Shell cracked
Some of my publications cause readers a lot of questions. And not mine either. Especially those where a person writes about an experience that goes beyond or goes beyond the current profession.
If these questions are grouped and sorted, then the key one sounded like this: what for ? What for bother with all this nonsense, something or someone to measure, compare, organize a team or yourself, some stupid methods to use, any extra stuff to learn, you can just # modify it.
On this subject - what for? - A lot has been said in all sorts of books, articles, videos, etc. I think this information does not inspire you. Personally, this motivational mass did not impress me either, when I myself, a few years ago, asked myself the same question. To me, then, not books, but people, quite specific, came and said: you are a manager, you have a team, you must use advanced methods to turn a team into a team.
')
Yes, yes, of course, of course - I answered - I will definitely use it, right now, I will only add a request. And he himself laughed inside — oh, cool managers, they had been reading a lot of books, they themselves didn’t know how to manage a fig, but they also taught me. By the way, they really didn’t know how to manage, and they didn’t really use any methods from those that they learned.
But I, for some horseradish, at one point began to use. Why? And why aren't you using?
To explain this, you will have to tell a small part of your biography.
I, in the 90s of the last century, lived in the village, and there I began to play computer games. The main thing that distinguished our then collective farm gameplay from today is the absolute lack of a network. We almost always played a mode called single player - single player. The network appeared only at school, in the 10th grade, and we were there hacked into a quake.
An interesting moment - when you play alone, no matter what, you can play as you want, because you always win . You have an infinite number of attempts, no criticism from the outside, and the only result is the pleasure of the process. I don’t see the passing of the game as a result, because it was a nuisance - we must again go over the familiar and look for new discs.
But the main thing was that the result was not required . And because fantasy was inventing various sophisticated ways of passing. Pass Quake using only the ax. Pass NFS, without changing the car, or generally only in reverse. Complete Starcraft for Zerg using only zergling. Etc. The most common - just always choose the most hard difficulty level when you are knocked down with one blow.
Then everything changed - I went to study, and found myself in a hostel. There was a network of 7 computers on a coaxial cable, and, accordingly, a significant proportion of the time was spent in the network rubilov. In the course were then Starcraft Broodwar and Quake III Arena.
The game on the network, with a live person, introduced three very significant moments to the gameplay.
First, such an entity appeared as a result . Someone always wins, and someone loses. You can tell everyone that I play for fun, but it's hard to fool myself - I wanted to win.
Secondly, the goal appeared - to win. Normal, healthy, motivating goal.
Thirdly, there was a time limit . In the game on the network you can not pause, save, boot and try differently.
This game is very similar to the project - goal, result, limitations .
And I began to play hard.
In Starcraft, I almost always lost, so I immediately disliked him. Starcraft is a strategy. There it is necessary to combine the development of infrastructure and obtaining resources with the conduct of hostilities. But the main thing that infuriated me in Starcraft is the uniqueness of the units, i.e. combat units.
There is, for example, a tank. He is good in ranged combat, but in the middle he is carried out at times. He also had a regime when he dug in and became artillery - he beat further and more powerful, but was completely defenseless in the melee.
Or honey. Can heal a soldier during a battle, but she doesn’t know how to fight.
Or zergling. Small, fast, but weak, and can only fight hand to hand. Therefore, zergling is necessary a lot, if it is not rush.
I had played strategy in Starcraft before, but I always had the same tactic: set up as many of the most powerful units as possible , and send the whole crowd to fight, and stand aside and just watch myself. I had a carriage of time, and there were infinitely many attempts.
I played the same way in Starcraft - I tried to build a large homogeneous army and send it to bear the enemy. But they carried me out, even before the army was filled. For example, they organized rush - they quickly built several small zergling and sent to me, while I carefully designed the infrastructure and did not have a single combat unit.
And if I had time to rebuild the army, then it too was carried out. I was building an army of tanks - I was carried out by a modest detachment of someone hand-to-hand. I built an army of melee fighters - I was carried away from afar by tanks, or buried by an invisible lurker.
I was very upset because of my losses, but it never occurred to me that I was doing something wrong. I thought only that I did not quickly create an army, and all efforts should be made to develop speed — that is, everything is done correctly, you just need to speed up .
The key to understanding was a moment that I remember well. On the screen, my next army was rapidly fading away, and a roommate was sitting next to me, looking at my sufferings. When the army ended, I got up from the computer and was going to get out of the game, but the neighbor suggested - can I finish the game? Come on - I said - nothing will come of it.
