It reminded of conversations I’ve had with a long-time colleagues, Jim Morris. I have always valued the lively discourse I’ve had with my colleagues and while we discussed the Agile software development methodologies, we realized how odd it was that in our political lives, we tended to lean towards capitalism; in our team environments, we were socialists.
Collaboration in workplace has become a trend, as evidenced by the HBR July 2011 issue dedicated to collaboration. It could be argued that the entry of the Millenials into the workplace is what has shifted individual contribution to more team-based efforts. Sometimes, the Millenials get a bad wrap for being whiney and entitled children with no sense of accountability but even with their incessant need for hand-holding, they also inspire a sense of shared ownership teamwork that the Baby Boomers and GenX lacked.
What does this paradigm shift mean to us? For those in the tech consulting world who practice the Agile methodology, not much. We are already familiar with the concept of collective ownership. Results are measured by the progress and achievements of the team. Individuals are accountable to the team and the team is accountable to its customers. Its. The team is no longer a group of people but a thing: A collective. “Resistance is futile.”
Inevitably this kind of collaboration finds its way to the organizational level. Gone by the waste-side are the dictatorship and consensus-driven models of management and not just by those in technology.
I think this is where technology firms veer away from traditional consulting models. The hierarchical approach to profitability in professional services isn’t affected by collaborative management. Leverage is just as important as it ever was; what is different is not how projects are staffed but how decisions are made.
The concept of “shared purpose” is nothing new. As I’ve mentioned, it’s a principle of the Agile methodologies. It’s one of the factors of successful marriages (Gottman and Silver 243) and it’s been cited as a foundation of mature, functional teams (Lencioni 170).
The workplace buzzword used to be communication. Communication and visibility to all levels of the organization eased doubt and malcontent. Now, it’s about involvement and the ability for anyone to affect change.
During my days at Ascentium, empowerment was a fundamental principle instilled in its early employees. No one was handed a Wand of Power, yet everyone yielded one. Implicit influence went a long way when trying to drive change. Collaboration was a necessary component.
But implicit influence and empowerment have their risks. What if the influencer’s goals are not in alignment with the organization’s? What if the results are disastrous? What if the change causes resentment? And worse, what if the collaboration is exclusive?
As someone viscerally averse to policies and procedures, I find myself considering solutions rooted in defined strategies. I can only forgive myself for this by noting that strategy is indeed not tactical. It does not dictate the “how” but the “what.”
Below are the principles I believe to be fundamental in successful collaboration in organizational management.
- Clear decision-makers and accountability
- Limits for non-approved innovation
- Fluidity in collaboration
- Trust
- Zero punishment for initiative
- Value for critical thinking
- Fix what’s broken
Clear decision-makers and accountability
As the HBR article notes, collaborative environments are not consensus-driven. As is the role of the Product Owner in the Scrum methodology, someone must make the final call; otherwise, nothing gets done or too much is attempted to get done. The driver of change, the person who initiates the collaboration, should be the person accountable for breaking ties and making the tough decisions. That person is also ultimately responsible for managing up and out.
At Ascentium, we called it the “neck to strangle.” While not quite the vision I’d like to impart, it’s pretty close. Don’t take this to mean that there isn’t collective ownership because it doesn’t. Ambiguity causes confusion and doubt, not only outside of a collaborative team, but also within it. Collaboration is not without its leaders.
Limits for non-approved innovation
I cringed as I typed that out. It hurts me to think about limits and the red tape of required approvals. As much as it pains me, I have come to realize and accept that the philosophical concept of free-wheeling innovation is oft too much for an organization to handle. It just causes too much turmoil and yet there is need to promote innovation and change. How do you inspire thinking and creativity without putting the organization at risk? How do you keep from stifling an organization’s principle of empowerment?
Limits. I've heard anecdotal references to Zappos granting its customer service representative the ability to issue credits and resolve customer issues within a certain dollar range. This fosters empowerment and improves customer relations. The same applies to organizational change and product development.
Isolating product innovation to R&D centers or dedicating days of the month allows creativity to bloom without potentially damaging an organization’s line of business or brand. Limits on size of impact by the number of employees, lines of business, or dollars recognize the need for change and inspirational thinking but also calls attention to the macro-effect of some change. To be sure, requiring approval for innovation above these limits requires more work on the part of collaboration teams. Communication outside its boundaries and influence are required for gaining approval and this is not a bad thing.
Fluidity in collaboration
“Embrace change.” It’s a principle of Agile and other iterative approaches. The OODA loop is a loop because it requires constant observation of the ever-changing environment. Companies are multi-faceted and so their collaboration teams need to be as well. Committees may exist but they should disband as soon as their goals are complete otherwise they risk becoming stagnant and losing external perspective. It’s like not being able to see the forest for the trees. It’s why I enjoy being a consultant. It’s why I value being a generalist.
This goes hand-in-hand with the idea of having a clear-decision maker. Czars pull teams together but should also have perspective and be unbiased enough to let the team go when its job is done.
Collaboration teams do not need to be just about innovation and change. Sometimes, they can be applied to business decisions, such as choosing a health care plan. I’m not sure a role that describe a dictatorship is what I’m looking for but I believe the concept is the same. Czars are the decision-makers for certain areas of the business and they are the consultants to the management teams but as with any committee, czars also risk stagnation and should rotate.
