How do you shift the collaboration narrative?
In Stuart wrote about the case for collaboration, by revealing the prevailing narrative that often frustrates attempts to collaborate authentically and effectively. I want to explore how investing in a systematic approach can shift that narrative, avoiding those pitfalls of business as usual. Because if you want different outcomes on your project you have to do things differently, not just tell yourselves that you are collaborating.
To run a new narrative requires us to develop and practice new behaviours, so I want to explore and share our experience of how those behaviours can be developed and sustained.
Organisations traditionally use one or a combination of methods to develop new ways of working and to change behaviour:
- Mandate - believing that if it is right and you want it enough, it will happen – a bit like “tell, them, tell, them and tell them again”
- Facilitate - use external resources to help us behave differently
- Toolbox - buy in a new set of processes to guide a different way to work
- Training - equip people through a series of sessions to learn and practice new ways
- Coaching - supporting staff as they attempt new behaviours
While these often do deliver the expected results, in our experience changing the collaborative narrative requires more effort in shifting the thinking, combined with developing new ways of working. The two processes needed to be closely integrated and practiced over time for sustained outcomes, otherwise the new insights and learnings quickly atrophy and people returned to the old ‘business as usual’ behaviours.
For instance, a new tool or process for listening can be learned and used, but if the prevailing mindset is one of expertise and knowledge, the new tool is unlikely to change the narrative from telling to asking.
And while people may be encouraged and supported in the value of asking, unless they have some additional practical techniques for listening, they may rely on what they know, unconsciously compromising their intent to be open and listen more.
Also a lack of confidence in new ways of working can also compromise the new intention of working differently.
So it’s the systematic combination and interplay of new thinking, new processes and new practice that drive a powerful new narrative, and not any one of those on their own. So if you want better outcomes from working together better, the case for a new business as usual is clear.
Is your collaboration fact or fairytale?
So you have a complex project to tackle and recognise the need to work closely with staff and other stakeholders to get it done. Or you are into co-design and want to create something marvellous together. Of course, this means you’ll be collaborating. But will your collaboration be fact or fairytale?
Take a look at this fairytale finder and you can decide for yourself. In our fairytale we tell ourselves it’s about our stakeholders, but in reality it’s about us. Let’s work through some simple examples:
Collaboration Fairytale Number 1
We talk a lot with our stakeholders, therefore we are collaborating. But what we are really doing is kidding ourselves that more talk = collaboration. In fact our talk carefully avoids important issues such as trust, power and relationships, so we can never resolve these sticking points. As a consequence, we go around in circles, we have to keep talking more. The hard problems never go away.
Collaboration Fairytale Number 2
We give them all the data they ask for, therefore we are collaborating. But really we are trapped in an endless loop of requests for more data. They don’t trust us so keep digging for evidence of wrongdoing. We get stuck trying to defend our conclusions and we can never seem to provide enough evidence to please them. The work gets bogged down and the relationship just gets worse.
Collaboration Fairytale Number 3
We get together for collaboration workshops every month, therefore we are collaborating. But in truth we use these events as excuses to stick with business as usual the other 95% of the time. So we aren’t really working together and nothing changes.
If you say you are collaborating but getting outcomes that look like going around in circles, endless to-and-fro about data and evidence, or business as usual when you need something different, perhaps you are living in a fairytale. It’s time to not just talk about collaborating, but to start actually doing it differently.
Instead of ineffective talk about collaboration, get stuck in to doing the work together. Rather than being trapped in the data/mistrust loop, find ways to explore what’s really driving them to mistrust your evidence and learn to generate data together. Instead of focussing on collaboration events, make all your work collaborative. Doing so you will deliver outcomes, not just talk; more trust and an ability to transcend quibbles about data; and real change, one conversation at a time.
Don’t be fooled by the collaboration fairytale. If you want different outcomes on your project you have to do things differently, not just tell yourselves that you are collaborating.
Just Try Stuff....
I was prompted by Stuart’s blog to dig a little deeper into one of the learnings from the pandemic.
“Just try stuff” was about recognising that a key characteristic of a complex situation like a pandemic is uncertainty about what to do, and about the only thing you can do is to try something and see what works.
We have seen that happening constantly through the last 18 months, both in responding to the health crisis, and also dealing with the social and economic consequences.
