The Courage of Collaboration

This week, my friend Elliott Masie has written a guest blog.

We share    a fascination for the amazing power and complexity of collaboration and its importance in all of our endeavors.   Unfortunately, it is surprisingly difficult to implement in a way that produces great results and most folks don’t get it right.   Some of the best collaborations don’t look very good from the outside, and some that do look great, are “pseudo-collaborations”, designed for show, but hollow on the inside.  Elliott discusses some of these challenges and how to address them along with some insightful examples of innovative collaborations.

Thanks Elliot!

John Abele

 

Guest blog by Learning guru, Elliott Masie

  • Collaboration takes courage.
  • Collaboration can be risky – as we move from the security of our “headquarters tribe” – shedding some of our tribal identity.
  • Collaboration isn’t easy, natural or often rewarded by others.
  • Collaboration requires leaders to publically be learners – curious and open to gaining knowledge from outside their circles.

Yet, authentic collaboration is a powerful tool for leaders to stay aligned with rapidly changing marketplaces, sciences and complex missions.  Real collaboration with a diverse set of individuals and groups can deeply change both leaders and their organizations.

Over the past five years, we have been working with the 240 global corporations and government agencies in our Learning CONSORTIUM to track the changing nature of collaboration – and to study the impact of social tools/techniques on learning and leadership.

Leaders in settings as diverse as the United States Intelligence Community, technology corporations such as Google and Intel; and fields from medical to retailing – are reaching outside of their organizational walls – to collaborate with competitors, customers and unusual points of perspective.

Why?  The single motivator that these leaders from very different organizations recognize is their absolute need to be hyper-agile, continually learning and active players in knowledge/innovation networks that  are wired across corporate or agency boundaries.

Here are two very different examples about collaboration from our members:

Tablet computers, such as the iPad have posed an interesting challenge to senior corporate IT and Learning leaders of major corporations.  Once the iPad was released, employees at every level – including members of the C-Suite, showed up at work, intrigued and excited to use the new tablets as part of their everyday work process.

The problem was that Apple did not launch the iPad with a deep focus on Enterprise Computing.  And, most IT Directors were caught between their own personal interest and fascination with the new devices and a decision to keep them separate from corporate networks for a while.  Hmmm.  So, what is an IT Leader or CIO to do.

We tracked the rise of a number of unofficial Tablet Communities of Learning that sprung up outside of the enterprise – allowing senior leaders to plan, experiment and learn about what the iPad might do – without deploying them officially at first.  These IT Leaders found that they could gain better perspectives about the future of tablet computers from their colleagues in competitive organizations than they could directly from Apple.  And, they could take risks in the exploration without raising internal expectations prematurely.

These collaborations grew amongst colleagues that had grown rich and trust based external networks beyond their corporate boundaries.  And, these “communities” were not sponsored by vendors, facilitated by experts or focused on a product – rather they were just in time collaboration points needed by these leaders facing a disruptive technology.

Another great example that is ripped from the headlines is the recent “take down” of  Osama Bin Laden by the U.S. Government.  The task was not accomplished by the CIA, Department of Defense or any other single government agency.  In fact, it was the result of a multi-year intense effort that required leaders and teams to build collaborative trust, skills and behaviors that were new and essential to the mission:

  • Leaders took risks by working on joint efforts that were less about the color of their uniform, name of their agency or career ladder advancement.
  • Leaders needed to build common language, taxonomies and learning processes, to be able to collaborate from very different professional identities.
  • Leaders had to organize common collaborative tools, technologies and habits to be able to support each other as continuous, curious and evidence based learners.
  • Leaders embedded a “lessons learned” capacity into their collaboration, aware that they were moving into uncharted territory and wanting to study the impact of their own collaborative process.
  • Even in the celebration of the “take-down” there was a sense of shared and joint ownership during the process.  Many of the team members reported their own sense of collaborative process evolved dramatically through the mission.