And he came out. He created a small, in 2 "hands" (= 12 units), a motley army, and went to fight with them. Each of his units did his job.
Tank, he dug in the distance of the enemy base and began to fire at her. Naturally, he sent the punishers, but he ran into an ambush - the usual Marines, but equipped with a medic who did not allow them to die during the battle. Each unit he controlled, as in role-playing games - not the way I sent the whole army with one click on mass suicide. Later, from the same neighbor, I learned that this is called unit control - the ability to personally manage the maximum number of units.
Of course, he won - easily, at ease, with small resources and in a short time.
A similar story was with Quake, which is a shooter. Only there are not unique units, and weapons.
The rocket launcher hits hard and the explosion does damage at a distance, but the rocket does not fly fast, and you can dodge it.
Rail shoots powerfully, is delivered to the recipient instantly, but you need to very accurately aim, and recharges for a long time.
The machine beats weakly, but with a high rate of fire, and most importantly, it has infinite ammunition. Etc.
I, like in Starcraft, wanted a simple life - to take one gun, preferably - more powerful, and with it one to endure all.
It turned out better than in Starcraft - impacted school experience. But the best could not be.
The best was the one who knew how, first, to choose a weapon according to the situation, and secondly, how to combine.
I, having a rocket launcher in my hands, used it both in melee and at a distance. The best - only from an average distance, so as not to fall under the blast wave.
If I had a rail, then I tried to get from it to the enemy, who was a meter away from me, and in active movement. The best enjoyed the rail only at a distance.
The key point for me was the combination of rails and machine, which showed me the very best. Shot from the rails takes almost all the health of the enemy. To finish it off, it’s enough to kick your ass, and I tried to finish off with the same rail. The best one immediately switched to the automaton, from which it is much easier to get there, and only one bullet is needed.
Then, in the dorm, these key moments taught me nothing. Speculatively, I understood the difference between our approaches, but there was resistance inside - I still want it to be in my opinion.
When I began to work as a leader, the approaches remained the same : all people are the same, they should work the same way, I don’t care for their peculiarities, I’m a cool manager, and you should do what I say.
He divided people only by experience and specialization - accounting, programming, salary, etc. Well, according to the 1Snikov classes adopted then - a programmer, consultant, project manager.
As a result, constantly faced with problems: people did not meet my expectations . It upset me and them themselves - I didn’t hide that I was dissatisfied with their behavior.
There were also crises, with tears in their eyes and frank messages sent me to hell. Speculatively, again, I understood that something was wrong here, but the inner nerd said that I was right, and they are all fools. You just have to push it. Or expel those who do not meet my narrow expectations.
But, fortunately, a turning point happened in my life.
As I mentioned above, they came to me and said - and more than once - that I have no team, I don’t understand and don’t know my people, so I won’t be able to organize them effectively. I have - just a team conveyor. And not a team. No synergy. I have 1 + 1 = 2, not 1 + 1 = 11.
At first, I just ignored this information, like everything else I was told. And he continued to sculpt the team as if he was building an army in Starcraft - from the most powerful, homogeneous units .
Who is the most powerful unit among 1snikov? I then believed that a seasoned programmer who can sort out any problem with a debugger.
Everything else I thought was outsider and unnecessary - the ability to communicate with people, understand users, delve into the problems of business and owner, manage their own and others' effectiveness, express their thoughts so that they are understandable, be able to motivate, be able to sell and protect their decisions, be able to throw your decisions in the trash, etc.
The main thing is programming and debugging , as the only key to solving all problems. Such a unit is the best.
Once we had an internal seminar for managers, at which they told about Belbin . And, as usual, we had a business game that had to demonstrate something to someone.
I did not think about the business game at that moment, because I suddenly understood .
The first thing that struck me was my own profile, or rather, the consistency of his description of reality . I had read horoscopes before, I found both similarities and differences, but nobody was so close to understanding me at that time.
What is important - even I understood myself worse. That unit, a seasoned programmer, he was copied from me - it was my projection on the team . If you call things by their own names, then I didn’t want to grow my own copies , not experienced programmers. Well, if you really completely honest, not a copy of me, but my ideas about myself. I tried to make people what I wanted to be myself .
Many write that this behavior is peculiar to parents - to hang their projections on children and unrealized desires in their childhood. I subsequently saw this behavior in 90% of managers. But this is another topic, another time.
