Team leadership reorganization

Originally Posted by EricH

I would also tend to shy away from 4 equal leaders.

ONE PERSON, whether a member of the 4 or not (preferably not), needs to have the go/no-go authority. That person would give a go/no-go based on consensus of the 4 in normal situations, keep the 4 accountable to each other and to the rest of the team, and break any ties in the 4 leaders.

This person will also need to be good at easing disputes by mediation, keeping focus on the goal (and anything else that needs doing on the team like fundraising), and encouraging the team through tough times. Not an easy job. That's why I'm saying the 4 probably shouldn't be equal in the whole leadership of the team.

Think of it this way. There is the President of the United States, and the Cabinet. The Cabinet advises the President on what he could/should do--but the President has to make the choice.

So, this is why I'm suggesting one person to be the go/no-go person (and team captain or whatever you want to call him/her), over the 4. This raises a point of, what if the G/NG person isn't there? Well, they can name a proxy if they aren't there for a decision and know they won't be, or you can go to the 4, with choice going either by seniority on the team or age from oldest to youngest, or you can have whoever's department is most responsible for the decision make the final call. That's something to handle within the team.

That makes sense. I guess we can have the president and cabinet setup next year. Thanks a bunch Eric!

[Jon Stratis]

Our team has co-captains (2-3) and subteam leaders for our 4 subteams (mechanical, electrical, programming, and PR). They don't have to be the same people, and their responsibilities are very different.

Check out the Agile development and Scrum. It's a process designed for short work cycles and rapid development, and can pretty easily be adapted to a FIRST environment. We have 1 week "sprints", with clearly defined design, prototype and construction goals for each week. The captains act as the product owners, reviewing the work regularly (the end of every meeting) and ensuring we're meeting our goals (reevaluating the schedule, if need). Our development teams are small (3-7 students), with that single leader acting as the scrum master. Decisions are made rapidly by the best person for that decision, which more often than not is NOT someone in an official leadership role. After all, you want technical decisions made by those most familiar with the product and its design, not someone whose focus is elsewhere but happens to have a fancy title.


Most importantly here, I would highly recommend making any organizational changes with the full knowledge and consent of the entire team. Have a meeting, raise your concerns, and talk with them about how you want to resolve those issues. Get them on board with the changes, otherwise you'll likely hit some resistance along the way that could make the whole situation unpleasant.

[iyermihir]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Most importantly here, I would highly recommend making any organizational changes with the full knowledge and consent of the entire team. Have a meeting, raise your concerns, and talk with them about how you want to resolve those issues. Get them on board with the changes, otherwise you'll likely hit some resistance along the way that could make the whole situation unpleasant.

This is extremely important. Make sure that all members are aware of any changes that are put into place. Also, explain to them how they can contribute through the new system as it will encourage them to become more involved with the team.

[Aiyash]

I helped restructure our team these past two years and we've been very successful in part of this restructuring.

Our team has a Student CEO/Team President and then two vice presidents: one for mechanical and one for public relations. The VPs oversee their "division" but assign tasks to other people to lead.

I was the student CEO this year, and my role was to simply outline a "blueprint" for team goals. I overlooked the technical aspect and ensured the robot had the necessary things we needed to present to the judges and helped with the pit. I wasn't directly involved with the actual building of the bot though. On the PR side, I overlooked nearly every aspect; Scouting, Chairman's, Community Service, Team Relations. I facilitated many of the projects we worked on on the PR side and created a to-do list for the team.

The Mechanical VP overlooked the robot and was directly involved with the robot building. The PR VP worked on Chairman's and assisted me in handling day-to-day affairs for the team.

This system worked great for our team. We have roughly 40 students, give or take. Every team is different. The way it operates, size, mentor support, etc. all differs. Figure out how your team operated in the past.

My opinion the 4-captain theory: Having more than two student leaders who oversee the majority of the team's operations can be extremely difficult and may cause conflict. Simply put, you're going to have too many spoons in one bowl. Figure our who is best to lead the team and have the entire team vote on two captains. Also, keep in mind that although you four are friends, you are trying to create a team that is able to sustain for years to come. In three years, the four captains may clash like our Congress does, and that isn't good for your team's sustainability.

Sorry for the long post! lol.