| |
The Ideal Collaborative Team AND A Conversation on the Collaborative Process
The
Ideal Collaborative Team
A
New Survey Suggests that
Attitude is More Important than Experience in Collaborative Work
A
recent survey
conducted jointly by Mitch Ditkoff and Tim Moore of Idea
Champions, Carolyn Allen of Innovation
Solution Center and Dave
Pollard of Meeting of Minds reveals
that most people would rather
have inexperienced people with a positive attitude than highly
experienced
people who lack enthusiasm, candor or commitment, on a collaborative
work team.
A total of
108
people responded to the survey, which asked participants to rate 39
criteria
for selection of collaboration teammates on a scale of 1 (not relevant)
to 5
(indispensable). The average ratings of all participants are shown in
Fig. 1
below:
Fig.
1: Summary of Collaboration Survey Results
|
What
qualities, attitudes and skills help make a good collaborator?
AN
IDEAL PROSPECTIVE COLLABORATOR . . .
|
Avg
|
Overall
Rank
|
Indispensable
(3)
|
|
|
|
Is
enthusiastic about the subject of our collaboration.
|
4.4
|
1
|
|
Is
open-minded and curious.
|
4.3
|
2
|
|
Speaks
their mind even if it's an unpopular viewpoint.
|
4.0
|
3
|
Very
Important (9)
|
|
|
|
Gets
back to me and others in a timely way.
|
3.9
|
4
|
|
Is
willing to enter into difficult conversations.
|
3.9
|
5
|
|
Is
a perceptive listener.
|
3.9
|
6
|
|
Is
skillful at giving/receiving even negative feedback.
|
3.9
|
7
|
|
Is
willing to put forward unpopular ideas.
|
3.8
|
8
|
|
Is
self managing and requires 'low maintenance.'
|
3.7
|
9
|
|
Is
known for following through on commitments.
|
3.7
|
10
|
|
Is
willing to dig into the topic with zeal.
|
3.7
|
11
|
|
Thinks
differently than I do/brings different perspectives.
|
3.7
|
12
|
|
Important (7)
|
|
|
|
Can
work with many different types of people.
|
3.6
|
13
|
|
Is
comfortable with ambiguity.
|
3.6
|
14
|
|
Adapts
quickly to surprises/changes/new requirements
|
3.6
|
15
|
|
Has
a significant stake in outcome of the collaboration.
|
3.4
|
16
|
|
Has
an ability to improvise.
|
3.4
|
17
|
|
Has
a sense of urgency about our collaboration.
|
3.4
|
18
|
|
Encourages
equal participation among all the members.
|
3.4
|
19
|
|
Some
Relevance (11)
|
|
|
|
Is
optimistic and upbeat.
|
3.3
|
20
|
|
Is
pragmatic and knows how ideas get executed.
|
3.3
|
21
|
|
Has
lots of ideas.
|
3.3
|
22
|
|
Thinks
strategically.
|
3.3
|
23
|
|
Is
playful and has a good sense of humor.
|
3.3
|
24
|
|
Can
think on their feet.
|
3.2
|
25
|
|
Has
diverse knowledge on a broad range of subjects.
|
3.2
|
26
|
|
Has
good connections and networks.
|
3.1
|
27
|
|
Is
skillful at helping the group reach consensus.
|
3.1
|
28
|
|
Has
deep understanding of the subject of our collaboration.
|
3.0
|
29
|
|
Is
deeply reflective.
|
3.0
|
30
|
|
Not
Relevant (9)
|
|
|
|
Is
well organized.
|
2.9
|
31
|
|
Is
someone I immediately liked. The chemistry is good.
|
2.8
|
32
|
|
Has
already earned my trust.
|
2.7
|
33
|
|
Has
experience as a collaborator.
|
2.4
|
34
|
|
Is
a skilled and persuasive presenter
|
2.4
|
35
|
|
Is
gregarious and dynamic.
|
2.4
|
36
|
|
Is
someone I knew beforehand.
|
2.3
|
37
|
|
Has
an established reputation in field of our collaboration.
|
2.2
|
38
|
|
Is
an experienced business person.
|
1.9
|
39
|
Question Categories (color codes): |
| YELLOW:
Experience: history, reputation, experience |
| GREEN:
Attitude: germane to/displayed in situation, topic, issue, group |
| ORANGE:
Personality:
persistent traits, thinking styles, social style, temperament |
| BLUE:
Abilities, Skills / persistent learned skills, natural gifts |
A
Note on Sample Size: While we considered
keeping the survey instrument open to increase the sample size beyond
108, the
average scores for each question did not significantly change after the
first
50 responses had been received. We therefore believe the responses
above are
representative of the online population as a whole.
Two
criteria, enthusiasm for the
subject of the collaboration,
and open-mindedness and curiosity, are rated
as the most important criteria by
virtually all segments of respondents. More than half of all
respondents rated
these qualities as indispensable
in a collaboration partner. By contrast,
five experience-related criteria (proven trustworthiness, collaboration
experience, previous familiarity with other members of the team,
reputation in
the field of the collaboration, and business experience), rate at or
near the
bottom of the 39 criteria assessed by participants.
Candor,
courage
and timeliness of follow-through are also rated very important
qualities in a
collaborator, along with strong listening, feedback and self-management
skills
and diversity of ideas.
These
findings,
most of which are based on responses from experienced collaborators,
seem to
suggest that just about any group of appropriately motivated people can
be
effective collaborators, and that good collaboration is more art, and
perhaps
chemistry, than science.
The creators
of
the survey were somewhat surprised by these findings, since our
collective past
experience suggests that well-facilitated collaborations employing
trained
collaborators can have a powerful advantage over self-managed,
untrained
groups. We've found that trained, facilitated teams achieve more
creative
breakthroughs, faster, and are more likely to achieve extraordinary
results,
accomplishing things as a team that the individuals working
individually could
never have achieved.
