You’ll only collaborate when you really trust the other person

For the vast majority of people, collaboration is a matter of willingness, not ability. And unless there is a fundamental wish to collaborate, it won’t happen. When senior people in organisations tell their team leaders to work together, it will only happen if ‘they’ want it to.

So how do you get people to collaborate? A first step is for the senior leaders of the organisation to set an example by being seen to collaborate with others to get things done. The simplest and most impactful thing they can do is to be trusted. And the most impactful way they can do this is to keep their word – to do as they say they will do.

Without exception, all the surveys we’ve done to give senior organisation leaders feedback from staff on their performance have revealed a yearning for leaders to keep their promises – always. No excuses. If leaders give reasons why promises are not delivered, significant damage is done. Why should staff trust their colleagues if they can’t trust their leaders?

So the leader’s role here is to role model the circumstances in which collaboration will flourish.

The great thing about focusing on delivering is that it focuses the mind on what you promise. So, no more half-promises then. While this is not easy, taking a stand on this issue is a sure-fire way to get others around you to follow your example.

But what if things go out of your control and you can’t deliver? Of course, it happens. But what ‘they’ will pick up on is not the outcome of the non-delivery but the spirit of it. A simple and common example. You are delayed to attend an important meeting. Two strategies are possible. One is that you phone ahead and explain what has happened and give a new expected time of arrival. The second is that you just turn up late for the meeting offering your apologies. Which strategy causes damage and which doesn’t?

1. What is your experience of being let down by promises made by your leaders?
2. …and colleagues?
3. What is your experience of others going the extra mile to get the result they promised you?

Collaboration through (really) listening:

Collaboration happens when one party listens to another:

• Unconditionally – without dismissing or having opinions about what’s being said.
• Without interrupting.
• As a result of your asking questions (because you’re curious) about what you’ve just heard.
• With respect.
• Accepting as ‘true’ what the speaker is saying from their perspective.

Could it really be that simple..?

The first practical step to improving collaborative working is agreement by both parties to really listen to each other’s perceptions of the situation. Without this early agreement by both parties collaboration will never happen. A good example of the opposite of this is where two people are set up with opposing views and asked to express them, eg, under the guise of good radio, the ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4; so-called Middle East ‘negotiations’; debating societies. Under these circumstances collaboration is not on the agenda. Getting your point of view heard and rammed home as forcibly as possible is. Win/lose is the name of the game. Win/win = ‘us’, isn’t.

The basis of this key point is simple. Lack of collaboration is principally caused by a difference of perception about history – events that have happened in the past – and what we or they have ‘made it mean’. Truth is not the issue. Interpretation of what happened is. So if two (or more) parties come together to present their ‘truth’ there will be as many versions of ‘the truth’ as there are groups.

Never in the history of mankind have groups with differing views come together to work out a solution based on the view solely of one participating group. No group has ever presented a ‘truth’ to which all the others have conceded by admitting, “Oh how unwise of us to have held these views (for so long); now we see the wisdom of your viewpoint. From now on we will support you on this issue unreservedly; we apologise.” We are simply not wired like this.

Three steps to collaboration

1. Set up carefully and mentored well for compliance, creating a space where all parties can be listened to – fully – opens up possibilities that were hitherto thought impossible. Authentic access to others’ mindsets is also often extraordinary, and enables breakthroughs and transformation to happen.
2. Having really listened to ‘them’, get clear and agree with all involved parties what the objectives of the discussion are. Astonishingly, this is often missed out in many discussions. Reflect on what you think about those objectives.
3. Then get clear (and constantly remind yourself throughout the process) on your (personal) intentions– how you intend to behave. Reflect on what you think about those intentions. Do not rush this. If things go wrong during the collaborative process, it’s because you broke this promise.

• What breakthroughs of collaborative thinking or doing are you aware of that were ‘simply not possible’ before they happened?
• What do you believe was the ‘listening’ that facilitated that breakthrough?
• Thinking of the ‘them’ in your (work) life, what would you need to accept/let go of about their version of history?

When the finger-pointing starts…

Most important work in organisations does not involve an individual creating something from nothing. Most often it involves individuals and groups working together. So why is it so very unusual to see individuals and groups working really harmoniously together? And why do some groups stop collaborating with other groups, preferring to spend most of their energies finger-pointing the other group? Same question with individuals?

Essentially it comes from the groups’ history and our interpretation of that history. In short, what we make that history mean.

For example, working recently with a number of departments which together form a complete manufacturing process, I asked the main protagonists what they thought ‘they’ (the other group) did not do well. I also asked them what they thought ‘we’ (their group) did not do well. When we compared the lists, we discovered that their lists did not overlap. That is, one group’s perception of the other’s negatives were based on actions that were not consistent with the other group’s perceptions of themselves – at all! [KM1]

When I discussed these issues with both groups it became clear that it was not any one incident per se that caused the negative attitude to the other group but the conclusions, over time, that each group came to. And in all cases the conclusions they drew were not logical conclusions but ones based on a strong desire to make ‘their’ behaviour mean something. This conclusion then became enshrined in the folk lore of each group – and bingo, a group mindset was created; ‘they’re out to get us’, ‘they’re useless’, ‘you can’t trust them’, ‘(s)he doesn’t know what (s)he is talking about’. Is any of this true? Objectively, of course not, but within that group, it was a meaning that everyone signed up to!

