Dear Peter
Interesting your point of view
Thanks for sharing
What matters to top management is that teams deliver value on time and within budgeted cost
It would be interesting for teams to elect one of the members to be their leader for a certain period
Once this predefined period is over, leadership will change.
It would be provided by another team member.
In other words, the leadership function is performed by all team members in a rotating manner.
The 5 principles of teamwork should be respected and safeguarded by all team members (including those who momentarily play the role of leader)
I don't think this a good idea. I have heard of rotating the Scrum Master at each sprint but the SM, at least in theory, is not supposed to be a leader but just a facilitator or coordinator.
What I've seen in practice is that no matter who is the formal leader the de factor leader becomes the person that has most knowledge on the overall solution. Sometimes conflicts may arise if the formal leader does not agree with the de factor leader.
In addition many teams are cross-functional and temporary in nature and as such you can only have leaders per function and no overall leader. In this case you need a facilitator or coordinator to manage the communication between the functional leaders. However this facilitator in my opinion is not a real leader as he does not make decisions but just facilitates the decision making process.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Dec 29, 2019 8:10 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Adrian
Thanks for sharing this opinion.
What invalidates the fact that the formal designation of Scrum Master disappears in the team's operation and that coordination and facilitation is ensured by a team member on a rotating basis?
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dec 28, 2019 4:40 PM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
I don't think this a good idea. I have heard of rotating the Scrum Master at each sprint but the SM, at least in theory, is not supposed to be a leader but just a facilitator or coordinator.
What I've seen in practice is that no matter who is the formal leader the de factor leader becomes the person that has most knowledge on the overall solution. Sometimes conflicts may arise if the formal leader does not agree with the de factor leader.
In addition many teams are cross-functional and temporary in nature and as such you can only have leaders per function and no overall leader. In this case you need a facilitator or coordinator to manage the communication between the functional leaders. However this facilitator in my opinion is not a real leader as he does not make decisions but just facilitates the decision making process.
Dear Adrian
Thanks for sharing this opinion.
What invalidates the fact that the formal designation of Scrum Master disappears in the team's operation and that coordination and facilitation is ensured by a team member on a rotating basis? Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dec 28, 2019 4:14 PM
Replying to Peter Rapin
...
Getting a bit too Utopian for me. I see significant risk to the final deliverable. May encourage team politics, suffer weak leaders, frustration, conflict, inconsistencies in approach will lead to quality issues. In reality the strongest leader will retain the position and the rotating leaders will become leaders in name only. Remember that the ultimate objective is to deliver the product not training in team craftsmanship Although as stated before team training is a key component. I would go as far as to say "Not under my watch!'
Dear Peter
Thanks for your comment
I fully understand what you are telling me
Considers utopia self-managing teams where leadership is shared, is that it? (correct me if I'm wrong) Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Utopia would be a team that doesn't need leadership. Every team members intuitively knows what needs to be done, who is doing it, when its done, what is acceptable, what's their role, what needs to be reported, etc, etc.
Things just happen and they happen in the right way at the right time by the right person for the right reason and no one needs to validate.
Now, in Utopia, I wouldn't have a job, I would be superfluous!
...
2 replies by Adrian Carlogea and Luis Branco
Dec 30, 2019 2:15 PM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Thank you for your opinion
Your job would be:
1. Inspire Trust:
Be the credible leader others choose to follow — one with both character and competence
2. Create Vision:
Clearly defines where your team is going and how they are going to get there.
3. Execute Strategy:
Consistently achieve results with and through others using disciplined processes.
4. Potential Coach:
Unleash the ability of each person on your team to improve performance, solve problems, and grow their careers.
Dec 30, 2019 3:26 PM
Adrian Carlogea
...
I agree, however some teams have project managers/scrum masters/team leads that just coordinate or facilitate the decision making process without making any kind of decision. Usually these people do not make decisions because they lack the required subject matter expertise.