To
explore these
findings further, we analyzed the results by gender, age, experience
and
occupation of respondent. These results are summarized in Fig. 2 on the
following page.
Gender: Perhaps not
surprisingly, women tend to
rate good listening skills, self-management and tactfulness as more
important
in a collaborator than men, while men rate courage and candor as more
important
than women do.
Age
&
Occupation: Younger
respondents, students and those in technology occupations value
diversity of
the team, comfort with ambiguity, and tactfulness more than other
respondents.
Respondents in their 30s, those with extensive collaboration experience
and
those in management occupations rate enthusiasm as more important than
other
respondents do. Older respondents, and those in education fields, tend
to value
follow-through, a sense of urgency, adaptability and collaborators with
a stake
in the outcome more than others do. And those in technology occupations
are the
only segment to rate diversity as more important than enthusiasm!
Group
Size: Those most comfortable with small group
collaborations (up to 10 people), and those in consulting occupations,
rate
conversational skills as more important in a collaborator than other
segments.
This might be due to the fact that in small-group collaborations each
participant gets more opportunity to speak, and conversation (rather
than just
raising points) occurs more often as a result. Those more comfortable
with
larger group collaborations rate follow-through on commitments and
comfort with
ambiguity as more important. This, too, would make sense if larger
group
collaborations are usually associated with larger projects for larger
organizations and hence rely more on individual activities and
assignments both
before and after the collaboration to achieve their objective.
Large-group
collaborations also allow less time for questions and clarifications
from each
participant, and hence more tolerance for ambiguity until their
unanswered
questions are resolved by the group.
Overall,
though,
there are no dramatic differences in the top 10 choices among any of
the
demographic segments: gender, age, experience or occupation.
Fig.2: Top 10 Ranked Criteria for a
Collaborator, by
Demographic Group
What are the
implications of these results - for people wanting to establish, or
participate
on an effective collaboration team? We have defined collaboration as
something
more than mere coordination or cooperation. Here's how we make the
distinction:
Collaboration
entails finding the
right group of people (skills, personalities, knowledge, work-styles,
and
chemistry), ensuring they share commitment to the collaboration task at
hand,
and providing them with an environment, tools, knowledge, training,
process and
facilitation to ensure they work together effectively:
Fig. 3:
Collaboration, Cooperation and Coordination
|
|
Coordination
|
Cooperation
|
Collaboration
|
|
Purpose
of Using This Approach
|
Avoid
gaps & overlap in individuals' assigned work
|
Obtain
mutual benefit by sharing or partitioning work
|
Achieve
collective results that the participants would be incapable of
accomplishing alone
|
|
Desired
Outcome
|
Efficiently-achieved
results meeting objectives
|
Same
as for Coordination, plus savings in time and cost
|
Same
as for Cooperation, plus innovative, extraordinary, breakthrough
results, and collective 'we did that' accomplishment
|
|
Optimal
Application
|
Harmonizing
tasks, roles and schedules in simple
situations
|
Solving
problems in complicated
situations
|
Enabling
the emergence of understanding and realization of shared visions in complex
situations
|
|
Examples
|
Project
to implement off-the-shelf IT application; Traffic flow regulation
|
Marriage;
Operating a local community-owned utility or grain elevator; Coping
with an epidemic or catastrophe
|
Brainstorming
to discover a dramatically better way to do something; Jazz or
theatrical improvisation; Co-creation
|
|
Appropriate
Tools
|
Project
management tools, schedules, roles, critical path (CPM), PERT and
GANTT charts; "who will do what by when" action lists
|
Systems
thinking; Analytical tools (root cause analysis etc.)
|
Appreciative
inquiry; Open
Space meeting protocols; Four
Practices; Conversations; Stories
|
|
Degree
of interdependence in designing the effort's work-products (and need
for physical co-location of participants)
|
Minimal
|
Considerable
|
Substantial
|
|
Degree
of individual latitude in carrying out the agreed-upon design
|
Minimal
|
Considerable
|
Substantial
|
Our survey
suggests that some of the qualities we have considered important or
even
essential for effective collaboration are not viewed as such by most
collaborators, even those with lots of collaboration experience.
We're
believers
in the Wisdom of Crowds, so perhaps we worry too much about how much
careful
selection, training and diversity a group of people needs in order to
be
effective collaborators. A great attitude does go a long way to making
a team
work, and a group that has the three 'indispensable' qualities in our
survey:
enthusiasm, open-mindedness & curiosity, and candor, can
probably overcome
any shortage of experience and diversity to work its away around any
collective
lack of skills.
This
is not to
say that experience, diversity, and collaboration skills don't make the
job of
collaborating much easier and more likely to succeed. It just means
that what's most important
in
collaboration, as with so many things in life, is the people and their
desire
to help the team achieve the
collaboration objective.
it's also
our
assessment that the objectives of a
collaboration will affect the optimal selection of collaborators.
In groups where the objective is modest -- say, to share information or
even to
achieve consensus, the make-up of the group is less critical (and often
less
open to choice) than when the objective is more ambitious -- such as
achieving
breakthrough ideas or collective work-product. If you were George
Martin trying
to come up with the collaborative team needed to produce Abbey Road,
for
example, the chemistry of the participants would certainly be more
important
than if the objective of your collaboration was to brainstorm locations
for
this year's annual shareholders' meeting.
Applying the
findings of this survey to your collaboration project
Here, then,
is
our suggestion on how to select collaborators for a project:
- Establish clear objectives
of the collaboration and the commitments
required of team members. This will allow you to exclude people who are
unable or unwilling to make that commitment up front, either for
logistical reasons or because they will not sufficiently understand or
appreciate the objectives.
- Decide on the appropriate collaborator
selection process.
