Collaboration- is the map a bit blurry?

One of our clients, in commenting on using our Power of Co (PoC) framework, said what he really liked about it was that it gave his staff something concrete to do - they no longer just sat around looking at each other when collaborating- but rather they set about it purposefully and had a bit of a map to follow.

Others have appreciated the fact that it gave their teams a common language with which to approach complex issues, and to understand together some of the key elements they needed to keep in mind when collaborating.

However, clients have also reported some frustration in trying to apply the framework - while they appreciate the approach, they can find it hard to translate into day to day project actions.

We do hear comments like:

  • Yep, I get that commitment is key, but do struggle to know what that might look like, or how to test it
  • When I try to co-define the dilemma with a diverse group, I find it difficult to gain consensus, and so we often still seem far apart and holding different versions
  • I like the idea of people's fingerprints on what we are planning to do, but can't see obvious ways to make that happen
  • When we start looking for solutions, we always seem to focus on the obvious and struggle to think outside the square. It would be good to have some guidelines around trying alternatives

We also see some reservation from project oriented staff, and their bosses, due to a perceived lack of rigour and associated uncertainty in the PoC framework - ie no firm timelines, milestones, or tangible outputs. This is often reflected in complaints like- "but how do I know the process is working and will deliver the results...."

It reminded me of looking at an old small scale road map last night that my wife and I used some years ago to navigate a car trip around Europe- it gave us a bit of a guide, but I do often remember often being a bit lost when we arrived in the specific town and not sure where to go....

This further reinforces our current focus on developing something more like a 'turn by turn' guide to navigate our way in these complex collaborative times. Stay tuned for what such a guide might look like.


What guidance do collaborators need?

A question: What do the Bible, tidiness guru Marie Kondo, Life Coach Tony Robbins, Author Stephen Covey and my smart phone have in common?

Perhaps not much, apart from their diverse promises to ‘show us the way’.

Lately I have been doing a lot of thinking about what ‘showing the way’ looks like, as we explore the idea of creating a guide for collaborators. That is, we are hoping to create a comprehensive ‘how to’ guide for project managers or leaders who find themselves needing to design and run a collaborative project. It feels like a useful addition to our existing Collaboration System. The problem is I’m not sure what such a guide should look like. But I have some ideas:

Like the Bible the guide should provide the big-picture principles and ‘values’ of collaboration. Things like doing ‘with’ rather than doing ‘to’; Acting in order to learn, rather than planning in order to act, and so-on. If nothing else, these principles allow users to orient themselves in the right direction.

What about Marie Kondo, famous for telling us to declutter our homes by holding items tightly and discarding those that don’t make us feel happy? In just this way a collaboration guide should show us a range of simple, practical actions we can take ‘right now’ to begin our collaboration. Actions such as getting who you can in the room together and genuinely listening to how each stakeholders sees the dilemma.

And Tony Robbins? As a popular ‘life coach’ he talks about the attitudes and mindsets of success. Likewise, a collaboration guide should shine a light on the thinking that collaborators must bring to their work. How do collaborators think and how does that differ from business as usual?

Stephen Covey wrote the best-selling book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Similarly, a comprehensive guide must describe and encourage the powerful habits of collaboration. Habits such as sharing your process questions so everyone can get their fingerprints on the way this project runs. Practising these habits every day is a key to collaborative success.

And then there is my phone. This one is pretty straightforward. When seeking a new destination my phone is able to give me a step-by-step guide from where I am to where I want to be. When I’m feeling lost or unsure I consult the phone and know where to turn. I hope our guide will do this for all collaborators, with clear steps and a map to follow.

So, it seems that what we are creating for collaborators should provide the high-level guidance of the Bible while containing practical action instructions, mindset advice, processes for building new habits and a detailed map of the way forward. Hmmmm, I wonder if there is a guide for creating such a thing?


Can you "structure" emergence?

