Are your collaborative contracts really collaborative?
A couple of years ago I worked with a major utility that wanted to change the nature of their services contracts.
Previously they had run a very top down, top heavy process requiring the contractors to jump through many process hoops, which left them feeling very constrained and powerless.
The provider started a new process stating they wanted it to be a more collaborative, flexible and outcome focused regime where contractors would be valued as equal partners.
What was interesting were the comments that I heard from the contractors during the subsequent implementation process, which were quite revealing about the attempted change.
I heard comments like:
- this doesn't feel very collaborative
- you are still the "big gorilla" in charge of the cash
- but you are just telling us how it will work
- I'm not sure you really trust me....
While the new contracts were reasonably well received, and seemed to provide benefits, it soon became apparent that these new arrangements were just a bit better, rather than the quantum shift that had been planned.
While it looked different to the utility, it felt the same to the contractors- in the contractor's mind, the real power and control continued to reside with the utility, so it seemed that nothing had really changed.
And maybe that gives us a clue as to what might make a difference- it takes a different mindset to make a process truly collaborative, which drives different thinking, behaviour and actions:
- thinking we, not me
- giving up control and not always knowing the answer
- paying attention to relationships, and building trust before presenting solutions
- allowing those involved to get their "fingerprints" on the process
So there is a big distinction between doing collaboration, and it feeling collaborative.
The mindset is the difference.
Three ways to take your contractual partnership from good to great
A client in the water infrastructure business recently approached me to talk about how the team can learn to work together with their contracted construction partners as they deliver a massive bit of infrastructure. They told me that the relationship between them and their delivery partner is good but that, in a competitive world where margins are slim, they would only deliver on budget if their partnership shifts "from good to great". They needed to shift their collaboration to a new level or risk their profit margin.
With the growth of alliance contracts and governments' preference for outsourcing service delivery to contractors, this is an increasingly common scenario. Yet while it is one thing to be a contractual partner, it is another thing altogether to develop the collaborative mindset and behaviours that make these contractual relationships hum. How does my client move from an 'us and them' mindset to a 'we' mindset, and do so in the high-pressure world of project delivery? It isn't easy, but here are three things I've learned:
- A partnering contract alone does not a partnership make. Behaviour and, most importantly, thinking has to shift in order to give the contractual aspiration a chance.
- A commitment to working on relationships and a process for doing so is critical. You can’t just focus on doing the content work better.
- To build collaborative muscles we need to go to the collaboration gym, so build in a way for practice, reflection and learning.
To support clients on their partnering and alliance journeys we have developed our unique collaboration system and coaching process. We will be talking through key aspects of the approach in our upcoming webinar. We hope to see you there so you can take your contractual partnerships from good to great.
Those silos are still around!
In thinking about this month’s topic on silo busting, I was reminded of my blog four years ago:
Following a successful workshop a couple of weeks ago on setting up a collaborative framework for a project with a bunch of internal staff, the manager said to me that she couldn't believe how well the group had worked together, and how "they got more done in 2 hours than we had done in the last 2 months!"
She was surprised, which struck me as a bit unusual until I realised how uncommon working well together must be in that organisation.
I reflected back on my 32 years in a big corporate in a past life and remembered the challenges I experienced in working with teams there- the constant battles between the organisational silos- engineering and production, HR and OD, marketing and sales- hoarding of information, and the strong positions and solution focus that each group took into each session. Then I realised that my recent client was experiencing that same culture of brick walls I had experienced for years.
I also realised that my experience of the last 12 years had been quite different, as I had got so used to a different pattern and so what we saw with the group was more the norm to me, but quite unusual for her.
While I was the facilitator in that case, it reminded me once again that it is not fundamentally the tools or skills I had that made the difference- it was the collaborative thinking that helped people work across their organisational boundaries - people getting to know each other better, willingness to share information, deeply listening to a diversity of views, and their willingness to take ownership of something that they felt important.
This resonated with me yesterday as I read a really interesting case study, where a government agency had focused on collaboration as a starting point to tackle the lack of innovation, in a traditional organisation.
