I read an interesting blog this week from David Coleman, entitled
When Collaboration Doesn’t Work.  He chose to focus on the possible
causes for a low level of collaboration.  But his title question got me
thinking more specifically about the challenge of the situations in
which collaboration isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.

Frankly, sometimes collaboration is a poor use of time, sometimes it
doesn’t really help, doesn’t really help generate a better or more timely
outcome. 

You know when you hit those moments.  For me it occurs when:
1.  I’m sitting in a meeting and wanting it to wrap up 30 minutes ago
so that I can get on with what  I need to do,
2. It happens when I keep getting cc’d on mass emails, and I really
need to focus and the extra email input is … just extra.
3. It gets signaled by my internal thought of “just let me do this myself.”

General collaboration/communication tools such as e-mail, wikis, IMs,
conference calls, video conferencing, whiteboards and shared 
documents as well as specific work tools (ex. web based project
management software like MProLite) all represent various forms of
collaboration tools, but don’t really give a clue as to when they add
value and when “they don’t work.”

Here’s the thing.  I’ve worked in organizations that under-collaborate
to their detriment, causing 7 figure mistakes on a given day.  I’ve
worked in organizations that spent most of the day collaborating in
meetings to their detriment in getting things done.

So what’s the answer for predicting, explaining why and when
collaboration doesn’t work.  I’m looking forward to hearing your
thoughts, but here’s a short list of answers that come to my mind:

Collaboration doesn’t work when the following exist for me:

1. Unequally Yoked: The team members participating in the
collaboration who don’t bring to the table the skills or experience
that add value.  If not participating for training, this in fact
detracts from the ability to meet deadlines.  e.g. they aren’t there
to learn and their input doesn’t help move the ball forward.

2. Language Skills: People who struggle with the language
and/or ability to present information succintly and clearly…
whether in the spoken or written form, cause collaboration to be
“painful” and I only do it if I really need something from them I
can’t get any other way.

3. On Stage: People who see collaboration as the opportunity to
share their opinion, pontificate, grab 5 – 15 minutes of mike time,
demonstrate their expertise, etc… e.g. people who use
collaboration for something other than helping move the
project forward in a more expedient, accurate, informed manner.

4. Preparation:  Whether it’s following through, or doing your
research, or updated the collaboration tool, or whatever the
preparation is, collaborating with team members who aren’t
prepared marginalizes the value and creates frustration for me.

I can think of more instances, and there’s probably 100 more
instances beyond my list when collaboration is invoked, but
doesn’t work.  Hopefully you’ll add your favorites to comments
below. 

Bottom Line:
Collaboration only works when it adds value.  Collaboration has the
capacity to either greatly add to the work effort or detract from it.
Collaboration eats up time and dollars, so it either needs to benefit
the process or reduce risk.   

It is fun to work with people who are experts at collaborating. 
They know when and how to pull the information and feedback from
others they need, and do so in an agile, reinforcing way that makes it
a pleasure for the team members to contribute. 

How would you characterize yourself and your team/company,
when it comes to the collaboration/value equation?

Links:
 Collaboration that Fosters Innovation

Does task management software create the most value if it plays to
your strengths, or covers for your weaknesses?  Before you answer
that, do you know what your strengths are in the life-cycle of task
management?  Hm, I wonder what’s coming to your mind.

When I talk to people about task management software, they aren’t
focusing on themselves, their strengths and weaknesses in the life-
cycle of managing tasks.  In fact, when I ask people what they want
from task software, they communicate things like:

1. What I really want is a simple way, no pain involved, to get everything
under control.  (e.g. the real need/wish is to get things under control, task
management is just a vehicle, and it shouldn’t involve too much effort).

2. What I really want is something that works intuitively and doesn’t frustrate
me with its limitations or logic.  If it requires me to do all sorts of steps
that I wouldn’t undertake, or stops providing usefulness before I’m through
the process, then it’s no good – I might as well write it down on paper.

3.  I need something that saves me time, not consumes it, not takes me
more time!   Something that will ultimately make working less frustrating
and more successful,  and it would be great if it helped me make more
money in the process.

It’s obvious that all of us want something that is both useful and easy
to use, but typically don’t consider how we fit into the solution.  Regardless
of whether you think task management software should play to your
strengths or weaknesses, or perhaps have never given it a second thought,
here’s an entertaining way to think through your patterns when it comes
to managing the life-cycle of a task.