So we make up conclusions about ‘them’ which forms a group mindset. And there comes a point – a tipping point – that creates the ‘truth’ about ‘them’. And if it’s negative more than positive then collaboration goes out of the window. ‘We’ will look for examples of ‘their’ behaviour that backs up our conclusion. And bang goes any chance that table-thumping meetings between the groups and their managers will have any effect on the groups’ mindsets. So once the culture is set, it is impossible for the groups themselves to disassociate themselves from their mindset.

1. What is your experience of this process?
2. Have you or your group been labelled ‘the bad guys’ while you’ve been labelling ‘them’ as the same?
3. How frustrating is it when that mindset takes hold?

Are you naturally collaborative?

This question is part of the mystery of the nature of humankind. What are we in essence? And in influencing collaboration in people and groups are we taking people back towards, or away from, their natural behavioural roots?

• Watching children play, the answer is ‘obvious’ – girls are, boys aren’t.
• Experiencing a live orchestra – a big yes.
• Watching the amount of violence and aggression in the media, you must conclude that we are aggressive, violent and selfish – that’s a ‘no’ then.
• Musing on the question, ‘How does a city get fed every day’ – voluntary collaboration just happens with nobody in charge! A ‘yes’ then.
• Watching crowds at football matches – collaboration extends as far as tribal borders! So yes and no.
• Looking at the amount of global resource that is put into keeping human beings in check – the police, security, laws, walls, borders, military,  etc – you must conclude that we cannot be trusted to be consistently collaborative.

But the biggest clue to the answer, if there is one, is when you ask yourself the question, “Am I naturally collaborative?” Most people say that most times they are; the problem is other people! And this is the nub of the conundrum. I can be trusted to be collaborative (most of the time), everyone else can’t!

And the crux of the answer lies in the phrase, ‘most of the time’. First, people’s behaviour is determined largely by the circumstances; second, we have choice in every circumstance to behave collaboratively or not. Therefore our behaviour, unlike animals, is inconsistent. Now that’s dangerous!

And here are arguably the biggest clues to improving collaboration. First, the importance of enabling people to understand their perceptions of the situation, and second, getting them to understand that their perception is just that, a perception, which is not necessarily ’the truth’, or indeed experienced by anyone else!

1. What comes more naturally to you, to collaborate (win/win) or compete (win/lose)?
2. How do you decide whether to collaborate or fight your corner, get defensive or start finger-pointing?
3. What goes on in your head when you make those decisions?

Ensure your culture doesn’t eat YOU for breakfast, Mr. Goodwin!

We said in our last blog that the most effective and successful leaders, and the most successful and satisfying organisations, are the ones that take culture seriously. Why?

A short answer is to look at the types of organisation where organisation culture (‘the way a group of people behave together’) is and isn’t worked on. The majority of organisation leaders do not work on the way in which culture evolves in their companies. In these cases the organisation develops, over time, the culture of its leaders, for better or worse. Left to plot its own course the culture will evolve and take over the organisation leaving its employees to deal with it. Without a values-led and/or inspirational/charismatic leader most employees end up putting up with behaviour and values they wouldn’t tolerate in their own home.

How many people do you know who complain about people’s behaviour in their organisations? Unrealistic targets, lying, breaking promises, not knowing what’s going on, not being informed/informed too late, bogged down with paperwork, not knowing where the organisation is going, people only out for themselves etc.. These are all symptoms of a leadership team that has paid insufficient attention to developing its company’s culture in a creative and proactive way. For a couple of high-profile examples, look at most of the banking industry, and the UK Parliament!

Conversely, look at organisations that have created a culture that determines their destiny, through the way they handle customers (Skoda), their own staff (John Lewis Partnership), and their suppliers (Tetley Tea). This reputation for integrity and value for money doesn’t happen by accident. It comes from leadership teams regularly reviewing their work culture and values and ensuring that everyone that is affected by the organisation strives to abide by them and promote them.

Look at the fate of organisations that are caught out  – Lehman Brothers, Adidas (and their suppliers), cigarette manufacturers (and their millions of customers). Not to mention the humiliating fate of individuals who have to return honours and expenses and turn down quite legal bonus payments – these are not necessarily bad people, but people caught up in a culture where it was legitimate to behave in a certain way – ‘just the way we do things around here’.

Behaviour breeds behaviour, and if your organisation’s culture is not designed consciously and carefully it is more than likely to evolve into a way of doing business that benefits no-one in the long run. If you want to develop a great organisation culture, gather the other leaders of your organisation around you. Set a direction, align on your values, and start to manage your desired culture into place. You know how to do it with your production targets – start applying the same rigour and structured approach to your target culture!

Culture eats strategy for breakfast

What did Peter Drucker mean when he said this?

