Genevieve

Collaboration is a messy business.  It is time-intensive and can be interpersonally challenging.

It is also the best way that we know to solve the worlds’ complex problems: from vast issues like climate change, health and education, to more concrete issues like how to create a sustainable, regenerative building or a state of the art hospital (or sometimes both!).

Terry Taylor and I have been working with Jim Bedrick, an expert in “Integrated Project Delivery“(IDP), a form of construction that builds buildings which have a very different design process.  Instead of using a “Design-Bid-Build” system, where architects, construction managers and subcontractors, and owners are all three separate teams, they use IPD- a system that brings these groups together onto one team, and asks them to collaborate from the ground up.  This is pretty radical in the competitive field of construction – and what they are finding is that it is possible to solve building conundrums more effectively and – here’s the crux – more innovatively – than in the old system where groups were in a competitive stance from day 1.

We have been working together to design a workshop for individuals who would like to develop and hone their skills for collaboration.  Along with tools for dialogue, problem-solving, and facilitation, we have developed a set of principles to help collaborators in any field work more effectively – and innovatively – together.

These principles are timeless, they work regardless of the situation, and without them, collaboration cannot happen effectively.  See if you agree about the following principles, which are rooted in well-known theories of high-performance teamwork (The Wisdom of Teams, Jon Katzenbach), systems thinking (5th Discipline FieldGuide, Peter Senge et al,) and Mutual Learning (The Skilled Facilitator – Roger Schwarz).

1. Focus on shared purpose: Shared purpose forms both the reason for bringing the group together.  Without shared purpose, the “stakes” of engaging together are not clear – and it is not “worth” the investment of time and energy.
2. Build respect and trust: Without respect – the acknowledgement of the diversity of opinions and perspective – it is very hard to build trust.  Without trust, the “root problems” may never be addressed, the best ideas may never be shared, and ultimately the relationship that helps ride the waves of interpersonal ups and downs doesn’t get strengthened.
3. Detach ego from ideas: Ego is an important part of innovation – without some form of confidence and self-concept, new creativity does not get brought to the mix.  However, once ideas ARE offered, it is best to step aside and let them have their own life.  That can be challenging – we naturally are invested in our own ideas.  But that’s how best results in collaboration occurs.
4. Align self-interest and shared interests:  We define collaboration as the following: “A joining together of people with multiple loyalties to share risks  and combine ideas to obtain benefits greater than any single individual could accomplish.”  Specifically, “people with multiple loyalties” come to the table for different reasons.  By looking for ways to align self-interest and shared interests in the group, you create common ground upon which the collaboration can flourish.
5. Emphasize equal relationship and status: As in negotiations, significant power differentials in collaboration can create a sense of unequal dependency, vulnerability, and a shoddy foundation for partnership.  Ultimately, this is due to whether all parties feel they will have gain and reciprocity – and whether others are stepping up to the plate.  By emphasizing equal relationship and status, you create an equality of contribution – whether through ideas or other forms – and an equal playing ground.
6. Disagreement is a positive force, look to harness it: Conflict can make or break collaborations.  It is also a form of powerful energy that can drive clarity and strengthen relationship if used well.  It is also an expected and important part of collaboration.  If we seek to harness conflict in our collaborations, the energy can be transformative, leading us to deeper understanding of each other and solutions that break the mold.  See my recent article on conflict for tools to harness its power.

These principles are a foundation for effective collaboration if used consistently and precisely.  Let us know how you have seen them at work in your own collaborative effort!

The Advantage took all of us at Global Genesis by storm. Since reading it, I have since referred many clients and consultants to it, have used it or referred to it in almost every client engagement since, and am looking forward to incorporating it in my client work as I move forward.