As we look toward the growth of future leaders, it will be critical for business schools and leadership development programs to recognize the powerful role of collaboration.  Leaders will need very specific support to build, nuture and leverage collaboration as part of the strategic mission of our organizations:

  • Explicit Permissions to Collaborate:  We want to deeply permission leaders to join, lead, organize and utilize external collaborations – as an active and trusted part of their leadership roles.
  • Exemplars of Great Collaboration:  Often, a great idea was harvested from an external collaboration – but the stories about the success do not track back to the “wisdom of the crowds” moment.  Just as the Intelligence Agencies are using lessons learned models, we need to highlight and celebrate collaboration successes.
  • Some Will Fail:  Collaboration is also about failure.  Sometimes the external solutions don’t work and sometimes our ability to leverage collaboration is not yet ripe.  Prepare for a mixture of success and failure.  And, then fail forward!
  • Social is Not Collaboration:  We are not talking about having a Twitter Account, building a Facebook Page or bragging about the number of LinkedIn “Friends” you have.  This is not about social networking.  Rather it is about collaborative networking – where there are explicit understandings of knowledge, learning, innovation and best/worst practice sharing.  Some of our most “Social Media” leaders are lousy collaborators.  Let’s make sure we differentiate between the 2 phenomena.
  • Open Technologies:  Increased collaboration will create the need to have very agile and open technologies that allow a leader to participate in a range of communities and projects without visiting dozens of sites.  We need to build open models that will efficiently support collaboration.

Finally, let’s end where we started.  Collaboration takes courage!  Yet, as we go forward into the future – the lack of collaboration will be seen as stubbornness and stupidity.  I’ll vote for courage!

Elliott Masie is the Chair of The Learning CONSORTIUM and the CEO of The MASIE Center.  His website is http://www.masie.com

 

 

Designing Collaborations

There are several key components that when combined in the proper measure can result in successful collaborations.  Creating the framework for the collaboration is one such factor.

Harnessing the creativity of a group requires not only the usual considerations of timing, data requirements, and the resources needed but also careful ‘engineering’ of behaviors and mindset.  This apparent contradiction of soft skills with the recognized hard skill association of engineering allows you to consider the process of organizing behavior in order to maximize creative mindset and minimize those that destroy collaboration.

Soft stuff is the glue that holds the hard stuff together. Knowing who should contribute to the collaboration and their necessary skill sets in addition to being prepared to mitigate negative behavioral tendencies (Divas, Pontificators and the like) are important considerations on an individual level.  For example, when a particular personality needs ‘management’, the ideal approach is 3 pronged:

1. Arrange a pre-meeting one on one with the individual and warn them that they may encounter topics or opinions that could cause an emotional/negative reaction.

2. Recognize their abilities/skills etc. and let them know their inputs are valuable to the group achieving their goal.

3. Find a solution that works for the individual and the needs of the group to prevent potentially destructive situations.

Let us say for example you have a member of your group that given his level of expertise and experience believes he/she should not be limited to the one time 10 minute speaking limit that has been set for meeting participants.  The result of the 3 pronged approach above could potentially be to offer this participant several opportunities to speak but with say a limit of 5 minutes per.  This approach respects the time of the rest of the group and minimally disrupts the flow but satisfies the participants need to comment often.  You can’t change the person but you can change the rules!

When considering the collective; dynamics, politics, pre conceived notions and potential conflicts should all be evaluated and prepared for in advance in order to ensure every participant is contributing at 100% capacity and not hindered by behavioral issues.

That isn’t to say of course that as a ‘collaboration designer’ you can’t have a little fun.  At least one organization I know of employs water guns in their creative sessions.  If a member of the group is perceived by others to be pontificating, squirt!  If a participant is negative about an idea without first asking questions, squirt!  Condescending, squirt!  Hogging the floor, squirt!  You get the idea.

The Collaboration Paradox: Understanding the Magic of Getting Things Done – Webinar!

One of the mainstays of successful collaboration is engineering interactivity and purposeful communication between the members.  Advances in technology have provided the tools to make this easier and accessible but it is still up to the organizer(s) to create the right conditions for collaboration to work.