In our experience, an issue that constantly emerges, particularly from the leaders, is the lack of something tangible to 'anchor to' when staff are attempting to collaborate. They want to collaborate but are missing the measures, lacking project structure or a plan.

So for some years we have been delivering programs such as Collaboration Builder, and now an obvious and ongoing question for us is how to add rigour to the collaborative process without compromising the emergence which we believe is a key attribute of effective collaboration.

While almost all collaborative processes lay out principles and a broad guide, such as our own Power of Co Pathway, it is almost impossible to find a definitive process map of what to do, when and how to do it.

Now why is that?

We know that dealing with complexity requires a different approach to business as usual, and that structured problem solving methodologies do not work well in situations where uncertainty reigns, solutions are unknowable and even the problems are unclear. In these situations it is foolhardy to closely define the plan as it will likely fail to allow for new emerging directions that are the very heart of good collaboration- where the solutions emerge from the interaction, and can't be planned with "best practice" or even a "good practice" approach.

Yet clients want clarity and confidence. In an attempt to tackle that dilemma, we wondered what characteristics to consider in a useable guide. We landed on four which we use regularly as a lynchpin for our work- content, process, mindset and relationships. We then considered what might be useful under each heading to provide a bit of a map without compromising the flexibility and emergence critical for working in complex situations.

  • Content- recognising the tangible focus for working differently
  • Process- mapping out the collaborative frame
  • Mindset- shining a light on how people might think and act to hold that frame
  • Relationships- checking in on how the relational dynamics are being monitored and tackled consistent with the desired frame

The next step for us is to provide some more clarity on what these might look like, without locking in to a pre-determined plan. Stay tuned for updates, and let us know what you think.


Surviving workplace disruption #2

Organisational restructuring seems to be an ever-present solution to many issues - often in the belief that "if we only we had the right structure, we would work better together, be more efficient and effective...etc, etc."   A bit like the success fantasy that Vivien wrote about in the previous blog.

Now I'm not suggesting that restructures aren't both necessary and useful in the right circumstances.  However, given that they tend to be quite disruptive, and can have serious impacts on staff, it makes sense to consider how to tackle them using a more collaborative mindset - and to consider some Golden Rules for Thriving in Workplace Disruption.

When proposing a new structure, we invariably ask people what they think. We seek feedback because we want to know about the impact the changes might have, and help people through such changes. This is a great start, but it often misses the most important element - how people feel.   Some might be excited and enthusiastic, while others might be frustrated, lost or frightened. And how people feel influences how, and even whether, they respond. So you may not know how people think if you don't check and acknowledge how they feel.

One Golden Rule - Check in and listen to how people are feeling, because that is what impacts their behaviour.

Given our unbridled enthusiasm for the change, and the conventional need to be discreet on sensitive restructures, we have a tendency to decide the new structure in a small group and have most of the answers ready in advance. While this seems to make logical sense, such structural changes are inherently complex, impact people, and can never quite appreciate all the nuances of how the organisation operates. From our experience we know that surprising solutions can emerge from tapping into the knowledge and ideas of those involved, and implementation of any new structure is invariably smoother when staff feel they have contributed to the solutions.

Another Golden Rule - Just "try stuff"- generate a range of ideas together (rather than sticking to the first 'right' answer), because that delivers smarter and more owned solutions.

As well as being sure of the answer, we often are quite sure how to progress the planning and implementation i.e. the process of involvement and solution finding. While no doubt efficient, it can leave people feeling a bit disenfranchised and "done to". By stepping back and acknowledging some doubt about what the best process could be, those leading such restructures can invite staff into putting their 'fingerprints' on the process, which encourages staff participation and ownership.

A last Golden Rule - allow people to put their fingerprints on the process, and they are more likely to go on the journey with you.


Sailing into Troubled Waters

I’m just back from a fascinating 10 days sailing Japan’s Setonaikai – the inland sea separating the four main islands. We did a lot of traveling from place to place, which meant every night we had to find a new place to anchor. Simple in theory, but sometimes things didn’t go to plan.

