Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Should there be a seperate documentation for future developers? Is it a good idea to create a different set of documentation for each group of users, eg. System Administerators, Database Administrators, Programmers, Business Analysts, Clerks, and inyour scenario, teachers, etc.? If we are allowed to decide to write documentation on our own, what should be our priorities?
Boy, did I understand the section on the "finger pointing syndrome." Our company developed and rolled-out a client-server application to a major client, and depended on their IT department for network support (meaning more work for them). At one point the application was unusable for six weeks because of slow performance. Every meeting to address this issue began with IT stating, "It's the application." No troubleshooting, no discussion.
A situation like demands a committed project sponsor with the authority to slice through the bureaucratic finger pointing and say, "I want an action plan tomorrow. If you can't do it, we'll find someone who can."
If your major project does not have a single committed sponsor, expect to see it wither on the vine. (By the way, the problem was caused by someone in the IT department reconfiguring a router without going through change control).
A situation like demands a committed project sponsor with the authority to slice through the bureaucratic finger pointing and say, "I want an action plan tomorrow. If you can't do it, we'll find someone who can."
If your major project does not have a single committed sponsor, expect to see it wither on the vine. (By the way, the problem was caused by someone in the IT department reconfiguring a router without going through change control).
How right you are - but it gets even worse when the various individual sections of IT (or the business) are also 'looking after number one'.
Having worked in (and for) a large number of different organisations (both for IT and as a business user)I can certainly say that teamwork is what it should be about; however it seems to be relatively rare where that sort of attitude and spirit actual exists.
The most successful project I ever worked on got off to a terrible start but the (replacement) project manager had the guts to go back to his own management and obtain agreement to start all over again, laying down some basic rules and agreed lines of communication before the work re-commenced. This resulted in a far more positive approachand created tremendous teamwork within the project, resulting in the implementation of a very successful solution.
I am also a firm believer in post implementation reviews - at which, hopefully, there is no evidence of any 'witch hunting' but in fact the (collective) findings of the review are used to understand what mistakes were made and hence how to ensure that those risks are minimised in any future projects.
Having worked in (and for) a large number of different organisations (both for IT and as a business user)I can certainly say that teamwork is what it should be about; however it seems to be relatively rare where that sort of attitude and spirit actual exists.
The most successful project I ever worked on got off to a terrible start but the (replacement) project manager had the guts to go back to his own management and obtain agreement to start all over again, laying down some basic rules and agreed lines of communication before the work re-commenced. This resulted in a far more positive approachand created tremendous teamwork within the project, resulting in the implementation of a very successful solution.
I am also a firm believer in post implementation reviews - at which, hopefully, there is no evidence of any 'witch hunting' but in fact the (collective) findings of the review are used to understand what mistakes were made and hence how to ensure that those risks are minimised in any future projects.
'Groupthink' and the 'Chaos Period' are well documented concepts in the field of Organizational Behaoviour. I dont see why we must give credit to Lynn on naming these concepts.
She talks about putting goals together under one objective. This isnormally the hardest part for a manager, yet nothing is said about this. And we are to believe each Div. Mngr. readily accepted the implementation of others' priorities along with their own so eaily?
The Challenger tragedy back in the 80s was anexample of Groupthink. This article is the first time i've heard of anyone talking about the merits of this concept. Speaking the same 'language' brings with it the same type of jargon and stereotypes. Is this really what we want?
She talks about putting goals together under one objective. This isnormally the hardest part for a manager, yet nothing is said about this. And we are to believe each Div. Mngr. readily accepted the implementation of others' priorities along with their own so eaily?
The Challenger tragedy back in the 80s was anexample of Groupthink. This article is the first time i've heard of anyone talking about the merits of this concept. Speaking the same 'language' brings with it the same type of jargon and stereotypes. Is this really what we want?
'Groupthink' and the 'Chaos Period' are well documented concepts in the field of Organizational Behaoviour. I dont see why we must give credit to Lynn on naming these concepts.
She talks about putting goals together under one objective. This isnormally the hardest part for a manager, yet nothing is said about this. And we are to believe each Div. Mngr. readily accepted the implementation of others' priorities along with their own so eaily?