- Selection of members by an individual or panel
- Selection of invitees by an individual or panel
(where the invitees then have the option of accepting or declining
membership, and additional invitations are sent until a satisfactory
team has been assembled) or
- Self-selection by open invitation to anyone not
disqualified by the commitments or objectives (step 1 above)
- Decide on
the selection (or self-selection) criteria,
by selecting among the 39 criteria shown in Fig. 1 above, and adding
any technical skill and expertise requirements of team members. If
diversity is one of the criteria (and it usually will be) consider
whether it is necessary that all members of
the collaboration team meet all of the criteria, or if it sufficient
that just one, a few, or a majority of the team members meet these
criteria.
If the membership is deliberately or inevitably
going to be skewed by gender, age, experience or occupation, consider
some of the qualities that these specific demographics consider
particularly important in a collaborator, per Fig. 2 above. At the same
time you will probably want to make a preliminary assessment of the
appropriate size
of the collaboration team. Note that even if you use an invitation
process, determination of criteria is still vitally important, both in
deciding when you have a sufficient number of appropriate acceptances,
and in allowing invitees to appreciate what qualities are expected of
them if they accept. This is especially important if you use the Open
Space approach to invitation ("whoever comes are the right
people").
- Review (or,
if the group is self-selected, have them review) the composition of the
team against the objectives, commitments and criteria. If important
representation is missing, augment
the composition of the team accordingly.
- Allow the
members of the team to get
familiar with each other, ideally in a social
setting or using team-building exercises, before they begin to address
the objectives of the collaboration. If the team is virtual, this is
just as important if not more so, but different familiarization
activities will be needed.
A Final Note:
If
it's your task to assemble a collaborative team, remember that, in many
cases, the team reflects the personality, style, and mindset of the
people who launch it. Be aware of your own biases, talk to others about
your choices, and exemplify the qualities (especially enthusiasm,
open-mindedness, curiosity and candor!) that you're looking for in your
team. |
Collaborator
Comments: Mitch Ditkoff
The results
of our collaboration poll confirmed some of my pre-existing assumptions
and challenged others.This may be an indication that my criteria for
selecting collaborators are dramatically different, in some ways, from
the respondents to our survey or it may indicate
that I need to reconsider some of my criteria. The main finding of the
survey that resonates with my own experience is that attitude is one of
the keys to successful collaborations. Indeed, the "right" kind of
attitude (to be determined, of course, by each individual collaborator)
is the glue. Since collaborations are often like marriages and go
through various ups and downs, it is essential that the collaborators
enter into the relationship with the kind of attitude that can weather
the roller coaster ride of the sometimes chaotic and challenging
creative process.
It makes me
think of the recent winner of baseball's World Series: The Chicago
White Sox. The White Sox, by most baseball fans' assessment, probably
had a better "attitude" than the NY Yankees, who had higher paid and,
technically speaking, more skillful "all stars." The Yankees' attitude,
however, seemed problematic all year long. Lots of squabbles,
strutting, and lone wolfing. My ideal collaborator is someone whose
attitude (i.e. mindset, positivity, resilience, playfulness,
enthusiasm, respect for others etc.) is a contribution to the sustained
effort of whatever project we're taking on together.
Another
outcome of the survey that is consistent with my pre-existing
assumptions is the importance respondents place on collaborators being
able and willing to speak their mind and enter into difficult
conversations. This is critical, I strongly believe, to mature
collaborations. "Creative dissonance" is a wonderful phenomenon.. as
long as the individual "dissonants" are committed to the iterative (and
sometimes messy) process of "hanging in there" until resolution and/or
higher ground is achieved.
The new physicists, I believe, refer to this phenomenon as the "Theory
of Dissipative Structures." Meaning? Things, in the universe, tend to
"fall apart" before reorganizing themselves at a higher level. Picasso
described this in other words: "The act of creation is first of all an
act of destruction." Skillful and committed collaborators know how to
ride this wave--and eventually come out the "other side" with some kind
of breakthrough, new insight, or renewed commitment.
In order for this to happen, collaborators must absolutely be willing
to enter into difficult conversations and speak their truth. How they
do this, of course, is key. "Speaking one's truth" is sometimes
tantamount to "hitting and running" or "overpowering others with one's
opinions." Done in the spirit of true collaboration, however,
"conflicting conversations" have a very healthy impact on the
collaboration in question.
What surprised me about the results of our survey was the
relatively low importance ascribed to: 1) "My ideal collaborator is
someone I immediately liked. The chemistry is good." Maybe, then again,
this says more about me than anything else. I tend to be an intuitive.
I follow my 'gut' about lots of things, usually with fairly good
results. This is, I believe, one of the ways I select collaborators.
However, the relatively low rating of this criterion by respondents
gives me pause. Methinks, it might be wise for me to check in with some
kind of "criteria checklist" above and beyond my gut feel. This might
serve as a kind of reality check for me, especially since there have been times
when I have selected collaborators based on too much of a gut feel.
What I'd like to create for myself, as a result of this collaboration
poll, is a short checklist of "collaborator qualities" that I need to
slow down and consider before too quickly "trusting the chemistry."
Chemistry is important to me. But chemistry, I now see, can sometimes
obscure a deeper look at other very important collaborator attributes
as well. For example, many "single people" feel the chemistry with
another on a first date. They may even follow up and create a second
and third date. But this initial chemistry is not always sufficient to
ensure a long-term relationship. So.. if you are like me.. and tend to
rely a bit too much on initial chemistry, I recommend you create your
own short list of counterbalancing "Preferred Collaborator Attributes"
and actually slow down long enough to assess your potential
collaborators in regard to these counterbalancing areas before committing
to a collaborative relationship.