Why? Because Patrick Lencioni (who is known best for his “business fables” in books like The Five Dysfunctions of a Team) did a fabulous job of synthesizing – and really renewing  – work that has been lynch pins of organizational development for decades.  He takes great ideas from Chrys Argyris(Systems Thinking), Jim Collins(Good to Great), Stephen Covey (7 Habits) – who of course, were working from other great masters – and boils it down into simple clear directions, a cohesive framework, and practical guidance.  His framing – that organizations must be healthy to succeed – is brilliant, his defense of that idea is cogent.  He has done a service to not only his clients, but to change agents who have been looking to help others understand why things like goal -setting, teamwork, conflict, and communication make such a difference.

Specifically, he offers four disciplines that support organizational health:

These are of course explained in detail in his book.  They are not rocket science – but one must do them to create advantage, and that is where it can be challenging.  But he does well in making the steps appear clear, accessible, and doable.

I highly recommend this book!

Last year I was thinking hard about how to help people with the “politics” of change.  Many people see “politics” as something to be avoided.  Political Savvy – Systematic Approaches to Leadership Behind the Scenes takes a fresh and extremely rational look at the natural politics of organizations.

What I liked: Dr. DeLuca identifies 9 different “players”, ranging from the passive and cynical to the “active and ethical” players.  This book encourages people to become “active, ethical players” that choose to make a strategic difference in their organizations.  These players are savvy: they know how to identify resistance to change; and they know who can help them overcome that resistance in a way that serves the greater good.  And they assume that organizations are not inherently rational; rather, they are made up of humans that try to be rational but who also operate from a framework of emotions and interests that are uniquely individual.

Following are a couple of tips for “influencing behind the scenes” that I particularly liked:

1.  Dr. DeLuca is skeptical about decision-making in large groups.  Instead, he recommends a “Many-Few-Many-Few ” approach. 

• MANY: Essentially – brainstorm, but don’t decide – in a large groups.  Large groups tend to be best at creativity and energy – but as many of us know, they are not good at wordsmithing, working though logistics, or weighing the whole against the enthusiasm of a crowd.
• FEW:  So, bring the options back to a few with authority and responsibility to make the change.
• MANY: Then – and this is key – bring it back to the whole for comments, input, feedback, and clarity.
• FEW:  Then, finalize the decision with the same, responsible few.

2.  “Never go into a decision-making meeting without knowing that 51% or more of its participants understand and are open to discussion about the proposed change.” 

• This is a particularly critical piece of thinking here, and he even says that if it is the one thing that readers take from the book, he is happy.  Essentially – recall a time that you sat in a meeting, and you said, bursting with enthusiasm, “Hey, I think we should do this really great thing!”  And, your fantastic idea was ignored.  Perhaps there was silence, perhaps the group kept going like they hadn’t even heard it, or perhaps someone outright said “That is a terrible idea!”  And then, 15 minutes later, the same idea was offered – perhaps even by the person who said it was a terrible idea – and the group enthusiastically exclaimed, “What a fantastic idea!  Why didn’t I think of that???”  (Yes, you are usually pouting at that point.)
•  Dr. DeLuca also noted that phenomenon, and there are a lot of probable reasons for that; perhaps an innate adversity to change inside humans, perhaps the political landscape of the moment.  But he says that the dynamic changes entirely when the politically savvy  warm the temperature of the room by introducing the idea before the meeting – to more than half the group.  It is not that everyone has to agree, but by introducing the idea, you help create conditions for a better and more productive conversation – in a way that doesn’t lead to a lost idea, wasted meeting time, or loss of face for you.

The book has been extremely helpful to me as I advise clients within organizations how to manage change, or clients who are engaged in “inter-organizational” collaborations.  The book also contains a system for mapping alliances that is extremely helpful for the champion of change.

I was so excited about his work that I reached out to see if there were a workshop for me to become better trained in his tools.  It was then that I discovered that Dr. DeLuca passed away in 2008.  May he rest in the deepest peace.

A leader is pondering, what is the best way to approach my staff about sustainability? How do I create a vision that others will share with me, so I am not a lone wolf, howling in a wilderness of cubicles?

Great question!

Part of this question is answered by the qualities that the leader actually possesses. Talking about sustainability or any other change won’t be effective unless the change agent is trusted by the people she is trying to influence.

