Jonathon Blake wrote:
Eric wrote:
Having worked many years for a charity, I can state that these feelings are common to organizations
Side note: If a person can successfully run a small team of volunteers --- they will be uber-successful at running a large team of employees.
The converse is not true.
The prime effective operating size of a team is 5-8 members; and that's not anecdotal. Beyond that size becomes ungainly. Imagaine the number of permutations in communication channels alone. And once the number of teams within teams grows (typical structuring of large group entities, be they business-oriented or not, and done so to mitigate the chaos) the complexity involved grows inherently - and almost exponentially.
I submit that the converse is true. Anyone that can run a large team (employees or volunteers) would be successful running a small group. The skill level to realize the former far exceeds that of the latter.
(And though this bit of the conversation is interesting) I see a rathole ahead. ;)
Being able to run a large team of employees successfully does not mean that you can run a small team of volunteers successfully.
rely on volunteers. ...structure in place to recognize ... people for the work they do it simply won't happen.
Remember Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
For profit organizations can get by, by addressing the bottom two levels. Volunteer only organizations have to address the top level, or maybe top two levels, if they want to thrive, and be around in five years.
That is clear.
The OO.o community is, obviously, not a business.
II am going to disagree here slightly. It is a business, but not one
which is orientated towards money. It is orientated towards a common
goal.
I buy that, so to speak.
Kind regards,
Eric
xan
jonathon
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
