The Culture of Collaboration

Strayform Lets Artists Collaborate with Patrons

Brandt Cannici has circumnavigated the globe, speaks Japanese fluently plus has a background in programming and finance. A mutual friend put us together recently, because of Brandt’s interest in collaboration. His most recent endeavor is Strayform, a social networking startup that connects artists with people wanting to sponsor artistic projects—music, movies, books, software, and research. You can check out Strayform here.

The idea behind Strayform is to cut out gatekeepers who are often a barrier to getting artistic projects off the ground. So rather than waiting for a publisher, record label or studio to say yes, artists can get micro grants from those who believe in them. Strayform also includes a licensing engine so that artists can grant creative commons licenses for non-commercial purposes as well as commercial licenses.

One project currently listed on Strayform is an oil painting to commemorate Silicon Valley leaders. Based on the concept of commissioned portraits, this business model involves micro patronage. For $200, you can be included in the artist’s rendering of Silicon Valley leaders. Not a bad price, considering the painting might one day hang in a museum…or at least on somebody’s wall. You can view the project proposal here.

Ford Keeping Volvo: Collaboration a Factor?

Collaboration was percolating beneath the surface of Ford Motor Company’s announcement last Thursday that it would focus on fixing rather than selling Volvo. I argued in an August 3 post entitled “Why Ford Should Keep Volvo” that the greatest value Ford stands to gain by keeping Volvo is the Culture of Collaboration. You can read my post here.

In the announcement, Ford said that it has developed a plan for Volvo. The priority is to improve the unit’s financial performance, which has been stymied by several factors including foreign exchange rates. Another objective is to increase “synergies” (essentially collaboration) between Ford-brand operations and Volvo, particularly in product development and purchasing.

In The Culture of Collaboration book, I write about highly-collaborative enterprises. Ford is included mostly because of Volvo. While Ford’s collaborative culture is a work in progress, Volvo collaborates constantly and is consensus-driven. In short, Ford has much to learn from Volvo on many levels. Clearly, Ford CEO Alan Mulally wants to accelerate collaboration between Ford and Volvo. Until recently, Alan ran Boeing Commercial Airplanes—and Boeing is among the most collaborative companies. My sense is that Alan is the right leader at the right time for Ford. He understands the value collaboration can create. Clearly, the desire to collaborate with Volvo is playing a role in Ford’s decision to keep the unit.

Overcoming Fear of Failure Enhances Collaboration

Zane Safrit, the highly-collaborative CEO of Conference Calls Unlimited, has added substantially to the conversation about how accepting and learning from failure enhances collaboration. Incidentally, Zane is a living, breathing example of a CEO who leverages collaborative culture and tools to create value.

Conference Calls Unlimited has integrated many collaborative tools into its culture. Using the basecamp Wiki product from 37 Signals, Zane notes, helps eliminate backdoor channels of conversation and decisions at Conference Calls Unlimited. But minimizing fear of failure is more about the culture Zane has helped instill than it is about the tool per se. Rather than trying to hide mistakes, team members feel comfortable sharing work and ideas for all to see. Some ideas work and a few fail, but everybody keeps learning and collaborating; and the company benefits from the cultural acceptance that it’s ok to fail. Zane and his team avoid using the word mistake and instead focus on learning and collaborative accomplishments. And the result is that Conference Calls Unlimited, Zane feels, makes fewer mistakes because of the collaborative culture and environment. You can read Zane’s post here.

Meantime, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch are searching for CEO replacements in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. The problem, according to a story (subscription required) by Aaron Lucchetti and Monica Langley in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, is that these firms suffer from a thin talent pool. It seems that the lack of internal CEO candidates stems from a Wall Street culture that is so focused on quarterly returns that leaders quickly lose their jobs if they fail to deliver.

Something else that’s at play on Wall Street is the star cultures that plague many firms. An individual must perform as a star analyst, star trader, or a star executive. If he or she fails, the company is quick to sack the individual. Trust is out the window, and the organization—as we’re now seeing—suffers. This kind of culture gives rise to scandals including numbers fudging. Enron, which had a star culture, comes to mind. In collaborative cultures, team members brainstorm, make mistakes, chalk up successes, and often create far more value for the organization. Overcoming the fear of failing advances collaborative culture and can deliver significant returns.

Collaboration and the Physical Workplace

Collaboration often refers to tools, which are critical enablers. But collaboration is about more than tools! Collaboration, as the name of this blog suggests, is largely about culture. There are many factors involved in instilling the culture of collaboration, and one key element is physical workplace design. Smart organizations embarking on an enterprise collaboration strategy should consider whether the physical workplace encourages and reinforces the culture of collaboration.

For years, the only major workplace design choice for most businesses was either private offices or cubicles. There are advantages and disadvantages to both private offices and cubicles. Private offices give team members better concentration but also create barriers and can discourage spontaneous interaction with colleagues. Cubicles may encourage greater interaction and collaboration with colleagues, but this is a generalization because there are many types of cubicles. Some, particularly the high-walled variety, are more like private offices.

I spent my early career in newsrooms in which most people sit shoulder-to-shoulder or across from one another with minimal, if any, dividers. The bosses usually have private offices on the perimeter. Financial trading rooms and police stations also use this “bullpen” approach. To meet with a colleague, all a bullpen dweller needs to do is shout across the room or start talking to the person at the next desk—no appointment necessary.

Workplace designers are now focusing on new, open approaches that advance the bullpen several steps. The basic concept is that team members need a variety of workplace environment options; they can select among these options on the fly depending on the task at hand. Environments may include lounge-oriented settings with easy chairs, café-type arrangements with stools and shared desks where people can plug in their laptops on a whim.

Intel, which famously has put every team member including the CEO in a cubicle, is now reconsidering this approach. According to an October 15 story by Don Clark in The Wall Street Journal, Intel plans to test some innovative, more open environments that more closely fit how people work. This approach may also enhance collaboration. Cisco Systems and Hewlett-Packard have conducted similar pilot programs. It’s ironic that these Silicon Valley companies, which have developed technologies enabling interaction among geographically-dispersed teams, are now focused on enabling face-to-face collaboration within their organizations. But it makes sense! As tools enable more effective collaboration at a distance, our ability to collaborate face-to-face needs work. The physical workplace is a key consideration.