Now into the second half of my Summer Consulting Project, I’ve emerged from the initial shock of re-entering an office environment after about 9 months of enjoying the lifestyle of a grad school

Things that didn’t seem to matter to me before (like the prospect of eating cookies at 3 pm) now seem somewhat privileged and different. While things that previously impressed me (like unlimited laser printing and handfuls of nice pens) don’t excite me as much anymore.

Where I am still ill-adjusted is the degree of debate entitled to employees in my position. While at school, when arguments arose during group meetings, winning the dispute wasn’t the primary objective of classmates. Instead, what mattered most was that we worked in harmony and turned in a finished work product with passing marks. Comparatively, in this job, a passing mark is not the target at all. Here, we have specific definitions for successful goal achievement. And therefore, when disagreements arise, we must not quickly reach to put on our diplomatic peacemaker hats. Instead, to best serve the company, we actually need to hold our ground even if the discussion gets heated (but not over-heated–ow!) Allowing our classmates-now-turned-colleagues to find holes to poke in our seemingly water-tight arguments is the only way to best seek an optimal solution for our company. We need to push our concerns forward lest the project suffer as a consequence of our desire for non-confrontation.

Transitioning from being more agreeable than not, to being more critical than not, is absolutely necessary for the nature of our work in futuristic investments in the environment. Because no one has really “been here before” as investors, we as a team are strongest when we challenge each others’ thinking. I suppose in other organizations and situations, team accord might override sound objection. One example might be when executing an order for the military. But here, to “win” together, we must not always “think” together. Just another observation