Teamwork

RyuJin wrote: a strong team leader....

Not a "my way or the highway" type necessarily, but one skilled in multiple leadership styles and understands the strengths, weaknesses, and personality types of the team members...

Ie: if you know one member is a whiner but skilled in one area make use of their skill and allow them semi autonomy so they get the job done and their whining is kept minimal (or at least kept away from the others)

I couldn't work in a cube farm...and while I can function exceptionally in a team setup I'm even more effective on my own...I prefer complete autonomy...mainly because I can't stand having to depend on others...

I can identify with thzt.

My experience of teams, in school and later on, led me to my current view pyramidal structures are far more efficient... So teams are OK, as long as there's someone else to manage it. Actual management, not a guy who takes the credit, casts the blames and nothing more. that's just as bad as a regular team.

very true, be aware of the informal leaders, they will direct the flow of a team...good and bad!

I'm not much for those hokey motivational posters you find in offices, but I thought this one quote hit the nail on the head:

"True leaders are not those who strive to be first but those who are first to strive and who give their all for the success of the team. True leaders are first to see the need, envision the plan, and empower the team for action. By the strength of the leader's commitment, the power of the team is unleashed."

Managers and leaders are not the same - Some good managers are TERRIBLE leaders, and some great leaders are terrible managers. I'd say the difference is VISION. A leader crafts a vision (often through collaboration with those he leads) with clear eyes that see the strengths and weaknesses of the environment he works in and those he encounters. A manager may perform many of the same functions as a leader, but is not crafting a vision. He acts on behalf of a vision already created.

Whyte Horse wrote: I just wonder what's behind the thinking of selfish people when they try to make a group dynamic all about themselves. I work in a lot of groups like Anonymous, Occupy, Zeitgeist, FOSS, etc and so I see it pop up from time to time. Usually one of the more experienced members of the groups has a big talk about how "inflated egos destroy teamwork" and that may work, it may not. Sometimes people have to be kicked out. Sometimes they throw temper tantrums.

Is there a way to just deal with it up front before it becomes an issue? Or if/when it pops up a simple way to redirect the person? I'm just having a brain-block on this one.

There may not be a simple solution. Although, a broader way of seeing is coming to mind. The Art of War may have usefulness in these situations and in support of each of the movements.

Hmmm... Many of the groups I work with are anarchists by definition and the whole idea of leaders is moot. It can be a very powerful thing but disruptive people can be show-stoppers if they want to be. Competitive behaviour is counter-productive.

I like to think of working with other people as a form of co-creation. What you can achieve is something greater than the sum of its parts. For me, this is the intrinsic motivation that drives people to forego their own wants/needs to achieve something higher. I don't know if making it an "us vs them" thing can really work. If winning is all that matters then people will cheat and sacrifice members of the team if it leads to success.

Understood.

the art and wisdom in the nature of force and counter force
competition not the point

equilateral triangle
purpose at the peak
force and counter force at base angles
art. wisdom. co-creation

Whyte Horse wrote: If winning is all that matters then people will cheat and sacrifice members of the team if it leads to success.

So very true...

How many people don't play to win though? If there's no chance for success what's the point?...success requires sacrifice...if you make the sacrifices and still fail then the sacrifices were in vain and essentially pointless....that's why you must always weigh the options and decide if the gains are worth the sacrifice...if they're not then withdraw and save your pieces for another game...every game of chess has its pawns and power pieces, some players win with few sacrifices some will sacrifice nearly all their pieces...and some adjust their strategy as the game progresses becoming aggressive or passive depending on conditions