Ability to work in a team?

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of jobs say a requirement is being able to work and operate in a team, and this has often been a criticism of me.

My own feeling is that in spite of my condition, I am able to work in a team if the team accepts my condition and makes allowances for it. I feel I contribute to the team and I don't feel I try to dominate everything.

It is true that perhaps I lack some social skills so they think I'm not listening to them when I am, or I miss cues and go on with detail when they are not interested.

My own preference is to state my ideas on paper (or on a computer, either way I mean written down). I can then discuss the ideas with them. However I find when I have tried to do this they often have not even bothered to read what I have sent them in advance.

I am not sure what this "working in a team" is actually supposed to mean. Does it mean, as I think, that together we create the best product available with all of our ideas, or is it some social thing that I just don't get?

I know I can do the former. Just as I can happily adhere to rules as long as it is clear what the rules are, and that everyone else appears to be adhering to them too (so it's fair, not one rule for me and one rule for everyone else). I don't expect special treatment, just understanding and for them not to be over-sensitive.

It also appears that they seem to get this notion even at the interview stage. Perhaps it is answers to questions they give about my achievements at past companies. Perhaps I should focus on team achievements rather than my own personal ones? But it's partly the way they address the question, plus the purpose of me joining the company. I don't see how relevant it is what the team achieved when only I am interviewing, not the whole team. It's like a footballer going for a trial at a club telling the club what his team had won, rather than it being based on his own personal skills.

That's my view of the "team player" mentality.

I know that's dark, but I look at it this way....

Some jobs require that a project be a collaboration of multiple people working on different parts then assembling it into a finished project. If you can't do your part and communicate well with other people on the project, you are not a team player. Having AS doesn't mean you can't do this.

Other jobs want you to "sacrifice" yourself for the good of the team. That sounds nice on some moral/morale level, but really, should you fall on your sword for another person's benefit? Why should it be YOU that does that and not the first person who suggests it?

If looking out for my best interests makes me a poor team player, then so be it. In the end, I know nobody else is watching out for me.

Your first definition is the type of team I can work in.

As long as it is clearly defined to me what I am supposed to do then I can do it. It doesn't have to be totally distinct roles as there are often brainstorming sessions whereby you and others search for the best solution for a problem. I am quite happy with that too as long as it is clear what the goal is and that everyone is after it, rather than their own egos.

Much of the time, the accusation of me not being a team player feels like just "speculation" to me. They just jump to assumptions that I'd be happiest working on my own, which I am not. Although I may find social situations uncomfortable, that is only because I don't know how I am supposed to interact a lot of the time, and find the concept of small-talk socialising hard. But in a work situation, we are there to discuss the work. I know what the subject is about and I can join in. I think the problem is that when others are speaking I may appear to be disinterested, even though that is not the case. People often accuse me of not listening, although often I find they appear not to be listening to me. I also do not think I over-elaborate on detail, although people are different and some want you to be one way and some want you to be another way and it's hard to know which is "right".

The issue since some years with "team", "ability to work in a team", "team player", etc. pp. seems to be that this phrase is just copy-and-paste. Some people set ideas about "social intelligence" etc. in the world and like all buzz-words this spreads like weed. You need to look exactly into the job-description it is really about teams, or does it means a normal copy-and-paste-case.

What does it means, if it is genuine? In my experience everything between close cooperation, a swift exchange of informations, not playing politics and mutual help. In the first and last case we Aspies are often not that good, because we do ot understand the unspoken signals, in the other cases, especially if a formalised proceeding can be established, it works normally quite well.

After taking a contract that was offered to me thus rejecting my chance in a job I would prefer but has specified a strong emphasis of "team player" I had the agency who was dealing with the second interview for that job on the phone to me trying to persuade me to change my mind.

I explained to him that with Aspergers I would have no chance whatsoever in that job if their emphasis was on team fit. He told me I was the "favourite" to get the job but his colleague who was working on the role before him told me they had doubts about that ability of mine even though the first interview was supposed to be just a technical screening, and then had to almost force them to go back on their word to give me a second chance with the second interview.

I am not sure who to believe but at least I have a job, even if it is not the ideal one. For how long, I don't know.

In my experience, it's often defined as putting your work before your personal life, and basically allowing work to take over same.
Going to forced social events outside of work, coming in on weekends, staying late etc. When I say that, I mean what you will ultimately be judged on when you're actually working, not what they talk about in interviews.

On one of my evaluation forms, they said I needed to "demonstrate [my] commitment to the team." Still not really sure what they meant by that, other than maybe to stop having a life outside of work.

Most jobs do have some minimum teamwork requirements, but to me that just means being pleasant and respectful of each other, doing your share, and being available to help in other ways when needed. I would try to look at it that way when interviewing.

What I think they look for a lot of the time are examples of when you sacrificed personal time, etc, in order to fulfill some type of professional obligation. I believe they also like examples of working with other people to solve a problem or resolving a personal issue with team members.

Understand that I only think this because I was able to work a little bit with recruiting in my current job [although I think after the first couple of times they quit letting me help out] and we had trainings on what to look for in applicants.

I wouldn't doubt it. If they said you aren't putting enough time in when off the clock, they'd get in trouble because that's illegal. If you're salaried, though, I suppose they could require it of you except even a salaried person can't be compelled to do things not expressly detailed in their employment contract.

I'm salaried so I don't have a timeclock [actually I really enjoy this flexibility--this is the first job I've had where I've been salaried.]
There is definitely an expectation that you will come in early and work weekends during busy season. Which I was okay with, but I actually didn't have work to do, so that didn't help matters.

One guy actually spent the night at the office, went home to sleep a few hours in the morning, and was back by lunch. Ended up getting fired anyway--he had been there a few years and wasn't being promoted to senior, so I guess they decided not to keep him on. So much for being a "team player."

In general I think there is often this pressure to do what you're told to do, even if it technically isn't in accordance with your job description, etc. It's definitely much worse these days. Employers will try to get as much as they can out of people, and if you don't do it, you're labelled as a "poor fit" or that you don't support your team.

Bertold Brecht paraphrases this his fragment "Die Geschaefte des Herrn Julius Caesar" ("The business of mister Julius Caesar") when a slave owner says he put slaves together in groups so they compete to each other which one works harder ...

---

I a genuine meaning it just should mean to work together - which is for some profession or situation reasonable to assume.

What I think is that the ability to keep the team's goals in mind and balance fitting in with getting things done is important. If I have the lead, I'm usually acutely concerned with how we're doing against the schedule, where effort seems to be expended without gain, who's unhappy or under employed, stuff like that.

Of course, I usually don't keep the lead for long, but I'm working on that. Reality in measures of performance isn't exactly common in my office neighbourhood.

Actually, when I don't have the lead my concerns aren't a lot different. It's an interesting balance.