That's Why They Fire Coaches...
Stop for a minute and think about your favorite NFL team. Was it a winning team last season?? Or, just so-so?? Did the coach get fired or get a raise??
Now, everybody knows what happens at the end of every football season. Dependent upon the owner's expectations, the coach's continued employment is dependent upon the team's performance. And the team's performance is the direct responsibility of the coach. No ifs, ands or buts -- a loosing team and the coach gets fired.
What is interesting about this scenario is that people from all walks of life are evaluating, literally, every thing that happens to the team over the course of the year. It becomes a classic study of group behavior -- what happens to people in a group and how is the behavior of the individual controlled for the benefit of the group. Everybody seems to understand that individual athletic ability is a small part of the total picture, and that the complex interrelationship of the participants has more to do with success or failure of the whole group.
Whether you are interested in football or some other sport, most of us are somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to functioning in a group -- after all, we have all been associated with some kind of group from the very beginning to the very end. And while most people learn their lessons well, how an individual functions in a group depends upon which lessons that individual emphasizes -- if you know what I mean.
Of course, there are exceptions; however, I am not concerned with the exceptions right now because we seem to have a situation developing that is far more dangerous -- IMHO.
I am referring to the apparent lack of understanding of events and responsibilities involved when an individual forms a group -- and how some people seem to believe that they can change the situation by redefinition.
The first thing to understand is that you are forming a group the minute you post a blog. The group members have little consequence while reading your post -- they are simply readers -- until they get to the point where you are inviting comments. Without the comment section, the group would simply fade away -- unless you posted an address, that is. Indicating an address or a comment capability makes you the owner of a group with the responsibility for dealing with the actions of any one that chooses to join your group.
Advice on Handling Comments?
Heather Green, co-proprietor with Stephen Baker of the Business Week blog, known as, "blogspotting".
posted the following:
Steve and I could use some advice on what to do about comments. Or more specifically, comments on a particular post. Last September, Steve wrote about a feature on Friendster that lets members see how many people have been trolling their site.
It clearly freaked out people, who have left around 125 comments so far. They find the post, probably through a search engine, and leave comments like this:
"how do i us this to find out who is viewing my page??"
And that's mostly all they say. Still, very occasionally, someone jumps in and tries to either calm everyone down or give some advice. So, what do you advise? Shut the comments down or keep them open in hopes that someone savvier than us will be able to provide help?
I am not quite certain who got freaked out, but I have to wonder what Heather thought she was getting into, when she signed up for duty running blogspotting -- and I also have to wonder about the management of Business Week. I mean, this is a magazine that has been around for a number of years, definitely part of the mainstream media, MSM. They have been dealing with readers for years.
Whether of not to allow comments should have been decided back when the company was thinking about getting into blogging. Hmm -- maybe I give Business Week more credit than they deserve.
The Doc Searls Weblog : Saturday, February 11, 2006
Doc Searls writes:
I have this idea that the blogosphere is the one place in the world — or perhaps an entirely new world, or a part of a new world, created on the Net — where there is no need for class, for caste, for gates or keepers of anything.
To me this is a world where the only success that fully counts is in helping move good ideas along, in helping make this new world a bigger, better and more open place. And in helping others enjoy the privilege of participating in it.
I see this world as a place built on credits given, taken and passed along. I see this world as a place where it is at least possible to overcome disagreements, and to come to new agreements that would not be possible without the protocol, both technical and civil, we call the hyperlink.
I have taken these words out of context because they illustrate, by themselves, what I mean when I question people that seem to believe that they can change a situation by redefinition. The blogosphere is a created term used to signify a group -- a group of people involved in communicating via weblogs, "blogs". As a group, it must be given characteristics relative to groups. The blogosphere, obviously, is NOT a place.
As to the business of moving "good ideas", how does one know that the idea being moved is good -- or bad?? Besides, the problem with helping others and overcoming disagreements in the blogosphere is that you are working in a competitive environment. That hyperlink becomes a measure of success and thus becomes a payment for acceptable behavior.
Any coach worth her/his salt understands the dynamics of groups and that any group must go through a maturation process. The present blogosphere is still in it's infancy -- and the odds are that the conflict will continue because the basic structure is wrong for the things that Doc would like to see. I have been trying to get Doc to checkout the use of managed, measured discussion forums -- an idea that doc does not rate as good.
