4 ms·

I was hoping there'd be a bit more in the article about the chemistry that really makes this "world class team" so great. So far, it seems a bit random to me.

I was hoping there'd be a bit more in the article about the chemistry that really makes this "world class team" so great. So far, it seems a bit random to me. I've been on teams with a lot of very smart people that have failed miserably, and have been in other teams where the members weren't necessarily the very best but were able to work together and really get the synergy thing going. I wish Steve shared what exactly suddenly made the right teams form and how he knew these were the right world class people (it didn't sound like any of them had major success yet).

TristanKromer 15y ago
I agree. But since Steve is eliminating one of the biggest team factors from his class, I doubt he'd be able to get a good vantage point. Having a shared methodology seems to be necessary, but not sufficient, for a good team. If the team can't agree on how to judge progress towards their goal (whether that's lean startup or a "field of dreams" approach) then it's almost guaranteed to implode after the first big hurdle. Worse still is if they don't have any mechanism for judging progress. Could be dollars raised, lines of code, written, or hypotheses validated...but there has to be something to provide the team with a shared sense of accomplishment as they struggle.