Take advantage of the opportunity to learn about what makes a successful collaboration (and not so successful) via one of the very technology tools that make it possible by joining the Pegasus Communications Webinar “The Collaboration Paradox: Understanding the Magic of Getting Things Done” with me, John Abele on January 11, 2011.

blog-banner

The Collaboration Paradox:
Understanding the Magic of Getting Things Done

with John Abele

A 90-minute live webinar andjohnabele interactive discussion
Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 2-3:30 pm ET
Register for this live webinar

Description
The need for more truly powerful collaborations, where the collective intelligence of a diverse set of minds is harnessed toward a common goal, is greater than ever. And yet we find collaboration vexingly difficult to do. In this webinar,John Abele, renowned co-founder of Boston Scientific, will examine the many different types of collaboration along with the barriers to making them effective. He’ll describe new tactics and approaches that may seem counterintuitive, but that will help unleash the wisdom of a crowd far better than more obvious approaches. John will share learnings from his extensive experiences in business, medicine, education, science, and philanthropy.

In this webinar, you will::

  • Learn from extraordinary successes and spectacular failures
  • Take away tips for overcoming the challenges that stand in the way of effective collaboration
  • Discuss how to foster rational discussion by understanding root causes, analyzing issues and options, and weighing trade offs—together
  • Understand how best to collaborate around implementing solutions
  • Receive a copy of the “Kingbridge Meeting Design Guidelines,” from the Kingbridge Centre and Institute

Pricing
This 90-minute interactive session is $129.00 per site (a single phone line). You can use a speakerphone so that a group of people can participate. You will also have unlimited access to the recorded version following the event.

Date and Time
The live webinar is being held on Tuesday, January 11, 2011, from 2 to 3:30 pm ET. When you register, you will receive detailed information about how to call in and participate.

Presenter
John Abele is the retired founding chairman of Boston Scientific Corporation (www.bsci.com) and one of the pioneers of less invasive medicine. He holds numerous patents, and has published and lectured extensively on the technical, social, economic, and political trends and issues affecting healthcare and on strategies for improving collaboration between individuals, businesses, and organizations. John’s major interests are science literacy for children, education, and disruptive technological innovation. He is currently vice chair (former chair) of the FIRST Foundation, which works with high school kids to make science literacy cool and fun, and owner of The Kingbridge Centre and Institute, a conference center that is devoted to perfecting the “Art of Conferencing” and hosting exceptional meetings.

Register for this live webinar!

Barriers to Collaboration – Group Dynamics & Pseudo Collaborations

Sometimes barriers to collaboration are related not to a behavior, but rather to factors that influence the group dynamic.  The following are common such problems:

  1. Conflicts of interest. Transparency helps, but the collaborative leader can help by tactfully putting comments in context and juxtaposing individuals with different causes in a way that creates insight and comparison.  The key is visibility and the best way to achieve that is with humble questioning that reveals a potential conflict or problem.  The challenge is to avoid accusation, but reveal the problem.
  2. Dueling hidden agendas. Sometimes people are not even aware that they have a hidden agenda. A good collaborative leader will tease out all the agendas by asking the right questions.
  3. Strong egos. Few people with strong egos leave them at the door, even when asked to do so.  As a result, you may get ego clashes.  The right leadership, with appropriate humor, can turn egos into an asset. Sometimes a friend can mentor a colleague into not becoming a pompous ass.    Introducing the potential offender as knowledgeable, skillful, open minded and humble can produce a self-fulfilling result, although admittedly not all the time.

When these dynamics dominate the result is all too often Pseudo-collaborations.  A great many collaborations are in name only.   A job needs to be done and a team is appointed to do it.  The criteria for being appointed to that team may be technical, but frequently it is merely availability.  One of the most unfortunate aspects of pseudo collaborations is that they perform the “box check requirement.”  Leaders and participants know that they are serving a political function that passes a “looks-like-a-collaboration” test, but the dynamics are bureaucratic and self protective.  These collaborations define the old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Perhaps the most common pseudo collaborations are “blue ribbon panels.”  Although this is usually a political phrase, every organization, when confronted with a highly visible major problem, wants to demonstrate its seriousness by pulling together great (and highly respected) minds to work as a team.

Most of us think of collaboration as working together for a common goal.  And it is.  But, is it enough to just pull together the brightest minds, put them under the command of a respected leader, and wait for the fruits of their labor to come forth?  Obviously not, but frequently hope triumphs over reality. And rhetoric generally trumps facts and content.  It takes a very skillful leader to create an atmosphere where the ego of the individual is subservient to the success of the team.

