Do you really need to convey the hierarchy to external parties for any reason than perhaps your own ego? How about settling for the more egalitarian 'my team'?

I've always referred to my colleagues as "my colleagues" -- regardless of whether or not there's a heirarchical org chart.

Seems only fair, since (while my administrative skills remain on the absolute cutting edge *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*) some of my technical skills have become a bit dated -- and theirs are more current.

As to communicating the relationship to strangers... While I understand that there are times when an external third-party may need to understand the heirarchy from a decision-making-process perspective, it can usually be made quite clear what that process is simply from the context of the conversation. If not, then explicitly defining it ("if you need an answer you're not getting, or a unilateral decision to be made, the buck stops here") is entirely in order.

But you don't have to go insanely politically correct -- and you can do it without diminishing the importance of the people that accomplish your goals...

How about using the phrase "my henchmen ... bwahaha"?

It depends on the effect you want.

"Possessiveness" is hardly a problem when you saying something like "my friends," so I wouldn't have a problem with being a part of someone's team. However, I'll vote for "my enablees."

I like the henchmen idea, or perhaps unindicted co-conspiritors. Or we could go with the old Mad Magazine description of their staff and say "me and the usual gang of idiots."

I usually don't refer to "them", I talk about "us". "Our team" can do such and such, or "our team" feels this way about it. This promotes the idea that I am myself a member of the team, with a specialized role, instead of being their "superior".

Sounds a lot like the verbaization of nouns.. like "I was tasked" with the new project? It's nothing more than insider talk - probably came from a seminar or an MBA intern...:-)

It's not "MY team" it's "THE team" As in "The team will supply a solution." This suggests collaboration.

I don't ever bother telling outsiders who is in charge. If they ask a member of the team for a decision that that person is unable to make, that person can say that they need to check with me or with other members of team. I refuse to be called boss. We work as a team. With their input I establish the goals and then it is their job to work toward the goals. If they can't do that, then they aren't qualified for their position. If they are capable, then why do I need to make decisions that they are probably in a better position to make. I am always available to help them out with my knowledge and experience, but we work largely by consensus. If I can't make my case so that most everyone agrees, then perhaps my case is weak and should be informed by the ideas of others.

Also, I tend to introduce people by their name and job function or area of expertise. The reporting arrangement is usually irrelevant and frequently our teams are made of members from several departments, so there is no reporting heirarchy between team members.

Informally, "my posse."

I know one manager who thinks the proper term is "entourage". Of course, he also thinks "bonus" is two words.

In a happy perfect world you would have happy perfect employees that happily work perfectly toward the unified goals of "The Team".

I don't live in that perfect world (even though we have an exceptionally competent and cohesive team at my office), but...
Someone in a group always has to supply the direction and decide what part of the groups actions are succeeding or failing to meet the goals. When someone outside the group needs to get the group's goals altered they need to know who to talk to. That person by any other name is still "The Boss".

You don't want to belittle anyone or add tension but convincing yourself that some new-age idea of "letting them all run free" isn't the answer. Not having a real organization to your organization is called Anarchy.

Ask members of a "leaderless team" who is in charge and I bet they can still figure out who puts them in for an increase or fires the bad apples. I think my message is coming across a bit harsh but the fact is that unless I see where clear direction comes from in a company I won't know where to propose real business shaping ideas. I'm not willing to work under those types of aimless conditions.

As one who uses Bob's "Leading IT" book to teach MBA management classes, I really like Dave Moyer's take on the team concept (although I prefer managing via consultation vs. consensus).

I am in the unique position of supervising 50+ public school librarians in one school district. I am an educator with both management and Info. Science training - and not a practicing librarian. I refer to the entire team as the Library Network (to imply peer-to-peer networking and cooperation), or sometimes as "the librarians" or more informally as "my librarians." This way they know that I understand that they provide technical expertise to our customers (the students), provide me with advice on those topics requiring their specialized training, and accept my role to provide coordination and a general direction within the District's political landscape (as sort of a central node in that peer-to-peer network).

It all depends on context, or who needs to know. I'll vote for my team, or even direct reports.

On the flip side, what do they call you ? Boss ? Dude who approves my time sheets ? Task Master ? Leader ? Again depending on context and need, I go with Boss. Kinda says it all.

And are Org Charts going away - or do things just change too fast to be documented ?

Granted its fuzzy given that we report to various folk - one mgr may own the budget and time sheets - one mgr the project, and maybe HR sees a totally different mgr "over" ya.

That's my rant, for now

Oh come on people, it's "minions". A mere henchman would balk at attaching the frikkin laser to the shark's head.

In my opinion, a leader accepts that he/she's the leader, and the responsibility for the people that comes with the authority vested in you by the organization.

If you're more hierarchical, you call them "my subordinates"; if you're more collegial, they're "my team", but don't evade the fact that, if you chose to be their leader, they ARE yours: to respect, to trust, to help grow, to guide, to discipline, to challenge, to reward.

re: "If they are capable, then why do I need to make decisions that they are probably in a better position to make."

But that's why you were placed there as their leader. Because there will always be information that they will not know that may make their decisions be anything from cumbersome to massively and catastrophically wrong for the broader organization. And the problem is, they may not even know that their decisions have a broader impact.

"My staff" is referred to as that or as "my assistants." When referring to our job function, I will say "our department." I use the hierarchical terms not to belittle or demean anyone, but so that those people with whom I deal will know that the buck stops here.

Example: A fellow manager (definitely NOT a team member) has a habit of showing up in offices around the company and shouting his displeasure or opinions at others, often while making demands upon his victims. He did this to "my assistants" recently. Hearing this, I confronted him and explained that no one is allowed to abuse my staff--myself included--and that if he had anything else to discuss he was to come to me, not them. This was greatly welcomed by my assistants.

All in all, I'd vote for "our team" since I depend on them as much as they depend on me. "We" work together and for the same goals, we just have varying functions in the organisation. I only emphasize that if there are questions that have not been answered satisfactorily, or the customer isn't satisfied, the "buck stops here". We don't believe in time clocks or public floggings either, or pay for time spent, only pay for performance and profit. If the customers aren't happy, then none of us should be happy.

I find the term "sub-assistant peons" works well ... as long as I first proclaim myself "numero uno head chief assistant peon." (grin)