Phase 1:  In your head – Some people formulate
or think through tasks very thoroughly like well thought out road map.
Others think up tasks in a manner that is hard to find or follow the logic.
And then there’s the challenge of getting them out of your head, as some
forget to communicate the tasks to others.    Others may complain
they have to be a mind reader to work with people who keep it all in their
head.   Thinking it and wrapping language around a task in an articulate
way is the first step in task management, is this a strength or weakness for you?

2. Communicate it – Some people prefer to communicate
tasks by talking, some by writing.  The primary value of communicating
is that your audience knows what you mean, they are clear about what
you want, what you are tasking them with.  Which method of communicating
do you use the most and is it a strength for you?  Would your direct
reports verify you communicate clear, easy to follow tasks?  Based on
your communication and documentation style, do you remember clearly
the tasks you give yourself?

3. Follow-Up -  I think the majority of the world
doesn’t recognize that this third phase is a vital part of task management.
God is the only one who can speak things into existence that I know of,
the rest of us are forced to do follow-up if we want to be sure the task is
completed.  Now if you’re using the right software, (hint not email and a
backdoor plug for ManagePro), the follow-ups can be coming right back
to you, or only a click away and the follow-up process is relatively painless.
Follow-up is certaily easier if you have the task documented, although
it’s easier to assign tasks verbally, it sure makes follow-up more difficult
a week or two down the road.  Is follow-up your strength or weakness?

Bottom Line:
Task management is a 3 part process of thinking through the tasks,
communicating them in such a way that they are clear and easy to
follow, and following-up.  Regardless of whether you perceive a
task management software to be helpful or not, if it’s not assisting
you in addressing the full life-cycle of task management, you’re missing out.

Links:
Cleaning Up, the Missing 4th Step
3 Simple Keys for Managing Information

You could really help yourself today at work if you changed the way
you think about collaboration.  Think of it as a teeter-totter that you
can shift to either a low or high value side.  How do you make the shift?
That’s what this blog is about… keep reading.

Collaboration is a common word today.  It gets tagged with a  broad
range of meanings and usages.  Perhaps you think of it as meaning
simply working together, or attending a common meeting, viewing
a common pc screen, etc.

But as a process, it functions like a teeter-totter, and I’d like to cover
just a few idea to help you push the teeter-totter to the powerful vs.
non-powerful side of collaboration.

When collaboration is tilted over to what I would like to call the
sharing information side, it loses power.  This is the format for most
meetings we attend.   It has some uses, usually isn’t terribly efficient,
but does keep people in the loop and provide a basis for keeping the
work process and decisions coordinated, and avoiding making mistakes.

But there’s another side of collaboration.  When it tilts to this more
powerful/creates high value side, it actually drives and supports
innovation.  So let’s talk about how to tilt it towards innovation.

Think small, complimentary and adding value.

It turns out that the larger a group gets, the more group dynamics
thwart collaboration’s ability to drive innovation.

Think about it, the larger the group gets, who tends to talk?

The larger a group gets, the more the process tends to be the same,
e.g. rules, conventions, expectations, roles… all get reinforced.
Extroverts or those in power dominate, introverts listen.  None of
this sound like innovation.

Basically collaboration drives innovation most when those present
represent and articulate the best of difference points of view,
different levels of expertise, different experiences, access to
different information.

But differences don’t necessarily generate innovation.  Often they
generate conflict or a slow down or obstacles.  So when does difference
link to innovation?

Here’s the big secret.  It all has to do with the ability to add value.

Watch.

If  a 2^nd person repeats what the first person said in a group, other than
building concensus or making people feel comfortable how much valuable
innovation does repetition build?  Not much.

If someone only speaks up to challenge or raise issues in a discussion,
how much does that promote innovation?  Again, not much.

The ability to add value is the key determiner of whether differences
support or thwart innovation.  This should resonate with your experience.

Leo Denise summarized it well with the statement, “Innovation is about
divergent thinking and the creation of something new, and collaboration
is an essential tool for achieving it.” Right, but only if the divergence is
used to create value, or as he describes it, “create something new.”

In fact a  research study on collaboration at Cornell pointed out that
if participants don’t add value, other members stop collaborating with them,
or at least avoid it if it is within their control.

