Virtual Teams: A Vital Shift in Business

As the discussions swirl around us, they only touch on the periphery of the transformations of how we will be doing business.

It is virtually impossible to do business the old-fashioned way. Remember? Assemble qualified people in an office on an upper floor of an office building in the city.

High button shoes, pince-nez, and pocket-watches.

Now, talent is spread around the country and around the world.  Today, assembling talent is done in a virtual environment.  And team building has new challenges.

I wrote an article "Teamwork if for Teams"  But to be fair, I still have pocket watch.  Now, you need  to know what I can scarcely imagine.  Hence:

Myths V. Fact
The Virtual Truth

A Free Webinar by Virtual Team Builders



Sincerely,


Slim.

Team Building: Contributors and Those Seeking Validation

Teams:  Contributors and Those Seeking Validation.

As I read various discussion boards, I notice something not at all unusual. Some people repeat what has already been said--repeatedly.

Other people give evidence of not having read comments posted by others.

As with the Twitters and Emails to News People, some people just want to say something whether or not it is worth anything. Except, perhaps, for the therapeutic effect.  Case in point:  I blog because I can't sing and I'm not cute.

We learn to acknowledge what someone has said, provide some response to it, sometimes ask for amplification, and solicit comments from others. (Of course, I learned that when majoring in elementary education.)

Employees will find satisfaction for contributing something of value--as evidenced by others in the group responding to it as if it were valuable. This is different from positive reinforcement and other "techniques".

Employees who do not contribute something of value will not be satisfied. Team mates may say nice things, but the absence of value in the contribution will become evident.

One thing that may help is to have the challenging members of your virtual team track his or her own development, advancement, improvement to achieve a higher quality of input.

A second is to give the bright ones more challenging assignments; to tell them that it is a more challenging assignment; and letting them know that achievement is the issue. If they fail to pass muster, they must do a self evaluation, find the flaw in their contributions, and fix the problems so the quality of their contribution rises.

Ownership of a project too often causes its own set of problems. People tend to become territorial, possessive, defensive, and hyper-sensitive.  Actually, that can be said better.  Let me say instead, "people tend to become attached to the project.  They may resist change due to that attachment."  Much better.

Sometimes we can have brain-storming sessions, do the fish-bone thing, do consensus building, find a shared vision; however, other times it is necessary for a boss to implement a change--Quickly!--in order to get the project moving again. Despite what some people have to say about the last suggestion, That does have a powerful effect of energizing the whole team and the project. People still do like leaders.

[The Constitution declares the President of the United States to be the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military. It does not declare the President to be the Chairman of the Committee--in-Chief of the Military.

Regards,

Slim

PS. If you find anything here to be helpful, please don't hesitate to send me 
a really tricked-out Mac Book and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along
with the thank you note.  Sincerely, Slim. 

Bob Asken
Box 33
Pen Argyl, PA 18072

slimfairview@yahoo.com



Copyright (c) 2011 Bob Asken
All rights reserved

Can We All Come to a Consensus on Group Think?

We must liberate ourselves from the notion that a gutsy leader will arise to save us. Remember the admonition: "...a confederacy of dunces will rise up around him..."

I am now 4 decades into discussing group-think.

Let's assume for the moment that:

a. W still have group think.
b. We must get rid of group think.

Now, we are still discussing group think.

Is is possible that all the methods to get rid of group think have failed? As evidenced by the fact that we still have group think--yes.

Do we ever come up with a new way to get rid of group think? No.

Is that group think? Yes.

By constantly clutching to the notion that we must get rid of group think, and constantly pursuing the sames methods to get rid of group think, are we not merely perpetuating group think but also reinforcing group think?

The focus is always to narrow.

Bring as many different people into the group to get as many different ideas as possible.

Cultivate a culture of shared vision. (Shared vision?)
The visioning process.
Team building. (Cohesion)
Consensus building.(Group think)

Get rid of as many different ideas as we can until we have consensus.

Call this Leadership in Action.

I will be the leader. I will get as many different people on my team as I can. I will lead the group to share a vision. I will engage in team building exercises. I will achieve consensus.

If it works, I am a visionary leader. If it fails, I fell victim to group think.

And, now, you can see the process for what it is.

If you treat everyone to lunch, you will have achieved "Bread & Circus".

Regards,

Slim

Mail: Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Group Norms in the Corporate World--and then some.

Normal

Colloquial:

Normal: of and/or pertaining to the norms.

Norms: prevalent characteristics of a demographic subset.

Take three groups of people, perhaps in a corporate setting--accounting, marketing, or the most affable of all, sales. Your choice. Now, let's look at some of the norms. 

a. In Group A, the group eats in the same restaurant every Friday and splits the check with each person paying his or her own share. (Sounds like the accounting department.) 

b. In Group B, the group never eats in the same restaurant twice. The bill is divided evenly among the members of the group. (Sounds like marketing.)

c. In Group C, each week a different member picks the restaurant and picks up the tab for all. (Sounds like sales.)

Each group, for the purposes of this discussion, has group norms: how to decide where to eat, how to divide the bill. These are the prevalent characteristics of the three demographic subsets. The "norms of the group".

An essential aspect to the cohesion and success of each group is the individuals' embracing the norms of the group.

This is not, nor has it ever been, an objective right or wrong; good or bad; or superiour or inferiour assessment. 

These examples, however, do demonstrate a difference or differences, diversity, if you will. Diversity is a word firmly rooted in the word different.

Moving on.

If one of the employees transfers to a different department, there may be problems arising from the transfer. How does the employee respond to the norms of the new group? There are about five possibilities:

Find a group that embraces the same norms.

Start a new group.

Do not join a lunch group

Change the norms of the new group to accommodate his/her needs.

Conform to the norms of the new group.

I separated the options into two groups. The first three involve personal activity. The remaining two involve the norms: changing the norms or conforming to the norms. How the employee deals with the options is in part a matter of culture.

From the Quotations of Slim Fairview: "Everybody knows what everybody knows." 

Initially it means, "you can talk for a thousand years but you are wasting your time." 

It also means we will be polite when you are speaking. 

The downside to this is that people believe we've accepted and embraced what they have told us. They become upset when they find this not to be the case. This leads to hostility. 

This is one reason why among the most congenial people, whose who evidence little contention, little is said about anything; because "every body knows what everybody knows".

Regards,

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com  

Copyright (c) 2010 Slim Fairview

All rights reserved.