What has been interesting to me has been the shift from an initial belief that we knew what to do and could predict and plan actions, to a growing realisation in the value of trying a range of approaches, while keeping a close eye on the results, and then modifying quickly based on the results.
Now while it did seem a bit like they were “experimenting” on us, there is little doubt that keeping everyone as safe as they could while learning what worked has been a feature of the response worldwide.
And while our leaders have copped some criticism for their approaches- slow to respond, inconsistent, etc, perhaps they were being judged by conventional thinking that just doesn’t work when challenged by this level of unprecedented complexity.
The features I think we learned around action planning that we can take into our ongoing co-design activities include:
- feeling a bit uncertain is a characteristic of tackling complex situations
- it’s OK to be unsure what to try next
- letting go of the “right answer” is hard but appropriate
- multiple small and short “experiments” make much more sense when tackling complexity
- keeping the activities “safe to learn” is key to gaining support
- reviewing progress regularly against the goals provides confidence
- and not being afraid of ending something and trying something else based on the results
So while we still haven’t yet “solved” the pandemic, it has allowed our political, business, health and community leaders to see that “trying stuff” rather than always knowing what to do is a useful alternative approach in our complex and ever changing world.
7 Keys to Co-Design: Lessons from the Pandemic
As the end of lockdown arrives we have been looking back on the journey we have all been on since COVID crashed the party. I think this past 18 months have taught us a lot about collaboration and co-design. One thing that seems obvious is that our leaders, and indeed all of us, have been doing things differently lately. This pandemic has challenged us on many fronts, providing the impetus and the permission to think and act in more collaborative ways, to solve things together. We also hear from clients that something similar is happening in the workplace. There is a lot of change, a lot of complexity and high levels of uncertainty out there, making co-design more important than ever.
So what are the co-design lessons from the pandemic that can be applied in the workplace and beyond? You will have your own list, but here is ours:
- Get comfortable not knowing the answer. It seems there is always something we don't know, so accept uncertainty because it isn't going away.Learn to act, even when the right action isn't obvious.
- Expect the unexpected. When it's complex, there will always be surprises and our plans will always need to be flexible.
- Build relationships as well as structure. Strong relationships are the foundation of resilience in a changing world. Focus on relationships even more than the data or the process.High levels of trust make the tough times more manageable.
- Ask for help. Even the most capable leader won't have all the skills, knowledge and resilience to manage every situation. Ask for help to be more effective and to share the creativity, energy and accountability.
- Just try stuff. Don't wait for the answer to reveal itself as it often won't. Rather, test ideas and learn the way forward together.
- Do it 'with' people. Command and control quickly reaches its limits and any complex system will find ways around your 'rules'. Instead, move ahead collaboratively. Co-design the pathway out.
- Tap into the expertise of others. Your stakeholders are the system you are dealing with, so invite them in to help. Their knowledge and experience is an essential piece of the puzzle.
There are other lessons I’m sure. But if I can learn even these lessons and build them into my thinking and my ‘doing’, I feel certain I will be better prepared for the complex and ever-changing world we live in.
What has COVID taught you?
Even when they don't want to collaborate, you have choices...
A question that we keep hearing clients is "how to collaborate with the unwilling?".
It is often framed as if being 'unwilling" is somehow not acceptable, and that there is no alternative. It reminded me of the Kahane Framework that I blogged about last February:
A couple of years ago we came across a really nice decision-making framework that has been particularly useful in helping clients with the choices around collaborating or not.
It was developed by Adam Kahane, and outlined in his book “Collaborating with the Enemy” (Berret-Koehler, 2018)
In the framework, Adam suggests that when faced with a difficult situation, one can respond in 4 ways- collaborating, forcing, adapting or exiting-
He suggests that one should choose to collaborate only when it is the best way to achieve the objectives. So this means collaboration is appropriate when adapting or exiting are hard to swallow, and forcing is impossible because one can only succeed by solving with others (multilaterally).
Adam also notes that the choices can be situation and time dependent, and one may move between the choices (for example between collaborate and force) over time or as circumstances change.
So such a framework can remind us that we may have a lot more choice than we think when faced with intransigence and opposition, and that we can still be in the drivers seat by choosing a different pathway.
So if you feel stuck when facing opposition to your collaborative intent, cut yourself some slack, stop blaming and open up to some different options.
Turn rejection into collaboration
I was reflecting on Stuart’s recent blog about how we tend to hold our “right” position and not look deeper, and it made me wonder about a situation I had recently with a client.