Collaborator Comments:
Carolyn Allen
It has been
fascinating to participate in this collaborative project about
collaboration. The process itself reflected the final results. Attitude
and Personality traits had an impact on the effectiveness of the
collaboration. Gender also seemed to play a role in the productivity
and balance of the process, with the lone woman on the team feeling the
impact of differences in emphasis in line with what is pointed out in
the survey.
The results
of this survey showed that Attitude and Personality cornered the top 5
spots in what works well in a collaborative experience. These
attributes ranked higher than Behaviors and Experience. That tells us
that "soft" people skills that build community are vital to creativity
and productivity. The question we must answer is how to enhance those
kinds of skills in an increasingly isolating way of life.
Maybe we need a collaborative
mission to innovate in this arena!
The
challenge of cooperation and collaboration are increasingly important
as society splinters into more individualized options made available
through the proliferation of media, the Internet, travel, mobile
communications and educational specialties. The more we innovate, the
more we need collaborative skills and opportunities.
As jobs and
careers shift and slide, each individual carries personal thinking and
group participation skills through these changes.
Collaboration helps people navigate new challenges,
change and membership in new communities.
Development
of collaboration skills will enhance individual and team abilities to
innovate and carry-through on our innovations in an environment that
thrives on a balance of cooperation and competition. Collaboration
within a team is essential, but collaboration as a group in a complex
global environment is also a valuable survival strategy.
This
research project has identified many of the top criteria used to
collaborate in everyday life -- home and family, as well as business,
politics and even religion. The next step is to apply this insight to
collaborative opportunities and test the validity of our ideas and
observations against application in the real world.
I look
forward to taking that next step and hope that this study will help you
in applying practical tools to your own collaborative journey of
discovery.
Collaborator Comments: Tim
Moore
Using just
the questions ranked indispensable and very
important we could write the following synopsis:
Ideal collaborators are open-minded listeners who are
generally curious. They're enthusiastic, yea zealous about the topic of
collaboration. Because they think differently, they bravely put forth
unpopular ideas, even in difficult conversations. They are low
maintenance, return calls and emails in a timely way and follow through
on commitments.
Why is
open-mindedness rated so highly? Simple. When everyone speaks out
freely, disagreement and debate is guaranteed. Respondents want a safe
space to look stupid while uttering potential heresy. They don't want
to confront entrenched positions or group humiliation. The ninety-eight
pound geek with the breakthrough idea might never bring it up in a room
of jocks hurling sports metaphors.
Our
politically sensitive need for safety is counterbalanced by our desire
for others to be self-responsible and low-maintenance. People count on
their colleagues to be larger than any moment of conflict that comes
up. They don't want someone else's personal distress piled on top of
the normal stress of staying alert, assertive and on-topic.
Google Reflects Our Survey
Responses
Google's
company culture mirrors many of our survey responses. With a work force
of 5000 employees, dozens of projects are underway at Google at any one
time. Roughly ten percent of employee work time is allocated to
dreaming up blue-sky projects. Idea mailing lists circulate freely.
Google
encourages food fight-like idea moshes. Rule
number one is "no idea can be called stupid or too
wild." Brilliant arrogance is okay as long as
someone's brashness doesn't break positive mood and momentum. Although
Google encourages "useful conflict," it's not interested in brilliant
people who are difficult to work with.
The
Googleplex is a fast, dense development environment. Average team size
per project is six people, and an average project runs about four to
six weeks. If a project doesn't pass muster by then, members break up
and recombine. Any six-person team expected to brainstorm, design and
build a groundbreaking feature in six weeks would need a diverse but
complete inventory of resources and skills. This partially explains why
our survey's youngest respondents value diversity so highly.
Google's
management realizes their most valuable asset is passion. They allow
and encourage workers to spend 20 percent of their time on something
that truly interests them, outside their main
assignment. And no surprise, that's right in line with our two top
survey responses. Enthusiasm ranked
number one in all but one of our five age demographics. Curiosity ranked
second across the board.
"Tiny Hard Skill" Meets "Big
Soft Idea"
Our survey
asked about a kind of "generic" collaboration that doesn't really
exist. In the real world, collaborations change as the stages of a
project unfold. There's a marked shift between the early 'soft' phases
of a project - purposing, collecting and brainstorming -- and its
later, execution-oriented tasks. These later 'hard' stages often call
on experts and authorities who usually have set ways of doing things
based on pragmatic experience and standard practice.
Since
Mitch, Carolyn, Dave and I work and/or consult in the areas of
innovation and creativity, our focus is on getting "outside the box"
and reinventing the wheel. But many wheels don't need to be reinvented.
Execution tasks that come later in a project's timeline are the prime
example.
In light of
this, it's remarkable that five key survey questions about a prospect's
"hard skills" and "experience" got low scores:
-
Is pragmatic
and knows how ideas get executed. (21)
-
Has deep understanding
of the subject of our collaboration. (29)
-
Has experience as a
collaborator. (34)
-
Has an established reputation
in the field of our collaboration. (34)
-
Is an experienced
business person. (39)
Are
we buying into a mythology that believes the narrow-band expert isn't
open minded? -- can't get out of his or her box? Do we believe
experienced, rules-based people are stubborn and rigid? If so, this is
the equivalent of Google saying the back-end code guys can't contribute
to the English copy the user reads on the front end, or that the user
interface the graphics guys design has no influence on code
architecture.
Most of us
may believe that while a well-synapsed generalist is more "likely" to
get their head above the box top, anyone can have a
good idea. But the limited scope of someone's role doesn't prevent them
from having a sudden insight on the shop floor that improves some part
of the whole.
No
project's GANTT or CPM chart can predict when insights
might take place or who they will
come from. New ideas can appear unexpectedly, anytime in the course of
the project, not just in the "brainstorming" phase. We have to be
careful the role-box we put the pragmatic specialist in is not so tight
that he or she isn't welcomed as an equal partner to present new ideas
and insights on the fly. It should also never matter
whether someone's idea is inside or outside their area of expertise.