The Challenger tragedy back in the 80s was anexample of Groupthink. This article is the first time i've heard of anyone talking about the merits of this concept. Speaking the same 'language' brings with it the same type of jargon and stereotypes. Is this really what we want?
She talks about putting goals together under one objective. This isnormally the hardest part for a manager, yet nothing is said about this. And we are to believe each Div. Mngr. readily accepted the implementation of others' priorities along with their own so eaily?
The Challenger tragedy back in the 80s was anexample of Groupthink. This article is the first time i've heard of anyone talking about the merits of this concept. Speaking the same 'language' brings with it the same type of jargon and stereotypes. Is this really what we want?
I like some of the ideas in the article. Getting a cohesive teams requires thinking alike TO A CERTAIN, _MODERATE_, DEGREE. But using the term "groupthink" is not good. In organizational terms, groupthink actually means cult-like thinking, everyone moving together in lockstep with very little input from outside the group. To me, that describes the bad network admin groups I've had the misfortune to work with. There are good and bad sides to conformity and cohesion and a manager needs to choose the right balance for an effective group.
Having read this article, I have some concerns with the use of the term groupthink.
If team cohesiveness is extremely high, members of the work group voluntarily adapt their behaviours to the group?s norms. If a work group?s critical thinking process is suspended because of high cohesiveness and conformity, groupthink is present.
When groupthink is present, members are much more concerned with solidarity and fellowship than with the quality of decisions. Work groups experiencing groupthink usually exhibit some or all of the symptoms noted below.
1 The illusion of invulnerability. Members conclude that success can be achieved easily even in the face of unfavourable odds.
2 Collective rationalisation. The group believes it cannot fail because members are oblivious to indicators which could spell trouble.
3 Mindguards. Much like celebrities who have bodyguards, groups have selfappointed
guards who sift through and eliminate unwanted negative external information. Thus the group insulates itself from disagreeable or uncomfortable external information.
4 Belief in the inherent morality of the group. The group may conclude wrongly that its decision is moral and upright, and justified on morality
alone.
5 Negative stereotyping of the opposition. The group in question may characterise the opposition as dull, stupid, confused or cowardly.
6 Direct pressure applied to dissenters. If a member disagrees with the group?s course of action, considerable pressure is applied by mindguards to bring him back in line.
7 Selfcensorship.Here group members may doubt the soundness of the group?s decision, but they opt for silence rather than rock the boat by expressing an unpopular idea.
8 Illusion of unanimity. Each member mistakes the silence of other members as their agreement with the group?s course of action.
If team cohesiveness is extremely high, members of the work group voluntarily adapt their behaviours to the group?s norms. If a work group?s critical thinking process is suspended because of high cohesiveness and conformity, groupthink is present.
When groupthink is present, members are much more concerned with solidarity and fellowship than with the quality of decisions. Work groups experiencing groupthink usually exhibit some or all of the symptoms noted below.
1 The illusion of invulnerability. Members conclude that success can be achieved easily even in the face of unfavourable odds.
2 Collective rationalisation. The group believes it cannot fail because members are oblivious to indicators which could spell trouble.
3 Mindguards. Much like celebrities who have bodyguards, groups have selfappointed
guards who sift through and eliminate unwanted negative external information. Thus the group insulates itself from disagreeable or uncomfortable external information.
4 Belief in the inherent morality of the group. The group may conclude wrongly that its decision is moral and upright, and justified on morality
alone.
5 Negative stereotyping of the opposition. The group in question may characterise the opposition as dull, stupid, confused or cowardly.
6 Direct pressure applied to dissenters. If a member disagrees with the group?s course of action, considerable pressure is applied by mindguards to bring him back in line.
7 Selfcensorship.Here group members may doubt the soundness of the group?s decision, but they opt for silence rather than rock the boat by expressing an unpopular idea.
8 Illusion of unanimity. Each member mistakes the silence of other members as their agreement with the group?s course of action.
I was glancing through the discussions on this article and I was also dismayed with the useage of the term group think....
so i appreciate your input.
I am in academia and researching team effectiveness.
enjoyed some "real" perspectives!
so i appreciate your input.
I am in academia and researching team effectiveness.
enjoyed some "real" perspectives!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