5:00pm: We dropped anchor at the region’s most beautiful beach. It was a little tricky, with the sonar showing us that the beach dropped very steeply away below us into deeper water. It raised some questions about the ‘bite’ that the anchor had in the bottom. If it’s sitting on a steeply sloping bank could it swivel and pull out?

Sometimes the only way to know is to go down and have a look and it was my job to put on the mask and fins, dive in, swim down and check the anchor on the bottom. Easy, right?

But then… “hey this water is really murky! It’s black and I can’t see a thing. There is no way I’m going 10m down into that murk!”  Too scary. Too difficult.

And I climbed back up onto the boat, into the calm beauty of the long-shadowed afternoon. It was so much nicer up here!

3:00am: Woke to an energetic rocking motion, lots of rattling rigging and a clear sense of movement. Jump up on deck. “Where’s the beach?” Turns out our fears had been realised. As we slept, the anchor had quietly lost its grip on the sea floor, casting us adrift…..out to sea and into danger. Needless to say, we moved fast. Started the engines, pulled up the anchor, and headed off on the next leg of the trip. No harm done, apart from a scare, some violent words from the skipper and an unusually early start.

Why am I sharing this story? Because I was reminded of it when thinking about some recent work with collaborative teams. I watch them and listen to them working. On the surface, they seem to be going well. They share ideas, they ask questions, they talk and smile politely. It is calm and sunny and comfortable here. But then someone says something revealing, like “it feels as though your team is blocking progress on this and I can’t understand why they are getting in the way…”

Yikes! It feels as though the collaborative anchor is at risk of coming adrift. There is only one way to ensure the connection remains strong; The group needs to dive into the relational water, where it is a bit scary and difficult. They need to do a health check on their relationship and levels of trust. They need to open up and be vulnerable about their feelings and how each group sees the other. But just as I experienced in Japan, it is so much more comfortable to stay on the surface and hope that all will be well. It is deep, black and murky down there. Yet if we don’t brave the relational depths we might find our collaboration coming adrift and coming to grief.

I understand the challenge of diving into difficult waters. We all need some help to do that safely. Sometimes all that our clients need is some timely strategic advice and support to help them take a deep breath and start swimming together. I hope I take my own advice next time I am asked to check an anchor.

If you would like to know more about Twyfords’ strategic advice service, contact us.


Surviving workplace disruption #1

Collaborative workspaces are all the rage at the moment. Client organisations are looking for them and commercial developers and interior designers are providing them at speed. But moving offices can be stressful and disruptive to work lives.

We hear about a ‘roam and work’ ethic which involves removing cellular offices and making dedicated desks a thing of the past. We read about desks, booths and lounges arranged into ’village’ formations, tree beds designed into floors, corridors mimicking city footpaths and hanging plants providing a sense of outdoors.

I wonder how the occupants of these new offices, specifically designed for collaboration, will adapt to these new environments.  I have heard from colleagues and clients that, for those used to having their own space, their own desk and a place they ‘belong’, the idea of ‘roaming and working’, sitting at a different desk every day and not being able to personalise their space with photos and nic-nacs may be quite confronting. As I heard from a client facing workplace disruption yesterday, “even though we brought people along every step of the way in designing new processes, now they have to work differently our people tend to revert to their familiar, comfortable way of relating to others, telling rather than listening, taking orders rather than taking accountability.  Can you help us?”.

One client is watching a new building going up across the street that will house four different government functions.  The aim is for the staff of these four departments to use the new layout to work better together.  The planners and designers are creating new spaces to support collaboration because this is in their brief.  Simultaneously with the space planning, workers in these new collaborative spaces need the opportunity to rethink the way they will do their work in this new environment.  Giving staff an opportunity to get their ‘fingerprints’ on both the new environment and a new way of working before the move is important to them understanding and achieving the desired outcomes.