So the next
survey might address this question: How can generalists (big idea
people driven to free-associate and innovate, like Google's idea
moshers) best collaborate with specialists so that each type informs
and stimulates the other?
Collaborator
Comments: Dave Pollard
and Conclusion: Where Do We Go From Here?
A
considerable body of research, and my own observations in social
environments and out in nature, suggest that we are normally,
instinctively, cooperative, rather than competitive. It takes a lot of
indoctrination to drive that out of us.
It is less
clear whether we are instinctively collaborative, rather than inclined
to work alone. Collaboration can be hard work, since it requires us to
think outside our 'frames' and see things from others' perspectives. In
creative work, especially, collaboration can cause conflict that goes
beyond creative friction to anger and intolerance. My observations in
27 years of work in large organizations suggests that we collaborate
effectively when we have to, when we
know for a fact that collaboration will achieve better results than
each of us working alone would accomplish. To some extent that is the
message that this survey gives us: Attitude is most important, and if
we believe collaboration will succeed, it will, and if we don't,
regardless of our group's skill, experience, and personality, it won't.
A new wiki
by Mark Elliott called MetaCollab
proposes to "create a continuously developing repository of knowledge
surrounding collaboration". It is focused on the collaboration
processes used in many different environments. Mitch, Carolyn, Tim and
I will be contributing to the wiki to continue the investigations we
have begun in this report.
A recent study
by Ken Thompson and Robin Good suggests that high-performance teams
believe seven things: That each member of the team is
accountable, trustworthy & competent, willing to give &
take, honest and open, willing to share credit & responsibility
for the results, and optimistic about the outcome of the project, and
that their collective mission is important. This certainly resonates
with our survey's findings.
The same
study lays out what the authors call bioteaming
rules: rules for building organizational teams based on the principles
of successful collaboration in nature. The twelve rules are:
-
Communicate information -- not orders.
-
Mobilize everyone to look for and manage team threats and opportunities
(collective responsibility).
-
Achieve accountability through transparency not permission.
-
Provide 24x7 instant in
situ message hotlines for all team members (make sure the
team is continually and immediately connected).
-
Treat external partners as fully trusted team members.
-
Nurture the team's internal and external networks and connections (the
strength of weak ties).
-
Develop consistent autonomous team member behaviors (ensure all members
agree to do a few critical things the same way).
-
Team members must learn effective biological and interpersonal
co-operation strategies (find the natural win-win approaches).
-
Learn through experimentation, mutation and team review (not analysis).
-
Define the team's goals and roles in terms of 'network transformations'
-- not expected outputs.
-
Develop team boundaries which are open to energy but closed to waste
(the right team and the right team size can't be absolutely known up
front).
-
Scale naturally through nature's universal growth and decay cycles (the
membership and roles of the team will evolve organically over time).
The next
stage of our research will explore the process by which newly-formed
collaboration teams can be most successful, the various collaboration
tools available, and the various formal and informal roles that members
of collaboration teams play. We hope to work with Mark, Ken, Robin and
others going forward. This stage will be launched with a 'Conversation'
between the four of us. You can find it on The
Virtual Breakthrough Café. From there we hope to
develop a set of Guiding Principles for effective collaboration --
principles that will help members and organizers form, facilitate, and
enhance the effectiveness of collaborative teams.
Hope you
can join us!
Mitch Ditkoff
Carolyn Allen
Tim Moore
Dave Pollard
November,
2005
A Conversation On The Collaboration Process

InnoWiki members Mitch Ditkoff, Carolyn Allen, Tim Moore and Dave Pollardrecently
conducted an online survey to get a public assessment of the
ideal qualities one would look for in a collaborator. Generally,
the view of the majority, regardless of age, gender or experience, was
that attitude was more important in a collaborator than talent, skill, personality or experience.
In
order to make the results of this survey even more valuable to readers,
we thought it would be useful to provide some insight not only into who are the best collaborators, but how
one can better conduct collaborative activities. Rather than conducting
another survey, we decided to tap our collective (and collaborative)
experience as collaborators, and we concluded that the best way to
relate this was through a conversation. So here we go. (John,
our interviewer, is an imaginary creation of the four collaborators who
collaboratively invented this conversation.)
John: OK, let's start off by getting our definitions straight. What exactly is a collaboration?
Tim:
Collaboration seems pretty simple to me. It happens when a group of two
or more decide on an outcome they want, commit to making it happen, and
start moving toward it. It implies a project that they want
completed, unlike cooperation and coordination, both of which feel
task-focused to me. Collaborators have, if not an explicit mission or
path or in mind, an understanding that the project is highly purposeful
and can be finished with the talent at hand. Skills may overlap, toes
may get stepped on, but the purpose and fulfillment of the work stays
larger than any problem. When the mix is right, collaborators sense momentum and a kind of common destiny.
That's why even informal collaborations work so well - individual
inspiration meets group aspirations. In the early sixties, before the
Beatles hit the top of the charts, John Lennon would cheer his mates.
"Where are we going, fellas?" "To the top, Johnny!" "What top?" "To the
Toppermost of the Poppermost, Johnny!" That's a summoning of purpose, a
vision of a collaborative end-point.
Dave: The definition I've used is "the creation of a collective
work-product by a highly responsive, interactive, iterative
give-and-take process that yields something greater than what any set
of individuals working alone could produce". I distinguish it from the less intensive and less interactive processes of coordination and cooperation in this article.
The Beatles (including George Martin) as a team produced collective
work-product like Abbey Road that no group of artists, however
talented, could have produced working autonomously. That's collaboration.
