Talk:Team building

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Current article doesn't distinguish this [[jargon]] term from its more general use

message: The merge tag's been on there forever. Opinions?
* No merge. Different concepts. --Alvestrand 13:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Teamwork]]: Yes or no? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Editing and Deletions on This Page WAY Too Overzealous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stubifying the Team Building Article 

message: 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:
*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
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?
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)
thread_title:  Expanding (De-stubifying) in non biased way? 

message: 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)
thread_title: History of Team building

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does team-building consultant section fit here?

message: 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)
thread_title: Impact of recent student edits

message: "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)
thread_title:  Team building in organizations