Categories
Uncategorized

The collaboration ladder

In the collaboration module, Pr. Hansen has formalized the way companies can go from bad collaboration to disciplined collaboration by reducing four types of barriers. The four authors of The New Arithmetic of Collaboration formalize the steps that goes from undisciplined collaboration to disciplined collaboration and the benefit you can reap from climbing the “collaboration ladder”. It is a useful complement to the 4 barriers theory: Highlighting that there are indeed different levels of collaboration with corresponding drawbacks and benefits addresses the misconception that collaboration is a panacea to any company’s problems. It may also provide a “horizon” for implementing collaboration as a corporate strategy. The paper focuses on partnership between companies, yet the theory is applicable to various business unit across a single company.

The authors perceives four rungs for the collaboration ladder: collaboration as a zero-sum game (accidental engagement, 1+1<2), unadventurous collaboration (Transactional cooperation, 1+1=2), win-win collaboration (Intentional collaboration, 1+1=3) and what could be defined as disciplined collaboration (1+1=11). How these rungs are defined is still fuzzy but I find interesting the imagery of climbing a collaboration ladder.

The author’s theory has also been applied to policy, for example, the recent trip of President Obama to India.

Categories
Uncategorized

Fun as a team-building strategy

Not my definition of fun

A day doesn’t go passed without a company branding itself as “fun”. The buzzword is everywhere: It’s a fun work place, our employees have fun, the work is fun. In his editorial at The Economist, Shumpeter states that the benefits of fun as a corporate strategy – brush the image of the company and, more relevant to this course, enhance collaboration through team-building – are illusory.

The reasonable assumption is that if employees have fun in the company, it will set up a positive atmosphere for collaboration, innovation and productivity. A far-less reasonable assumption is to think that management can plan fun out and spread it top-down to the employees. Let’s say 80% of the employees will enjoy wearing cowboy hat (not my definition of fun) as employees do at Twitter. What about the other 20%? They will probably feel miserable having to do so.

Shumpeter points to a real problem: why do managers use artifacts to force fun instead of giving meaning, support and rewards to employees so they would enjoy their work and find it pleasant to collaborate? I don’t agree with the alternative – 60’s work environment. Managers should focus on what they can really do: make the work place enjoyable and collaborative, not fun.