Kingbridge Physical/Virtual Dinner Party

If anyone has ever tried to overcome the barriers of distance and time to coordinate the schedules of a group of VIP’s and the like for a gathering, they can appreciate the need to be creative.  Advancements in video conferencing and virtual meeting software have been amazing in their ability to bring people together across vast distances.  The technology keeps getting better and better.  The pictures are clearer, larger and more realistic than ever.  And at least some of it is less expensive.    Even the dream of pure “telepresence” like the “holodeck” of Star Trek fame is getting closer.  But somehow there is still something missing.  To paraphrase Marshal McLuhan, the medium is getting in the way of the message.  Perhaps, we thought, we should see if we could model the unscripted and casual conversations of the dinner after the meeting.

So the other night we had our first virtual, Skype enabled, dinner party. We invited 6 VIP entrepreneurs and innovators to Kingbridge in King City, Ontario, while Elliott Masie and his guest Alan Davis, President of Empire State College, assembled at The MASIE Center in Saratoga, NY.  With our free Skype connection and 47” LCD screens at each end we were able to break down the barrier of distance and enjoy a carefully coordinated meal together.  From table cloths and seasonal place settings to the menu and wine selections the event was designed to close the gap and provide a much stronger feeling of ‘being there’.  We started by introducing each other at a standing reception and moved to a dinner table where we shared the descriptions of our entrées and wine.  The conversation flowed freely and openly.  Elliott, always the geek, would periodically Google someone’s observation on his iPad and hold it up for the camera.  Even the non-geeks (most of them) at the dinner were comfortable and open.

With simple technology and some virtual coordination we were able to increase the personalization, authenticity and comfort of this physical/virtual dialogue.  Of course being entrepreneurial we are always looking for improvements.  So we plan to hold some more of these gatherings and keep trying out new experiments…both technical and social.   Elliott and I have already put together a list of guidelines or rules of engagement and plan to expand that significantly, perhaps into templates for gatherings for different purposes.  We believe that the strategies for making these multimodality gatherings work well can dramatically improve collaborations at any level.

We would be happy to share information on the technical tools we used to make this work so well, as well as some of the strategies.  Maybe you’d like to add some ideas, too.

Let me know.  John.abele@kingbridgecentre.com

What is ‘Real’ Collaboration?

Before we can dive into defining ‘real’ collaboration we need to clarify the type of collaboration we are referring to, which is collaboration for creative problem solving.  In these collaborations there is a diverse group of participants who are not just working together but harnessing the collective intelligence of the group to produce innovative ideas, solutions and actions.

Real collaboration results from a delicate balance between too little and too much control.  It works best when there is a high level of creativity in the group, a common goal, a sense of urgency and a certain amount of friction in the group.   However, even with these components collaboration will fail if the behaviours that result from the pressure and tension are not moderated appropriately.  The recipe for collaboration has many ingredients including design, leadership and environment.

Successful collaboration is often seen in times of crisis, when the common goal of a group is survival.  For example, the current mining disaster in Chile: 33 miners trapped underground for 17 days before being discovered managed to survive on 48 hours worth of rations.  This feat itself could only have been made possible through significant collaborative effort among the trapped miners.  All 33 were dedicated to a common goal, the sense of urgency profound, and any self serving behaviours moderated for the benefit of their collective survival.<

The Collaboration Paradox: Some Tactics for Getting Things Right

A proposed book by John Abele – Part 2

What’s critical to any creative collaboration, is that it begins with a goal but no blueprint to follow, because much will be discovered during the process.  Each individual is expected to share any of his or her knowledge, opinions, and discoveries that will help to achieve the group’s common goal. What’s most surprising about the lack of success with these endeavors is that we have an ever-expanding array of tools that can enhance collaboration, such as Wikis, search engines, smart phones, and social networks.  The reasons that collaborations fail, however, involve those crucial soft ingredients—behaviors and mindset.

The most important point is that collaboration is a mindset, not a set of steps.   So, while I can recommend steps, and give examples of how they have worked, people will need to shoot for the mindset and try different approaches depending on the situation.

