The Collaboration Paradox: Why so many leaders sabotage their own collaborations

A proposed book by John Abele – Part 1

Collaboration is one of those things everyone thinks they understand, but very few actually do. True, some types of collaboration are natural or easy to learn, but the highest, most valuable kind, where everybody in the group is thinking creatively and sharing openly is extremely rare.  Now, in the era of Web 2.0, a wave of new collaboration tools are being unleashed so that even more and bigger collaborations are being announced daily. But most people won’t get much value out of these exciting new tools if they don’t pay attention to the crucial soft ingredients — the behaviors and mindset — needed to make collaboration really work.

From the time we start school and throughout our careers, we are taught and rewarded for the very traits that make it difficult for us to collaborate effectively. This situation is compounded by the way we teach leaders to rigorously assert control as often as possible so their authority is constantly being reinforced. Controlling people is the opposite of collaborating with them.  As a result, most leaders of collaborations are doing exactly the wrong things when they bring people together to collaborate, and the other people involved in those projects are essentially programmed to derail or resist collaboration.  This is The Collaboration Paradox.

In ”creative” collaborations, it is not just a matter of people pitching in what they know; the goal is to extrapolate beyond the group’s collective knowledge. As mentioned earlier, the skills we are taught to be the most important for success are actually collaboration busters.  In school, at work, and everywhere we are shown that success comes through self promotion and devotion to our own “kind,” whether it is a department, professional field, or political viewpoint.  Young athletes are taught to win at all costs and to celebrate “crushing” their opponents. There are precious few role models who celebrate victory without also celebrating “defeat of the enemy.”  When these same traits are allowed to dominate a collaboration, it becomes a very negative experience.  Only a few participants have any real say.  The rest feel intimidated or exploited, and as if their time is being wasted.  This type of “hollow” collaboration happens so much, that many people are very skeptical about collaborating. In particular, they may have the following fears, which inhibit them from really contributing:

•    Their best ideas will be stolen.

•    Their weaknesses will be highlighted.

•    There will be a hidden agenda.

•    The participants will have such different ideas that they’ll never agree on anything.

•    Certain individuals or camps will dominate.

Too often, creative collaborations become a pseudo collaborations.  They sound good, but are totally hollow.  With so many parts, players, and egos involved, simply managing the political aspects of such projects is challenging enough, let alone integrating the results into anything actionable.   In the end, the organizers may make glowing reference to the long list of divas they assembled, but often they have little to show for that effort and almost certainly nothing really new has come from it.

Check out today’s nytlogo152x23for an example of how collaboration and information sharing has lead to a recent breakthrough in Alzheimer’s.

Stay tuned – next week we will look at some tips and strategies to maximize the incredible potential of creative collaborations.

Learning 2009 – Innovation with Elliott Maise

I had the pleasure and privilege recently of participating in Elliott Masie’s innovative Learning 2009 meeting in Orlando, Florida.  This was a gathering of over 1300 corporate education professionals whose job is to make sure that every employee is up to date in everything from corporate policy, new technologies, new products, regulatory requirements and the latest leadership strategies.   Given these times of exponential change and tightened budgets, these learning leaders have challenging tasks to accomplish.

And it wasn’t just corporations.  There were folks from professional societies and universities looking for new ideas.    Many government agencies from the Veterans Administration to the CIA  (The CIA has its own University) to representatives from each of the military services were present.   Like many organizations today the theme was how to do more, better, for less. 

The entire conference is loaded with innovative strategies that help participants learn faster and more productively.  Some examples:

1. During plenary sessions everyone sat at 6 or 7 person round tables.  It’s a huge room, but it is more friendly and encourages discussion.

2. Occasional 2 minute breaks were provided to encourage within-table discussions. 

3.      A Twitter feed was posted on a huge screen behind the speakers.  The MC (Elliott) periodically resteered the conversation to address a question or comment.

4.      An audience response system was employed periodically for assessing audience understanding and opinions, and occasionally to have fun.

5.      Guest speakers were interviewed by Elliott, Meet the Press style, to focus their talk on the learning aspects of whatever they do. 

6.      Guests included Capt Sully Sullenberger (who had never landed a plane on water before his experience on the Hudson), Malcolm Gladwell (talking about high performance outliers) and Betsy Meyers (COO of Obama’s election campaign). Great learning experiences.

7.      A few big names were brought in by low cost, high resolution video for a quick 5 to 10 minute interview.  That’s walking the talk on cost effectiveness.
new balance outlet
8.      The many vendors were organized in a standardized format equipped with large monitors.  The focus was content, application and learning, not hype.  Everybody is a learner.

