Buzz words get on my nerves (and yes, I recognize the irony of that statement considering the Awesome Inc's three buzzword tagline - Technology, Creativity, Startups) . They so often indicate that the person using them hasn't actually practiced them, and more often than not they imply no real action. One of the buzz words I hear often not only gets on my nerves but I think whos value is overemphasized is 'collaboration'.

The idea behind it has the best of intentions:

• If our organizations have similar goals then why don't we just pool our resources to make an even greater impact.
•  If we get together then we can bring different ideas to the table and come up with something better than what we could have in the first place.

Now, I have no problem with people getting together to talk about ideas, etc. as long as it's not under the pretext that we're doing anything other than just talking...which is fine...there's nothing wrong with talking. The problem with collaboration, I think, comes in two forms:

• People get together to 'collaborate' on a project that is just a side hobby for both of them. They meet and the project ultimately goes nowhere. This is not a bad thing in some cases, as the meeting could ultimately result in making friendships, learning new skills etc. (i.e. Startup Weekend) but the argument could very easily be made that if 'progress' is the point – then perhaps those two people should have spent their time doing their own thing, which they know they will be sticking with, rather than trying to 'collaborate' on something that, because they don't own 100% (or for a myriad of other reasons) never comes to life.
• Collaboration slows people down or causes them to stifle their own desires and ideas because they are waiting for everyone else's approval and opinion. There is, of course, a difference between collaboration and consensus...but the two are not free of influence from each other. It may be politically difficult to go meet with someone saying you want to collaborate with them about something, but ultimately just take one idea of theirs and add it to what you are already doing and not actually create anything 'with' them. Though I think this is usually the ideal outcome of 'collaborating' with people, it isn't what people that come together to actually 'collaborate' actually think of...and some get offended by it.

Ultimately, anything that keeps you from doing your thing or provides you an excuse to not take action (like planning) for not doing your thing ("I'm waiting to hear back from so-and-so before I get started" etc.) I am adamantly opposed to.

The argument could also be made that the duplication of effort is inefficient in a global sense. While this may be true, the complete opposite, which is centralization and complete coordination of all efforts (also called "communism") is even more inefficient...because incentives are not aligned. I'd rather have a bunch of people running around passionately pursuing projects that are 30% similar, than all of those people being forced into doing one specific part of a project that has only 30% of their interest and effort.

• < Prev
• Next >