An age old battle in improve that I believe resonates well with challenges we experience in the business world is the question of whether a team should have a coach or a director (in which case it should be called a set). There is also the third option of self-directed team, which I will call the commission hereafter. Role – Director: – “mold” to the vision. – Coach: – “catalyst” to show what it is. – Commission: rotation, everyone has his time as coach. Pro – Director: clear vision, an external perspective, results orientation – Coach: Common, improve individual skills, the objective set by the team.

– Commission: Cost effective, everyone has skin in the game. With the – Director: tighter, more static, “done” when the goal achieved. – Coach: No “ambitious.” – Committee: Cementos standstill, the potential for frustration height. Well suited to – Director: quality of production (materials Broadway “), the time of fundamental change. – Coach: always (even in parallel with the director), experimenting with new ideas, time of flux. – Commission: format familiar with the cast experienced. I see many parallels here with the projects I’ve worked.

There are projects in which very detailed and methodology-driven approach is appropriate. In other cases, the calmer, kind of catalyst for the project manager will be more successful. (My experience suggests to consider the self-managed approach only in cases of low complexity, with an experienced team.) Let me talk a little about a term used by the stairs, which I think is fundamental: the vision.