Trust in Virtual Teams

From Holger Nauheimer's Change Management Blog: Trust in Virtual Teams: "
Finally, we met. After nine months of successful and rich virtual collaboration, the team of Radical Inclusion met face to face. Not that we needed that meeting for issues of team building. But we all had the urge to look into each others faces, to hear the voices without delays and distorsions, and to have a couple of drinks together. So, it was good to come together as a team. But the trust was there, before. Most people who haven’t worked in virtual teams believe that a precondition for trust in teams is an initial face-to-face meeting. I don’t believe so anymore, rather do I believe that people use this argument because it helps them to maintain their bias against virtuality.

Let us think about people how build trust. A common way is to be influenced by the first visual expression we have, plus the additional information we get from our other senses (tone of voice, smell, etc.). Some of us are good at that and some of us are regularly fooled by their hormones or their presumptions (I am definitely one of those). That is what my colleague Jouke Kruijer who has done some research on the issue calls affect-based trust.

A second possibility to build trust is to analyse the information we have about this person plus his behavior and come to a more rational verdict (coginition-based trust).

And a third possibility is to observe team members’ behavior while working on joint projects. This is what Jouke calls swift trust. Are they reliable? Do they walk their talk? Do they take resposibility? How do they deal with conflicts, problems and shortfalls? All these questions can be answered in virtual teams as in face-to-face teams.

What brought us together was the Real Time Virtual Collaboration workshop on May 9, 2009. This was a workshop in which we were able to test and develop our collaboration patters. After the project was concluded successfully we knew that we wanted to continue as a team. We found new projects, and step by step we strengthened our relationships. We tested hundred of collaboration tools until we found the right mix (I will write a blog post about these next week, as a continuation of this post). We did not define any rules of collaboration but we worked on trust base.

Finally, it was time to meet and it was as if we had known for a long time…

(reposted from Radical Inclusion)

"

How Hoving Survived

From Richard Florida's Creative Class: How Hoving Survived:
"Thomas Hoving, who ran the Metropolitan Museum of Art from the mid-‘60s to the mid-‘70s, died yesterday. Hoving re-imagined, rebuilt, rejuvenated, and re-branded the Met, adding several new wings and new departments. In the process, he revolutionized most major museums in the U.S., introducing the blockbuster traveling exhibit and putting the focus on attracting the general public rather than just the elite.But among all of the art controversy and politics, buried in one short paragraph in the full page obituary in today’s New York Times, is I think the reason for his success and survival at the Met. It reads:

“Despite his braggadocio, Mr. Hoving, the son of a Fifth Avenue merchandising tycoon, proved to be an able administrator and budgeteer. Even during the city’s financial crisis, when many other cultural institutions were in the red, the museum was usually able to balance its books, and its merchandising operation grew tremendously in his years, eventually contributing more than $1 million in annual income.”

Several years ago, I took one of those weeklong “Executive Education” intensives at Harvard Business School (one for public broadcasting executives). The Met under Hoving was an accounting case study. When Hoving took over the Met was running large annual deficits and he reorganized operations, demanding that they start making money. We were given financial statements and asked how long the museum could keep losing money at its current rate – the answer was over 100 years, given the size of its endowment and quasi-endowments. Hoving told the trustees the Met was “moribund, gray, and dieing” and they were living on their savings. Along with revolutionizing the art side, he revolutionized the business.
Hoving’s business sense and ability to make money insulated him from being ousted for the many controversial initiatives, acquisitions, and PR stunts he undertook. He was able to back up his talk with actions and satisfy the business leaders and donors the Met depended on, and they backed his success.
There are important lessons here for anyone wanting to expand support for the arts, or for that matter undertake any bold leadership initiatives."

Making the most of corporate social responsibility

Making the most of corporate social responsibility:
"

For companies that see CSR as an opportunity to strengthen the business, the big challenge is execution. Smart partnering can provide a practical way forward. Read more on the McKinsey Quarterly >

:

"

The right way to invest in infrastructure

The right way to invest in infrastructure:
"

New thinking is needed to deliver the benefits of public-works spending and eliminate the waste. Read more on the McKinsey Quarterly &gt

"

Gladwell Demişken...

