For the past 4 months (you read that right), I've been helping official leaders in an organization clarify roles and responsibilities through a series of workshops. Normally, when things are unclear, people try to find quick solutions. Quick fixes. They want a RACI. Because "the reason people are not doing what they should" or "the reason why people don't know" is... "because noone told them".

It’s fascinating reading about the origins of HR. In different parts of the world, different types of movements began happening around 1850-1950. There are movements before them, but they are adjacent.

Ok, buckle up. A very long thread about coaching teams and individuals at the same time, or specifically, why to not do it. When you're coaching a team, you're both working with the environment and with the teams ability to manage themselves.

When agile coaches form a team and join the OKR-hype train to create their own goals it creates a really really wierd dynamic in the organization that often (ime) counteracts collaboration and performance. They want goals and to come together as a team, I get it, But first of all, often they really shouldn't be a team. They should be a community of practice.

Attended a (great) paid webinar by @jboogie and @jeffpatton about all things product, about a year ago and took notes but forgot to post them, so I'm posting them now. Do what you will with them :)
(Notes are mine only) Discovery is about two questions. 1: What's the most important thing to learn next. 2: What's the cheapest way we can learn it.

The direction of the "Psychological safety" movement bothers me in that psychological safety isn't something we directly can influence. (a thread.... apparently...) What I'm going to try to tell you with this thread is that if you want to get better at building psychological safety you have to study psychology, not management.

The 4 biggest discoveries about high performing teams (thread) #productmanagement #agile #management #teams #coachingsystems 1: Team performance has almost nothing to do with its leader. 60% of team success can be attributed to the design and constraints, none of which the team typically has access to. Based on Richard Hackman's work.