A Businessweek article stated that frenemies in the workplace are common, even in business to business partnerships. Due to increasingly informal environments and the "abundance of very close, intertwined relationships that bridge people's professional and personal lives ... [while] it certainly wasn't unheard of for people to socialize with colleagues in the past, the sheer amount of time that people spend at work now has left a lot of people with less time and inclination to develop friendships outside of the office."
Professional relationships are successful when two or more business partners come together and benefit from one another, but personal relationships require more common interests outside of business. Relationships in the workplace, in a sports club, or any place that involves performance comparing, form because of the commonalities between persons. Due to the intense environment, competitiveness can evolve into envy and strain a relationship. Frenemy type relationships become routine and common because of the shared interest of business dealings or competition.
Whenever Maya passes an exam, beats a personal best in a marathon or lands a contract for work, most of her friends and her family are delighted for her. They send congratulatory texts or suggest going out for a celebratory Indian meal.
Frenemy. A frenemy is someone who befriends you so that you think he is a supporter. In reality, the frenemy is only acting the part and is truly working against you. Frenemies are extremely dangerous, because they lull you into a false sense of security that you are winning the sale, when they are really coordinating a plan to defeat you.
Frenemy influencer marketing consists of thought leaders from businesses that target similar audiences to yours but are not direct competitors. Your frenemy and you have at least one point of overlap. Your marketing objective is to create a win-win relationship where both businesses get measurable results by working together.
Before we dive further in to what the different types of blockchains are, we should address the question of what blockchain technology is first. In this article, we will cover the different types of blockchains. The benefits of blockchain. And why Blockchain as a Service (BaaS) is the preferred solution for enterprises and developers.
Any time a transaction takes place between two parties, it can be made more efficient by blockchain. This is due to the simple fact that there is no need for a third party to be involved in the transaction (e.g. a bank), which results in reducing friction and lowering costs. Transactions are agreed to by the participants in the blockchain when entered into the ledger and said transactions cannot be changed. The cryptography behind blockchains allows these transactions to be provably verified and helps ensure the permanency of the records. Now we know what blockchain technology is, let's have a look at the different types of chains that are available to develop on today.
Let's explore the different types of chains. And start with public blockchains, which are open source. They allow anyone to participate as users, miners, developers, or community members. All transactions that take place on public blockchains are fully transparent, meaning that anyone can examine the transaction details.
Now that we understand what a blockchain is and the different types of blockchains let's discuss why we even need blockchains to begin with. There are a variety of blockchain use cases and benefits to blockchain implementation, the most well-known being value transfer over the Bitcoin protocol. For cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, blockchain solves a very specific problem that had hampered previous efforts at developing a digital currency. That problem is known as the "double spend" phenomenon. We all understand that the typical way in which we share things in the digital world is to create a copy of what we have, such as a pdf or image, and sending that to another person.
Distributed Ledger Technology, or DLT, is a category of database technology that includes blockchain technology or characteristics of a blockchain. But not every blockchain is a distributed ledger. In the case of Dragonchain, there is not one single blockchain. Each business node and each blockchain application has its own blockchain, that can interact with any other blockchain or system if you'd like, using Interchain tech. On Dragonchain there is also no need for proof of work, or proof of stake, similar to distributed ledger technology. See how easy it is to get confused?
Part of being an adolescent is finding your place in social networks. Your peers become incredibly important and there is less focus on parents and significant adults. As a result, impressing and belonging become very important. Traditionally boys have achieved this pecking order with physical strength and humour. Girls use their communication and interpersonal skills.
Linda Stade is an education writer, speaker, and consultant in Western Australia. She works with parents and teachers to help grow happy, healthy kids who thrive on learning. Linda has enjoyed 30 years in schools and working with young people.
The second type of frenemies is involuntary friendships. This person is part of your circle of friends, a group, a team you belong to, or a workmate. If you end the friendship, it might impact other relationships and your participation in the group.
