Cross-Functional Teams and Collaborative Cultures

Cross-functional teams are an excellent way to maximize the skills to be found across the organization for project work. Cross-functional teams can also be defined to oversee and manage organizational needs that require diverse skills thus improving administrative and customer service efficiencies. The surge in product launches for internal social network tools has captured the interest of some of the larger technical vendors as we see frequent purchases of applications to help round out the current offerings of these vendors.

Team effectiveness has been the topic and focus of many management interventions prior to and during the Knowledge Era, much of it based on research with some innovation applied when introduced to an organization. Bruce Tuckman (1965) became known for his “Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing” theory of how teams form and manage, which is still a reasonable framework to start with. There are several other similar team related formulas and we need to move beyond theory and into application. For the Digital Era, collaboration becomes a more critical skill, as the concept of ‘social’ business encompasses not only the integration of social tools but better supports multi-generational workforces.

In order to understand why some skills, such as those related to collaboration, require a fresh look in the Digital Era we need to first consider the difference between a team that collaborates and a collaborative culture.

First, consider ‘branding’ as it used to relate to the organization but not the people that work for the organization. Now, in the Digital Era with the proliferation of social networks being used for job and candidate searches, a gradual shift from employee to free agent and the change from considering one or two workplaces for an entire career to multiple workplace changes frequently throughout a career, branding is now something that we are asked to do on a very personal level. Our brand is something we take with us from employer to employer or throughout multiple contracts. This change in workplace norms has in conjunction with the growing use of social network tools also started a shift in organizational cultures. A business, such as Zappos that has been in business for less than fifteen (15) years will likely already have a culture that is suited to the concept of social business and have a collaborative culture. Organizations that have been in business for longer than that may find that more attention needs to be paid to how ready they are for this. Now we have an organization populated by a myriad of people with personal brands that all must work together to achieve the overall goals of the organization.

Team members can learn to work collaboratively on any given project in which the outcome is shared and each member is responsible for the success of the project. When the project is completed they may join another project team or return to a specific position in the organization. These days we want the skills used in those project teams to be continuously employed when the project is over.
The skills used in this context are key to establishing a collaborative culture within an organization though they do require that members of the organization develop a higher level of these skills than may be required for relatively independent teams. We are used to seeing in management literature that the organization’s leader must create the vision and communication shared goals to the rest of the people in the organization. A collaborative culture will have shared goals as well but accountability for reaching those goals will be more widely distributed that in a siloed organization.

It is also important to define when collaboration is the best approach to problem solving or project management and when collaboration needs to be set aside. A failure to be clear on this in an organization can lead to a sluggish response when a quick action is required.

The key skills for collaborative success:

• Accountability
• 360 Communications
• Emotional Intelligence
• Change Resilient
• (Servant) Leadership
• Self-motivated
• Problem solving/critical thinking
• Continuous learning and knowledge sharing

With these skills in place and continuously upgraded an organization can benefit from the experience and knowledge of multiple generations, efficiently co-ordinate the skills of cross-functional teams and maximize the value of social tools. This will create a customer experience that sets the organization apart from others in the market.

When should collaboration be set aside? How clear is that in your organization and how quick is the response when needed? Can you think of other skills that are important to collaboration?

Social Behaviours and Brand Identification-My Intrigue Today

(1) A Social Network company’s email error

This morning an email from A Social Network Company’s landed in my email box. The salutation was odd *|FNAME|* *|LNAME|* , clearly there was a glitch in the mail out that substituted that where the recipients first and last names would usually go. Subsequent to that I noted on Twitter that a number of people directed tweets to A Social Network Company’s’ to complain about receiving this. A couple of thoughts came to mind when I saw those messages:

(a) When we receive messages from an email newsletter or promotion and our name is in the message, it ‘feels’ personal but it isn’t really, thousands of people received that same email with their name in it. It is simply technology taking the information you provided when you signed on and ‘personalizing’ the message. To my mind, real personalization comes from an individual sitting down and thoughtfully crafting a message to me. A mass mail out isn’t personal, whether my name is in there or not. Yet the wording of some of the tweets gave the impression that people actually felt slighted because this time there was an error where their name should have been. Have we gone too far in blurring the lines between what is truly personal and what is simply mass marketing? Do we identify too closely to a brand or a business?

(b) A Social Network Company’s’ employee responded to the messages noting it was a “wee” error, which essentially it was. However, as someone who has worked in HR for decades I do know that people are sensitive to how and when their names are used. A misspelling or worse a wrong name being used in a written or verbal message will understandably upset people. So while the error A Social Network Company’s’ made was in the big picture, really quite minor, it unfortunately targeted the one thing in that message that was bound to create some frowns.

(c) What do you think: did A Social Network Company’s’ get it right by referring to it as a small error and providing a simple apology?

(d) A few people that sent tweets crossed the line into rudeness or overstated the issue in their messages-is this something you would like to see less of in Social Networks?

(2) Apple announced a new product today. Usually, for the two weeks prior to an Apple announcement the rumours start flying around the tech sites, yet we know that Apple never reveals what they are about to announce until they are ready. Perhaps some writers enjoy the guessing game.

What I find more interesting than whatever it is that Apple (or any company) is announcing as a new product or service is the reactions of people on Social Networks and in subsequent face-to-face conversations. The commentary around Apple vs. their closest competitors is interesting not so much based on the technical points discussed but on the level and type of emotion that is expressed. It used to be that we chose what products or services we bought based on what we needed and what we thought provided the best quality we could afford.

(a) Now, it appears that there is a fair bit of emotion that goes into these purchases although often people seem unable to really explain that emotion in a way that is identifiable. I find it relatively easy to understand someone stating that they don’t purchase products from a specific business because there is proof that the business is having products manufactured in factories that engage in abusive and dangerous employment practices.

(b) It intrigues me when someone states they will not buy a product, not based on the quality of the product, the price of the product or egregious business/employment practices but because someone irritated you by an overenthusiastic rave about why they like their (insert product), or you have a negative concept of who buys (insert product) and don’t wish to be seen as part of that group of people, or because ‘cool’ people buy (insert product).

Which brings me back to my question in (1) (a) Do we identify too closely to a brand or a business? What does this mean to our individuality, our ability to innovate and create and our sense of self? I have used Apple as an example here simply because they so conveniently made an announcement today and the social networks comments that followed were pretty much in line with what we see each time, however, this applies to many different brands and industries.

I have posed a couple question here that intrigue me but I am really curious as to how people feel about the level of brand promotion and our approach to choosing what and where to purchase necessary items. What do you think?