 |
|
|
|
| It's OK To Play A Game Hard And Tough As Long As You Can Be Civil After It's Over |
| We had a team building consultant at work once who used a game with teams to try to teach people to cooperate. Those who played for individual victory ended up scorned and were told that's the type of people who hamper a workplace. But, I argued many people know the difference between a game and real life. Tough play is fair as long as it's within the game rules. You can play a board game like Risk, or a sport, hard to win and then be a different nicer person when the game ends. Yes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I agree. People can control themselves and most of the time it probably doesn't affect the way
you act. I don't think my behavior has ever changed after playing a violent game. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sports are excellent means of acting out aggressions without negative repercussions.
As long as you can be nice to the opponents after it is over, all hunky-dory ;-) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Depends on the workplace and the job. Most owners and top executives want winners at the top. Strong
personalities who will win at almost any cost.
Below the top they want teamplayers. Less strong, creative personalities who want to cooperate.
Below this level they want sheep. People who do not want to express themselves and will do what
they're told. And few of them will be looking here for the winner material. If you are a winner here
you're probably gonna be looking for another job. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I too will go along with the main point being made here. It is not good to be a poor loser, even
worse to be an ungraceful winner but what trumps both for me is one who doesn't even try and win.
I don't care if you get thrashed at a sport or a game but at least have the good grace to try, or
don't bother being involved in the first place. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'd will address the main title of this position, as I find the additional statement a little
confusing.
Of course you can play hard and be friendly after the contest is over. The contestants and team
members have to know that hard play or good aggressive leadership is not meant to be taken
personally. Also, team members have to understand that a team, in order to work together on a
coordinated strategy and successful tactics, have to gave a strong, possibly aggressive leader.
They may raise their voice during the contest, but only to get things done and not to be "mean". The
people who are doing the scorning may not be use to thinking this way or dealing with people who are
not being ambiguous about winning.
I also respect my opponent when I play a game with them, or for that matter my opponent in a
negotiation or disagreement. Their position is not to be taken personally. It is only in opposition
to your position, be it an argument or a game. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe that is called sportsmanship, is it not? I'm not surprised to hear that a "team building"
consultant came in and preached against competitive nature.
You really must be careful Granache. Your desire to win is bound to bruise someone else's self
esteem along the way - especially if it leads to you earning more or having more opportunity! That
just isn't fair.
I would also submit if there was any management involved (assuming they're worth a c rap) that they
should know the character make up of the team and should be able to accentuate those characteristics
in order to win. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 Aug 2008 21:17
Sign In
