Mary Lay Assignment

I have no way of knowing how the male collaborators I work with have been nurtured in their family culture. Is it their social construct that keeps them from embracing their softer side when collaborating in a group, only responding in a hierarchy chain of command and not losing control to someone else, especially a female? In all situations a person should be able to act according to how a situation presents itself, this includes group collaboration. Different presentations of individuals in group settings need different strategies to come to a result that is embraced by all parties involved; if this collaboration takes place in a corporation, one would need first to understand the dynamics involved in its company culture, if it is in a classroom all the parties involved are on equal footing since they are all students, regardless of age.
In my electronic discussions while working in this class I can say that I am androgynous as a collaborator, I am able to change as the situation appears to me. My first working experience was with a male student; I found no problem with this, I certainly did not assume difficulty for the assignment because we were of different sex. I started off the communication as I have with all other members of this course and not hearing from my partner as the deadline was getting close my personality changed into masculine. I evolved into Jordan and Surrey’s ‘new model’ involving moving from one perspective to another as a relational situation arose. If I knew that this male was in fact a female, would I have been so cold and have the feeling that I had to take control to survive the completion of the assignment? Perhaps I would have been more understanding and found some common ground and nurtured the relationship in cohesiveness. In another assignment, I worked with a female just the two of us, and I did embrace my feminine self with disclosure and finding a common ground of intimacy, initiating and maintaining the relationship. The assignment went very smoothly and communication timely and cohesive, although perhaps too much cohesiveness because I am not sure if I did my best work; although I put my best foot forward and did work hard I feel, looking back, that too much cohesiveness created groupthink and not enough of the storming phase where ideas are passed back and forth in a group setting.
In the emails, students S, A and W, all female yet all did not exhibit the qualities of nurturing and softness as explained in the Lay article. S and A both embraced their masculine side from the beginning and are able to switch their personality in the situation that arose to them. They both wanted to be in control of the group and how they are to proceed with no one conceding to accepting change to each other’s work. W has kept her feminine side and has tried to nurture the members of the group to work cohesively, she has not embraced her masculine self and is not willing to cause more internal conflict. K is the only male in the group and he has acted in a role as a friend, logical, rational and objective to the group’s needs; he wants the group to work in harmony and accomplish the assignment with an agreeable consensus.