Retrospect to the blog post assignment last week, the concept of sharing the marbles was introduced and discussed. It was basically saying that people are more willing to share their possessions with people in the middle of poorer situations when both parties are contributing efforts to the common project or goal. If the distribution of resources is allocated randomly, with no collaboration requiring or existing in the situation, sharing is less likely, if by any chance, happening. Bringing the same topic to a different level, this week, we are going to discuss whether the division of the reward based on the performance will actually improve the performance in the future, or on the contrary, do harm to the relationship among the team members.
When making decisions and considerations in groups, the judgment is no longer based merely on the fairness of reward allocation. In fact, all the rewards and penalties are aiming at improving the performance and production in the future. I was a research assistant in the research lab under social concentration in psychology in my freshman year. As a regular research assistant, our duty was to run researches and studies created by graduate students and make sure participants complete the studies with the right instructions. Each of us had seven or eight hours of shifts weekly, and we supposed to be in the lab on time. There was one research assistant always being late to his shift or even being absent without requesting other research assistant to cover his shift. Our supervisor at that time went really mad at him and gave him several warnings, saying that if he did not get any better by the end of the semester, he would be exempt from the lab position. The supervisor did not offer instructions or solutions to the person besides giving the actual warnings, so that research assistance was reluctant to make a change. He did not realize his performance had such a bad impact on the entire research lab. He did not even understand why the supervisor was so mad. I would say the relationship between him and the supervisor was not productive at all. Those warnings did not meet the goal of rehabilitating.
Perhaps more moderate punishment with effective communication between the employer and employee will work. In the case of mine, if the supervisor was able to listen to the reasons and difficulties that research assistant had and tried to help him out, the research assistant would have been more inclined to make a change.
If I were the person in authority, I would make sure I express my anger accurately without being harsh to my employee. After all, the goal should be to improve the quality of performance of the entire team in the future. I would go talk to the research assistant to see if there’s anything I could help to reduce his reluctance toward his duty and to improve his punctuality attending to the shifts. If neither of the solution works, I would try my best to find an assistant that is more capable of doing the tasks I assign.
When making decisions and considerations in groups, the judgment is no longer based merely on the fairness of reward allocation. In fact, all the rewards and penalties are aiming at improving the performance and production in the future. I was a research assistant in the research lab under social concentration in psychology in my freshman year. As a regular research assistant, our duty was to run researches and studies created by graduate students and make sure participants complete the studies with the right instructions. Each of us had seven or eight hours of shifts weekly, and we supposed to be in the lab on time. There was one research assistant always being late to his shift or even being absent without requesting other research assistant to cover his shift. Our supervisor at that time went really mad at him and gave him several warnings, saying that if he did not get any better by the end of the semester, he would be exempt from the lab position. The supervisor did not offer instructions or solutions to the person besides giving the actual warnings, so that research assistance was reluctant to make a change. He did not realize his performance had such a bad impact on the entire research lab. He did not even understand why the supervisor was so mad. I would say the relationship between him and the supervisor was not productive at all. Those warnings did not meet the goal of rehabilitating.
Perhaps more moderate punishment with effective communication between the employer and employee will work. In the case of mine, if the supervisor was able to listen to the reasons and difficulties that research assistant had and tried to help him out, the research assistant would have been more inclined to make a change.
If I were the person in authority, I would make sure I express my anger accurately without being harsh to my employee. After all, the goal should be to improve the quality of performance of the entire team in the future. I would go talk to the research assistant to see if there’s anything I could help to reduce his reluctance toward his duty and to improve his punctuality attending to the shifts. If neither of the solution works, I would try my best to find an assistant that is more capable of doing the tasks I assign.
I thought your story needed a little more background for it to be completely understandable. Frankly I was surprised to hear that a first year students would already be involved in a research project. Were the other research assistants also first year students? Also, did you receive training on how to conduct the research sessions? And was there a written protocol for you to follow? The last part of this that needs some explanation, apparently you had no problem following the practice that was expected of you. Did you think it was difficult to figure out what you were supposed to do? If not, then you might wonder why this other student had trouble.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote this in a way where the likely reason for the problems was the student's lack of understanding of the situation. But another possible reason, one that it seemed the supervisor believed was the case, is that this student was shirking. So you need to ask: how could you tell the one from the other? Would talking to the student in question reveal that? Do note that if there really was shirking, the student might make excuses rather than own up to the fact. So that issue should be considered as well.
I also want to note that the story is consistent with general immaturity that many first year students demonstrate. So in recruiting students as research assistants, somehow you'd want to rule out those immature students, if possible. Thus your story might have included how you got the job and whether you were aware of other students who tried for it but didn't get it. Do note that even with some screening of the students ahead of time, mistakes can happen or the situation for the student can change. So it wouldn't necessarily be a perfect solution, but I'd think some care would be taken in the selection of research assistants.
On a different level, graduate students might not expect that they'd oversee undergraduate while doing research. So they may have no training in doing that. The gentler approach that you suggest might be preferred, but it probably needs to be taught, rather than assume it will happen on its own.
Hi Professor Arvan,
DeleteFirst year undergrad can participate in research labs as long as we follow the application and interview and got selected. Students usually wait until junior year to participate, however. The student I was talking about was not a freshman at that time. We were trained before helping the graduate students with the studies, and the rules were not that hard to follow. All we had to do was to be at the lab on time, track participants using a signup sheet, inform the participants about the procedures, wait for them complete the study and make sure they complete the tasks correctly, and give them debriefing form afterwards. My interpretation is that the student showed high confidence and inclination of accepting this position and completing the tasks, but those were "fake". Maybe he actually did not want to dedicate his time that much; maybe all he wanted was the title "research assistant" to look good on his resume. To prevent similar situations from happening, I would suggest the lab to include more questions in the applications and interviews, evaluating the compatibility of each student in different aspects.