Author of the best-selling All I Really Need to Know in Business I Learned at Microsoft. I now write about the marijuana industry for Forbes and, yes, Weed is my real last name. I also write for The New York Times including 150+ articles on business, travel, and other topics, and have created articles and cover stories for Inc. magazine, Entrepreneur, Fast Company and others. Check out my work at www.julieweed.net and follow me @Julie_Weed
Research collaboration has become a widespread and diverse mode of scientific practice in recent decades (Chompalov & Shrum, 1999). In addition to numerous advantages that collaborative research potentially offers to different scientific actors (Olechnicka et al., 2019), there are also recurring obstacles to successful collaborative research (Blanckenburg et al., 2005; Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; Hackett, 2005). If, for example, a research cluster does not succeed in efficiently organising work processes, nor in reaching an interdisciplinary understanding and binding agreement on common goals, as well as generating social cohesion and trust given divergent interests and benefit calculations, and if contributions are not adequately rewarded or if individual collaborators feel unfairly treated, the collaboration threatens to falter and its success can subsequently be jeopardised (Hall et al., 2019).
The article starts with a basic definition of the term research collaboration, from which two collaboration types are derived. This is followed by a brief presentation of the organisational structures of DFG-funded research clusters and a description of research clusters from a club theory perspective. The club perspective focuses on the tension between cooperation and competition that accompanies collaboration between PIs and shapes the context in which seven problems arise. The characteristics and (inter)effects of these collaboration problems are outlined as part of the construction of the hypothesis model. The description of the data, methods and operationalisation is followed by the presentation of the results of the verification of the hypothesis model by means of structural equation modelling. The article concludes with a discussion of the central findings, theoretical contributions, practical implications and the identification of further research needs.
A supporting collaboration (Laudel, 2002), on the other hand, is characterised (2) by the orientation of the collaborative contributions towards the external research goals pursued by the collaboration partners. Collaboration partners can support each other's research goals by taking over part of the research work without making creative contributions. Usually, these are research services that have a routine character and can therefore be delegated (Laudel, 1999). In addition, services offered within a supporting collaboration usually include granting access to material or immaterial resources. Examples of supporting research collaborations include time-consuming measurements, developing instruments or testing new methods. Similarly, a supporting collaboration can also consist of providing access to research equipment or passing on already existing specialised knowledge on an ad-hoc basis (Laudel, 1999).
In the DFG-funded research clusters (RC), pure and mixed forms of both types of collaboration can in principle arise at different levels and between different status or project groups. Depending on whether the research and/or collaborations goals of an RC require monodisciplinary or cross-disciplinary collaboration, on the extent to which the sub-projects are interlinked in terms of content, on the social cohesion or on the subject-related and personnel heterogeneity of a research cluster, the occurrence of division of labour and supporting collaboration sequences within RCs can vary greatly (Laudel, 1999). In general, the DFG requires that collaboration between the principal investigators (PIs) at the cluster level (Fig. 1) must be oriented towards a common research goal, which the PIs usually approach with a division of labour and by contributing interlocking, creative research contributions (German Research Foundation, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2021). In this respect, it can be assumed that the collaboration of PIs at the cluster level in particular is most strongly characterised by the type of collaborations involving division of labour.
From the perspective of club theory (Buchanan, 1965), an RC can be viewed as a research club that can only exist and be successful in the long term if the interests of all PIs as well as those of the funding agency are satisfied to a sufficient degree. In this context, the members of an RC must succeed in producing three different types of goods. These types of goods can be differentiated from the perspective of the theory of goods on the basis of the degree to which consumers can be excluded from their consumption and on the basis of the rivalry that occurs between consumers in the context of their consumption (Buchanan, 1965; Musgrave, 1959; Ostrom & Ostrom, 1977; Samuelson, 1954) (Table1).Footnote 3 2b1af7f3a8