To Be Continued...
Now, everybody knows what happens at the end of every football season. Dependent upon the owner's expectations, the coach's continued employment is dependent upon the team's performance. And the team's performance is the direct responsibility of the coach. No ifs, ands or buts -- a loosing team and the coach gets fired.
What is interesting about this scenario is that people from all walks of life are evaluating, literally, every thing that happens to the team over the course of the year. It becomes a classic study of group behavior -- what happens to people in a group and how is the behavior of the individual controlled for the benefit of the group. Everybody seems to understand that individual athletic ability is a small part of the total picture, and that the complex interrelationship of the participants has more to do with success or failure of the whole group.
Whether you are interested in football or some other sport, most of us are somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to functioning in a group -- after all, we have all been associated with some kind of group from the very beginning to the very end. And while most people learn their lessons well, how an individual functions in a group depends upon which lessons that individual emphasizes -- if you know what I mean.
Of course, there are exceptions; however, I am not concerned with the exceptions right now because we seem to have a situation developing that is far more dangerous -- IMHO.
I am referring to the apparent lack of understanding of events and responsibilities involved when an individual forms a group -- and how some people seem to believe that they can change the situation by redefinition.
The first thing to understand is that you are forming a group the minute you post a blog. The group members have little consequence while reading your post -- they are simply readers -- until they get to the point where you are inviting comments. Without the comment section, the group would simply fade away -- unless you posted an address, that is. Indicating an address or a comment capability makes you the owner of a group with the responsibility for dealing with the actions of any one that chooses to join your group.
Advice on Handling Comments?
Heather Green, co-proprietor with Stephen Baker of the Business Week blog, known as, "blogspotting".
posted the following:
Steve and I could use some advice on what to do about comments. Or more specifically, comments on a particular post. Last September, Steve wrote about a feature on Friendster that lets members see how many people have been trolling their site.
It clearly freaked out people, who have left around 125 comments so far. They find the post, probably through a search engine, and leave comments like this:
"how do i us this to find out who is viewing my page??"
And that's mostly all they say. Still, very occasionally, someone jumps in and tries to either calm everyone down or give some advice. So, what do you advise? Shut the comments down or keep them open in hopes that someone savvier than us will be able to provide help?
I am not quite certain who got freaked out, but I have to wonder what Heather thought she was getting into, when she signed up for duty running blogspotting -- and I also have to wonder about the management of Business Week. I mean, this is a magazine that has been around for a number of years, definitely part of the mainstream media, MSM. They have been dealing with readers for years.
Whether of not to allow comments should have been decided back when the company was thinking about getting into blogging. Hmm -- maybe I give Business Week more credit than they deserve.
The Doc Searls Weblog : Saturday, February 11, 2006
Doc Searls writes:
I have this idea that the blogosphere is the one place in the world — or perhaps an entirely new world, or a part of a new world, created on the Net — where there is no need for class, for caste, for gates or keepers of anything.
To me this is a world where the only success that fully counts is in helping move good ideas along, in helping make this new world a bigger, better and more open place. And in helping others enjoy the privilege of participating in it.
I see this world as a place built on credits given, taken and passed along. I see this world as a place where it is at least possible to overcome disagreements, and to come to new agreements that would not be possible without the protocol, both technical and civil, we call the hyperlink.
I have taken these words out of context because they illustrate, by themselves, what I mean when I question people that seem to believe that they can change a situation by redefinition. The blogosphere is a created term used to signify a group -- a group of people involved in communicating via weblogs, "blogs". As a group, it must be given characteristics relative to groups. The blogosphere, obviously, is NOT a place.
As to the business of moving "good ideas", how does one know that the idea being moved is good -- or bad?? Besides, the problem with helping others and overcoming disagreements in the blogosphere is that you are working in a competitive environment. That hyperlink becomes a measure of success and thus becomes a payment for acceptable behavior.
Any coach worth her/his salt understands the dynamics of groups and that any group must go through a maturation process. The present blogosphere is still in it's infancy -- and the odds are that the conflict will continue because the basic structure is wrong for the things that Doc would like to see. I have been trying to get Doc to checkout the use of managed, measured discussion forums -- an idea that doc does not rate as good.
To Be Continued...
posted by Doug Skoglund at
7:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home