I like to call this mental attitude the “collaborative state.” Helping groups reach that state depends on the mix of people involved, the work done to prepare for the collaboration, and the characteristics of whoever is leading the effort.

The first feature that will decide whether a collaboration fails or succeeds is the choice of collaborators. Many people want the most prestigious and intelligent people they can find, but in fact, it’s more important to get a diverse mix of people who represent different perspectives, skills, and mindsets. Diversity reduces groupthink and amplifies the variety of input.

Then, to get that group to truly work together, the leader must create a unique environment of openness, trust, candor, risk taking, astute awareness, and of sensitivity to the various personalities involved. There must be a clear set of rules for how to act so that people feel safe about expressing their views.  But the participants shouldn’t feel too safe; in fact, it helps to keep them slightly off balance, even a bit uncomfortable, so that they are open to the unexpected and willing to be unorthodox if that’s what is necessary to get to the answers the group needs. The participants must be engaged from the beginning, and that requires a lot of preparation and “stage setting.”

Most importantly, the leader or moderator must have impresario-like skills, so that he or she can make certain that every voice is heard, that people are comfortable sharing all their ideas, and that the overall process maximizes the likelihood that the very best ideas will get approved— not just those of the most powerful participants. The leader’s most important tasks include managing divas and helping less well-known participants to shine.

Getting to the “collaborative state” takes a lot of planning and work behind the scenes, in clarifying the goals, setting the stage, drawing up the list of participants, grooming them for the process, and then overseeing the collaboration.  Many of the tactics that help create that environment are counter-intuitive.  For example, leaders need to cede control – in order to gain control – another paradox. They must also carefully manage the personalities in the group and set an example to show that everyone will be treated fairly and given a voice, and that creative ideas are welcomed. Group leaders must also work against “the system” to make it clear that in this particular setting bullying, patronizing, and relentless self-promotion are considered counter-productive.  If the right steps are followed, and a group does reach peak collaboration, amazing things can happen.   

We invite you to share with us:

What have your experiences been?  

Are you a collaboration leader? 

Would you like to participate in a collaboration forum?

Transparency

Transparency is viewed by many as the solution to several of the world’s problems.   Indeed a common explanation for disputes is that they result from an imbalance of information between the two sides.   If we could have more transparency, some say, than we would all have the same facts and a lot of these disagreements would melt away.    But having information and being able to use that information effectively are two separate issues.   The first is about access which is certainly being expanded greatly with search engines and the internet.  The second issue, however, is about education, context and perspective which transparency doesn’t address.   Being able to interpret facts and perform critical analysis is a learned skill that a great many people don’t have.   In the movie “A Few Good Men”, Jack Nicholson’s renegade soldier on the witness stand responds to Tom Cruise, the  military prosecutor, who asked the witness to “tell the truth”.    Nicholson’s answer: “You can’t handle the truth”.  He was referring, of course, to the fact that no person without battle experience can understand what really happens on the front lines.  That lack of experience or lack of education in battle, or in life, can be exploited.   And a large industry exists to take advantage of the “opportunities” which that lack makes possible.  Advertising, marketing, public relations all exist to “help” those without the interest and/or ability to understand the subtleties of political issues,  product comparisons and many other things in life.  It’s a lage force in our society.  It can change elections,  move products and get generals fired.

As a result, transparency is a very sharp double edged sword.  Although it sounds simple and “honest” to “do the right thing”, it requires enormous delicacy and skill to describe events or actions in a way that can be understood objectively by all.  Emotional baggage colors our understanding of all news and information.  And, of course, “news people” are trained to put a spin on things.   They can interpret in imaginative ways and generally create a news item out of something that fits the ideology of what they are trying to promote.   Whether that is distortion or objective reporting may depend upon the politics of the reader as well as the writer.  “Transparency” today may better refer to the fact that it is much more difficult to keep anything secret.   Ubiquitous camera phones document events that governments and businesses would have rather kept private.  With a bit of creativity they can  also be used to mislead and misinform.  These are collaborations of a different sort…no less complex than truly newsworthy ones, but  frequently with a self serving goal in mind.