You can have the best strategy in the world, but without the right culture you will not be able to deliver it. Equally, if you have the right culture, it will help to ensure you have the right strategy. The role of leaders is not to be responsible solely for strategy, but also to take careful responsibility for culture.

What is culture?

An organisational culture is the way a group of people behave together. It happens quite naturally and very quickly in any group. Typically it is defined by the leading characters. For example, if the leading characters, including formal and informal leaders, are aggressive, critical, individual and unsupportive, it is highly likely that the culture will be too.

If you let a culture just evolve, you’ll get what you get – and you might not like it! Your job as a leader is to design, create and develop the culture you want in your business – and the one that best supports your strategy. In the heavy engineering industry for example, the culture that most naturally emerges by itself is quite masculine and individualistic. However these can be dangerous workplaces, and more forward thinking companies have realised that caring for each other is a critical component in making a risky operation safe. Rules and controls can only take safety so far. To go to the next level requires a culture of caring for each other – and this has to be consciously designed and managed into the organisation until it becomes ‘just the way we do things around here’.

Is the culture of your organisation appropriate to its needs?

Does your organisation’s culture need to be safer, more creative, more collaborative, or something else? What kind of culture would create the most effective environment for your organisation?

• Safety requires everyone to take responsibility for doing the right thing, to really look out for each other and to look out for risks.
• Creativity requires a culture which supports experimentation and encourages people to take risks with ideas.
• Collaborative culture requires people to understand each others strengths and weaknesses and to be sufficiently engaged and humble to allow leadership to flow to where it is relevant.

Having identified the kind of culture that is most likely to work, the next step is to identify the values and behaviours that are likely to encourage that culture (and the ones that are likely to discourage it), and then to communicate them.

How do you communicate a culture?

This is not just a question of a booklet or a poster, but of really helping people to understand through deep communication, where everyone gets the chance to discuss, internalise and own the values and behaviours.

Part of communicating the values is for the leaders (including the informal ones) to fully ‘be’ the values and behaviours. If any of the leaders finds it difficult to embody the values and behaviours they need to be supported (through coaching, mentoring etc) or they need to leave.

Communicating values and behaviours is not a one time thing. It also needs to be embedded in the systems of the organisation: the rewards and compensation structure, recognition and awards, reviews and feedback, marketing and communications as well as recruitment, on-boarding and training. There also need to be processes for discouraging behaviours that go against the values.

Isn’t this just a charter for conformity? I don’t want to be a clone!

How does all of this fit with authenticity and being true to yourself? Well, if an organisation’s culture is explicit, people can choose to be part of it, or not, depending on whether that culture aligns with their authenticity. If an organisation’s culture is not explicit, it is confusing and hard for people to tell if they want to be part of it. In the end our authenticity is much more likely to be compromised by a culture that is hidden and opaque than one which is clear and unambiguous.

That requires someone, or a group of people, to take on the challenge of surfacing, explicitly articulating and steering a desirable culture. The most effective and successful leaders, and the most successful and satisfying organisations, are the ones that take culture seriously.

Do you toe the line or stand up and be counted?

Here’s a thought-provoking piece from the ever-inspiring Neil Crofts:

I had a conversation last week that astonished me. I had it patiently explained to me that it was better to let kids endure aggressive teachers than to do something about it, because relationships with aggressive people are a fact of life and it was good for kids to learn to get used to it at a young age.

When I protested that we always have a choice, we can always do something about it, I was brushed away with the explanation that “perhaps I could do that, but that is not how it is for everyone else”.

The determination of my converser to pass her own unwillingness to stand up for herself to her children frightened me.

We are largely defined, as individuals, by what we believe in strongly, both the things we are passionate about doing and the things we are passionate about preventing.

Some of us are more passionate than others and there are two extremes:

One says, “toe the line”, “don’t make waves”, “keep your head down”.

The other says: “live life to the full”, “to thyself be true”, “playing small does not serve the world”.

The first is very much about conformity. Pursuing this philosophy involves trying to be what you think other people want you to be and fitting in. The second is about authenticity, figuring out who you truly are and trying to be true to it, without fear or compromise in all situations.

We choose our path in every action and interaction. We may not do it consciously or deliberately, but how we respond to a situation is a choice that we make, and that affects who we are.

There is of course a balance between having no opinion of our own and being a complete outsider who struggles to fit into anything.

The risk of over-conformity as an individual is that we open ourselves up to abuse and mistreatment and a life that is “led” by others. The risk of over-individuality is that we become isolated and detached.

The risk for those who demand conformity in others is that they lose diversity of opinion, they lose creativity and they create a mono-culture where people won’t tell them when things are going wrong.

The point here is not about the extremes, or even how we are, but that the choice is made deliberately and consciously, understanding the options that are available to us. That we choose, in every moment, how much to align and how much to challenge, based on our authenticity. Based on our vision/purpose, on where we seek to go with our lives and our values, which define how we prefer to ‘be’ in achieving our vision/purpose.

Step one of course is to know and be your vision/purpose and values.

Thanks, Neil!