Talk:Team building

Current article doesn't distinguish this jargon term from its more general use
Current article doesn't distinguish this jargon term from its more general use. Team building more generally also refers to activities imposed and possibly also managed from outside the team, typically by higher management or similar. The particular approach described here is very trendy but stating or implying that it's the only way to build a team, as this article currently does, or even that it's the best way, which is now many professional consultants make their money at the moment, is POV. Andrewa 20:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is incomplete. If you are familiar with either the "more general use of the term" outside of Human resource management, or alternative team building techniques within HR, then please add to the article. mydogategodshat 21:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree it's incomplete, but the problem I was highlighting is more that it doesn't currently read like an incomplete article, just the opposite in fact. It currently assumes and thereby promotes the particular terminology used by a particular methodology. It could have been lifted straight from several of the (many) proprietry management methodology documents I've been obliged to read over the years. NPOVing it without losing content will be something of a challenge, I'll have a go when I have a suitable timeslot. Andrewa 23:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The current article: NO.
 * Is prone to link spam (have tagged as such) Jtneill 06:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure how long to leave the tag there, but it has succeeded in significantly reducing link spam to almost zero; I note on the teamwork page there are NO external links and instead a commented section requesting none to be added. That might be a bit extreme, but similar comments could be added into this article and perhaps the link spam tag removed. Jtneill - Talk 15:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is incomplete, e.g., no comment on research about team building Jtneill 06:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The subject is incomplete, Teamwork and Teambuilding are linked together, but in order to build a team that works togeather you must have communication and followup . No team can work without effective communication or followup when building a team. Will take a shot at modifying article when more time is available. B_Rieckmann 19:45, 26 March 2006
 * Teambuilding is a developmental process where teamwork is a result of combined factors including training, development and experience which all functioning together, in varying degrees, can result in teamwork. Teambuilding or team building is a seperate topic. If it were to be combined with teamwork, then teamwork should be combined with training.
 * Team Building is a deliberate, planned activity that is designed to enhance a group's ability to work together. This is different from teamwork. Teamwork happens when a group actually works together, whether deliberately or by necessity or a natural confluence or flow of events. (i.e. in a fire, people may be forced to work together to create a "bucket brigade".) In a Team Building session, a group would be asked to try and simulate a bucket brigade and use that as a learning experience.
 * "Teamwork" doesn't have spam links because "Team Building" is used more often as a search Key phrase, and spam linkers would naturally prefer a Key Phrase that is more popular.

More needs to be included on why teams have grown in popularity and whether or not people today have the necessary interpersonal competencies to effectively work in teams.

The Two Types Of Team Building IMO, there's a conflation of two different concepts or practices in this article, and I agree it would serve the article well to tease them apart. I'd be happy to write something up, but there isn't specific literature to cite on this. I have extensive experience in doing exactly this kind of work for many Fortune 500 companies, and as such could be considered an "authority" in this area (read my bio here) BUT I will refrain from adding to the actual page without consensus from the moderator(s) that it would be valuable and accepted. Here's the distinction that I believe would be valuable to tease out:
 * 1) Team Building as a part of ongoing organizational development within the organization itself. This deals with best practices from a human resources and managerial standpoint to promote the ongoing development of teams and their relationships, but in relation to specific goals, milestones and tasks that are part of the organization's function.
 * 2) Team Building as a part of an external intervention designed to take team members out of the context of the organization and its day-to-day function, hierarchy, job titles and specific tasks. Removing these artifices allows the group to perform team building activities that are unrelated to the specifics of individual job function, team tasks, hierarchy and other specifics of the organization. In this context, which is often facilitated by an outside consultant or organization, team members are able to work on collaboration, problem solving, communication, trust, and relationship building without the strictures inherent in the day-to-day organization. There is usually the integration of fun/play as well, which has been shown to speed the bonding process. These activities still include the concepts of goal/intention setting, problem solving and interpersonal relations management, but the concept of role clarification and application to specifics of the individual real-world job function is left behind in this process as it is viewed more as an impediment to the development of interpersonal relations.Denbradshaw (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge to Teamwork: Yes or no?
The merge tag's been on there forever. Opinions?


 * No merge. Different concepts. --Alvestrand 13:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No merge. I agree. The concepts are different. -- --John F Patterson 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A good idea
 * No merge. As above. The concepts are very different from each other.
 * No merge. strange idea. Byapparov 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No. A bad idea in my opinion.


 * No merge! These topics are very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.2.1 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No merge. Absolutely different concepts... Good call on this one. Denbradshaw (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

With a clear majority over 2 months saying "no merge", I'm removing the tag. --Alvestrand 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing and Deletions on This Page WAY Too Overzealous
Link to Team Building Primer that was on this page for a few year has been removed without foundation. It contains a ton of really valuable and practical information about team building and how companies can plan effective team building, pitfalls to avoid, et. .

http://www.thetrainingoasis.com/teambuildingprimer.html

Certainly a lot more relevant to business than some of the purely theoretical content on the page now. Sorry I just don't get it.