Mitch:
I am guessing that everyone reading this conversation has had at least
one memorable collaboration in their life. With a friend, partner,
spouse, teammate, co-worker, neighbor etc. In a school, on a sports
team, in the the military, at work, with a religious or community group
etc. Think about what made this collaboration successful and then see
what you can do to bring this quality into your current relationships
and projects. Fan the flames of what has already worked for you in the
past. And ask yourself what new qualities you can bring to your next
collaboration to make iteven more successful that your previous ones.
At the simplest level, "collaboration" means to "co-labor... to labor
together." What is it your care enough about to join forces with
someone?
Carolyn: My working definition of
collaboration is one that is also what it's NOT. It's not competition,
although it exists within a natural and human compeititive system. It's
more than cooperation -- it has mutual ownership, stakeholder goals,
creativity and construction at its base, where cooperation might not.
You can't buy or legislate collaboration, it is an organic process that
grows -- or doesn't.
John: Why is it important, both in business and in society as a whole, that we learn to collaborate well?
Carolyn:
We're all in this moment and place together, and collaboration is the
antidote to the abuse or extreme pursuit of greed, competition and
individualism. Through collaboration we actually listen to others (and
act on our discoveries) as much as we listen to our own needs and
desires.
Tim: In a good collaboration, everyone
wins. In principle, it's easy for people to accept sharing a prize, but
in practice it's hard for today's media-fed egos. We live in an era
when personal triumph against all odds is ritually worshipped. We love
stories like Rocky. Biographies focus almost exclusively on
individuals. Inspiring as these stories of personal struggle are, I
think they inadvertantly encourage a cult of rugged independence and
justify chronic defiance - rock star CEO's and CFO's. Hooking into this
cultural myth makes a defiant stance almost mandatory for any person
trying to write their own history. Things must be against us
or how will we prevail, triumph, win? Most of us dream a dream of
individual glory. To buy into that story, to shape our destiny, there must - absolutely must -
be villains to fight. That defiance is part of our hero culture. But
sooner or later, defiant heroes have to take a job and are forced to
work with others. Unfortunately, the social fabric that develops by
then often feels more like herding and domestication than real
collaboration. Ergo Dilbert.
Sincere
collaboration is a major shift from all that. Successful collaborations
sideline personal stories and focus on the unfolding of a "village
project," something we're naturally wired for and have been for
millenia. Businesses need to realize that people want to get socially
connected in that natural way. We have a longstanding benign
need to group like villagers and enjoy building something together that
improves the village, in this case the world. Most people long to be
part of a barn raising. This is true whether we're scientists in a lab,
directors in a boardroom, or players in a band.
Dave:
Exactly. It's important because we've seen that the cult of leadership,
where executives and experts and external guru-consultants make solo
decisions in a rarified atmosphere far from the wisdom of crowds,
simply doesn't work. Collaboration is to the networked organization
what leadership is to the hierarchical organization, and we are living
in a world where the networked organization is replacing the
hierarchical organization because it's more natural, more engaging, and
more effective. And we desperately need much more effective ways of
working and solving problems if we want business to regain its
innovative edge and society to dig out from under the crises we're
facing today.
Mitch: The whole, indeed, is much
greater than the sum of the parts. Extraordinary results manifest when
committed people with a compelling goal and the willingness to set
aside petty ego concerns for an extended period of time, are able to
join forces. 1+1 =11. "Plays well with others" (remember that?) is one
marker of our youth. I wonder how our teachers would grade us today if
they observed some of the ways in which we interacted (i.e played) with
our peers, co-workers, spouses, and neighbors.
John: Your survey outlined the qualities to look for in a good collaborator. How can we, as individuals, get better at collaborating?
Dave:
Practice; pay attention; and study great collaborations. The more
collaborative activities you get involved in -- work bees, sports
teams, Open Source projects, community activities, Open Space events or
cross-functional business project teams working on innovation or
problem-solving, for example -- the better you will get at
collaborating. Pay attention to examples of collaboration in the arts,
in the sciences, in public affairs, in nature -- watch jazz improv,
spontaneous community collaborations after blackouts or natural
disasters, or how hunting dogs corner their prey. A wonderful study in
collaboration is TS Eliot's The Wasteland, the manuscript
marked up with suggestions, questions and critiques by Ezra Pound and
by Eliot's wife. The improvement of the result of that collaboration
over the original draft is astonishing. The Human Genome Project is
another collaboration worth studying. But as our survey indicated,
attitude is probably more important than skill. The chemistry of the
group is also very important. And some of us are just instinctively
good at collaborating (women seem to have this instinct more than men,
in my experience). So practice can only get you so far.
Mitch: People get better at collaborating when they realize they need to get better at collaborating (and want
to) in order to achieve their goals. And while this realization is not
sufficient, it is a necessary beginning. In my experience, most people
do not want to really collaborate because collaboration demands the
kind of intimate relationship that most people avoid. Marriages, for
example, perhaps the most difficult of collaborations, fail at least
50% of the time. When one enters into a collaborative relationship,
they must eventually deal with all of their "stuff": control issues,
power issues, trust issues etc etc. Not a lot of fun for most of us.
Also, collaboration (and its second cousin, "teamwork") demand that a
person slow down, reconsider, reflect, and allow to come into
expression specific courses of action they would not necessarily choose
if they were "running the show" themselves. Again, not easy for most
people. Ideally, a creative collaboration is NOT a compromise, but a
skillful and productive dance of opposites (or, at the very least,
discontinuous opinions.) Synthesis often is the result of thesis +
antithesis. There is something glorious about disagreement when the
disagreeing parties are committed to a "higher good." Creative
dissonance can be joyful, but only if the dissonant collaborators are
committed to the same, higher octave goal.
Carolyn:
I would order it this way: First comes intent. Then comes practice.
Then refinement. Someone created the slogan, "Ready, fire, aim." Order
and action are powerful components of learning.
