People find each other, connect, and some deepen the relation, co-create and collaborate. As on town square so on the web, giving us all useful free tools like Firefox, Linux, Apache and more. On the way to intense co-creative productivity, how do we determine who we want to work with?
In a closed forum, Venessa asked, "what information do you want to see when looking at a person's profile to get a fast snapshot if they are someone you'd want to work with?" This reminded me of her kind selection to cross-post on her blog, much visited, an earlier post of mine, and of next-gen profiles we prototyped for a digital collaboratory.
Let me summarize 3 years of intense digital contacts that followed more than 20 years of local forum BBS, loose web connection and strong digital group collaboration at work. Much was accomplished by e-mail, too.
Image credit: Social Media monitoring and the spectrum of online relationships by David J Carr
Digital cues and trust
For me, a few key pieces of information on a profile will do as a quick first test, follow or connect, yes, or no. The quicker the assessment, the narrower the data set, the larger the emotional and intuitive components, the more tentative my trust. The first few times I engage, I revisit profiles and scan nearby info, so it works out the same, whether the profile is lean or comprehensive.
The self declaration in a profile is one of usually three snapshots I take, ready to snap more if interested or if implausibility calls for it.
Snap 1: profile (twitter, blog, linkedin, any).
Snap 2: authentic blog post or other complete piece of work.
Snap 3: a trail or a few pieces of interaction with others, some convo.
Video of self in action a plus. Sharing workable methods or tools a plus plus.
Why I do this: natural curiosity, learn about the other person by their public appearance, digital as it may be.
Get closer to want-to-work-with-you
Wanting to work with someone has two dynamics:
For me this means to either just do it and see how we two pull together, or participate in a team setting to deliver on a small project, solve a shared challenge or just be generally helpful, playful, "shareful" with useful information. (Coining new words again..., actually not, there is prior art, just new to me.)
Viewing tools for live group conversation, from digital keyhole technology to radiant virtual presence:
- text chat,
- phone conference,
- videophone (e.g. skype),
- collaboration tools like Blacklight Elluminate,
- G+ hangout,
- (what did I forget, what could be the next edge?)
- meet in meatspace
Meet in person is the big bandwidth hands down best way to decide who to work with, but on the long way getting there (if aiming beyond the beautiful local network) the number of low-cost swift screening tools keeps rising.
Want-to-work-with appears to be rooted in trust with performance and ability to learn factoring in, and trust in the capability of the group and its members to deliver on commitments, reinforced by positive experience.
Trust diminishes by a number of factors, among them time without interaction. Slowly, doubt creeps in — is the person still the same? Still wants to work with me? Misunderstanding until repaired, withdrawal of trust for any reason or for no reason, and negative experience nix the trust level.
Sustain tribal thrival
My want-to-work-with is sustained by consistent interaction, by discovery of congruent values, and by progress toward shared vision. And by abundant tolerance for trial and error and for personal growth in others and myself.
Tribal Leadership by Dave Logan, John King, and Halee Fischer-Wright has much more about the dynamics of people wanting to work with each other and achieving high performance. Thanks, Venessa for sharing that. And WorldBlu and the Management Innovation Exchange, they have great approaches, too.
And my futurist credo: All rights reserved to know more in future.