In the case, the key agency Director acknowledges some of the challenges in changing the way the staff work given they felt overwhelmed, siloed, too busy, no info sharing, etc, and how "winning the hearts and minds" of the staff was key task for her collaboration facilitators.
So I'm now more mindful of the effect of the organisational "tribes" and the unconscious and mostly unintended influence they can have on getting good results together, and the power of collaboration in breaking up those silos.
So what have I learned in the meantime?
- The dynamics around silos haven’t gone away
- People are more aware of the issues around organisational barriers and how to respond with more useful collaborative behaviours:
- Listen more
- Pay attention to the relationships as well as the content
- Share information
- Check assumptions about each other
- We’ve found that a simple tool can be really powerful in seeing each other in a new light by revealing and challenging such assumptions. Try it out here.
How are you finding those silos? A barrier - or an opportunity to learn and try new stuff?
Listening and the Politics of Humiliation
Why do you listen to people? When I ask this question of clients and others I tend to get answers focussed on the content: "listening lets me learn something I don't know". There is no argument from me on that point. But why would you listen to others when you don't think you can learn anything from them? One obvious answer is that you are probably wrong about that, and you almost certainly will learn something. But here I'm interested in another answer that is important to all collaborators.
In a recent opinion piece, New York Times Columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote about the "politics of humiliation" and suggested that humiliation is one of the strongest, most motivating emotions we can experience. He quotes Nelson Mandela as saying "there is nobody more dangerous than one who has been humiliated". Then Friedman goes on to make the point that the countervailing emotion is respect. "If you show people respect, if you affirm their dignity, it is amazing what they will let you say to them or ask of them".
And this brings me to the second answer to my earlier question. One of the reasons to really listen to someone, even when we don't expect to learn something from them, is to show them respect and affirm their dignity. As Friedman writes: "Sometimes it just takes listening to them, but deep listening - not just waiting for them to stop talking. Because listening is the ultimate sign of respect. What you say when you listen speaks more than any words."
Those who feel humiliated will never collaborate; Those who feel disrespected will never collaborate; Those who feel unheard or ignored will never collaborate unless and until they feel respected. And as Friedman says, one way to clearly demonstrate our respect for another is to listen to them deeply.
Friedman is writing in the context of US politics, but the message seems universal to me. In order to work effectively with others to tackle hard problems together we need to genuinely respect them, and demonstrate that respect in the way we act. Listening holds the key.
So now let me listen to you. What is your takeaway from Friedman's article?
The Agony of Silence
Thinking about this month's theme of listening I've been reflecting on why I find it so hard to be silent in a group environment- to pause and wait for others to speak. In my experience as a facilitator and coach, I feel this tension almost every time I work. That growing anxiety as I pause and wait for input or a response from someone else in the room or on the zoom call. But why do I feel this way?
- Is it that I feel inadequate if I'm not contributing or controlling the conversation?
- Is it that I worry my client won't be getting value if I'm not talking?
- Is it that I just have so much valuable stuff to say that I must get it out?
- Is it that I don't want to give others a chance to get their threepence worth in?
- Am I worried that they might say something contradictory?
- or even worse, they might say something more insightful or valuable than I could?
The palpable tension as the pause lengthens, and silence fills the space.
What are they thinking? Will someone step up? What happens if they don't, and will it seem like I've wasted their valuable time being quiet.
It's a ridiculous fear really, that a 30-second pause might result in a failure to meet a deadline, or get a job done, or meet the boss's needs, particularly as we have already used 10 times more than that on arguing who is right or wrong on some aspect of the issue.
And then relief! Someone steps in with an insight, a question, a comment, an idea. It cascades from there like a dam has broken and overwhelms those assumptions and anxieties.
So I have learnt that the pain of being silent is one of the keys to listening more effectively. But this insight doesn't make it any easier to keep my mouth shut for those seemingly interminable seconds!
The Dilemma- a chip off the old bloke
As I ponder on the past and emerging dilemmas in 2020 - like the recent bushfires, the current coronavirus crisis, and key challenges like indigenous disadvantage, deteriorating mental health and risks from climate change, I'm often a bit disappointed and frustrated by the simplistic and solution focused ways in which we tend to respond.
