3 ms·
> The hard work often involves making unpopular decisions, or telling someone "no" when their pet request wouldn't be in the best interests of the team I reali
by kqr 5y ago
> The hard work often involves making unpopular decisions, or telling someone "no" when their pet request wouldn't be in the best interests of the team
I realise I'm just plucking a small point out of a large comment here, but I'd like to drill down into this one a little.
My very limited experience is that teams can generally self-manage this sort of thing. You tell them what you're trying to optimise, under what constraints, and lay down some ground rules for equal and fair participation, and then the team can make their own tough decisions and tell each other when they're not acting in the best interest of the team.
What am I missing?
- jseban 5y ago> My very limited experience is that teams can generally self-manage this sort of thing. My experience is that they can absolutely not self-manage these things, it leads to literally living out lord of the flies in chaotic and dysfunctional teams, that are full of infected conflicts and stalled progress. On the other hand, what exactly is it that gives you the impression that decision making is suddenly not needed? And what makes you believe that a group of people with different goals and interests, should spontaneously just "get along", especially when there's money involved?
- turdnagel 5y agoIt entirely depends on the dynamics of the team.
- NateEag 5y agoI think what you're missing is that most humans are not what Netflix calls "fully-formed adults." If your team consists of mature, kind, focused, skilled, honest, emotionally well-regulated people, then yes, the team can self-organize well. That's very, very unusual, though. I don't think I've personally ever been on a team that consisted solely of such people (and, to be clear, though I strive for those things, I wouldn't say I've got them all nailed down perfectly).