Tim: Like Dave said. Practice. Look for inspiration. Study, admire, bless
other great, phenomenally successful collaborations. Instead of reading
biographies, read stories of great ensembles, groups, projects. Study
filmmaking. I grew up in a professional theater family. When I watch
plays or films, I want to see great ensemble work. If three
or more actors can create a truth together, that's more inspiring to me
than any star's bravura solo. All performance art - music, dance,
acting - requires great attention and a sense of personal truth. I've
been in a lot of collaborations where two people in the group have
chemistry, find an instinctive groove, and keep generating it
while others add to that energy. Years ago I played guitar for a week
with the Rolling Stones, in Keith Richard's spot. The connection
between Jagger's foot and Watt's snare was the heart of the band's
groove that week, with Keith absent. I loved falling into that
chemistry. It was natural - magnetic. When any two people in a
collaboration strike a spark and generate something that's natural and instinctive, every one goes - Yeah! - and falls in. It's always a joy to add something to great energy. I think that's why enthusiasm ranked number one in our survey.
John: Alright, let's talk about the collaboration process.
Are there 'best practices', templates, models, or methodologies that,
if used, will ensure success of a collaborative effort?
Mitch:
In my experience. a successful collaborative effort requires the
following: initial chemistry, genuine respect for ones' collaborators,
deep listening, genuine curiosity, the time and willingness to immerse
in the collaborative project, an agreed upon protocol for giving and
receiving feedback, the ability to recognize breakdowns quickly and
clear the air ASAP, real clarity about roles and responsibility, clear
and timely communication, a collective sense of humor, a shared
compelling vision, a sense of urgency, the ability to maintain focus in
the midst of ambiguity and chaos, honor, follow through of commitments,
and periodic opportunities to have fun together.
Carolyn:
The dissection and art of collaboration does seem to be a new endeavor.
Strides are being made to understand it's art and science, but it is
still an alchemy of relationships. The best tools are what you have
access to when you need them: intent, practice and refinement. Of
course, learning from others is a collaborative coup in itself! :-)
Tim:
People never look at their driving manuals after they get their
license. Somehow they just roll out there and learn to get along with
other 3000 pound steel objects hurtling at them. Sure, knowing the
rules of the road is a prerequisite to entry. But does it ensure
success? Nope. Collisions happen. Nothing's better than stepping in the
ring and finding out you can handle it. I doubt there's any method that
replaces being on the minority end of a consensus and having to decide
in two seconds whether to push or let go.
As far as
methodologies go, I think the jazz masters teach collaboration as well
as anyone can. I like the '50's and 60's quartets and quintets (Miles,
Cannonball, Coltrane, Herbie Hancock). Jazz players are tasty and leave
space for each other. In jazz everyone has to be a master at listening
and playing at the same time. And if you play a wrong note, guess what?
It's only one note. Keep going. Make it sound intentional by changing
what follows to make sense of it. Let the unintended dance with the
intended. Ready, fire, aim.
Dave: There's a great online book that talks about "collective
processes" used in intentional communities and in consensus building
and dispute resolution. No rigourous processes, but a lot of practices
that guide and steer a team striving towards a common goal. Most
innovation processes are inherently collaborative processes as well, so
some of those models of good innovation processes can serve as excellent models for collaboration as well.
In my experience, if you have the right people involved in the collaboration (which entails a good invitation
process), a shared sense of urgency around an identified goal or
challenge, and qualified facilitators to guide the process, you don't
need a lot of structure to the process. The greatest challenges for
facilitators, I think, are the learned behaviours so common in many organizations that interfere with natural collaboration.
John: Are there worktools that are helpful in the collaboration process?
Mitch:
Well, I certainly hope the deck of cards I am creating (i.e. "Teamwork
Cards") will be a useful tool, insofar as it will increase people's awareness
of the nooks and crannies of deep collaboration and teamwork. I am
fascinated by the Wiki technology and exploring it more and more. Good
meeting facilitation skills also help.
Dave: I'm a great fan of Open Space
Technology as an enabler of collaboration. It's extremely flexible and
puts the emphasis on the conversations and on the emergence of
understanding. For prolonged and asynchronous collaboration, tools like
wikis (there's even a 'meta-wiki'
specifically attempting to develop a theory of collaboration) can help
to document the trail of thoughts and facilitate online 'conversations'
(like this one). I also like mind-maps as a mechanism for documenting and clarifying what has been said and agreed to in real time.
Carolyn:
Dave and Mitch are excellent creatives and synthesizers in this field
and they have a good grasp of what's happening. I cock my ear in their
direction to learn about new methods.
Tim: I
don't know if this is a a tip or tool, but one thing I'm pretty adamant
about is letting people be shy, awkward, strange and different. We need
a collaborative framework or attitude that welcomes brilliant loners
out of their solitude, yet still dignifies and supports their solitary space.
That doesn't say, "Hey! Now you're wit da team. Come do the ropes
course," but allows strange brilliance to come and go - from solitary
trance or contemplation to group work. Ideas often get born in
solitude, or in trance states while doing routine tasks. Talented
people have their own kind of meditation practice - it's called immersion in their passion. They feel more content there than in social settings. So if you want to tap that brilliance, you have to tweak the social setting.
Make it respectful and receptive. Too many brilliant but tender souls
never approach collaboration again after being jostled by roughshod
group behaviors.
I get a lot of insight reading the research on
emotional and social intelligence and studying evolutionary and social
psychology. Why are the social skills needed for collaboration second
nature to some kids and not to others? Some of us know how to "play
well" from childhood, but many still don't know how. One book I like is
in Robert Selman's Making a Friend in Youth.