The job of facilitating, coordinating and reporting is important especially in large cross-functional teams but in my opinion this is not true leadership.
For me a leader is someone that makes decisions that others must follow or asks others to come up with solutions and then he decides which is the best solution. Only SMEs can be real leaders but their leadership is limited to their relevant line of work.
People leadership is strictly related to the actual work being performed, nobody is going to follow you as leader if you don't come from the same line of work as your team members.
I think it is always important to make the distinction between the facilitator and the true leader, they are completely different roles in my opinion.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dec 30, 2019 1:27 PM
Replying to Peter Rapin
...
Utopia would be a team that doesn't need leadership. Every team members intuitively knows what needs to be done, who is doing it, when its done, what is acceptable, what's their role, what needs to be reported, etc, etc.
Things just happen and they happen in the right way at the right time by the right person for the right reason and no one needs to validate.
Now, in Utopia, I wouldn't have a job, I would be superfluous!
Dear Peter
Thank you for your opinion
Your job would be:
1. Inspire Trust:
Be the credible leader others choose to follow — one with both character and competence
2. Create Vision:
Clearly defines where your team is going and how they are going to get there.
3. Execute Strategy:
Consistently achieve results with and through others using disciplined processes.
4. Potential Coach:
Unleash the ability of each person on your team to improve performance, solve problems, and grow their careers.
...
1 reply by Peter Rapin
Dec 30, 2019 5:15 PM
Peter Rapin
...
In Utopia the team does all that. I would provide mentoring and be in charge of coffee.Which I suppose has been my function for the last ten years. They just let me think I was in charge. :-)
Utopia would be a team that doesn't need leadership. Every team members intuitively knows what needs to be done, who is doing it, when its done, what is acceptable, what's their role, what needs to be reported, etc, etc.
Things just happen and they happen in the right way at the right time by the right person for the right reason and no one needs to validate.
Now, in Utopia, I wouldn't have a job, I would be superfluous!
I agree, however some teams have project managers/scrum masters/team leads that just coordinate or facilitate the decision making process without making any kind of decision. Usually these people do not make decisions because they lack the required subject matter expertise.
The job of facilitating, coordinating and reporting is important especially in large cross-functional teams but in my opinion this is not true leadership.
For me a leader is someone that makes decisions that others must follow or asks others to come up with solutions and then he decides which is the best solution. Only SMEs can be real leaders but their leadership is limited to their relevant line of work.
People leadership is strictly related to the actual work being performed, nobody is going to follow you as leader if you don't come from the same line of work as your team members.
I think it is always important to make the distinction between the facilitator and the true leader, they are completely different roles in my opinion.
...
2 replies by Luis Branco and Peter Rapin
Dec 30, 2019 5:30 PM
Peter Rapin
...
Adrian; You are thinking of a authoritarian type of leadership here where decisions are made by one individual "...makes decisions that others follow..." This may apply in some strictly technical one-discipline meetings - the chief engineer with all his subordinates.
But in a project management meeting with multiple disciplines comprised of both technical and management personnel I would suggest that the leader is not the technical expert. He should be focused on the project objectives - time, cost, scope - with expertise in project delivery. The structural engineer makes the decision related to the structure, the PM makes sure the solution offered fits the project requirements, that costs (effort), time and quality are in line. That there is collaboration with the other disciplines (steel, pipes and conduits fit together (are coordinated).
Leadership happens at different levels however, leadership theory is applicable throughout.
Dec 31, 2019 11:11 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Adrian Thanks for sharing your opinion We agree A leader is someone who points the way, who inspires others, sets the example
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Dec 30, 2019 2:15 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Thank you for your opinion
Your job would be:
1. Inspire Trust:
Be the credible leader others choose to follow — one with both character and competence
2. Create Vision:
Clearly defines where your team is going and how they are going to get there.
3. Execute Strategy:
Consistently achieve results with and through others using disciplined processes.
