Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

Expand Messages
  • George Dinwiddie
    Marvin ... Pay has little or nothing to do with it. I ve seen strong teams working for free. ... Perhaps you use the word team where I use the word work
    Message 1 of 370 , Aug 2, 2010

      On 8/1/10 9:48 PM, MarvinToll.com wrote:
      > --- George Dinwiddie<lists@...> wrote:
      >> I'd say that high turnover and widely distributed makes it /very/
      >> unlikely the team will self-organize. I think they're highly
      >> unlikely to form a team at all.
      > George... I strongly agree with you that low pay, high turnover and
      > distribution impacts the team.

      Pay has little or nothing to do with it. I've seen strong teams working
      for free.

      > However, I wouldn't take away the 'team' title just because of these
      > challenges. Every project has challenges... the role of 'team' is to
      > self-organize to "maximize the amount of work not done".

      Perhaps you use the word "team" where I use the word "work group." I
      use the word "team" to refer to groups with a common purpose and a high
      degree of collaboration such that they achieve results that exceed the
      sum of their individual efforts.

      Such teams build a shared identity. They have a high degree of trust
      and mutual regard among the members. They have achieved a shared
      vision, and have worked out the differences in assumptions brought by
      each individual. They have made a commitment to each other as to how
      they will work together, and how decisions will be made. They
      understand the process being used (the actual process, not just the
      formal one) and align themselves within that process. They interact
      spontaneously, helping each other, noticing just when a little help
      might be welcome and when it would be an interruption.

      It takes time working together to build such a team. It's difficult to
      build such a team when the individuals are distributed. And every time
      that the makeup of the team changes, it must be rebuilt. It's difficult
      to maintain such a team when there is high turnover.

      Nothing you've said makes me think that you've got such a team.

      > To be truthful, I've found that these constraints sometimes cause
      > self-organization to be imperative. Said another way; a team with
      > low pay, high turnover and distributed is sometimes very very
      > sensitive to 'organization' - they don't want to get caught
      > non-delivering because 'Srini got a new gig' two kilometers south on
      > the same road [ called the "Information Technology Highway"].

      A self-organized team is not the only way to organize things. I would
      suspect that you've got a hierarchy of top-down organization, the
      "enterprise" handing down template solutions to work groups, and work
      groups having a "foreman" (either appointed or self-nominated) who keeps
      things organized as the laborers come and go. And that's fine, if it's
      working for you. It's not an example of self-organized teams, though.

      - George

      * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
      Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
      Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
    • Bill Caputo
      ... The problem is that it isn t just one topic - its at least 2 or 3 and as near as I can tell constitutes the entire traffic of the list right now. Also, I
      Message 370 of 370 , Sep 8, 2010
        On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
        > Seems not reading this topic might suffice ... but to each his own
        > ... I guess.

        The problem is that it isn't just one topic - its at least 2 or 3 and
        as near as I can tell constitutes the entire traffic of the list right
        now. Also, I can't not read things, it's a medical condition or

        > I know Marvin and I am confident that he's trying to do as right a
        > thing as he can.

        I agree with that. The again, the road to hell and all that...

        > I freely grant that I cannot figure out why what we
        > are saying seems to elude him.

        I don't know either. We could ask him, I suppose. But I expect it'll
        just start the whole thing all over again.

        > I suppose we could stop trying, but
        > that seems wrong to me.

        To each his own... I guess ;->

        > I'd say that if the thread ticks you, or
        > anyone, off ... start new ones, respond to other ones, pitch in in
        > other ways.

        Well, as I said, no other threads seem to be going on right now. If I
        can think of something constructive to say, I'll start a new one.
        However, I apologize to the list for venting publicly (and so adding
        to the noise). I'll stick to signal or silence for a while.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.