This Harvard psychologist did clinical studies chronicling the stages
of friendship between pairs of children six and up - how they reframed
their conflicts over time, how their relationships evolved. Selman has
contributed for twenty-five years to the body of research on social awareness,
ethics, bullying and mobbing. If any company wants to attract talent
and build a vital, creative culture, it needs to look seriously at
these issues.
John: Can you recall your most successful collaborations to date? And what, specifically, made them so memorable?
Carolyn:
My most successful collaboration is a lifelong collaborative
relationship. It is so embedded in my life that I can't imagine
operating without this collaboration. My collaboration team is nature.
This web of survival strategies engages my every breath, every action,
and every intention. Without air to breath, I couldn't give carbon
dioxide back to the plants. Without birds, my beloved landscape would
be a monoculture. Without water, we would all stink ;-) We survive
together, thrive together, and collaborate to evolve the world's
landscape, the weather and the mix of species. Personally, I love the
collaboration. Collectively, we humans could learn a bit more about
collaborating with this organic team.
Tim: (1)
My first record album was a successful collaboration with my friend and
producer Nick Jameson. I felt totally free and Nick added invaluable
parts every day. Lots of fun. (2) Eleven years ago I helped found a
regional multimedia coalition which brought together people in the
arts, business and technology who wanted to create digital content, do
internet projects, etc. Our mission was to create new synergy between
people from formerly unrelated professional disciplines. Four of us put
together a structure and meeting agenda and called everyone we knew.
Like magic, people opened up their houses for meetings, shared their
offices, computer resources and art studios. Some meetings were an hour
away from others, that's how enthusiastic our group cohesion was. (3) I
also founded an environmental alliance of almost 200 households to push
for water conservation and to control development on our mountaintop.
This was a more neighborly, village scale action group. We met
regularly for two years and secured important zoning changes over that
time. (4) About 15 years ago, hundreds of people in our town
volunteered to construct a quarter-acre playground called wonderworks.
It was a huge two weekend undertaking and the town kids still play
there.
Mitch: (1) The first nine years of my business partnership with Steven McHugh?
(the co-founder of Idea Champions.) We were two wild-eyed friends with
a common vision, a lot of trust in each other, complementary skills, a
sense of urgency, tons of creativity, a willingness to experiment and
learn from our failures, and a common love of sushi. (2) My marriage to
Evelyne Pouget, my wonderful wife and mother of our two kids. In some
ways, Evelyne are I are very different and not likely collaborators:
Catholic/Jew; Woman/Man; French/American; Gemini/Virgo, Devotee of
Gurumayi/Devotee of Maharaji... but we have a common bond of love,
respect, gratitude, and a common commitment to live our lives in
service to the highest good. (3) My high school soccer team. We were
undersized and a long shot to win even a single game, but we ended up
wining the Nassau County Championship and the Good
Sportsmanship Award. Why? Very little individual ego. A great coach. A
genuine love and appreciation for each other. And a growing sense that
we could accomplish anything we set our minds and hearts on. Plus, we
had a ton of fun in the process, had some very skilled players, and
enjoyed practice.
Dave:
My best collaborations have been with groups where there is deep
understanding of and respect for each other's strengths and weaknesses,
and an equally deep trust among all the members of the group. That's
been especially true in my recent innovation projects, that entail a
lot of synthesis, imagination and brainstorming, and in activities in
the exurban neighbourhood in Caledon, Ontario that I live in, where 34
families live and work in harmony with nature on a large protected
wetland.
John: We live in the most diverse
human population the world has ever known. Travel and migration have
changed our culture. How can we use collaboration to improve cultural
differences?
Carolyn: Multidisciplinary
solutions tend to have a more lasting impact because they deal with the
complexity of systems and how they thrive. Collaboration that includes
a diverse membership -- gender, age, ethnicity, even organic lifeforms
(in spirit and science, at least)...can all contribute to a more robust
strategy.
Tim: I actually think we're growing less
diverse globally, and that Westerners, especially Americans, are
isolated and fragmented as individuals. If the objective is a lessening
of tensions around race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender --
situations with much enmity and prejudice, there's usually only one
solution: more authentic and/or playful contact between rival factions.
Increase actual face to face encounters. Collaboration. Take the Middle
East, for example: For years various youth programs and camps have
brought Palestinian and Israeli youth together. They work side by side
on common projects for most of the summer. They hang out. Once they're
done, they can never go back and be around the same vengeful hostility
at home.
John: This conversation has been very helpful. Any final words on the subject?
Dave:
The better we get at inviting the right people to collaborations,
learning the skills (notably good listening and awareness skills), and
practicing, the better our collaborations will get. In fact I think we
will be amazed to discover what we can do when we learn to truly collaborate, rather than just 'working together'.
Mitch:
The future of our planet depends on skillful collaboration, informed by
an inner awareness of its importance. By necessity (and sometimes
crisis) I see people increasingly coming together to go beyond the
bounds of sectarianism to accomplish great things. I invite anyone
reading these words to reflect on what project of theirs would be
served by skillful collaboration with others.. and then seek these
people out and dive in.
Carolyn: Collaboration
is the heartbeat of community. Competition is very wasteful of talents,
resources and the environment. Collaboration that is inclusive,
flexible and creative offers hope for a better future. It's worth our
investment because we are creating our tomorrow with today's
relationships, today's ideas, today's strategies.
Tim: Collaboration is about experiencing interdependence. Let me repeat those two words: Experiencing Interdependence. A self - you, me, whoever - steps into a group, and becomes a one connected to many others,
collecting energy in and distributing energy back out. Like breathing.
So if we dolly back, we see collaboration as a closed system with a
kind of natural internal circulation. Any collaboration
"methodology" that can sideline conventional social roles and stories
and support the free circulation of ideas, feelings and instinctual
energy is getting it right.
|
© Copyright 2006 Dave Pollard.
Last update: 02/04/2006; 6:17:06 PM.
|
|
|