposals for teammates, so if he doesn’t choose the right ones he is out to sail at the dark. On the contrary if he chooses the right set of people, then, a lot of expectations will be levied on his shoulders to show the guidance and he better be up to the mark, else there will be lot of chaos inside the group until another leader emerges.

So my initial strategies pertaining to picking a group are displaying an ability to be a leader, such that you attract ‘the best spots out of the parking lot’. Then secondly have a clear chat about the history of the team mates to gain knowledge of his past life. Suppose if we are doing a Marketing project and the “wannabe-mate” has a background is astrophysics, then I would absolutely differ from being the teamie.  

And mostly importantly it also better if you have a solid understanding of the project you are going to be dealing with. With that understanding you can plan the composition of the team and amass the students as such.

Now I know what question you are thinking about asking me. Should a group have a leader? Personally, burning the theories on leadership, I would say that we need Leaders. I will come out with another post concerning that issue.

But as far as now is concerned think which type are you?