The client was frustrated by the reluctance of a group of engineers doing some cultural awareness training to help working with a group of indigenous stakeholders.
What I was hearing were comments like…
“I’m over their rejection of training”, “I can’t be bothered trying to help them? , “If they don’t want to learn, why should I worry?”
It felt to me like an example of ‘weaponizing’ rejection or disagreement, as one might do to make a difficult situation feel OK.
A bit like finding someone to blame- “I’ve done all I can, it’s up to them whether they sink or swim”
Now while it must feel very exasperating, it’s probably not very helpful in terms of getting the desired outcome of working well together.
I pondered what a different response might look like if I was in his shoes.
I could just ignore their supposed ignorance, but it might be more helpful (and probably more satisfying in the end) to seek to remove some of the barriers to their involvement.
So I had two thoughts:
- I might not be aware of what those barriers are, so I might first step back and check my assumptions which might include things like…
- maybe I don’t understand why they are not interested, so I just assume they don’t want to learn
- maybe I’m not communicating the value effectively, so they can’t see why to spend the time
- maybe their workload is such that such training cannot get sufficient priority
- and then I could act ‘as if’ they want to learn- based on my new understanding and appreciation- and create space for people to step into …
- seeking input from those involved on the best way for them to learn about the indigenous stakeholders
- rearranging workflows to allow space and time for learning
- listening to their perspectives on the topic and seeking their input on best ways forward
So while rejection is frustrating, it’s still an opportunity for collaboration.
When it comes to the jab, is there a vaccine against my own righteous certainty?
I have an aged neighbour – let’s call her Wendy – who lives alone, is fiercely independent and loves to garden. She is a smart and educated woman, deeply rational and with a curious mind. She’s amazing. But lately she’s been driving my family and I mad with her evasive reluctance to get vaccinated against COVID. When not gardening, Wendy watches the news channel obsessively so she knows which age cohort is most at risk of serious illness and death in this terrible pandemic.
My wife and I have been shaking our heads at each other in exasperation. “Why isn’t Wendy getting a jab? What is she thinking?” Sometimes even “How can she be so crazy?”
In other words we have been firmly mounted on our high horses, confident in our righteous indignation. Deeply embedded in our view that everyone should get vaccinated and that anyone who doesn’t is, let’s be honest, one card short of the full deck. It’s kind of nice to be so right.
And then I bumped into Wendy again the other day as she pulled great weeds, hoisted troublesome rocks and raked like a Dervish. I quickly mounted my horse again and pointedly asked “are you vaccinated yet Wendy?” As always she hummed and haahed, mumbled a few words and tried to change the subject.
I defaulted to lecture mode again, but this time something interrupted that automatic response. I stopped for a second and then asked “what is worrying you about the vaccines Wendy?” Strange that I hadn’t asked that before. Turns out that Wendy, like many an 87 year old, is on a daily regime of pills by the tub full. She’s been very worried that any new medication or drug, such as a vaccine, will adversely react with all the other drugs she’s on and something terrible will happen to her. Fundamentally she is scared of collapsing at home alone.
My bubble of righteous virtue burst and I landed with a guilty thump. I had never thought of that. Wendy’s reluctance suddenly made a lot of sense. I got it.
Turns out that putting aside my ‘position’ and being curious instead about Wendy’s experience made all the difference. When I chose to stop lecturing and to start listening I actually learned something that, not being frail and on multiple pills, I had zero insight into. And if this happens with my neighbour of 25 years, I shudder to think how often I’ve fallen into the same trap when working with stakeholders I barely know.
The lesson for me (again!) is that, even when I am feeling right, when my opinion seems self-evidently the correct one, I still have the choice to put my view aside and to be curious instead about how others see things. I was sort of outraged with Wendy’s position, but in choosing to ask rather than tell I gave us both options.
Having heard what was really troubling Wendy we were then able to have a constructive conversation about her worries and her needs. She gained some confidence. We organised a lift to the clinic. She got her first shot. Job done. Meanwhile I have re-learned that I can blame ‘them’ for their deficient ideas, or choose to be curious instead. Now to find a vaccine against my own righteous insensitivity!
When the Bark is worse than the bite
I currently have an issue at home with a neighbour’s barking dog. It is very annoying as it’s a large breed with a big deep bark, which carries across to our house frequently during the day and at night.