Twyfords has developed some Golden Rules for Thriving in Workplace Disruption.  One of those is to avoid the success fantasy. In the office scenario I’m writing about, this success fantasy might play out as “Once the challenge of the move is over, everyone will settle down into a new and more collaborative way of working together.”

We suggest that:

  • sharing expectations for new ways of working across functional boundaries in the new spaces .... because this creates ownership ...
  • paying attention to feelings and relationships ... because this affects behaviour ...
  • having time to try and test new ways of working before and after the move ... because this builds confidence ...

can make a difference.

If you’d like any advice or ideas about how to set functional teams up for success in any new collaborative way of working ... give Twyfords a call.


Six Roadblocks to Authentic Collaboration - Part 3

This is the last in a series of three blogs where we examine the six roadblocks to collaboration. Click through for some simple tools to apply.

  1. Business practices limiting flexibility and innovation

Be prepared to modify your "operating system":

Organisations build up formal internal operating structures and protocols that reflect their experience, and are a key part of the control mechanisms for stability and certainty. These manifest in project protocols like terms of reference, project plans, timelines and milestones, etc, as well as other habits like business planning, HR protocols, etc

"But we can't proceed until we have nailed the Terms of Reference......"

While an essential part of managing, the unintended consequence is they can frustrate trying different things, or tackling things in new ways, when the demand for these controls may clash with the flexibility and alternative approaches essential in taking a collaborative approach requiring experimentation and innovation.

One way to tackle this can be to develop a solid alternative "structure" that might look a bit different, but meets the same needs in providing confidence to those involved while not limiting the flexibility required to innovate. An example might be this collaborative log tool- an emerging time based record that lays out context, plans, progress and outputs, but also recognises the importance of flexibility, emergence and relationships when dealing with complexity.

 

  1. Hierarchy and silos

Thinking and doing "with", not "to":

Organisations are traditionally set up using hierarchical structures and horizontal separation to manage the business. While appropriate and necessary, they can consolidate a power and control mindset and behaviours that can limit collaborators working across the horizontal boundaries, and constrain their ability to be authentic, to listen, and be flexible.

"But that might cut across what planning is doing, and we'd have to run it past finance....." 

Such collaborative activities may be perceived to threaten the implicit power dynamics, triggering reactive behaviours that can shutdown innovation. It is difficult for collaborators to build the essential trust under these conditions.

Thinking and acting differently is a way to 'virtually' remove such boundaries while living within the existing structures and protocols. Acting "as if" the participants are one team not separate groups can help shift conversations and behaviours. One example is the tension we often see between the planning and delivery silos, and here is an example of a collaborators guide to encourage a "with" mentality and congruent behaviours in such situations.


Six Roadblocks to Authentic Collaboration - Part 2

This is the second in a series of three blog posts looking more closely at the six roadblocks to collaboration. Click through for simple tools to use.

 3. The desire for certainty and control

Resisting the urge to get the ducks lined up

How often have you heard someone say “Never call a meeting until you know what the outcome will be”? I have certainly heard quite experienced business executives talk this way. The subtext seems to be stay in control at all times. Always know what the outcome you want and how to get it. This organisational norm works powerfully to block authentic collaboration, which requires us to let go and to let solutions emerge.

One way it manifests is in the strong desire to ‘get the ducks lined up’ before talking to other stakeholders. When I hear a client say “we want to collaborate but are just seeking the right opportunity” it can be a clear sign that they aren’t ready to let go and therefore aren’t ready to collaborate authentically.

We have found it helpful to shine a light on the ducks in a row behaviour with a simple tool. While it doesn’t make the desire for control go away, at least it makes it visible so all collaborators can recognise what may be happening, and make their choices from there.

 4. A focus on content over relationships

Focussing on the person as much as the content

You have probably been there; Designed a meeting agenda only to add up the allotted minutes and found you don’t have enough time to include all the items. So what do you cut? Most of us in this situation will cut the ‘touchy-feely stuff’ – the introductions, the get-to-know-yous - and focus on the issues, because “we need to get outcomes”. And yet, as rational as we like to think we are, we all respond emotionally to new and challenging information. Working together on wicked problems requires high levels of trust that can only come from getting to know our collaborators as people first, and content specialists second.

