Reach a consensus VS argue your case
In the light of Chinese culture, it is better to reach a consensus rather than arguing your cases.
But after the Leadership in actions activity, I realised that an agreement cannot bring us the best outcome at all.
Maybe due to the time limit, I feel that almost in every group talks, we hurry to reach a consensus by voting which seems to be democratic. The topic in our class have no RIGHT or WRONG answers, however, in the real business world, it is unwise to jump into an idea merely depend on democracy.
As a follower, what is the better way to contribute to the team productivity? Nodding you head and say yes keep silent? or challeng others? arguing cases? It seems to be quite difficult to be an effective follower as well. That's why I suggest that one should learn how to be an effective follower before being an effective leader because there is no leadership without followership.
The expected outcome for each team is to find the 'best' solution to a problem, not just simply getting an agreement, which might lead the team on a wrong track. At that point, it is the leader's responsibility to say STOP! Let's....
Looking back on our group talk, I find out that we are always struggling with the time limit. Now usually the team size is 6 or 7 people, each one has 1 minute to say his or her own idea but we are supposed to show our result in 10 ten minutes, which leaves no time to argue or analyse, not even planning at the very beginning!
So I was looking for reference to find out whether there are some relationship between the team size and team performance. Or rather, the root cause is not about the size, it is the way of communicating and processing information?