So, the Belbin tests showed me the real me. I realized that I myself do not want to be an experienced programmer . More precisely, I did not understand, but I confessed to myself. I do not want to be only an experienced programmer. I want to be ... dofig who. Or, at least, to visit whoever. I will not even say at once, by whom.
The desire to be only an experienced programmer is self-defense, a shell.
First, it is a comfort zone . Understood, and you work. Money well paid. Jobs a lot. Few programmers are few. Well, you know.
Secondly, this is a deliberate restriction of the development zone in order to justify itself to others and others.
Want to become a director? - No, I am an experienced programmer, I find it interesting and good.
Not enough money, can you earn more? - No, I am already a seasoned programmer, more than I do not pay anyone.
Do you want to participate in a cross-functional team for the strategic development of the company? - No, I am an experienced programmer, so I develop your company.
Maybe you will try to learn other programming languages? - No, this is for suckers who think that it is impossible to do everything on 1C, so they are trying to catch up with the setting sun.
Maybe open your business? - No, this is for the orgs, and I am a seasoned programmer.
Etc. Such answers are often found in the comments, especially for some personalities. I sometimes re-read my old comments - one to one. Although 10 years from now and this article will probably seem ridiculous.
But back to the seminar. All these thoughts flashed quickly, while I went for a smoke break. Then there was a business game. My consciousness at that moment had already opened , and drew an analogy between business games and computer games.
I was very happy about this, because it turned out that I already knew all these truths, about the correct use of units and tools , and reached them myself . So, I'm not a hopeless experienced programmer.
Knowledge was already inside me. Only there was no activator - that very moment when you realized that you have everything you need and started to act .
Experience in computer games, and the findings obtained then immediately placed a new knowledge about the role of Belbin, on the shelves.
It became clear that the desire to sit in the shell of a seasoned programmer is the same as the desire to shoot only from the rocket launcher, or to fight with tanks alone. This desire to sit in the shell.
And without an activator in any way. But I do not know how to call it intentionally. I only know how to increase the likelihood of meeting with him - to broaden my horizons. Read books, watch movies and videos, attend conferences, etc. And then the activator itself will come as insight.
Not knowledge will come, but an activator. You already have the knowledge . Both you and I have already read a million articles and books, but don’t do a damn thing. We do not change, we do not change, we do not make the world a better place, at least a meter away. Well, if we # work fine .
Only ask questions - "why?"
Did you find the answer to this question in the text? If yes - congratulations.
If not searched, then you are probably in the shell. The surest sign that you are in a shell is not even the question “Why?”, But the answer . When you are not questions to the authors of the texts, but immediately write the answers.
Because the answer is - after all, the question . And who asked you the question? Nobody, you just wrote the information - no matter what the content. But no questions asked .
So which one, or rather, whose question are you answering when you write something like “crap is all, you need to # work it out ” or “the programmer should only program”? You answer your question. They asked themselves, they answered themselves .
Any information that touches your shell causes you to ask a question - is everything just fine with me ? Am I doing the right thing? Do not miss anything? And what do people do, maybe I can try? And I like the situation at work is the same, why did it work?
Well, you answer yourself - hush, quiet, shut up, I'm fine. Do not touch the shell, normally sit. Don't rock the boat. Is there some asshole who walk around and dare to assert something? Surely they lie, they just want to sell something. Quiet, my darling.
But you can't always convince yourself. The subconscious, though not able to talk, but burns from the inside, with a small smoldering light. The light is rotten, stubborn, especially when one stays, without the incoming flow of information.
It is necessary to get rid of the light. How? Do not develop the same, right? Better to find someone to blame! Togo reptile, because of which the question arose at all! And write him the answer to this question! So write to get out of here! And did not touch the shell.
Here, for example, take the same Belbin. Why take into account differences in people when building a team? I will not answer, because you know why. Not in detail, not in numbers, but you know. You know, why do exercises? Why do you need to quit smoking? The use of team roles is just as obvious.
You do not know the details, because they did not try. And do not try until you change.
Until you begin to read, watch and talk intentionally, with a purpose . For example, to find your personal activator .
A bare, abstract information is complete, but it does not change anything. When you activate, then there is information - this is contextual training, you also need to write about it separately. The quality of information also does not matter, as well as its volume.
Someone, to start, enough to listen to the song. Someone needs to read a series of books. Someone post in FB. Someone report in YouTube to see.
When the activator works, you will understand what you already knew . Not in the form described by the author, but in his own way. They had a unique, personal experience that is clear only to you, associated with this knowledge. And everything will fall into place and turn out.