This offers at least one cogent explanation for why calls don’t get returned.
Reseach suggests that the other person doesn’t view you as adding value to
their process, to their ability to be innovate and be more successful today
than they were tomorrow… so they don’t choose to collaborate via  a call.

Bottom Line:

Collaboration is like a teeter-totter.  Sharing information is on one side,
innovation is on the other.  You tip it one side or the other based upon
three key variables: size, management of differences and the ability to
add value.  Let me know if this works for you.

Links:
Redefining Collaboration – Beyond Information Sharing
Google and the Wisdom of Crowds

I’m struck with an ongoing thought about outcomes and how closely it is
tied to whether communication is collaborative or not, versus a host of
other things… such as defensive, competitive, posturing,  soap boxing,
and history retelling are just a few things that come to mind.

This morning I’m looking at a blog from Roy Luebke - Why Management by
Consensus is Killing Innovation.  He’s pointing out the need for surfacing
diversity of opinions, while still not being  “nasty” or “engaging in win-lose
competition with one another.”  I’m thinking, “What’s more important when
it comes to innovation, diversity or the emotional climate of the discussion?”

He makes an interesting side comment that “people behave in
ways that reward their behavior.”  If you substitute the word outcome, for
reward, it becomes quickly apparent that some people pursue a
communication course in pursuit of an immediate outcome,
others for a longer term outcome (both are driven by emotions).

Take town hall meetings as of late.  Is it communication in pursuit of
long term outcomes or short term outcomes?  Today’s review of
McCain’s latest town-hall meeting suggests that the more vocal
members were actually communicating with short term outcomes
(shout down anyone who opposes) not long term outcomes in mind.

McCain’s quote on it let me wondering, “really?”  “There’s obviously
strong feeling and emotions on this issue and I think the town-hall
meetings are a very important way to get people’s viewpoints and
allow them to deal directly with their elected representative.”

Do town hall meetings really engender collaboration; are they
really an effective way to get people’s viewpoints?  Would you
bet that they are directly tied to innovation?

Maybe the wisdom of crowds starts disappearing when the
emotion is spent on short term objectives, especially when
there are strong emotions involved.

Bottom Line:

Communication that’s collaborative, that engenders innovation,
seems directly tied to two things:
1. A long term outcome orientation (without that, its just a discussion
with no action exit strategy – some would call this a typical meeting)
2. An emotional environment that creates safety around
surfacing diversity of thought and options, while still connecting
the accountability of outcomes to discussion.

Links:
Redefining Collaboration Beyond Information Sharing
Innovation and the Wisdom of Crowds

I think what gets defined as collaboration and
collaboration software today misses the mark.

Collaboration seems to get trapped in the
structure or schema of information sharing as
defined by a shared repository of documents,
instant messaging and/or a shared web meeting.

Collaboration certainly includes information
sharing, but what if collaboration is really much
more?  What if it’s a lot like ball room dancing?
The skill and practice involved in knowing the steps,
the art of following and leading, the art of listening
and responding to the same beat, to each other. 

That was probably a leap, no pun intended.
But stay with me.

To me, collaboration looks like the ability to not
only exchange information, but to listen, agree in part,
course correct, adapt and innovate.  When collaboration
is working, no one person is always in the lead.  The lead
changes.   Each party has to be willing to give up some power
to really empower collaboration.

It doesn’t quite sound like just sharing a common
Excel document or to-do list, does it?

What if collaboration (to really generate great
results) truly needs to be redefined.  It, in fact,
is a lot more radical a process than is normally
encountered in your average business meeting.

If you’re thinking like I am, collaboration has much
more to do with a style of working together, with
emotional IQ, with interpersonal skills, than it does
with information sharing.

Here’s a couple rules that seem to fit my idea
of what a redefined collaboration looks like:
1. Be willing to talk and inquire/listen
2. Engage difference points of view and practice
“agreeing-in-part”, not immediate challenge and refutation.
3. Be flexible, each party has got a style, an approach,
a history, but to collaborate you need to adapt,
implement in some part your collaborater’s input,
their approach, their view of the world.

Roger, a consultant friend of mine used to say to
his clients… “Dance with me.”  We all need to learn to dance.

Bottom Line:
Collaboration needs to be redefined beyond
sharing information and meeting support,
to include critical interpersonal skills in
listening, managing different points of view,
and integration of input from multiple sources.

Let me know what you think.