Authentic collaboration requires us to go past what we know – or think we know – to explore what we are interested in and what we hold most dear. From this can emerge a new understanding of common ground and common cause. So next time you are collaborating, and even in the face of a strong desire to get to the content, why not invest more in exploring everyone’s interests and values as part of the work, using this simple guide. We collaborate as people, not as data, so moving past our content positions to learn who we are as people is a key to unblocking the journey.


The Six Roadblocks to Authentic Collaboration - Part 1

This is the first of three blogs in which we explore the six roadblocks to collaboration. Click through for some simple tools to apply. 

  1. The lack of robust collaborative processes

Finding a pathway:

A couple of years ago I was talking to a NZ client about collaboration, and he lamented "the team sits around the table and wants to collaborate, but they don't know how or where to start". He explained that they were keen to do things differently, especially in working across their traditional boundaries, but tended to do what they always did as they had no other guidance other than- 'you need to collaborate'. That often left them confused and frustrated as the experience seemed to be more of the same- lots of talk, little listening, and same old solutions.

Over the next 12 months, we introduced his team to the Power of Co framework and they applied it to a couple of projects. He was keen on how they had responded and I asked him why. He said that for the first time they had a series of steps that helped them collaborate- some guidelines and handrails so when they got together they felt confident they were tackling things differently, but not too 'boxed in' to a process- it gave them a roadmap and confidence with their collaboration.

  1. A business as usual mindset that cripples authentic collaboration

Changing the mindset:

The traditional unilateral approach to problem solving relies on expertise and "knowing the answer".

This is sometimes best demonstrated for me in an organisation with what I call 'the curse of the expert' - ie "if only you knew what I know, you would agree and we could just get on with it"

This thinking can have unintended consequences as it risks closing down collaborative activities when people withdraw and stay silent when confronted with others pushing their answer.

Increasingly complex challenges demand a multilateral approach, supported by a "we" mindset, as illustrated in this simple tool:

  • I don't know all the answers,
  • I need some help,
  • if we listen better we can tap into the diverse expertise available
  • and generate solutions we couldn't have come up with on our own

Such shifts in thinking drive new behaviours and so we do things differently when working in the collaborative space (and these new behaviours also positively impact other day to day work).


How Collaboration is Helping the World's Central Bankers Sleep Better

On a recent job in Indonesia I heard some surprising things about what keeps central bankers awake at night, and it goes something like this:

  1. Our world is disrupting. Digital currencies are emerging outside the financial system. Cash is in decline. The internet is shifting the way we tax and regulate and new fintech startups are emerging every day, bringing a new suite of challenges.
  2. To navigate this changing world we need to work differently, with different stakeholders such as law makers, regulators and technology providers.

What troubles bankers is their sense that “we don’t know what working differently looks like or how to do it”. And with this comes the fear that the age-old central bank model may be left behind. Now that is enough to make any banker feel nervous.

Yet the other (perhaps not so) surprising thing is that the banks are seeing collaboration as a key strategy for retaining their role and influence in the emerging world, which is why they were talking to me about the what why and how of collaboration. Their thinking goes that in a disrupted world, where innovation is going to be increasingly important, central bankers need to learn what collaboration is. They recognise the complexity of the environment they work in and know that collaboration is the way to make progress in this context.

They also know that collaboration isn’t just about getting in the room together, but involves powerful frameworks, new skills and new ways to think and act.

What they may not fully grasp is that collaborating well means overcoming the six roadblocks to collaboration. From what I have seen in organisations seeking to work more collaboratively, if they can’t meet these systemic requirements they are unlikely to stay relevant and influential.

So if collaboration is helping the central banks of the world to be flexible, creative and effective, what can it contribute to your success? And what are you doing to tackle those roadblocks?