If these questions are grouped and sorted, then the key one sounded like this: what for ? What for bother with all this nonsense, something or someone to measure, compare, organize a team or yourself, some stupid methods to use, any extra stuff to learn, you can just # modify it.
On this subject - what for? - A lot has been said in all sorts of books, articles, videos, etc. I think this information does not inspire you. Personally, this motivational mass did not impress me either, when I myself, a few years ago, asked myself the same question. To me, then, not books, but people, quite specific, came and said: you are a manager, you have a team, you must use advanced methods to turn a team into a team.
')
Yes, yes, of course, of course - I answered - I will definitely use it, right now, I will only add a request. And he himself laughed inside — oh, cool managers, they had been reading a lot of books, they themselves didn’t know how to manage a fig, but they also taught me. By the way, they really didn’t know how to manage, and they didn’t really use any methods from those that they learned.
But I, for some horseradish, at one point began to use. Why? And why aren't you using?
To explain this, you will have to tell a small part of your biography.
Autobiography
I, in the 90s of the last century, lived in the village, and there I began to play computer games. The main thing that distinguished our then collective farm gameplay from today is the absolute lack of a network. We almost always played a mode called single player - single player. The network appeared only at school, in the 10th grade, and we were there hacked into a quake.
An interesting moment - when you play alone, no matter what, you can play as you want, because you always win . You have an infinite number of attempts, no criticism from the outside, and the only result is the pleasure of the process. I don’t see the passing of the game as a result, because it was a nuisance - we must again go over the familiar and look for new discs.
But the main thing was that the result was not required . And because fantasy was inventing various sophisticated ways of passing. Pass Quake using only the ax. Pass NFS, without changing the car, or generally only in reverse. Complete Starcraft for Zerg using only zergling. Etc. The most common - just always choose the most hard difficulty level when you are knocked down with one blow.
Then everything changed - I went to study, and found myself in a hostel. There was a network of 7 computers on a coaxial cable, and, accordingly, a significant proportion of the time was spent in the network rubilov. In the course were then Starcraft Broodwar and Quake III Arena.
The game on the network, with a live person, introduced three very significant moments to the gameplay.
First, such an entity appeared as a result . Someone always wins, and someone loses. You can tell everyone that I play for fun, but it's hard to fool myself - I wanted to win.
Secondly, the goal appeared - to win. Normal, healthy, motivating goal.
Thirdly, there was a time limit . In the game on the network you can not pause, save, boot and try differently.
This game is very similar to the project - goal, result, limitations .
And I began to play hard.
In Starcraft, I almost always lost, so I immediately disliked him. Starcraft is a strategy. There it is necessary to combine the development of infrastructure and obtaining resources with the conduct of hostilities. But the main thing that infuriated me in Starcraft is the uniqueness of the units, i.e. combat units.
There is, for example, a tank. He is good in ranged combat, but in the middle he is carried out at times. He also had a regime when he dug in and became artillery - he beat further and more powerful, but was completely defenseless in the melee.
Or honey. Can heal a soldier during a battle, but she doesn’t know how to fight.
Or zergling. Small, fast, but weak, and can only fight hand to hand. Therefore, zergling is necessary a lot, if it is not rush.
I had played strategy in Starcraft before, but I always had the same tactic: set up as many of the most powerful units as possible , and send the whole crowd to fight, and stand aside and just watch myself. I had a carriage of time, and there were infinitely many attempts.
I played the same way in Starcraft - I tried to build a large homogeneous army and send it to bear the enemy. But they carried me out, even before the army was filled. For example, they organized rush - they quickly built several small zergling and sent to me, while I carefully designed the infrastructure and did not have a single combat unit.
And if I had time to rebuild the army, then it too was carried out. I was building an army of tanks - I was carried out by a modest detachment of someone hand-to-hand. I built an army of melee fighters - I was carried away from afar by tanks, or buried by an invisible lurker.
I was very upset because of my losses, but it never occurred to me that I was doing something wrong. I thought only that I did not quickly create an army, and all efforts should be made to develop speed — that is, everything is done correctly, you just need to speed up .
The key to understanding was a moment that I remember well. On the screen, my next army was rapidly fading away, and a roommate was sitting next to me, looking at my sufferings. When the army ended, I got up from the computer and was going to get out of the game, but the neighbor suggested - can I finish the game? Come on - I said - nothing will come of it.
And he came out. He created a small, in 2 "hands" (= 12 units), a motley army, and went to fight with them. Each of his units did his job.