Influence, by the way, whether you have authority in an organization or not, is the only capital that really works to create long-term, behavioral change. Letting go of any ideas you may have about being able to enforce a change is helpful in this process – after all, as a colleague of mine, John Springer says –

You can lead by Inspiration, or Desperation. Which do you choose?

But back to strategies for change. We will talk more about leadership later.

The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook by Peter Senge et al., (a classic work on systems thinking in organizational development) makes the point that leaders want to create the commitment and focus that a shared vision can bring to an organization. Building a Shared Vision can do just that.

Bryan Smith’s article in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook discusses 5 starting points for building shared vision. He notes that different organizations should start at different places, given the practical realities of where different companies are. (The following is a direct excerpt from his article, on p.314.)

1. Telling: The “boss” knows what the vision should be, and the organization is going to have to follow it;
2. Selling: The “boss” knows what the vision should be, but needs the organization to “buy in” before proceeding;
3. Testing: The “boss” has an idea about what the vision should be, or several ideas, and wants to know the organization’s reactions, before proceeding;
4. Consuliting: The “boss” is putting together a vision, and wants creative input from the organization before proceeding;
5. Co-creating: The “boss” and “members” of the organization, through a collaborative process, build a shared vision together.

He makes the point that before proceeding, you should objectively assess where your company is, and then make a plan for how to move to the next stage.

Figuring out Where You Should Start – A Case Study

I have a client who is transitioning from one leader to another leader. The old leader had a fairly traditionalist model; he asked people to do what they should do, and expected that they follow through with what he asked them to.

The new leader had a very different idea; while he wasn’t entirely sure how, he knew that he wanted his staff to work as a team; to be self-motivated to improve the company. We started with an executive team teambuilding, and from there, discussed how to help his whole company work differently.

He had a vision of teamwork – but had to go about it differently depending on who in the company he was working with. With his executive team, we had spent three days together building trust and respect, co-creating a vision for the company, agreeing on strategy. We then spent many months working together as a team over time. With them, he used a combination of testing, consulting, and co-creating. The Executive Team wanted strong leadership from him, as they had received in the past, but still usually wanted to consult – a significant change from how it had been in the past. But as the Executive Team itself became stronger, they also became stronger, more creative leaders with their own staff, and likewise more attached to co-creating together as an Executive Team. Now, they negotiate about when they will co-create, when they will consult with the leader, and when the leader will test with them, but reserve the right to make the decision.

But the company leader also wanted to change how the rest of his staff would work together. And the rest of the company was more accustomed to a strong authority figure who governed mostly through telling, as opposed to a leader who was willing to share some of his authority in exchange for increased creativity and commitment on their part. For his staff, this leader spends some time telling, a lot of time selling, and has been making inroads to testing and consulting, with specific individuals or committees, at specific times. Quite a bit of his tactic has been to negotiate the boundaries of collaboration over time, so that both he and the company get what they need to keep the company running. Some initiatives have worked well; some are still a work-in-progress.

So, how does this translate to creating a successful change initiative?

As a change agent, depending on the authority you have, you will have to assess for yourself who is ready for co-creating, and who is not. There are many factors that influence how someone is ready – the level of trust, the expectations and history between the parties, how willing the different parties are to negotiate their needs. It is a risky thing for a leader to allow his authority to be handed over to the decision of the group. In fact, in this case, there was a point when the Executive Team and Company Leader handed its authority over too quickly, without thorougly laying out the boundaries of what they needed to make sure the company stayed on track as a whole. Everyone ended up unsatisfied with the results, and the leaders had to back-track to telling. Fortunately, enough trust and respect had been built up at that point that the loss wasn’t nearly as significant as it would have been the year before.

Both the leader and the group have to be ready for co-creating. Both have to be practiced at asking for what they need, as well as giving in return.

However, there are ways to fast-track to co-creating a vision. Next posting – how do you create a vision? And how can you fast-track it to achieve long-term commitment and focus?