Malcolm Gladwell, 11 Eylül 2009 günü, Turkcell Akademi'nin konuğu olarak İstanbul'daydı. Her zamanki muzip ama kendinden de bir o kadar emin tavrıyla bir buçuk saate yakın sahnede kaldı. Bir kısmı, Outliers'daki düşünceleri ve olgularından oluşan, diğer bir kısmı da yeni olgu ve örneklerden oluşan çok dengeli bir konuşmaydı.

Not da almıştım, ama Fakülte'deki odamda, bir yerlerde sanırım. Bulursam, notlarımı da eklerim bir ara buraya...

Şimdilik çektiğim iki fotografı ekliyorum.

Türkiye'deki Uluslararası Araştırmacılar için Yeni Web Sayfaları

Türkiye'deki Uluslararası Araştırmacılar için Yeni Web Sayfaları: "2008/201 no.lu Bilim Teknoloji Yüksek Kurulu (BTYK) kararı ile kurulan Uluslararası Araştırmacılar Koordinasyon Komitesi (UAKK) çalışmaları kapsamında, ülkemizdeki uluslararası araştırmacıların yararlanabileceği web sayfaları hazırlanmış ve hizmete açıldı."

NPD ve Pazarlama, ya da, Malcolm Gladwell'in Köpeğinin Ne Gördüğü Hakkında

The New Yorker dergisi, son dönemde bir dizi sıradışı yazarıyla, özellikle güncel konularda gündem belirlemeye başladı: James Surowiecki (The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations [2004]), Clay Shirky (Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organisations [2008]) ve tabii ki, Malcolm Gladwell (The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference [2000] , Blink: the power of thinking without thinking [2005] ve Outliers: the story of success [2008])... Condé Nast'ın diğer önemli dergisi Wired'in şef editörü Chris Anderson (The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more [2006] ve Free: the future of a radical price [2009]) da, bunlardan ayrı düşünülmemesi gereken bir isim.

Gladwell geçenlerde yeni bir kitap çıkarttı (What the dog saw: and other adventures [2009]); ancak kitabın içeriği pek de öyle yeni değil. Kitap, yazarın The New Worker dergisindeki makalelerinde bir derleme aslında. Ancak çok güzel bir giriş ve iyi bölümlendirilmiş bir yapıyla oluşturulmuş bir derleme. Makaleler, elektronik olarak yazarın blogunda (http://www.gladwell.com) tıpkıbasım PDF dosyası olarak da mevcut.

Kitaptaki ilk makale, Ron Popeil adlı bir işportacının başarı öyküsü. Öyle işportacı deyip geçmeyin; "pitchman" adı verilen bu meslek Amerikan ekonomisinin önemli bir unsuru. Makaledeki bir cümle bunu çok açık olarak dile getiriyor: "Pazarlamayı ürün geliştimeden ayırmanın bir hata olduğuna inanıyorlardı..." (s. 4-5). İşte bizim de, inovasyon konusunda  vurgulamaya çalıştığımız en önemli noktalardan biri tam da bu.

Yeni Ürün Geliştirme (NPD) ve Pazarlama bir bütünüdür. Ürünü pazarlanacak şekilde geliştiremezseniz, pazarlama yapmak için debelenip anlamsız mesajlar veren kötü makyajlar yaparsınız. Bunun da adına "sıradışı reklam" denir. Dahası, pazarlamacılarınız ve reklamcılarınız, ürünün nasıl geliştirildiğini bilmiyorsa, hangi ihtiyacı veya talebi adreslediğini akıllarından bile geçirmemişlerdir. Önce şablon ararlar. Yabancı şirketlerin yerel ofisleri, bu konuda çok rahattır örneğin. Şablonlar HQ'dan nasıl olsa hazır sunumlar ve hatta kitler olarak gelir. Bunların Türkçe'ye çevrilmesi bile gerekmez. Nasılsa, ajansın müşteri temsilcileri ve "kreatif" ekibiyle yarı Türkçe yarı İngilizce bir jargon geliştirilmiştir. Gazla, gitsin! Diğerlerinin işi de, YouTube'la beraber, biraz kolaylaştı. Bak YouTube'a; kim, ne yapmış. Onu da gazla, gitsin!

Peki, bunu kim mi yapıyor? Hanımlar-beyler, hadi parmakları görelim!...