9.      The majority of the meeting was spent in many small interactive courses run by experienced learning professionals.  This was a great example of harnessing the collective intelligence of the participants.

10. Perhaps the most interesting activity was the presence of 6 students from Champlain College’s Emergent Media Division who were given an assignment at the beginning of the meeting to develop a learning APP for the iPhone (smart phones are an increasingly valuable tool for instant and convenient e-learning.   They were told to interview at least 200 attendees, to select a group of advisors from them and to develop an APP that can be used for “On Boarding” new employees to any organization (history, policy, organization, how to do just about anything, who’s who, where everything is with maps and GPS).  They completed their task by the last day of the meeting and demonstrated it.  It was extraordinary and an incredible example of collaboration effectiveness.

 

I go to many different types of meetings and conferences all over the world.  Like you I want to use my time well…to learn, to be inspired, to make good new connections and have great discussions with old connections.

Elliott passed this test with flying colors.”

Developing Collaborative Leadership

Whether you’re an entrepreneur in the start-up phase or the CEO of a mature business, it’s the right time to pay attention to the culture of your enterprise.

Yesterday (October 8, 2009) Mary Stacey of Context Management Consulting Inc. with the Kingbridge Collaboration Institute delivered the first of a 2 part series dedicated to collaborative leadership at MaRS Discovery District.  Drawing from Torbert and Rooke’s award winning article The Seven Transformations of Leadership (Harvard Business Review, 2005), the attendees explored their own leadership methods and the potential for evolution towards a more collaborative style.

According to Torbert and Rooke there are 7 key ‘Action Logics’ or categories that define “how a leader interprets their surroundings and reacts when their power or safety is challenged'”(Torbert & Rooke, 2005).  Rather than being autonomous groups however Torbert and Rooke propose that there is a developmental progression from the least ‘effective’ style to the most ‘effective’.  So, the style you fall into when you begin your leadership development journey can evolve with time, practice, and changes in your external environment.  Great news for those leaders trying to figure out how to transform themselves and their organizations!

One example of leadership progression cited in the Torbert & Rooke article is that of Larry Ellison (now CEO of Oracle).  At the start of his career Ellison was at the bottom of the leadership development spectrum as an ‘Opportunist’ where he lead by ridiculing and out-witting his team.  Few opportunists can sustain leadership roles for long as their style leads to high turnover and the absence of respect from their employees.  No doubt after experiencing some of these repercussions Ellison was able to recognize his own need for development and began his journey towards the well evolved leader he is today.

The workshop explored the identification of ‘Action Logics’ and the characteristics of each as well as the potential for progression along the continuum.  The next session ‘Leading in a Collaborative Culture’ scheduled for December 3, 2009 at MaRS will address the question ‘Now that I am here, what do I do now?” With discussions around cultivating cultural intelligence and collaborative inquiry, leaders and future leaders will gain insight on the connection between your leadership and the culture of your organization.

For more information on the series or the ‘Action Logic’ framework please contact moreinfo@contextconsulting.com

Are You Leading Creative Collaborations?

I just finished reading Organizing Genius by Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman and was impressed by the frankness with which they approached organizing creative collaboration.  So often when deconstructing successful collaborations the ‘needs’ tend to overshadow the equally important ‘need nots’.  Bennis and Biederman however extract a series of ‘take home lessons’ from several case studies of successful and not so successful group collaborations.

One of the stand out lessons highlighted in the summary of Organizing Genius is that “In Great Groups the right person has the right job.”  This lesson highlights the faulted belief of many organizations that people are interchangeable.  Bennis and Biederman spend a great deal of time detailing the importance of not assigning people with unique talents to positions that are not suited to these talents.  It is a cardinal mistake in organizing collaboration to try to fit people into roles they aren’t appropriate for just to satisfy an organizational need.

Included in this lesson is also the importance of having the right leader for the group.  This is not a unique notion as several works on successful collaboration and organizational structure have outlined the qualities needed to be a collaborative leader.  The distinction made in Organizing Genius is the exploration of several specific leadership qualities that squelch creative collaboration.

“Many projects never transcend mediocrity because their leaders suffer from the Hollywood syndrome.  This is the arrogant and misguided belief that power is more important than talent.  It is the too common view that everyone should be so grateful for a role in a picture or any other job that he or she should be willing to do whatever is asked, even if it’s dull or demeaning.  When the person and the task are properly matched, the work can proceed with passion.”

One of the fundamental rules of successful collaboration is transparency and Bennis and Berderman practice it to the letter in Organizing Genius.