Adam, thanks for the feedback. I think it’s valuable to think about the 3 groups separately, because I think while the individual has to be active in each, there’s a different flavor (as Harold identified in separating out cooperation from collaboration), though there’s overlap. And I don’t have the cultural elements that need to backstop making this work, but I like this model: http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=612. Experimentation is taking risks, psychological safety is there. Trust is an important issue, wondering if those other elements *lead* to trust, or there needs to be more.

The more I look at the circles and the matrix, the more I wonder if the distinction between work teams, CoPs and social networks is necessary.

Would it be fair to say that each individual, whether working independently or in a coherent team/CoP/network, is responsible for connecting, sharing, monitoring, contributing, interacting and shaping culture?

I keep re-reading the attributes and feeling like each group should be modelling them all, particularly bringing in outside ideas, refining practice, thinking out loud, welcoming contributions. If every individual formed these new habits, the culture would shift dramatically, no?