4. Potential Coach:
Unleash the ability of each person on your team to improve performance, solve problems, and grow their careers.
In Utopia the team does all that. I would provide mentoring and be in charge of coffee.Which I suppose has been my function for the last ten years. They just let me think I was in charge. :-)
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Dec 31, 2019 11:17 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Thank you for your opinion
Do you chart the way, inspire the team? Give the example? besides offering the coffees :-)
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Dec 30, 2019 3:26 PM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
I agree, however some teams have project managers/scrum masters/team leads that just coordinate or facilitate the decision making process without making any kind of decision. Usually these people do not make decisions because they lack the required subject matter expertise.
The job of facilitating, coordinating and reporting is important especially in large cross-functional teams but in my opinion this is not true leadership.
For me a leader is someone that makes decisions that others must follow or asks others to come up with solutions and then he decides which is the best solution. Only SMEs can be real leaders but their leadership is limited to their relevant line of work.
People leadership is strictly related to the actual work being performed, nobody is going to follow you as leader if you don't come from the same line of work as your team members.
I think it is always important to make the distinction between the facilitator and the true leader, they are completely different roles in my opinion.
Adrian; You are thinking of a authoritarian type of leadership here where decisions are made by one individual "...makes decisions that others follow..." This may apply in some strictly technical one-discipline meetings - the chief engineer with all his subordinates.
But in a project management meeting with multiple disciplines comprised of both technical and management personnel I would suggest that the leader is not the technical expert. He should be focused on the project objectives - time, cost, scope - with expertise in project delivery. The structural engineer makes the decision related to the structure, the PM makes sure the solution offered fits the project requirements, that costs (effort), time and quality are in line. That there is collaboration with the other disciplines (steel, pipes and conduits fit together (are coordinated).
Leadership happens at different levels however, leadership theory is applicable throughout.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Dec 30, 2019 9:16 PM
Adrian Carlogea
...
Thank you for your message Peter. I have some questions regarding your statements.
"[...] The structural engineer makes the decision related to the structure, the PM makes sure the solution offered fits the project requirements, that costs (effort), time and quality are in line. [...]"
How can the PM make sure the solution offered fits the project requirements? The structural engineer understands the requirements much better than anyone else and he knows best how the solution should be. I don't understand how can a PM help in this case, I don't think he can.
I work in IT in a customer facing technical role interacting directly with the project stakeholders. While I can understand the value of project management I will never understand how can a PM ensure the solution fits the requirements when he/she is not a SME. It is impossible. All he can do is to ask the SMEs if the solution fits the requirements or not but if he is not an SME himself he can't argue with the experts.
Maybe I don't really understand the meaning of the word leadership but for me the leader is the one that makes decisions regarding your work.
"I would suggest that the leader is not the technical expert"
I think this would not be fair. The leader is considered superior and usually better paid. Why should the technical experts be less paid and always inferior? Technical experts are the only ones who can make work related decisions and their contribution to the success of the project is critical. Why shouldn't they be the leaders when they are the only ones who can really lead?
Adrian; You are thinking of a authoritarian type of leadership here where decisions are made by one individual "...makes decisions that others follow..." This may apply in some strictly technical one-discipline meetings - the chief engineer with all his subordinates.
But in a project management meeting with multiple disciplines comprised of both technical and management personnel I would suggest that the leader is not the technical expert. He should be focused on the project objectives - time, cost, scope - with expertise in project delivery. The structural engineer makes the decision related to the structure, the PM makes sure the solution offered fits the project requirements, that costs (effort), time and quality are in line. That there is collaboration with the other disciplines (steel, pipes and conduits fit together (are coordinated).
Leadership happens at different levels however, leadership theory is applicable throughout.
Thank you for your message Peter. I have some questions regarding your statements.
"[...] The structural engineer makes the decision related to the structure, the PM makes sure the solution offered fits the project requirements, that costs (effort), time and quality are in line. [...]"
