RE: Teams Leaders what are they, and do we need them? - Extension from Re: [xpAdopti

Charlie,

Great discussion BTW, since many of the management issues we face can be
addressed by XP practices. Somewhere in my pile of mags is an article on
XP Management.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie 

[>] snip

> > > [Of course, you can mean what you mean by the word while I'll keep
on
> > > meaning what I mean, but I think it might help us to recognize
that
> > > even though two people may distinguish between "management" and
> > > "leadership"  they may not be making the same distinction.]
> >
> > [>] Uh?? Try to find the HBR Leadership book. Most mainstream book
> > stores have the HBR series. It really is worth the effort, since it
will
> > establish an independent context for leadership and management.
> 
> I'm actually somewhat familiar with it. However, I took you to be
saying
> that your team had no leader because no member was telling the others
> what to do. I appear to have misunderstood.

[>] Just the opposite, we have four leaders, who carefully stay out of
each others sand box. When we do overlap, it's usually very congenial
and professional. Only rarely do we have a disagreement that involves
over riding a decision.

> I'm not that happy with the usual distinctions between leadership and
> management in a lot of the literature and - in spite of your
suggestion -
> I haven't found that citations of literature help me to be understood
> by many people. In this case, I was talking about leadership as it
arises
> in non-management contexts - as among a group of developers. I think
this
> sort of "pure" leadership has a lot to teach us. It can arise out of
the
> situation without any particular authority having been vested in the
> person who is exercising it. In some cases, there is a sort of
permanence
> associated with the leader, but in others different people take the
> lead at different times.

[>] OK I see now. This is not the leadership role I consider. But that's
OK, there are many levels here. We have "leaders" at many levels,
including down at the code generation level.

> I don't think this is unconnected with your situation. Even though the
> members of your team have management responsibilities, it sounds as if
> they function pretty much the same way as any other team.
> 
> > > Not knowing your situation, I'd have to assume that as specific
issues
> > > arise, the appropriate leader - in my meaning of the term - steps
> > forward
> > > to make the team function, without anyone telling them to do so. I
> > believe
> > > the same thing happens quite naturally at lower levels in the
> > organization
> > > but that management often thwarts this behavior by trying to
appoint
> > the
> > > "leaders."
> >
> > [>] Agreed in principle. The problem is who is the designated
leader? If
> > everyone steps forward with conflicting ideas in your world how are
they
> > resolved with the minimum of effort and the maximum of benefit? We
have
> > decision making processes that are very formal when it comes to
spending
> > money, safety (nuclear safety), security, and regulatory compliance.
On
> > the other hand if these domains don't enter into the discussion than
> > local (private) decision processes can be made by a local "leader."\
> 
> I wouldn't suggest that we simply assume that a leader will arise.
It's
> management's job to watch to see that goals are being met. My point is
> that leaders cannot really be designated, only recognized. Sometimes
this
> is done by observation of past behavior in other situations. In that
case,
> we're saying: you were able to assume a leadership role very well in
past
> similar projects, so we are asking you to do it here.

[>] Designating a "leader" that is not capable is leading is another way
to look at it. But the designation - or official recognition - of a
leader above the small self directed group is probably mandatory.
Otherwise how will the organization recognize the leader? 

This is what management is all about BTW.

> In this point, I don't think my world is any different from yours.
Leaders
> get appointed and sometimes are able to lead, sometimes not. What I'd
like
> to see is a world where management took advantage of the leaders who
> arise, when they arise, rather than putting mechanisms in place to
thwart
> the natural process.

[>] Thwarting the process is poor management...

> I suspect we won't be able to agree on this totally. Your description
of
> a leader's role - if I understand it - seems to lean heavily on the
idea
> that the leader knows the way to go and gets people to go that way. I
> see it as resolving a set of - possibly conflicting - forces so that
the
> team ends up /willingly/ going in a common direction. But perhaps I
have
> misunderstood you again...

[>] The "knowing" and "leading" process is much more complex. XP
provides many of the behavioral aspects, but these are based on any good
management and leadership process. Listening, experimenting,
acknowledging contributions, etc. But in the end a leader versus a
manager must make the decision. I don't share the egalitarian approach
that the group can make the hard decisions in many cases. The leader
needs to be there to sort out the decision making process. This idea is
not shared by everyone, but it works here. In the end someone has to
"decide" the outcome when thee is conflict. In the absence of conflict
decisions are easy - it's called managing

> Charlie 

[>]Glen B. Alleman

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FpY02D/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/nhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/