Interesting Q&A in Computerworld with Andy Boynton, Dean of Boston College’s Carroll School of Management. Lots to consider here, but I’ll pull two items out to entice you to read the longer interview (Boynton says “he” instead of “he or she,” but I don’t think that, however regrettable, invalidates his points):
What kind of characteristics would the team manager require? He has to be a conduit of ideas from the outside. He has to listen extraordinarily well. He has to be supremely self-confident, because he’s got to let those egos and the “I” soar. Nothing dumbs a team down more than everything being “we.” Compromise is the sire of mediocracy. It’s not about compromise; it’s about getting there. And he has to value failure as an opportunity to learn.
What do you think is the biggest challenge in managing a virtuoso team? You need a manager that understands the rules of the game; someone who’s direct, who’s there to get results, not to be polite; someone who won’t let them accept compromises; someone who wants to change the world and will keep that ambitious target in front of them. Leadership is a contact sport. It’s a whole different environment, and if you don’t know that going in, it can unravel.
I wonder what happens when we consider classes, or colleges, or faculty, as “virtuoso teams.” It’s also interesting to think of a teacher as someone who manages a (potentially) virtuoso team. Or perhaps the teacher first convinces the class they can be virtuosos, then manages them. Some good mulling material here.
I think that a successful teacher has some of the charcteristics of a good manager of a virtuoso team, BUT a teacher is not a manager (and also not a coach.) A manager has goals different than a teacher. The manager’s goal is to see the project completed successfully, satisfying an external demand. A teacher’s goal is to see that students learn.