Tank, he dug in the distance of the enemy base and began to fire at her. Naturally, he sent the punishers, but he ran into an ambush - the usual Marines, but equipped with a medic who did not allow them to die during the battle. Each unit he controlled, as in role-playing games - not the way I sent the whole army with one click on mass suicide. Later, from the same neighbor, I learned that this is called unit control - the ability to personally manage the maximum number of units.
Of course, he won - easily, at ease, with small resources and in a short time.
A similar story was with Quake, which is a shooter. Only there are not unique units, and weapons.
The rocket launcher hits hard and the explosion does damage at a distance, but the rocket does not fly fast, and you can dodge it.
Rail shoots powerfully, is delivered to the recipient instantly, but you need to very accurately aim, and recharges for a long time.
The machine beats weakly, but with a high rate of fire, and most importantly, it has infinite ammunition. Etc.
I, like in Starcraft, wanted a simple life - to take one gun, preferably - more powerful, and with it one to endure all.
It turned out better than in Starcraft - impacted school experience. But the best could not be.
The best was the one who knew how, first, to choose a weapon according to the situation, and secondly, how to combine.
I, having a rocket launcher in my hands, used it both in melee and at a distance. The best - only from an average distance, so as not to fall under the blast wave.
If I had a rail, then I tried to get from it to the enemy, who was a meter away from me, and in active movement. The best enjoyed the rail only at a distance.
The key point for me was the combination of rails and machine, which showed me the very best. Shot from the rails takes almost all the health of the enemy. To finish it off, it’s enough to kick your ass, and I tried to finish off with the same rail. The best one immediately switched to the automaton, from which it is much easier to get there, and only one bullet is needed.
Then, in the dorm, these key moments taught me nothing. Speculatively, I understood the difference between our approaches, but there was resistance inside - I still want it to be in my opinion.
Life in the shell
When I began to work as a leader, the approaches remained the same : all people are the same, they should work the same way, I don’t care for their peculiarities, I’m a cool manager, and you should do what I say.
He divided people only by experience and specialization - accounting, programming, salary, etc. Well, according to the 1Snikov classes adopted then - a programmer, consultant, project manager.
As a result, constantly faced with problems: people did not meet my expectations . It upset me and them themselves - I didn’t hide that I was dissatisfied with their behavior.
There were also crises, with tears in their eyes and frank messages sent me to hell. Speculatively, again, I understood that something was wrong here, but the inner nerd said that I was right, and they are all fools. You just have to push it. Or expel those who do not meet my narrow expectations.
But, fortunately, a turning point happened in my life.
As I mentioned above, they came to me and said - and more than once - that I have no team, I don’t understand and don’t know my people, so I won’t be able to organize them effectively. I have - just a team conveyor. And not a team. No synergy. I have 1 + 1 = 2, not 1 + 1 = 11.
At first, I just ignored this information, like everything else I was told. And he continued to sculpt the team as if he was building an army in Starcraft - from the most powerful, homogeneous units .
Who is the most powerful unit among 1snikov? I then believed that a seasoned programmer who can sort out any problem with a debugger.
Everything else I thought was outsider and unnecessary - the ability to communicate with people, understand users, delve into the problems of business and owner, manage their own and others' effectiveness, express their thoughts so that they are understandable, be able to motivate, be able to sell and protect their decisions, be able to throw your decisions in the trash, etc.
The main thing is programming and debugging , as the only key to solving all problems. Such a unit is the best.
Shell cracked
Once we had an internal seminar for managers, at which they told about Belbin . And, as usual, we had a business game that had to demonstrate something to someone.
I did not think about the business game at that moment, because I suddenly understood .
The first thing that struck me was my own profile, or rather, the consistency of his description of reality . I had read horoscopes before, I found both similarities and differences, but nobody was so close to understanding me at that time.
What is important - even I understood myself worse. That unit, a seasoned programmer, he was copied from me - it was my projection on the team . If you call things by their own names, then I didn’t want to grow my own copies , not experienced programmers. Well, if you really completely honest, not a copy of me, but my ideas about myself. I tried to make people what I wanted to be myself .
Many write that this behavior is peculiar to parents - to hang their projections on children and unrealized desires in their childhood. I subsequently saw this behavior in 90% of managers. But this is another topic, another time.
So, the Belbin tests showed me the real me. I realized that I myself do not want to be an experienced programmer . More precisely, I did not understand, but I confessed to myself. I do not want to be only an experienced programmer. I want to be ... dofig who. Or, at least, to visit whoever. I will not even say at once, by whom.
