“Intelligence, academic performance, and prestigious schools don’t correlate well with fulfillment, or even with outstanding accomplishment. The traits that do make a difference are poorly understood, and can’t be taught in a classroom, no matter what the tuition: the ability to understand and inspire people; to read situations and discern the underlying patterns; to build trusting relationships; to recognize and correct one’s shortcomings; to imagine alternate futures. “   David Brooks, Social Animal, The New Yorker,  January 17, 2011.

“The theory arrays these tools along two dimensions—the extent to which members of the organization agree on what they want from their participation in the enterprise, and the extent to which they agree on what actions will produce the desired results. When there is little agreement on both axes, you have to use “power tools”—coercion, threats, punishment, and so on—to secure cooperation. Many companies start in this quadrant, which is why the founding executive team must play such an assertive role in defining what must be done and how. If employees’ ways of working together to address those tasks succeed over and over, consensus begins to form. MIT’s Edgar Schein has described this process as the mechanism by which a culture is built. Ultimately, people don’t even think about whether their way of doing things yields success. They embrace priorities and follow procedures by instinct and assumption rather than by explicit decision—which means that they’ve created a culture. Culture, in compelling but unspoken ways, dictates the proven, acceptable methods by which members of the group address recurrent problems. And culture defines the priority given to different types of problems. It can be a powerful management tool.” (Christensen, C. (2010). How Will You Measure Your Life?. Harvard Business Review, 88(7/8), 46-51.)

In the language of my current company, this balance between what people want from their participation, and the actions that will produce the desired results,  is called “shared vision”.  It has become part of the fabric of our corporate culture – and perhaps the most challenging concept to internalize for anyone new to the organization,  whether it is a single employee, or the whole team coming onboard after an acquisition.

Christensen also applies this concept to the family life, and this is where it gets even more interesting, as you get to the point where command and control stops working, and “because I said so” is no longer an valid argument (nor that it ever really was) – and by then you better have developed the shared vision with your child, this common understanding of what is right and what is wrong, and how to make good choices and avoid bad ones.

Here are some of them:

#1

I am sorry, this variant does not approach me. Who else, what can prompt?
Today I read on this question much.
I recommend to you to come for a site on which there are many articles on this question.
You commit an error. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
I can consult you on this question. Together we can come to a right answer.

#2

I am assured, that you are mistaken.
I perhaps shall keep silent
I think, that is not present.
))))))))))))))))))) it is matchless
Should you tell it — a false way.

#3

In it something is. Many thanks for an explanation, now I will not commit such error.
Has casually come on a forum and has seen this theme. I can help you council.
It is exact
I know a site with answers to a theme interesting you.
I apologise that, I can help nothing. But it is assured, that you will find the correct decision.

Vaguely business-sounding:
I was on yesterday was and schedule before the use of the estimate based on the body of it because the designation weather or what the yeah she doesn’t look good. Lunch Program.

Sinister:
Well I’m Linda all my money right now. I’ve been watching for you on your.

International flair:
Well, I’ll talk with each other. I just want to discuss poorest via Samos messages and Campbell. Bittel horrible. And don’t worry I’m not. Hey I’m on my telephone so is the voice him that he said he said lucky session resources. David’s you really my cellphone, Hi, this is the voice in just left, so if you have a Steven off of the Lebanese if you bye.

Project Runway :
Or  you  read  this  all  otherwise  have  several  show.  Yes,  you  assume  you’re  at  it.  I  know  that  quit  their  intention  is  going  great.  I  would  really  love  her  so  go  ahead.  Sorry  you  and  we  are  a  model  you  know  that  they’re  celebrating  again.  You  know  we’ll  see  if  she  was  because  yo  dude,  I  was  hoping  for  a  couple  of  Appointment  door  sweating  new  address.  Andrew,  which  is  restrictions.  How  are  you.  I’m  gonna  send  it,  couple  of  minutes.  Okay.

And finally – existential:
Well  I’m  calling  in  life.

Below is the session description, and the text of the presentation is available here.

Wednesday 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM
Location: Grand B

David Sedaris, Reflections, Loggerheads, The New Yorker, December 7, 2009, p. 42

One of the ideas for my research

Unlike the well-structured traditional problem resolution process, the  collaborative problem resolution that I am  interested in is frequently ad-hoc. Groups self-organize around a problem, and dissolve after the solution has been identified (hence the “swarm”).  In fact, the most successful problem-solving  results are produced by highly diverse groups from different functional areas.  The activity of joining such group could be considered a social ritual. This unarticulated ritual includes the trigger for group’s creation, the explicit or implicit permission for joining the group, the level of information-sharing in the group, the norms for using the knowledge generated in the problem-solving process, and, finally, the protocol for exiting and dissolving the group.  Traditionally, these ad-hoc groups are observed in an open face-to-face environment, where people can easily join a conversation that they happen to overhear. Collaboration becomes more challenging  in the digital environment, where participants are not interacting face-to-face. What are the new social rituals for collaborative problem-solving in the digital domain? Is it acceptable to forward and email with the question to another person who many have insights? Is it OK to quote any of the participants and what level of attribution is expected?  And so on.

The type of collaboration I have been talking about so far is the collaboration between members of the same organization. In the last decade, a new type of collaboration has emerged  –  Internet-facilitated collaboration between complete strangers providing  value to an organization they are unaffiliated with.  This type of collaboration is frequently referred to as “crowdsourcing”.  In this type of collaboration, large groups of people may solve problems through interaction in online forums (Microsoft Usenet forums or Novell Sysops forums) , generate encyclopedia content (Wikipedia.com, Mahalo.com) ,  offer tax and accounting advice to each other (Intuit Live Community), write literary reviews (Amazon.com, LinraryThing.com), generate entertainment (or what goes for entertainment these days – YouTube.com) and so on. Collaboration of this type is purely digital  and has different social rituals around it.