The removal of the UK Team Building Associaion as "commercial" also makes absolutely no sense. The website:

http://teambuilding.org.uk

CLEARLY states "The UK Teambuilding Association is a not for profit organisation formed to promote high standards among organisers of corporate teambuilding events in the UK. The Association will promote reputable regional providers of such events. The Association provides a forum for teambuilding event organisers to interact and raise the level of excellence in their field." How in the world is THAT commercial.

Current content is WAY too theoretical and not business focused. I have a lot of expertise in this area and would happily contribute but I would not expend the effort and invest the time due to the frequency and ease with which things get deleted. Some people are being WAY too overzealous when it comes to editing this page.

FYI, here are the Wikipedia spam guidelines:

'''There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.'''

--executiveoasis 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider Wikipedia's external links policy. The links you are advocating do not contribute unique valuable information on the subject; promoting the organization is not adequate reason for linking it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. / edg ☺ ★ 04:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns re: Team Building Editing

I really don't understand how you can say that a full page article that gives details about how to pull team building together and ensure it's effectiveness is not "of value" to a repository of information on team building. Some of the items discussed are not widely available anywhere on or off the ntet. I am sorry I just don't get it. To say that this is promotional is really beyond my comprehension.

Even the repository of articles you have links to contains the log and a link to the Autenticiy consulting site that promotes it:

http://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/teams/teams.htm

http://www.authenticityconsulting.com

Are you going to tell me THAT isn't promotional? The site is also selling books through Amazon directly on the page to which you link from Wikipedia. Are you going to tell me that THAT isn't promotional? Natually an organization that goes through the trouble of putting together information is going to want to put their logo with a link on or include a brief blurb about the organization. There is nothing "spammy" about that if the information they present is of value. The information in the team building primer IS of value and not that easy to find from other sources.

Executiveoasis 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Stubifying the Team Building Article
I see that the article was reduced to a stub. I agree that the article can be better and there is spam in some places, but I think the issue could've been handled maybe in another, less severe way, mainly because I believe that the article was mostly the result of legitimate contributions from professionals around the world. Thanks for looking into this matter Pm master 10:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Likely that was the only solution at this point. It was filled with theoretical information, nothing of value to business. Links with original content were being removed yet links to sites that were nothing but pages of links (in one case to drive traffic and then sell books through Amazon) were remaning unchallenged. Hopefully, at some point there will be an opportunity to improve this page but, for now it's probablly best that it remain as is.

Executiveoasis 12:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Ε —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.80.64 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanding (De-stubifying) in non biased way?
I'm interested in expanding this article. Reading the old stuff, there was some good points in there and some bias. I'm not sure how best to expand it yet - mainly I'd think appropriately linking to articles that are in the "see also" would be a start.

I put some basic forms of team building into the team work article, but they belong here more. I also wonder how some forms of team development tie in with conceptual metaphor (and potentially therapeutic metaphor which I've used in counselling & hypnosis).

I found these articles/research: But one is from a team building group, the other is a summary of what he's generally found as factors for success in teams, not team development. Anyone have some good research links?
 * http://www.cot.com.au/cati1.html
 * http://www.business.uq.edu.au/display/news/Team-building+and+soft+skills+imperative+for+success+in+multicultural+project+teams

I realise there isn't much movement here, but want to throw it into the open - any thoughts on expanding? Greg (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Team building
Okay, not sure about today's changes (made by Wightdiver)- they sound a bit too advertising for team building. Admittedly I'm not a critic myself, but really... "the golden age of team building...". Any comments? Greg (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see "golden age" is removed (I assume you're reading here Wightdiver?), but that line and the following lines don't explain who thinks this, why, whether it's common - and no references.

For example "1990 until 2000 are considered the era of high-performance teams. Consulting firms developed methods and tools to help organizations with the transition to becoming team-based organizations". Who considers it the era of high-performance teams? which consulting firms developed methods and what are those methods (are they what we described elsewhere). How common are team-based organisations and their desire to transition into one?

I see there is much research added to the bottom which is great, but it's disconnected from what was actually said and where in the article. Can any of this be fixed? Greg (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does team-building consultant section fit here?
Seems like an advertisement What does a team-building consultant do? A team-building consultant, or coach, is responsible for each component of a team building event. He will likely interact with the team once, or for a limited number of times. During these first contacts, actively assessing the team, making recommendations, and providing activities (exercises that compose a team building intervention) for the team are the main responsibilities of the consultant. Moreover, usually a written proposal is required after the evaluation process, in which the trainer indicates how he or she would go about improving the team’s performance. Once the organization and consultant determine which recommendations to utilize (if not all), the consultant is then responsible for providing a useful intervention that will transfer back into the organizational setting. This responsibility usually requires the consultant to create a detailed plan of events, while allowing for flexibility. After the intervention has been employed, the consultant will typically evaluate the team-building program and communicate the results to the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseakrueger (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits
This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
 * 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
 * 1 - A few minutes of work needed
 * 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
 * 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
 * 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Team building in organizations
"Instead, team building activities that are geared toward creating a learning environment, exceeding results, and engaging employees both during the activities and afterwards when they return to their place of work". This is not a sentence, please add a verb. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)