I received the book yesterday, and was able to whip through about 20-25 pages last night. I'm not completely caught up, but I thought I'd throw in my own two cents into the discussion.

As far as our group at leadershape goes, I dont think our group was designed to be a virtuoso team. from my understanding, the concept of a virtuoso team is built around creativity, risk taking, and a "take no prisoners" attititude towards leading effective change. i dont think that's what we were brought there to do. in some sense, we were brough to allerton to effectively manage the curriculum that leadershape provides. creativity was suggested, but getting too creative (as a virtuoso team would try to do) might have led to our students not meeting leadershape's learning outcomes.

i do believe, however, that we did exhibit some qualities of a virtuoso team. we were definetly in close quarters, and i believe that the way we looked at our "customers" was similar to what was discussed in the books. they were more than just students--each of them represented an opportunity for a great discussion or a lesson for us to learn.

carla, i struggled a bit with the I vs. We mentality as well...it flies against everythign we're taught about effective teamwork. but at the same time, it kind of reconciles with leadershape's philosophy of "the value of one the power of all". you all know my mind works in sports metaphors, and immediately when i thought about virtuoso teams, i thought about the 1995-1996 chicago bulls team. they had some big time personalities on that team, and individuals who were the best at their craft, and in some sense, they were encouraged to "take the game over". granted they had a gameplan which encouraged equal participation by all members, but Phil Jackson wasnt going to stop Jordan from being Jordan if he was shooting the ball well. Similarly, if Pippen was having a great night, then they were going to get him the ball. Same with Steve Kerr or any of the other players. Lastly, Rodman was focused solely on rebouding--that was his job, and everyone stayed out of his way. I think how I reconciled the I vs We philosophy is that perhaps through a virtuoso team, you recruit outstanding members, who bring different perspectives and abilities to the table. That way, their level of expertise is needed, and the team needs them to be an "I" as opposed to deferring to the collective "we".

Last little thought. I was reading this, and it immediately also made me think about student affairs. As we know, our field is pretty transient in nature, especially in entry level positions. I thought back to my office right now, and I think we do a great job of hiring and recruiting great talent...which the book says is necessary for a team...but where does compensation fit in? Maybe I'm being too realistic with the book's information, and the work alone should be compensation enough, but after you recruit good people, put them in a position to do great work, stretch their capabilities and give them the freedom to work, do you need to compensate them effectively so that they dont leave?

i hope that made sense. the reason I ask that, is because we have a first year professional who came into our office last summer...really talented. but the work environment he came into wasnt the best one in the world due to staffing issues. he's now leaving for a financial planning job, and i cant say that i blame him. better compensation, better work environment better everything. i guess what i'm trying to say, is that are virtuoso teams possible in student affairs given the nature of the profession? what do we need to do to make them possible?

look forward to hearing your thoughts!