It seems like "I know the answer, you just need to listen to me and implement what I say, and all will be OK".
Given the complex nature of such challenges, stepping back from the answer and taking some time to explore the question first is being increasingly recognised as a more useful approach, particularly given the history of failures applying the business as usual "solution" approach.
So Einstein's quote from long ago would still seem very relevant ie
"If I had an hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem, and 5 minutes thinking about the solutions".
However while thinking- and talking together - about getting on the same page is a crucial first step, the emerging dilemma can look a bit too big and complex, perhaps overwhelming, and it can be hard to know where and how to get started.
In our experience, finding a chunk of the problem to focus on can be really useful - something that feels feasible, relevant and achievable to start with.
A "right sizing" exercise can focus the efforts on to a piece of the problem, with greater confidence that it:
- is substantive, but doable
- warrants our time and resources
- motives us and other stakeholders
- potentially leads to a useful result
- really matters to those involved
So perhaps we should ask Einstein to sacrifice a bit of that hour to right size the dilemma?
What makes you do different?
While reading Stuart and Viv's great new blogs to get some inspiration for this month's topic, I noticed the tag line at the bottom of our blog page- about our programs "building your collaborative muscle"
Then I thought ...aahh...I'm actually in the middle of something just like that- my continuing recovery from my surgery for my ruptured quad tendon, particularly re-building the quad muscles that had atrophied from lack of use.
So why is this a time to try something different?
I've realised that I just have to, because:
- I can't do what I normally used to do
- there's a high risk to my future (mobility) if I push what I normally do
- when I try to fix something it doesn't seem to work the same as before
- I'm willing, but others aren't (in this case my leg!)
- I revert back to business as usual pretty quickly
So what am I now doing that I may have avoided before, not even considered, or been embarrassed to try?
- slowing down hugely (easier when your body forces that on you)
- asking for help (eg requesting a wheelchair at the airport)
- following a really rigorous 12 month rehabilitation plan (that actually changes weekly depending on progress)
- but also accepting that I might just have to let things emerge, as I can't predict or plan everything (eg improving knee flexibility past 90 degrees)
- constantly experimenting with new ways to get things done (climbing stairs, crossing slopes, working permanently from home)
- Letting go of some things (being OK to not control everything- because the damn leg just won't respond)
- sharing the load at home and work (could be just an excuse to avoid cleaning the shower!)
And I'm actually seeing that trying something different isn't just really useful when I am faced with a complex and uncertain situation that challenges almost everything I do, but it's actually the only way to get the type of progress I need to reach my vision- skiing black runs again within 12 months- Covid permitting!
So I'm wondering what's your try-different story? Hopefully not as debilitating as mine!
A plan or a target?
There’s been a lot of talk recently by politicians here in Australia about the benefit of plans versus targets, particularly in relation to reducing carbon emissions to ensure the future of our planet. This binary argument may be useful as a club to beat the opposing political party with but is it useful as a way to safeguard our future?
Let’s look at what they offer.
A plan is typically a series of steps or intended actions within a specified timeframe, developed to co-ordinate the activities of many people in order to achieve a desired outcome. Plan making is useful when the present situation is known, the desired outcome is clear and the intended actions required to achieve the outcome are obvious, known or at least knowable.
So important are plans to the successful completion of small and large scale projects that a whole discipline, as well as hundreds of project management software programs have been developed to co-ordinate the skills and personnel involved. One of the key requirements of a useful plan is that the enthusiasm and energy required from those who will carry it out can be sustained over the life of the plan. Unfortunately we have seen too many plans still sitting ... unactioned ... on shelves as testament to the desire to create a plan before getting commitment to making it work.
A target, on the other hand, is typically strategic, aspirational and longer-term. While it may be time-defined, it is future focused, so any attempt at including details of actions required to achieve it would be mere fantasy. At the time of setting the target they are unknown. While the target can be articulated with clarity such as “zero carbon emissions across Australia by 2050,” what this will look like in every sector is unknowable.