How can the PM make sure the solution offered fits the project requirements? The structural engineer understands the requirements much better than anyone else and he knows best how the solution should be. I don't understand how can a PM help in this case, I don't think he can.
I work in IT in a customer facing technical role interacting directly with the project stakeholders. While I can understand the value of project management I will never understand how can a PM ensure the solution fits the requirements when he/she is not a SME. It is impossible. All he can do is to ask the SMEs if the solution fits the requirements or not but if he is not an SME himself he can't argue with the experts.
Maybe I don't really understand the meaning of the word leadership but for me the leader is the one that makes decisions regarding your work.
"I would suggest that the leader is not the technical expert"
I think this would not be fair. The leader is considered superior and usually better paid. Why should the technical experts be less paid and always inferior? Technical experts are the only ones who can make work related decisions and their contribution to the success of the project is critical. Why shouldn't they be the leaders when they are the only ones who can really lead?
...
1 reply by Peter Rapin
Dec 31, 2019 10:18 AM
Peter Rapin
...
Based on your argument the corporate president, being top dog and most likely highest paid. is the SME of all matters that the company is involved with. This is rarely the case. The leader is the person who brings (leads) the team to the most effective deliverable. In a building project the leader may well be the structural engineer but just as likely will be the architect. or an individual specializing in project delivery (such as myself). In a military context, the most accurate shooter typically is not the leader, the tactician (General) is.
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Dec 30, 2019 9:16 PM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
Thank you for your message Peter. I have some questions regarding your statements.
"[...] The structural engineer makes the decision related to the structure, the PM makes sure the solution offered fits the project requirements, that costs (effort), time and quality are in line. [...]"
How can the PM make sure the solution offered fits the project requirements? The structural engineer understands the requirements much better than anyone else and he knows best how the solution should be. I don't understand how can a PM help in this case, I don't think he can.
I work in IT in a customer facing technical role interacting directly with the project stakeholders. While I can understand the value of project management I will never understand how can a PM ensure the solution fits the requirements when he/she is not a SME. It is impossible. All he can do is to ask the SMEs if the solution fits the requirements or not but if he is not an SME himself he can't argue with the experts.
Maybe I don't really understand the meaning of the word leadership but for me the leader is the one that makes decisions regarding your work.
"I would suggest that the leader is not the technical expert"
I think this would not be fair. The leader is considered superior and usually better paid. Why should the technical experts be less paid and always inferior? Technical experts are the only ones who can make work related decisions and their contribution to the success of the project is critical. Why shouldn't they be the leaders when they are the only ones who can really lead?
Based on your argument the corporate president, being top dog and most likely highest paid. is the SME of all matters that the company is involved with. This is rarely the case. The leader is the person who brings (leads) the team to the most effective deliverable. In a building project the leader may well be the structural engineer but just as likely will be the architect. or an individual specializing in project delivery (such as myself). In a military context, the most accurate shooter typically is not the leader, the tactician (General) is.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Dec 31, 2019 11:31 AM
Adrian Carlogea
...
The CEO/President of the company does not directly lead workers, unless he works for a small company. The CEO may initiate projects but he usually does not get involved in their execution. Even so many CEOs were once SMEs in a relevant line of work of their company before they climbed the corporate ladder.
Unlike the CEO the leader of a work team directly leads workers and is expected to make work related decisions. The best person that can make work related decisions is a SME in a relevant line of work of that project/work activity.
Your suggestion that the SME should not be the leader would be frustrating an demotivating for the SMEs. The SMEs are the ones that make things happen, their knowledge enables the completion of the project, they are delivering the "solution". If the leader is not an SME then still an SME would lead in practice and the formal leader would just track and report the work blindly accepting all the decisions made by the SME.
In the military generals were once junior officers. Junior officers were initially trained as soldiers so a junior infantry officer is a good shooter. Junior officers do fight together with the other soldiers. So the officers, including the generals are SMEs.
