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.