I was getting more and more annoyed and angry, but was reluctant to say anything because of my concern about the interaction with the neighbour. I was thinking that they might get angry or aggressive if I complained, they may retaliate in some way, they may think I’m being unfair as other dogs bark too.
I was fearful of having a hard conversation.
While I did have the option to complain to Council, deep down I knew that a better course of action was dealing directly, so I summoned the courage to visit the neighbour.
And my fears were unrealised. I found the interaction actually useful and pleasant. They explained the history of the barking, their work with Council, what they were doing at home to manage the dog, and asked for some help. While the dog still barks, we have created a window in the relationship for working together to get a result we can both live with.
So in this case, the bark was worse than the bite - my fear of the hard conversation was out of proportion with the reality, and the resulting discussion has helped to build an initial relationship to help us find solutions together.
Tackling the relationship “elephant”
One of the biggest challenges we see inside organisations when trying to work better together is the elephant in the room- the reluctance for staff to reveal how they feel about working with others.
We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, and it can feel a bit unsafe to say what we mean.
While quite understandable, it can be a huge drag on the ability to work well together, as our behaviour is often driven by what we feel, but can’t really talk about.
For example, if we are thinking
- I’m not quite sure I can trust them with that information…
- They seem to be only concerned with the money….
- I feel they don’t value me and my team
- They see us as incompetent….
then we will quite likely act in ways that will drive dysfunction rather than co-operation or collaboration.
And our thinking and assumptions are not visible or able to be tested.
In our experience a can help people be a little more honest about how they feel about others, and provide a platform for improvement.
Asking the different workgroups to respond to a series of questions can help surface such thinking and provide a foundation for more authentic engagement and collaboration:
- How do we see ourselves? (our workgroup)
- How do we see the other group?
- How do we think the other group sees us?
Making the output visible by posting the results up can be quite powerful, as it can start to reveal some of the less obvious assumptions that are impacting how we work together.
Then discussing and exploring that together can help to tease out the relationship “elephant”, providing a platform for working better together.
More data doesn’t solve the trust problem
I have been working with a number of clients lately who are working in partnership with other organisations to deliver service or infrastructure outcomes. Sitting in on their meetings is illuminating and I have learnt a number of things.
Firstly, there are so many smart and capable people out there doing amazingly difficult jobs with commitment and competence. It’s humbling to see. Secondly, content experts find great comfort in talking about content. Gathering and analysing data, reviewing options and making decisions are mothers milk. And that’s as it should be for people whose job it is to deliver on challenging projects.
But there is a downside to this content competence, and it poses a critical risk when collaborating on complex problems. The downside of being a deep expert can be that if something doesn’t look like data or information about the project then:
- I may not recognise it as important;
- I may recognise it as important and then get stuck trying to gather data about something that defies a data-based approach;
- I may recognise it as important but ignore it in the hope it goes away.
The latter two are examples of retreating to the comfort zone of information and analysis.
An example would be when relationships and trust begin to break down on a project.
Sitting in on meetings recently with one project group I have seen the pressure mount on the team and relationships take a turn for the worse. Everyone sees it, and they definitely feel it. What is interesting is how they respond. For example, one project team says to the other “I want to know where you are getting those figures from, because they seem different to what we are getting?”. The response is often something like “we will get you the numbers…”.
The assumption seems to be that if we go back into the data and do more looking around and analysis we will find an answer that will satisfy you and we will all be happy. But of course what is really going on is an unspoken conversation about lack of trust. Team A is saying “we don’t believe your numbers and you can’t be trusted”. Team B is saying “we’ll get the data and show you so-and-so’s who can be trusted around here”.
The problem is clearly trust but the conversation is about the numbers: A classic retreat to the data. And of course, the longer the real conversation is avoided the harder it gets to have and the more damage done to relationships. The tendency to default to ‘safe’ arguments about data gets stronger, and around the vicious cycle we go.
In these situations, when at daggers drawn, what is most needed is some real listening, authentic curiosity and genuine vulnerability. We must talk to each other like people, with honesty and transparency.
These are hard conversations to have yet we all know that clearing the air and getting things on the table is a great way to bring people and teams closer together.
So, in your collaboration, are you always conversing about the data or are you building in the time for just talking, learning and sharing together? If you’d like some guidelines on how to do that feel free to download our tool, which offers a simple way to help go below the data.