The desire to be only an experienced programmer is self-defense, a shell.
First, it is a comfort zone . Understood, and you work. Money well paid. Jobs a lot. Few programmers are few. Well, you know.
Secondly, this is a deliberate restriction of the development zone in order to justify itself to others and others.
Want to become a director? - No, I am an experienced programmer, I find it interesting and good.
Not enough money, can you earn more? - No, I am already a seasoned programmer, more than I do not pay anyone.
Do you want to participate in a cross-functional team for the strategic development of the company? - No, I am an experienced programmer, so I develop your company.
Maybe you will try to learn other programming languages? - No, this is for suckers who think that it is impossible to do everything on 1C, so they are trying to catch up with the setting sun.
Maybe open your business? - No, this is for the orgs, and I am a seasoned programmer.
Etc. Such answers are often found in the comments, especially for some personalities. I sometimes re-read my old comments - one to one. Although 10 years from now and this article will probably seem ridiculous.
But back to the seminar. All these thoughts flashed quickly, while I went for a smoke break. Then there was a business game. My consciousness at that moment had already opened , and drew an analogy between business games and computer games.
I was very happy about this, because it turned out that I already knew all these truths, about the correct use of units and tools , and reached them myself . So, I'm not a hopeless experienced programmer.
Knowledge was already inside me. Only there was no activator - that very moment when you realized that you have everything you need and started to act .
Experience in computer games, and the findings obtained then immediately placed a new knowledge about the role of Belbin, on the shelves.
It became clear that the desire to sit in the shell of a seasoned programmer is the same as the desire to shoot only from the rocket launcher, or to fight with tanks alone. This desire to sit in the shell.
And without an activator in any way. But I do not know how to call it intentionally. I only know how to increase the likelihood of meeting with him - to broaden my horizons. Read books, watch movies and videos, attend conferences, etc. And then the activator itself will come as insight.
Not knowledge will come, but an activator. You already have the knowledge . Both you and I have already read a million articles and books, but don’t do a damn thing. We do not change, we do not change, we do not make the world a better place, at least a meter away. Well, if we # work fine .
Only ask questions - "why?"
So why?
Did you find the answer to this question in the text? If yes - congratulations.
If not searched, then you are probably in the shell. The surest sign that you are in a shell is not even the question “Why?”, But the answer . When you are not questions to the authors of the texts, but immediately write the answers.
Because the answer is - after all, the question . And who asked you the question? Nobody, you just wrote the information - no matter what the content. But no questions asked .
So which one, or rather, whose question are you answering when you write something like “crap is all, you need to # work it out ” or “the programmer should only program”? You answer your question. They asked themselves, they answered themselves .
Any information that touches your shell causes you to ask a question - is everything just fine with me ? Am I doing the right thing? Do not miss anything? And what do people do, maybe I can try? And I like the situation at work is the same, why did it work?
Well, you answer yourself - hush, quiet, shut up, I'm fine. Do not touch the shell, normally sit. Don't rock the boat. Is there some asshole who walk around and dare to assert something? Surely they lie, they just want to sell something. Quiet, my darling.
But you can't always convince yourself. The subconscious, though not able to talk, but burns from the inside, with a small smoldering light. The light is rotten, stubborn, especially when one stays, without the incoming flow of information.
It is necessary to get rid of the light. How? Do not develop the same, right? Better to find someone to blame! Togo reptile, because of which the question arose at all! And write him the answer to this question! So write to get out of here! And did not touch the shell.
Here, for example, take the same Belbin. Why take into account differences in people when building a team? I will not answer, because you know why. Not in detail, not in numbers, but you know. You know, why do exercises? Why do you need to quit smoking? The use of team roles is just as obvious.
You do not know the details, because they did not try. And do not try until you change.
Until you begin to read, watch and talk intentionally, with a purpose . For example, to find your personal activator .
A bare, abstract information is complete, but it does not change anything. When you activate, then there is information - this is contextual training, you also need to write about it separately. The quality of information also does not matter, as well as its volume.
Someone, to start, enough to listen to the song. Someone needs to read a series of books. Someone post in FB. Someone report in YouTube to see.
When the activator works, you will understand what you already knew . Not in the form described by the author, but in his own way. They had a unique, personal experience that is clear only to you, associated with this knowledge. And everything will fall into place and turn out.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/435730/
All Articles