patrickwelsh
-
@ I suggest that servant leadership, coaching, therapy, and parenting are all cut from the same cloth. Essentially same toolbox.
about 17 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to ipreuss
-
@ How would it be different from how any leader, or coach, for that matter, encourage any improvement? Equally seriously curious!
about 17 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to ipreuss
-
RT @: is on the boat this weekend! @ [I'm so there]
about 20 hours ago
from TweetDeck
-
@ I still don't get the either/or here. Our teams can have emergent leadership, and a single leader role can encourage that.
about 20 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to ipreuss
-
@ The true emergent leaders I have seen and worked with have worked out well. Not so, the externally-imposed managers-by-fiat.
about 20 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to ipreuss
-
Have proposed a couple of options for time, and one option for place, for summit:
about 20 hours ago
from TweetDeck
-
@ I've also seen QA "team members" gather such spy evidence for their QA manager bosses.
4:44 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to estherderby
-
@ I have seen architect "team-members," for example, act as spies. They gather false evidence of dysfunction for their bosses.
4:43 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
-
@ But I don't think I have articulated well enough what I see missing; I shall go back l8r and re-articulate it.
4:40 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to estherderby
-
@ So I want incentive structure & performance eval occurring inside the team, mainly. Perhaps that much should be collective.
4:40 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to estherderby
-
@ People who don't join the team completely, in their hearts, because they report to someone outside the team, even anti-team.
4:38 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to estherderby
-
@ Those are most problematic. The thing is, I keep seeing architects, or QA folk, or PMs whose allegiance is purely structural.
4:37 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to estherderby
-
@ I've tried to summarize it in my post. Please let me know what I have not made clear (apparently, plenty:
3:32 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to estherderby
-
@ @ @ My contention is that "multi-leadership: is necessary and, in my experience, has not sufficient.
3:27 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
-
@ I do too; I want to nurture leadership among all team members. Probably strongest "self-organizing" force.
3:25 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to estherderby
-
@ Ron, I swear to God, what I really want is both. Is that so wrong? It is always entirely possible that I am smoking crack.
3:11 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to RonJeffries
-
@ Why not? In my experience all management, whether good or bad, fiat or elected, is temporary. Why not be formal bout that too?
3:10 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to RonJeffries
-
I revised the blog post, trying to steer more clear of traditional manager-like, fiat-designation language.
3:10 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
-
@
3:09 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to dhemery
-
@ Agreed. Managers are typically bad, and typically imposed by fiat, and typically terrible leaders. All very bad.
2:55 PM Nov 29th
from TweetDeck
in reply to RonJeffries
|
- Name Patrick Wilson-Welsh
- Location Michigan
- Web http://patrickwil...
- Bio Agile SW Dev coach, learning addict, Ideator, Network Weaver.
|
