Christine, yes, I argue that you want diversity in teams is desirable, and in many ways: skillsets, and all the other factors in DEI. Having similar folks is, indeed, redundant. In the Coherent Org model, you get developed in team work and then back through your community of practice. So, I do think that much of the self-development is, and arguably best, social. However, a good component is also independent, I agree. So you can also do your own self-learning, particularly if your org has helped develop your learn-to-learn skills.

Christine, those were Dan Pink’s three things, and having learned of Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, I know that the richer picture is mastery, autonomy, and relatedness. That said, I’m a fan of purpose too! (Which is an element of relatedness.) Now, enough pedantry, and to your questions…I think you definitely can have autonomy and mastery in a collaborative task, even if it’s operational (the cooperative collaboration already fits, to me). First, you should be there because you bring unique capabilities (otherwise, you’re redundant), so we’re tapping into diversity, and thus your mastery is why you’re there. There should be facilitation, so that’s supports your continual acquisition of mastery too, and you should be reflecting on what you do back to your community of practice (thinking of the Coherent Organization model). And you (should) choose to contribute in the activity, particularly your own expertise, so that’s autonomy. Of course, to collaborate there should be a clear purpose. At least, that’s my take.

Chad, thanks for the feedback. I think some people will show their work in an org (if it’s not a Miranda org), but in other cases it becomes part of the org culture, deliberately or not. And, yes, improving things by commenting is part of cooperation, but it’s not coerced or expected. That’s my story. Not sure I get goal-oriented vs opportunity driven (I’ll have to check with Harold ;), but structured vs informal maps pretty well to operation/cooperation.

Brigit, in Harold’s mind, they’re not. Collaboration is something you do to an end, with an expectation of effort or a tangible reward. Cooperation, in his mind, is more a personal willingness to contribute with no direction to do so, and no immediate benefit except to the collective good. It has to do with motivation more than mechanism. I’m teasing out that there can be unmotivated collaboration too (and coopted communication). I’m willing to be wrong, so thanks for the feedback, and will ponder.

How does your construct differ from Harold’s “Goal-oriented vs Opportunity-driven” and “Structured vs Informal” dimensions?