Talk:Team building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

  • 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.

[edit] 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)
  • No merge. As above. The concepts are very different from each other.
  • No merge. strange idea. Byapparov 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A good idea

No. A bad idea in my opinion.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)