A target is intended to be aspirational, inspirational and motivational. It provides some certainty as to intention. It encourages all those with an interest in achieving longer term outcomes, even past their own working lives, to start thinking about and working towards achieving what may currently seem an impossible outcome. It provides a language to share ideas across sectors and find partners and collaborators in unlikely places. It encourages investment in specific technologies that may contribute towards achieving outcomes that at the time of setting the target are not even on the horizon.
No one person or group of people will manage the journey to the target, although many may contribute. The target is like a ‘light on a distant hill’ inspiring us to act and learn together, even when we are most unsure. It will encourage individuals, teams, organisations and sectors to make small advances towards the target over time. Celebrating every step that brings us closer to the target, small or significant, made anywhere, by anyone, attracts more people with a desire to contribute. Success breeds success, across sector boundaries and among unlikely partners.
Targets and plans will make different contributions towards reaching a ‘light on the hill’.
It is helpful to start with a target. If it’s important and genuine, it will support individuals, organisations and sectors as they invest in and experiment with new ideas, technologies and ways of acting together. Solutions will emerge from uncertainty, new thinking and collaborative effort. Then plans and activities will have their place to deliver them.
Who do you trust?
Who do you need to trust when working with others on difficult problems? I have been reflecting on this question since a recent conversation with a colleague. He has joined a big infrastructure project that continues to cause some disruption for people living and working in the area. The organisation has managed to build good relationships with most stakeholders, but there is one local stakeholder who seems to be particularly angry. My colleague hasn’t met him yet, being new to the team, but all of his colleagues have been telling him what a difficult man this person is.
“Don’t go near him alone” is their advice.
My colleague wants to improve the relationship with this person and his instinct is to go and talk to him at his place of business. But he’s nervous about going alone. He also isn’t sure who to take with him, because his co-workers seem to have made up their minds that the man is a lost cause.
What can he do? Seems to me this is a question of trust, on a couple of fronts. He could take his co-workers’ warnings at face value and choose never to go near the angry stakeholder, but he knows this can’t lead to a better relationship. He wants to go and meet him. But can he trust the guy if he goes alone?
Obviously we all need to prioritise personal safety, yet in my experience extending trust is usually rewarded. If my colleague takes the step alone, demonstrating that he trusts the guy to be rational, he will likely find a rational guy. Angry? Perhaps. Unhappy? Sounds certain. But neither of those things are unbearable.
I also wonder if there is a deeper trust barrier here. To go and meet and talk with an angry person who feels aggrieved about what has been ‘done to him’, takes courage. It also takes some confidence. And I wonder if my colleague is thinking about whether or not he has the capability to manage an outraged stakeholder. In other words, he may be thinking “can I trust myself to do this difficult thing?”
When collaborating, we need to extend trust to others. But I’m starting to think that it is just as important to extend trust to ourselves. Collaboration can be challenging and difficult, perhaps leading us to think “I can’t do that”. But if we want different outcomes we have to do different things.
So trust yourself. You can do this!
Build a relationship before you tackle a job
Even though our home wasn’t at risk, my own reaction to the bushfires and smoke over the holiday period surprised me- I was tentative, worried, frustrated, lacked focus and was generally a bit stressed, even around family and good friends, and even more so with strangers.
It reminded me of the challenges of getting things done when people are stressed, and I remembered a few things I have often found helpful in similar situations....
- feel, feel, feel- show that others matter- acknowledge how people feel
- listen, listen, listen- acknowledge and understand what matters to others first. Then people may be willing to listen to what you have to say
- build the relationships before you tackle the job
- acknowledge that you do not know- what to do…., what is best..., where to start.... etc, and that it's OK to ask for help
- understand that the solutions are best not coming from you, but are better to emerge from conversations with others (even if you think you know what to do!)
- expect the next steps will not necessarily be the "answer", but will be a start towards finding some solutions together
- accept that it will take time and people can't be rushed.
Looking at the list also made me realise how hard I find trying to think and act like that- my default is often the opposite!
Do you have other ideas that might help?