COLLABORATING TO MANAGE COMPLE

0

Collaboration is inherent in startups, unless one person along visualizes a new product, intuits its uses, designs its features, architects its structure, builds and assembles all the component parts,

and peddles the results.

The global work force of people who are solving previously unsolved

problems differs in personality and politics, in roles and responsi-

bilities, in points of departure and points of view.

Grady Booch tells the story of a physician, an engineer, and a scien-

tist in friendly argument about which of their professions is oldest.

“Medicine, of course,” the doctors says. “God’s removal of Adam’s rib

was clearly surgery.” The engineer points to an awe-inspiring act of

engineering even earlier in genesis–heaven and earth created out of

chaos. The scientist smiled. “Who do you think created the chaos?”

Chaos in the organizations that build new products can be analyzed

from multiple starting places, but all perspectives assume a complexity

of interactions, a diversity of domains, and a unity in the desire to

deliver a product that is worthy of evolution over years–as long as

its creators can move on to something new.

Some collaborations, however, last over years: Crick and Watson,

Hewlett and Packard, Tracy and Hepburn, Jobs and Wozniac, Masters

and Johnson, Bonnie and Clyde. Colleagues can be seen from innumerable

viewpoints, including: * Stereotypes; * Types; * Individuals.

You and they will set criteria, set schedules, and set balls in motion

that can affect everyone else in the company.

* Stereotypes

Cognitive classification systems into which to fit people, places, and

things are a built-in survival mechanism. Studies prove that people

take notice of another’s gender, age group, and race at first glance.

Building a collaborative culture means noticing less and less as time

goes on.

The likenesses and differences among cultural groups and among people

in a group effort has been the subject of much discussion and publish-

ing in recent decades, as the marketplace grew to cover the world.

Anthropologists searched through startlingly diverse cultures hoping

for a universal system of classification. Their research assumes the

same physical structures for perception in all humans and proves that

social environment affects every category. Eleanor Rosch demonstrated

that the paradigm, or prototypical member of each category is culture

specific; for example, in America, general statements about birds

apply across the board to robins, but less well to penguins or road-

runners (except, of course, in parts of Alaska, Arizona, and New

Mexico).

First-glance categorizations are useful as a shorthand, providing an

initial cut at understanding; for example, according to one classifi-

cation system, someone might be a Type A personality; according to

another system, the same person is typed as a manager; and in another

system, that person is classified as a parent, child, and/or sibling.

Broad assumptions about national origins and qualities are often en-

forced by observation, in that Asians generally speak quietly, whereas

people from Ireland usually speak both easily and fluently; Indians,

especially from Delhi, have a great fondness for word play, and

Americans from some northeastern states generally speak at twice

the wpm (words per minute) as Americans from some southeastern states.

Styles are an indication based on generation, for example, ponytails.

In the ’50s, young women wore them. In the ’60s and ’70s, young men

started wearing them. By the early ’90s, anyone could wear a ponytail

to work without much comment, but the style was especially popular

with middle-aged men, notwithstanding what they did for a living. Dark

serious business suits are now often accessorized with one or more

genderless earrings.

After a short while, everyone in the company (except a few R & D; types)

begins to make assumptions about everyone else based on observation,

extrapolation, and imagination. Loren sows up one time for any and all

meetings, for example, and Lou will slide in last every time. Sal will

talk the most, but Dale will come up with the best ideas.

Groups of people from diverse backgrounds, disciplines, and experiences

can be organized and lead by authority, initiative, consensus, or col-

laborative effort.

Authoritarian teams follow the model that the Roman army used with so

much success. They are hierarchical, stable, and provide for conti-

nuity even when the faces change. Their strength lies in the efficient

use of resources and reasonable security for members who excel at

tactical projects. Their weakness lurks in letting stability become

rigidity.

Independents are at the other end of the spectrum. Some people are on

teams in little more than name, their focus is so totally technical.

They are interested in pioneering and personal knowledge. They shine

when a creative breakthrough is needed, but often need a translator

for the rest of the company.

Cooperative groups stress process and pride themselves on flexibility.

They’ve developed some nice techniques for complex problem solving,

but can get entangled in the means at the expense of the end.

Collaborative–or participative, or enterprising, or empowered, or

self-directed, or self-managed–groups strive for open communication,

especially during changes in direction. Enterprising teams know what

they’re doing because they are experts and trust other members of the

team to be experts too. They know what to do because they share a

clear, mutual, grand vision. They keep their plans and paperwork up-

to-date and a keystroke away. Their mixed-discipline team makeup

(research, development, manufacture, delivery, support) encourages

independent action and shared responsibility. There’s not time for

turf wars between teams or departments in these days of running lean

and staying informed.

Everyone needs to know what’s going on in general so that each one can

decide what they need to know in more detail. A representative from

your department should:

* Meet with prospective customers and notify your department of their

preferences.

* Attend issues meetings and notify your department of problems and

resolutions.

* Go to technical meetings and notify your department of technological

successes and changes.

* Accept membership in steering committee meetings and notify your

department of changes in schedules and/or deliverables.

* Represent your department at opinion-polling committee meetings

and notify your department of changes of heart.

Frequently, as manager, you are the representative at all of these

meetings, and after a merger or internal reorganization, you might

also find yourself on a transition team.

When a temporary group is teamed to handle a particular problem or to

make a difficult decision, members may have had little or no chance to

get to know one another. Independents will seem unruly to authori-

tarians. Cooperatives are following rules not used when in Rome, and

enterprisers seem lost in “lala land.”

You can use the heuristics below to get things started with a group of

people that don’t work together regularly.

To get ideas out on the table, you can individually jot them on a

piece of paper, then go around the table, and write them on the board.

Writing them on paper first saves a lot of time for a little thought.

To pare down a long list, set up criteria tight enough to knock out at

least half the items on the first pass. How likely is the solution or

decision to work? Where will the resources come from? Once the list is

manageable, you can pare it down further by more stringent criteria.

To choose from a few options, on balance, make a list of two or three

finalists and assign pros and cons, pluses and minuses, to each.

To get more exacting and/or to pick the winner, you can set up rating

forms in which each criterion is weighed by points corresponding to

its importance.

No posts to display