3
Today I want to discuss something that came up. I was helping with a building project, and the people I were working with the thought they could do a build with "unity" and when I said things, wanted to change things, and work around with issues, they got upset and I had complaints made to the owner. When I tried to lead this group, it seemed they didn't want a leader. But looking back, I can see they needed one, and were blinding by the acts of being unified. You need a leader if you plan to do anything. Just imagine trying to make a movie without a director. That's how I felt when I was working on this project. Here are a few reasons you need a leader.
1.To make sure you don't come to many issues: When your group comes across issues you need to be able to get out of them. But why even bother if you could see it coming? With a leader, they can supervise the project, and make sure stupid mistakes don't come into play.
2.To help paint a picture of the finishing project, so you don't scramble trying to do it on the go: When working on a project with people, they need to be able to understand the set final piece. They can't be stuck debating different options throughout the time of the entire project.
3.To keep everyone together and getting along.:A leader needs to see problems between people and fix them. They also need to be able to help the group get along by showing them the issues.
Thanks for reading everyone.
1.To make sure you don't come to many issues: When your group comes across issues you need to be able to get out of them. But why even bother if you could see it coming? With a leader, they can supervise the project, and make sure stupid mistakes don't come into play.
2.To help paint a picture of the finishing project, so you don't scramble trying to do it on the go: When working on a project with people, they need to be able to understand the set final piece. They can't be stuck debating different options throughout the time of the entire project.
3.To keep everyone together and getting along.:A leader needs to see problems between people and fix them. They also need to be able to help the group get along by showing them the issues.
Thanks for reading everyone.
| Tags |
tools/tracking
3562156
6
why-a-build-project-needs-leadership
theprophetjade
ItzOrangey
r3dleaf
Sophisticated_Trashcan
SouperHeroMC
S16LOL
traincrisis
Molitoola
lisabit
Henry04alcalino
Create an account or sign in to comment.
1.To make sure you don't come to many issues: When your group comes across issues you need to be able to get out of them. But why even bother if you could see it coming? With a leader, they can supervise the project, and make sure stupid mistakes don't come into play.
What's stopping everyone from doing this? You're most likely going to run into problems regardless of whether or not you're specifically looking for them before they occur. More people contributing to the direction of a project rather than blindly following orders of a single appointed leader's image means even more eyes looking out for potential issues and improvements, as well as more brains to think of ways to solve the problems when you run into them.
2.To help paint a picture of the finishing project, so you don't scramble trying to do it on the go: When working on a project with people, they need to be able to understand the set final piece. They can't be stuck debating different options throughout the time of the entire project.
This can be avoided while still allowing everyone to contribute to the project by planning ahead of time before starting the project. Regardless, debating options can be healthy for the project. More opinions and ideas available to choose from, learn from, or expand into even better ideas allows a build to develop elements that a single 'leader' hadn't originally thought of.
3.To keep everyone together and getting along.:A leader needs to see problems between people and fix them. They also need to be able to help the group get along by showing them the issues.
A group can still accomplish this without a designated leader. If something comes up that people disagree on, the group can make decisions by majority vote or by collaborating and meeting eachother halfway. There's not an inherent need for a single person to decide who's right and who's wrong in a group.
Not flat out saying you're wrong, but you might want to expand your points and support your reasoning a little more.
I'd make the arguement that every debate deserves thought out responses from all parties involved, because if you're trying to get a message across, purposefully giving what you know to be a less than adequate response does nothing to help your case, and in fact can largely damage your position. Furthermore, insulting the other party's response rather than giving a thought out response yourself gives the impression that you aren't able counter their argument.
If you would go through a project with no leader, it would have a high chance of failing. Having a leader brings that percentile through the roof.
This is a pretty big generalization that depends heavily on the people involved. For example, I've been in several building projects both in and outside of Minecraft that had no specified leader that were pretty successful. I'm also going to assume you mean to say "brings that percentile down", since a leader sending the chance of failing through the roof seems to be the opposite of what you're trying to argue.
Debating along course can collide with the project at hand. So if someone did argue, they would know to do it beforehand, to counteract the leaders statement, instead of having a skirmish mid-project.
As I said, "This can be avoided while still allowing everyone to contribute to the project by planning ahead of time before starting the project". What you're saying is easily possible too (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what you're saying happens never happens), however, debating minor elements of a project after it's been planned and started doesn't have to be a 'skirmish' if everyone involved is mature about it. If someone's going to complain and pout about not getting their way to the point that it affects the progression of the project (potentially including a leader himself, self appointed or otherwise...), they probably shouldn't be participating in a group project to begin with.
Also, in a project, a majority vote can leave a sour taste in many people's mouthes, thus obstructing the build.
And a single leader denying a lower ranking builder the ability to do something the way that builder wants to do it doesn't? It seems like the builder would be less likely to be angry if they see that no one else wants to do something that builders's way, rather than if a single individual who lets the group have no say tells them no.
You see with a unlead group, there will be many arguments, and decisions that can cause other people to work with less potential, or leave the project altogether.
People could just as easily become less motivated or leave due to not wanting to deal with the restrictions a single totalitarian leader who always gets their way would create.
So please, if you want to comment on this post, please include some logic..
Explain exactly how nothing I've said has any logical value. I've broken down your argument and analyzed each claim you've made and the reasoning you've given for why you believe those claims and responded accordingly. As far as formal debate is concerned, everything I've done is purely logical.
What wouldn't be logical would be if I were to try to argue by doing something like making a claim that you're wrong, then attempting to support it with insults, ignoring your reasoning, and/or refusing to respond to your counter argument. I have done none of these things and I expect you and everyone else I debate with to be mature and intelligent enough to not do these things either.
Much of what you and I are both giving for our support and reasoning is highly subjective and, again, heavily dependent on the people involved.
My point is that it's not really possible to objectively prove that your scenario or mine is almost certain happen over the other, so you can't really support the claim that a build project is fundamentally almost certainly doomed without a leader as an objective fact.