–mj

IMO current (mental) crisis is about sitting too long on same brick in same pose, doing same things, specializing so narrow that it’s close to nothing.
One has to be human, to move, improvise and error if it comes that way. Otherwise it’s a dehumanizing 9-to-5 ticking clockwork.

2. I’d rather say “Make the team look good.” That way you avoid questions of who looks better than whom. See comments below about ego.

3. A non-sequitur? I agree with both sentiments, but I don’t see how they’re directly connected. If you question what works because you don’t think it works well enough, that can be a good thing. If you do so because you don’t think it will result in perfection, then the 2nd sentiment comes into play.

4. Absolutely! But again, you must judge which risks to take. Too many, or the wrong ones, and you’re needlessly reckless. Too few, and you’re stuck in a rut. It’s not an “all or nothing” or “either/or” proposition.

IMHO, one secret of innovation (and, in fact of genius) is in seeing things in a different way. This is independent of taking risks, except that you risk being laughed at or derided.

5. That’s a good idea if what is said is profound and what happens is at least slightly momentous. Being changed by trivial utterances and happenings makes you fickle, weak, and easily manipulated.

6. Yes! Communication and flexibility, respectively. But again, too much flexibility results in a failure of leadership. It’s a judgment call. Too much communication bogs you down and means you don’t trust your colleagues to do things right, so you can’t delegate and wind up micromanaging.

7. No caveats on this one — I heartily agree. Be alive and focused!

8. Of course you must analyze, in fact even more so when things are in flux; otherwise you become a victim of events, carried on the tide like flotsam.

When you come to a branch in the road, “keep moving forward” just doesn’t cut it. You must decide, and you’d probably better take some time to do so, to ensure the best possible decision in the circumstances.

And since when is analysis the enemy of creativity? Good analysis begets creativity! It’s over-analysis that paralyzes and feeds into the perfect being the enemy of the good.

9. I agree wholeheartedly. The most productive people I’ve ever known combined craftsmanship at the detail level with a comprehensive understanding of the “big picture”. That’s a powerful combination, but it’s hard to find.

10. Agreed again (barring OCD…). If you’re not well organized, especially mentally, you can’t create, or participate effectively in, a plan with others.

> It emerged naturally on a team full of incredible talent with no egos…

I disagree with this, as I did with the “ego-less programming” fad of years ago. Egos are a fact of human nature, and they support individuality. The trick is to engage your ego in the success of the team, so it serves the common goal. You can still express your individuality, but at a higher level of abstraction, so you don’t insist on “your way” at the detail level where it really doesn’t matter.

One way to summarize that is “what’s right, not who’s right”. A healthy ego can handle being wrong, and can get satisfaction from its contribution to the team when it’s right.

Many of these questions are profound and strike at the heart of human nature, sociology, and politics. Please take my comments in the spirit in which I offer them, as a modest attempt to address these thorny issues.

12. A team that trusts each other is far more productive than one where people don’t.