Empathising with article in Telegraph yesterday

[alanm]

This link was posted yesterday on the "Youreable" board I also go on, about trying to change workplace attitudes to Asperger syndrome. I'm empathising so much, as in my continued search for a good permanent job, constantly surrounded by adverts asking for "good / excellent communication skills", "good team player", "confident telephone manner" etc. Yet there are so many aspects of said adverts that I would also be very good at, if there was sufficient manpower to allocate the communication sides to someone else, in terms of making reasonable adjustments.

[LicklePaulie]

I agree (though would never admit to empathising!) with the sentiments expressed. The problem for so many of us is that work in general in the modern world requires so much multi-skilling as to exclude us from being able to excel at it - in generations past, I get the opinion that people with our abilities were genuinely coveted for being able to focus on the minuteae of a given problem or for carrying out 'mundane' tasks adeptly and continuously without needing 'more' from our work as so many NTs seem to do. Nowadays, virtuallly every job on the market sets "flexibility", "ability to work well in a team" and "excellent communication skills" as very high priorities, effectively ruling out those of us with AS who might be very highly qualified in the core subject of the work...

Edited July 15, 2008 by LicklePaulie

[Canopus]

What I'm interested in knowing is exactly what is meant by good communications skills.

 

I'm led to believe that team player actually means somebody who won't rock the boat and will keep the harmony.

[LicklePaulie]

What I'm interested in knowing is exactly what is meant by good communications skills.

 

Until recently I'd always believed my communication skills were above average (because my writing skills most definitely are!). I am discovering, though, that this does not equate to good communication skills because I often misinterpret what they think they are saying (because they imply so much and state so little) and they often misinterpret what I am saying (because they're always trying to fill in the non-existent hidden messages). Ergo, I am learning very late in the day that actually I am very POOR at communication skills in general...

 

I'm led to believe that team player actually means somebody who won't rock the boat and will keep the harmony.

 

From what I've been led to believe, being a good team player means SOOOOO much more than that! One should be able to integrate, to instinctively know when to motivate and when to destress those around you, to push forward when required and to draw back when required, to lead the team and to follow others in the right direction, all in the process of maximising the output of the team, all without a manual and always remebering that "No one way is the right way"! Is it any wonder we don't get it?

 

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrgh!!!

[alanm]

Being a good team player means being able to integrate, to instinctively know when to motivate and when to destress those around you, to push forward when required and to draw back when required, to lead the team and to follow others in the right direction, all in the process of maximising the output of the team, all without a manual!

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrgh!! indeed. I so agree, these are just some of the very things I have struggled with in my own working life, I cannot lead, motivate others or "push forward" to save my life.

[pearl]

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrgh!! indeed. I so agree, these are just some of the very things I have struggled with in my own working life, I cannot lead, motivate others or "push forward" to save my life.

 

But you shouldn't have to, alan. Point about being a good team member is that good teams have members with different strengths. Check out Belbin for examples. If a team was full of leaders for instance it wouldnt be a good team. You need quiet thoughtful types as well as socialble communicative types. Trouble is people think they know what is meant by a good team player & recruit accordingly, in reality its much more complex than that.

[LicklePaulie]

But you shouldn't have to, alan. Point about being a good team member is that good teams have members with different strengths. Check out Belbin for examples. If a team was full of leaders for instance it wouldnt be a good team. You need quiet thoughtful types as well as socialble communicative types. Trouble is people think they know what is meant by a good team player & recruit accordingly, in reality its much more complex than that.

I totally agree, pearl, but this is the crux of the problem - which of Belbin's roles do the employers wish us to fulfil? In my experience, the requirement of "good team player" is usually allied to another requirement for "flexibility" which implies that we should be able to shift from one role to another as and when appropriate (but when is that?).

[Canopus]

But you shouldn't have to, alan. Point about being a good team member is that good teams have members with different strengths. Check out Belbin for examples. If a team was full of leaders for instance it wouldnt be a good team. You need quiet thoughtful types as well as socialble communicative types.

 

I consider a team to be a toolbox and its members to be the tools. Each tool is designed to perform specific functions, but together, the collection of tools can be used to accomplish many tasks. Some employers like all members of the team to be all rounders rather than having specific skills and expertise. The closest tool to an all rounder is a Swiss Army knife. It can perform many tasks but rarely as good as using separate tools designed specifically for the purpose. A team can certainly contain an all rounder just like a toolbox can contain a Swiss Army knife, but a team comprised of all rounders is like a toolbox filled with nothing but Swiss Army knives.

 

Trouble is people think they know what is meant by a good team player & recruit accordingly, in reality its much more complex than that.

 

That is the problem. The definition of the term varies from organisation to organisation.

[pearl]

I totally agree, pearl, but this is the crux of the problem - which of Belbin's roles do the employers wish us to fulfil? In my experience, the requirement of "good team player" is usually allied to another requirement for "flexibility" which implies that we should be able to shift from one role to another as and when appropriate (but when is that?).

 

I think "completer-finisher" suits many aspies, also "plant" (thats not an insult for those not aquainted, it means an ideas person from what I recall). To expect team members to shift from one role to another when they are not temperamentally suited is insane, but yes I guess it does happen.

[Mumble]

also "plant" (thats not an insult for those not aquainted, it means an ideas person from what I recall).

Is that anything to do with the road-sign that's recently gone up near me - "Caution, heavy plant crossing"?

 

I'm quite good at pretending to be a tree (I knew that casting decision would come in use in the future...) - could I be someone's office plant, or house plant? What's the pay like?

[TheNeil]

I'm quite good at pretending to be a tree (I knew that casting decision would come in use in the future...) - could I be someone's office plant, or house plant? What's the pay like?

Pay isn't too great there are plenty of prospects to grow in the role

[LicklePaulie]

I think "completer-finisher" suits many aspies, also "plant" (thats not an insult for those not aquainted, it means an ideas person from what I recall).

Ah yes, quite possibly (along with "Implementer" and "Monitor-Evaluator" though perhaps most suited to "Specialist") omg - the rubbish I have to teach my students is bleeding into real-life

To expect team members to shift from one role to another when they are not temperamentally suited is insane, but yes I guess it does happen.

And even Belbin argues that one person may take up more than one of these roles at any one time (otherwise no team with less than nine members could ever be described as successful)... which brings us back to the original point

[alanm]

But you shouldn't have to, alan. Point about being a good team member is that good teams have members with different strengths. Check out Belbin for examples. If a team was full of leaders for instance it wouldnt be a good team.

Have just had a look at that Belbin site, hadn't heard of it before, the descriptors are interesting.

 

 

I totally agree, Pearl, but this is the crux of the problem - which of Belbin's roles do the employers wish us to fulfil? In my experience, the requirement of "good team player" is usually allied to another requirement for "flexibility" which implies that we should be able to shift from one role to another as and when appropriate (but when is that?).

Have certainly experienced this in my job hunting, as well as saying they want people to "multitask confidently under pressure."

 

 

I consider a team to be a toolbox and its members to be the tools. Each tool is designed to perform specific functions, but together, the collection of tools can be used to accomplish many tasks. Some employers like all members of the team to be all rounders rather than having specific skills and expertise. The problem is the definition of the term "team player" varies from organisation to organisation.

So agree with this one too. Thanks for all replies.

Edited July 22, 2008 by alanm