A different approach to collaboration

Photo by D’Arcy Norman

In a post on HBR.org Teresa Amabile and Steve Kramer investigate the relationship between collaboration and performance. They claim that not only does collaboration allows performance, but performance allows for collaboration. When people are feeling a sense of achievement and progress, they are more open to collaborate. That is why Amabile and Kramer advocate celebrating small wins, as this is a way to keep people in the team or organization energized to collaborate:

So, not only is collaboration critical to high performance, but maintaining high performance can be important to keeping collaboration going. Previously, we have talked about the importance of small wins — modest but meaningful successes along the pathway to achieving a major goal — in maintaining high performance and subjective well-being. They can also help workers maintain effective collaboration. When organizations support and celebrate small wins, employees feel like winners; the mistrust and conflict that can accompany losing will be avoided. Without those interpersonal problems, it will be much easier to achieve consistent and effective collaboration. [Emphasis added]

While I appreciate the approach of small wins and the importance of the feeling of progress for motivation and individual performance I think a focus on the effects of performance on collaboration might prove detrimental to effective collaboration.

In most business settings today, especially in knowledge work, performance is an emerging synergistic property. That means it cannot be directly predicted. It cannot be taken apart into specific check-list steps. It is uncertain and ambiguous. Innovation for example, emerges out of the interaction between team members and does not originate from the actions of one individual.

In such an environment, focusing on performance is futile. It is a classic case of Obliquity. The goal of performance can only be achieved indirectly. While this seems like semantics, it represents a different approach to collaboration. This approach doesn’t see temporal performance as an indicator for success. Instead, this approach sees continued long-term relationships as the basis of excellence. It celebrates small wins, not because they represent performance success, but because it means the process the team is engaging with is effective. In that respect it will celebrate small losses the same way, in the celebrated mythical approach of Thomas Edison – “I did not fail—I just learned 999 ways on how not to make a light bulb”.

When this approach is implemented – and there is no attempt to claim that it is easy to do so – the focus of team leaders is the relationship between people in the team. That means that the tensions produced by failure are constantly revealed and discussed even before failure occurs. Failure is an expected result and part of the process continuing of toward excellence. It is not that good performance hides tensions and allows for collaboration while everything is working. Instead, true collaboration actively and consistently attends to the undercurrents that facilitate the emergence of performance.

Reading the comments to Amabile and Kramer post suggest that their approach is resonating with many people. What does it say about organizations’ approach to collaboration? Is the dominating approach pushing us to draw the wrong conclusions and prescriptions about how to manage collaboration? I think it does.

What do you think?

Elad

The “other minds” problem

Photo by Guaciranaves

[tweetmeme]

I the last few days I am reading Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, What the Dog Saw (one chapter every night) and I must admit it if a fascinating ride. However, up until now, what stuck with me the most is a paragraph in the first page of the book, as part of the preface:

This was actually a version of what I would later learn psychologists call the other minds problem. One-year-olds think that if their like Goldfish crackers, then Mommy and Daddy must like Goldfish Crackers, too: they have not grasped the idea what was inside their heads is different from what is inside everyone else’s head. Sooner or later, though, children come to understand that Mommy and Daddy don’t necessarily like Goldfish, too, and that moment is one of the great cognitive milestones of human development.

How many times in your life have your said or heard something like this: “I treat others this way, because that is the way I like to be treated”. Think about it. Seriously, how many of your daily decision are based on that rule of thumb – that what you like is what everybody likes too? It is even an important religious concept – “The Golden Rule” which we hear about all the time and which I wrote about in the past:

This is a good general concept and at a religious (and maybe political) level it is a smart rule. But the problem is that if you move into the world of management, this well intentioned rule leads you to bad managerial decisions (like many conventional wisdoms). Because, if we agree that we are all different it also means that we like and hate different things. This means, I may hate the way you like to be treated. And if I follow the rule (and treat you like I want to be treated), I will avoid giving you what you want.

Isn’t it time to reach that cognitive milestone in managerial development as well? Isn’t it time we understand that the people we work with are different from us and thus enjoy and appreciate different things? They don’t want to be managed like we do. They don’t want to be recognized like we do. They are not driven and motivated by the same thing we are driven and motivated by. They might absorb information differently than us. They are different and unique. Each and every one of them.

The people around us, our employees, our bosses, our peers, they all have “other minds”. The sooner we realize that, stop assuming and starting talking to them, the better equipped we will be to really start creating partnerships with them.

Elad