[Theforum] RE: leadership

[aardvark]

> From: "Luther, Ron" <Ron.Luther at COMPAQ.com>
[...]
> If we can define a 'role and responsibilities' set ... e.g. something
> like ...
>
> - Title: generic in-bound email answerer
> - Responsibility: answer information request emails that come in to
> 'evolt' - Training: must have read and agreed to abide by the 'rules
> of answering email for evolt' documentation - Scope: three month tour
> of duty - Access: (1) will have ability to read email addressed to
> 'evolt'.  (2) will have ability to write email addressed from 'evolt'.
>
> Then we can lessen (not eliminate - but lessen) role and/or
> task-related confusion and frustration.
[...]

i'm not poo-pooing the idea here, but i do want to remind everyone
that roles need to be able to handle *mulitple* people...

for instance, while i may be in the email answerer role, i need to be
in it with others as well, since sometimes work or life prevents me
from getting to things in a timely fashion...

i'm sure that's understood, but sometimes even i forget this isn't a
job, it's just what i do with all my free time...