During my Christmas vacations, I’ve read a very insightful book about collaboration. The reason I loved it, is that it’s very pragmatic, and it goes beyond the wishful thinking about collaboration that I often read.
The reality about collaboration
Let’s face it: collaboration doesn’t come naturally. We are naturally wired for more individualistic behaviors. Collaboration exposes us to others and challenges our way of thinking and operating, possibly making us feel less safe and secure. Moreover, the mainstream company culture tends to reward people most and foremost for their individual achievements, and people respond to this. They resist to having their performance and results linked to others’, as collaboration entails a certain level of vulnerability and dependence on other people’s work.
Furthermore, collaboration has a cost: time, energy, money. It needs to be nurtured and cultivated in the complexity of its dynamics. Collaboration means that there should be a safe and constructive conflict-management mechanism, which is challenging to establish and maintain.
So, the point is: collaboration is an immensely valuable tool, but it has to be worth it.
The One Law about collaboration
The one law around collaboration is that much of the work you have to do does not require any kind of collaboration. Collaboration is more expensive and complex than individual working, and should only be used if the payoffs and benefits are clear. So, you need to assess WHERE collaboration is needed and what is the added value of it.
“If collaboration isn’t likely to produce results better than would be achieved if just one person worked alone, then it’s probably not worth it,” states the author of Lessons from Mars. Compared to an individual effort, is collaboration going to give you a better product or higher profits? Is it going to save you time or money or – good for you – both?
So, how do you assess when and where collaboration is needed? Lessons from Mars– which by the way, is not the planet, but the company – teaches us that collaboration isn’t necessary because the organizational chart says so.
Valdes-Dapena gives us three criteria by which one can judge successful collaborative groups:
- A team output acceptable to the team’s clients, including the broader organization
- Growth in team capability
- An experience that is meaningful and satisfying for each team member
So, before engaging in collaborative processes for a certain project, the manager should evaluate if the job can really benefit from a group of people working on it instead of an individual, by considering the added value of the collaborative approach for both the company AND the team members. Thus, ponder the potential growth it can bring at the individual level, group level and systemic level – person, team, organization.
Self-assessment: which kind of collaboration are you experiencing in your organization?
On a very useful graph, the author shows us different levels of collaboration that may be present in a company’s dynamics:
Co-Operation:watch the hyphen. Two or more people operating in the same place at the same time, but not necessarily interacting much: open-office environment.
Coordination:once in a while we run into each other at the coffee machine. The payoff is that we have gained some insight on what’s happening in a related piece of work so that we can respond appropriately.
Reactive collaboration: if the coffee machine date – or a team meeting – is particularly enlightening, we realize that our work overlaps significantly. So, we work closely together for as long as is needed to tend to the overlap successfully. This can bring good results, we may avoid duplication of efforts and it makes us feel helpful and competent…but is always a last-minute resource, we are operating in a “save-the-day” mode, always temporarily before going back to Co-Operation. If dragged for too long, this modality brings risk of burnout.
Intentional collaboration: planned collaboration (vs reactive), where the shared work is well understood from the start, and the value to be gained via collaboration is clear. It brings the most benefits and maximizes resources.
So now you may be ready for a self-assessment: what kind of collaboration do you see happening in your organization?
The Three Imperatives of High-Performance Collaboration
High performing groups consistently add value for:
- The organization
- The group
- Each individual group member
By focusing on the Three Imperatives of High-Performance Collaboration:
1. Clarity– Clarify value-adding purpose and shared work, as well as business context if necessary.
2. Intentionality– Cultivate collaboration via clear contracting and relationship building.
3. Discipline– Ways of working (team processes) and sustained learning.
The six practices in a nutshell
First of all, “Practices” and not “Phases” or “Stages”. Valdes-Dapena feels that in an ever-changing work environment we should steer away from the mechanical predictability inherent to the “stages” approach. The word “Practice” suggests an ongoing growth, endemic to the performance of the practice itself. The development is more circular than linear, hence a ring-shaped graphic to get visually acquainted with the Six Practices’ framework.
Let’s look into them in more detail.
1. Inspire Purpose
Related Imperative: Clarity
What it addresses: Clarifying team value-add and meaning
Core questions: Why we’re here, why we do what we do and what difference we hope to make by doing what we do?
It’s the group’s collaborative reason for being. Why a group believes they exist beyond the results they might create. It’s a compelling statement about why and how a group’s collaborative efforts matter to them and the business they serve.
This is different from Vision/Mission statements, as neither is expressly about the role of collaboration, and drive respectively what do you want to achieve in the long term and how you are going to do it.
2. Crystallize Share Intent
Related Imperative: Clarity
What it addresses: Clarity about the specific tasks and initiatives that require collaboration among team members, and those which don’t require it.
Core question: What we must do together to add greatest value?
It’s the specific, shared work of the team. It needs to identify what tasks pertain to the individuals, sub groups and all team. In general, collaboration by a small group within a larger one is the most efficient and effective way to realize the benefits of it.
3. Cultivate Collaboration
Related Imperative: Intentionality
What it addresses: Establishing clear collaborative commitments and conscious relationships, building courage and vulnerability leading to trust.
Core question: Who works with whom on what?
This involves contracting for specific collaborative tasks among team members and clarifying expectations for collaboration between the leader and team members, as well as between and among team members. Also suggests reconsidering the issue of Trust: what needs building is courage in the context of the work – Trust will grow where courage and vulnerability are sown.
To this end, open, honest sub-group conversations will take place, exploring everyone’s need and expectations and coming to a list of clearly identifiable behaviors (suggested max. 5).
4. Activate Ways-of-working
Related Imperative: Discipline
What it addresses: Simple processes aligned to purpose and shared work. Team processes flounder in the absence of an inspiring purpose and clearly defined shared work.
Core question: How will we work most efficiently as a team?
This practice is about creating and maintaining a few simple team processes and norms for how the team as a whole will operate in line with its purpose and collaborative commitments. The focus is on team level discipline and agreements around things like team meetings, decision making and communications that the entire team commits to; both as formal protocols and informal “ways of working”.
For example, meetings are worth having ONLY if every participant has something at stake when attending, is aligned with “all team” level matters and is never-ever just to share information!
5. Sustain & Renew
Related Imperative: Discipline
What it addresses: Periodic self-assessment of the group fostering a climate of continuous learning.
Core question: What’s needed now?
Through formal and informal debriefs, as well as after-action-reviews, is established a discipline of ongoing reflection and learning about how the team is or is not functioning. It creates and maintains team development and growth plan.
Team learning is the essential ingredient to sustainable team performance. This practice is aimed at giving to the team the agility to change the Practices and to adapt to the changing context.
6. Clarify Context: The Special Practice
Related Imperative: Clarity
What it addresses: Clarifies how a team fits into the larger organization and the dynamics that drive it.
Core question: What’s the broader context we must pay attention to?
Used during times of significant transition, such as Leadership changes, Restructuring, Major changes in strategy. If the context changes the practice will be re-evalued in that light and new ways will be established that better respond to the transformed context.
Conclusions
In conclusion, if you want to have High Performance Collaboration in your company:
- First you need to assess where you need collaboration and why.
- Then you need to define the rules of collaboration – and respect them!
- Finally, you need to monitor if the rules are still relevant, according to changes in your context and to the practice of them.
“Coming together is a beginning, keeping together is progress, working together is success” – Henry Ford.
Book references: Carlos Valdes-Dapena, Lessons from Mars, Changemakers book, Oct 2018
