#1 held: we defined the tasks required to solve the problem at hand, and focused in on them.
#2 held: the teams were fairly small and homogenous.
#3 held, mostly. The project lead would occasionally withhold potentially-useful information, which felt like some kind of egocentric power play, but overall communication was very good.
#4 didn’t hold. We were all specialists in various areas. Fortunately, people rarely left mid-project.
Thanks for running your experience by these conditions.
#4 seems like almost everyone in the team was indispensable since they were all specialists, which might not contradict the point of the condition (no one believes they’re less replaceable than their peers)
Comments
#1 held: we defined the tasks required to solve the problem at hand, and focused in on them.
#2 held: the teams were fairly small and homogenous.
#3 held, mostly. The project lead would occasionally withhold potentially-useful information, which felt like some kind of egocentric power play, but overall communication was very good.
#4 didn’t hold. We were all specialists in various areas. Fortunately, people rarely left mid-project.
Thanks for running your experience by these conditions.
#4 seems like almost everyone in the team was indispensable since they were all specialists, which might not contradict the point of the condition (no one believes they’re less replaceable than their peers)