Attitude adjustment?

[jaff]

Is familiarity the start of loss of control, or the start of a better working relationship?
This question relates to both volunteer to volunteer interaction and paid staff to volunteer interactions.
At what point does familiararity become more of the problem than the solution?
Also is familiararity a trigger for a drop in professionalism and is that acceptable to a degree, once youve been "Accepted"

Thoughts "O" learned ones (Numbers clearly thats not you )

Cheers Jaff

[bajdas]

Are you treating 'familiarity' has 'trust' ?

For example, I trust you know what you are doing (via experience that I have seen you do it or you have the training). So I delegate authority (not responsability) for you to do that task.

For me this is good, but it still needs that 'checks & balances' to ensure everything is correct.

For example, you trust the Treasurer of any organisation to administer the paperwork regards finances for an organisation. But a independent auditor checks the finance documentation each year and the committee received reports every meeting.

Becomes difficult when something goes wrong (or perception is changed) and the trust is gone.

[Zippy]

Short and simple answer:  people fail, eventually. To fix this, the higher up guys need to *accept* constructive criticism rather than continue the fail...

[Pipster]

The answer Jaff, is "it depends!"

Familiarity with people can mean that people will tell you the truth about your performance / behaviour, without trying to get ahead - as Zippy said, constructive criticism. Or you can give them constructive criticism, which they take In a constructive way, because is came from a mate.

On the other hand, being very familiar with some people may mean they take you for granted, do whatever they want, because you're a mate, and you won't pick on them (or so they think)!

I think being in a team, and being familiar with the others in your team is a good thing...as long as people are prepared to give, and to take appropriate criticism, or discipline, should the circumstances arise, even if the person is a good mate.

Pip

[boredmatrix]

...or tread that fine line between familiarity and empowerment. 

If everyone takes responsibility for running everything, with the leader just ensuring it all gets done - then this works well ...BUT...

- it only takes one person to make it all fall over - and then we're back to square one.  Everyone being on the same page with the common goal is a good start, but as soon as someone wants to do it slightly diffrerent and it's not a 100% consenses - you start struggling!

 A good solid leader however, will ensure that they are all in a position that has enough mutual respect and authority that any one of the empowered team members can raise issues in any forum. 

easy for a small group - more difficult the larger you get!

[chook]

An excellent question!
When we train unit controllers we use a hypothetical situation to explain what one of the concepts of leadership actually means:-
Good mate "borrows" a flood boat to go fishing
Boat is damaged (broken propeller)
What should a good leader do?
Answer is quite simple - mate is put on a formal warning (documented).
Familiarity is a dangerous path to tread if all involved do not understand or fail to appreciate the "lines in the sand".
I remember an incident from my old uniform days when an officer did "cross the line" Years latter the soldier who was also involved used their "special relationship" to get away with anything - this lead to a massive breakdown in respect for this officer & major morale problems!
Even in training as trainers we have to be very careful about how we socialise with the students - again if not managed correctly, NYC students can use any relationship as a potential cause for appeal! At work as managers we are very careful about how "close" we are with our workers, again just in case it all goes pearshaped! However being aloof doesn't work either anyway those are my thoughts - cheers