*1. Investing in signature relationship practices. Executives can encourage collaborative behavior by making highly visible investments—in facilities with open floor plans to foster communication, for example—that demonstrate their commitmen
t to collaboration.
I have seen failure at this to lead to a decline in participation esp. by key contributors who didn’t see their effort honored or supported.
For LW this might mean key contributors supporting the creation or operation of benefits like the new business networking and user page initiaitive or in general the operation of the site.
*2. Modeling collaborative behavior. At companies where the senior executives demonstrate highly collaborative behavior
themselves, teams collaborate well.
On LW the active members already act as role models.
*3. Creating a “gift culture.” Mentoring and coaching—especially on an informal basis—help people build the networks they need to work across corporate boundaries.
I can only guess that that is what CFAR does.
*4. Ensuring the requisite skills. Human resources departments that teach employees how to build relationships, communicate well, and resolve conflicts creatively can have a major impact on team collaboration.
Building real-life relationships is done by meetups. I see the meetup resources as an effort to support this. But maybe someone could actively contact the meetup organizers and look whether there is potential for improvement.
*5. Supporting a strong sense of community. When people feel a sense of community, they are more comfortable reaching out to others and more likely to share knowledge.
I felt this at the Berlin event.
*6. Assigning team leaders that are both task- and relationship-oriented. The debate has traditionally focused on whether a task or a relationship orientation creates better leadership, but in fact both are key to successfully leading a team. Typically, leaning more heavily on a task orientation at the outset of a project and shifting toward a relationship orientation once the work is in full swing works best.
I can’t quickly evaulate this. Ideas?
*7. Building on heritage relationships. When too many team members are strangers, people may be reluctant to share knowledge. The best practice is to put at least a few people who know one another on the team.
This follows from LW being a community and no business.
*8. Understanding role clarity and task ambiguity. Cooperation increases when the roles of individual team members are sharply defined yet the team is given latitude on how to achieve the task.
There was a post and discussion on roles but I can’t find it. Maybe this needs more structure.
These are the key points from page 7:
I have seen failure at this to lead to a decline in participation esp. by key contributors who didn’t see their effort honored or supported.
For LW this might mean key contributors supporting the creation or operation of benefits like the new business networking and user page initiaitive or in general the operation of the site.
On LW the active members already act as role models.
I can only guess that that is what CFAR does.
Building real-life relationships is done by meetups. I see the meetup resources as an effort to support this. But maybe someone could actively contact the meetup organizers and look whether there is potential for improvement.
I felt this at the Berlin event.
I can’t quickly evaulate this. Ideas?
This follows from LW being a community and no business.
There was a post and discussion on roles but I can’t find it. Maybe this needs more structure.