3 ms·

> My experience is that it takes at least 6 months to reach the “performing” level, and sometimes much more. If staff switch teams more often than that, teams n

by lrossi 6y ago

> My experience is that it takes at least 6 months to reach the “performing” level, and sometimes much more. If staff switch teams more often than that, teams never reach their full potential. On one hand, I agree with this, as I have been moved quickly between projects in the past, when I was more needed elsewhere. It helped to keep things interesting but I would have liked more stability. On the other hand, there is a risk that people get stuck in one place for a while with no mobility, working on something they don’t like. I have seen this as well. Good people weren’t allowed to move, so they quit. As the team was shrinking, the others had to stay. Needless to say that morale was poor. There is a fine line between the two.

inerte 6y ago
The "performing" part isn't about the individuals on the team, but the team as a whole. Every staff changes (adding or removing) slows down the entire team for a period of time. This isn't also about people not moving and denying them career or personal opportunities, just a consequence of team changes. It's a reaction to the idea that once you add more people to a team or an organization, you will see productivity gains almost immediately. It tells you that actually they will take some time, and often, a LOT more time than you initially thought.
natmaka 6y ago
Others criteria are sound from the organization's POV, many (most?) of them pushing it to quickly move people. A classic one is "do no let any project (and therefore at least part of at least one product) become more-or-less the private domain of its team". "Private domain" may be anything from "not really documented in written form because no member of the team needs it", to "this team gained enough power by becoming the only one able to run its project, that it now can strangle the org". Thanks to an adedequate stream of newcomers there is always some knowledge outside of the team (=> high "bus factor"), and more risk and work for any potential warlord.

by lrossi 6y ago

inerte 6y ago

The "performing" part isn't about the individuals on the team, but the team as a whole. Every staff changes (adding or removing) slows down the entire team for a period of time. This isn't also about people not moving and denying them career or personal opportunities, just a consequence of team changes. It's a reaction to the idea that once you add more people to a team or an organization, you will see productivity gains almost immediately. It tells you that actually they will take some time, and often, a LOT more time than you initially thought.

natmaka 6y ago

Others criteria are sound from the organization's POV, many (most?) of them pushing it to quickly move people. A classic one is "do no let any project (and therefore at least part of at least one product) become more-or-less the private domain of its team". "Private domain" may be anything from "not really documented in written form because no member of the team needs it", to "this team gained enough power by becoming the only one able to run its project, that it now can strangle the org". Thanks to an adedequate stream of newcomers there is always some knowledge outside of the team (=> high "bus factor"), and more risk and work for any potential warlord.