4 ms·
On The Peltzman Effect In Team Work
- porker 13y agoI post this because I strongly disagree with his premise. To me his favoured environment sounds like working in a team without social skills, where ego and pride drive team members. Here's some choice quotes: > In my opionin personal attacks are unproductive, but attacking ideas should be completely necessary in producing an effective team, which would be most capable of producing the highest quality products. Disagreeing with ideas and developing them further yes, but going "Oh Tom's had a good idea, let's shoot it down because it's not mine" -- yeah that's not what the author is saying, but nothing holds it one side of that line or the other. > If a member of a team feels no risk in submitting bad ideas to their team, then they will do so, because good ideas take more time to think through. However if a member of a team feels higher risk associated to submitting bad ideas, like having the idea publicly denounced, then they will think about it more, and produce a higher quality idea. Or keep quiet, because nothing's good enough for the team to do anything but criticize and shoot down, and there's enough aggro in life without generating more on purpose. > In a team of people that are willing to say “No” pride is at risk, and in a team where people are concerned more about their pride than the productivity of the team someone that is willing to say “No” stands out, and risks being called a bad team-mate. (italics mine). I disagree, I do not see the non-italicised section/conclusion following on from the italicised text. I would call someone who is driven by pride and up themselves a bad team-mate, who is not concerned about the overall goal. Saying no from that motivation, which the article is arguing for, is bad.