A crisis can create interesting dynamics for public and private collaborations. When BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, then collapsed and began gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the disaster quickly escalated into one of the worst environmental accidents in history.  As the company worked feverishly to plug the gusher and clean up the oil spreading around the Gulf, a “Deepwater Horizon Response” Facebook page was established, garnering tens of thousands of members within weeks.   While becoming a member of such a group usually means you are a “fan” or “friend”, the Deepwater Horizon Response page featured comments from more people who were incensed by the spill as “supporters” of BP.   While it may have seemed like a risky strategy, BP may have gained points for creating a public forum, and for allowing both “pro” and “con” participants.  And it let BP know how people were responding to the myriad of news from many sources.  Transparency is often regarded as extremely risky, but in this new age of camera phones and social media, secrecy may be much riskier.  Don’t forget, though, it’s not what you do that counts so much as how you do it.

Collective Intelligence Trumps IQ?

I have read several articles recently that indicate the knowledge that can be gained through collective intelligence networks has made the importance of individual intelligence an unimportant factor in the achievement of this knowledge.

Aaron Saenz, editor of “Singularity Hub” a  blog and news network covering the latest in man’s journey towards the singularity (the point in mankind’s future when we will transcend current intellectual and biological limitations by “partnering” with technolgy to initiate an intelligence and information explosion) observes that while IQ scores are only advancing at a snail’s pace decade to decade, CI is expanding exponentially — thanks to Web 2.0 and its wealth of information aggregation services and has as such made IQ an obsolete factor in aquiring new knowledge.

Although it is undeniable that the capacity to gain knowlege through collective intelligence networks is staggaring and there is little doubt that humanity will indeed reach the singularity, the notion that individual intelligence no longer matters seems misguided.  There are many levels and varieties of intelligence, each contributing uniquely to the knowledge of the collective.   The proposed obsolescence of individual intelligence suggests that the contributions of a world full of people with homogeneous intelligence could collectively come up with the same (or superior) advances in knowledge as a population with heterogeneous intelligence.

The theory of collective intelligence as defined by James Surowieki requires 4 factors to be effective: Independance, Diversity, Decentralization and Aggregation.  In other words, the individuals in the collective should have varied levels of intelligence and expertise, be able to speak out and not fall victim to group think and then have a way to aggregate the resultant inputs.  

It would seem that varied individual intelligence is a key requirement to achieve optimum collective wisdom and advances in global knowledge.

What do you think?

To Facilitate or Not to facilitate?

So often the question that plagues meeting designers is whether their session be it strategic planning, product development or otherwise would benefit from an unbiased outside facilitator.

And the answer of course is: it depends on the conditions.

One of our Kingbridge Meeting Design Advisors recently encountered an example of this while running a collaborative technology session with a group working on their strategic plan.
michael air jordan shoes
For the first half of the meeting the internal facilitators had worked with a core group to do the preperatory analysis prior to the idea generation phase where they would utilize decision support technology to leverage the collective.  When the idea generation phase arrived so did a few additions to the group represented by some very high level and influential members of the company. 

It quickly became apparent to both the comany’s facilitators and the Meeting Design Advisor, who was guiding the use of the technology, that one of the new group members had a very dominant personality and was unintentionally stifling the creativity and openess of the group. 

In this instance the facilitators turned to the Meeting Design Advisor (MDA) to help get the group re-engaged.  As an unbiased and unconnected member of the group the MDA was able to intervene.  When the dominant personality would begin to pontificate the MDA respectfully interjected with “So if I am hearing you correctly, you believe that………….. and that the correct course of action would be to…………”  Once the statement had been approved and the speaker validated that their point was clear, there was then a focused opportunity to engage the rest of the group. 

The moral of this story is that there is a reason why the first step for planning an effective meeting is to “know the audience” and plan accordingly.  When there weren’t any dominant personalities or pontificators in the session to stifle the creativity the internal facilitators were able to channel the group effectively.  However, you throw a few senior staff members with strong personalities in the mix and the challenge of moderating conversation often becomes more difficult for internal team members than an unbiased outsider.

So, next time you are planning a session consider your audience, not just their positions but their personalities and the way they react under the pressure of a difficult conversation.  Only then will you be able to answer the question of whether ‘to facilitate or not to facilitate’.