Trust
Trust is the foundation for any successful relationship. Trust of a collaboration team is just as important as trust within it. As I write this, I am reminded of a period in my life when I was working on my tolerance. During this time, I was given a lot of grief over my mantra, “They’re doing the best they can.”
With trust, there is a belief that no one is inherently evil and they are not trying to be malicious or vindictive. They aren't trying to make you look bad or create ill will. People are doing the best they can and what they think is right. But they’re not always right.
The other day, Thomas Wyrick said to me, “If you put someone in a leadership position and you want him to do the job, you have to trust him when he does it.” So, while they may not always be right; you have to trust that they are putting the organization and its people first. They are making decisions that they believe are in the best interest of their constituents. You put people in positions of leadership, you hire employees, and you empower your people because you trust them. Trust them and trust their choices. Course correct when you discover they were wrong.
Zero punishment for initiative
You can’t have empower people and ask them to take initiative without taking on the risk that they may make a mistake. We’re all human.
When someone’s initiative proves to be ill-founded or has poor results, it is critical to avoid punishment. This is not to be confused with a lack of criticism and change. It’s been said that you should learn from your mistakes so take the opportunity to analyze, educate, and adjust. Understand what didn’t work, communicate what would have worked better, and make changes for the future.
It’s difficult to discern when the time has come to remove someone from a position, not only in taking initiative but also in formal roles. A change in position implies punishment so attempts must be made to reconcile other environmental factors before making organizational and personnel changes.
Sometimes a breakdown of trust is the cause for removing a person from his position. When there is no longer trust that a person can fulfill a role or that he cannot understand and incorporate the organization’s need for adjustments, then the person is no longer suited for his position.
Repeated failures are nothing to be admonished for. What is unacceptable is repeated failures attempting the same things in the same ways. Celebrate mistakes. Those who say they do not regret anything are cowards. Regret what you must, then find the opportunities to not regret them again.
Value critical thinking
I have been called the town crier before. I’ve yelled and screamed about the crumpled piece of paper on the sidewalk but did not have the initiative or the wherewithall to pick it up. In those days, I didn’t know anything else. I did not know how to find the solutions but I could certainly point out the problem. It’s taken me a few years of experience to formulate and deliver solutions. Because I’ve been in that place where all I could see was the problem, I appreciate that sometimes, that all a person can do.
Critical thinking brings opportunity. Those who raise concerns are often called malcontents. They value adversity and, thus, are oft the cause of much consternation and tension in organizations. The crises they cause with their observations require self-reflection as individuals and as a team.
Their grating personalities should not devalue their importance. Those who stir the pot, those who push the limits and question authority: They are the ones who inspire change.
But the shared purpose in resolving their issues force the them to work together and creates a bond found only in adversity. “Paradoxically, adversity and upheaval can be far more powerful agents of change than planning and consultants. Without such goads, our resistance to needed innovation is usually too ingrained” (Farson and Keyes 25).
But constant criticism can wear down other people, especially those who are loathe to conflict. It can also be bad for morale. Where is the balance? Some people I know argue that it’s in the delivery. The path of a critical conversation can revolve around how criticism is communicated, in what tone, and with what words.
I am a bigger believer in mitigation as the solution. There is a certain honesty that comes from an unfiltered perspective and I value it. Others would prefer deep thought before speaking up. I don’t know that either is better than the other but I believe there are those who sit in the middle whose tendency and thus, responsibility, is to translate between the two parties and mitigate the personality and communication differences.
I used to tell my colleagues that, "I'm tired of being the bitch all the time." I felt that I was the only one who ever spoke up, speaking on behalf of those who have no voice. They would retort that while they often agreed with me, they found it difficult to get behind me when my passion was so fervent. I needed them to translate for me. I needed them to mitigate.
It can be exhausting for those who are more willing to compromise, it can be exhausting for those who want change, and it can be exhausting for those who are constantly in the middle. It never stops but that’s business. Business is ever-evolving and no one argues that if there’s a problem, it should be fixed. No one argues that anything and everything can be done better. Appreciate the the opportunities to do better and value those who bring those opportunities to light.
Fix what’s broken
It’s another principle of the Agile methodology. If something in the methodology doesn’t work, change it. If something in the organization doesn’t work, change it. Leverage the critiques of your gadflies and embrace the ideas of your innovators. Don’t let issues and concerns fall by the waste-side even if the solution to the issue is to do nothing. Acknowledgement and validation go a long way.
Ignoring issues or ignoring those who point them out only hurts the organization, through morale and stagnation. Just make sure you’re fixing the right problem.
Sometimes, the concerns that are brought to light are superficial and are only symptoms of systemic issues. Trust is one. Lack of shared goals and vision is another (Lencioli). Don’t overlook one in lieu of the other. Both need to be resolved but they are separate and distinct concerns. The tactical issue needs to be addressed first. Once that has been resolved, or steps put into action, it should only be used as a learning opportunity: As an example of what went well and what could have been done better. It should not be an example of “yet another situation when...” Put the event itself to rest for the time being and resolve the bigger problem.
References
- Gottman, John, Ph.D, and Silver, Nan. The Seven Principles for Making Marriages Work. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999. Print.
- Farson, Richard, and Keyes, Ralph. Whoever Makes the Most Mistakes Wins: The Paradox of Innovation. New York: The Free Press, 2002. Print.
- Lencioli, Patrick. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Print.
