Demystifying collaboration: Agreement
Myth #4: Collaboration is cooperative
If there’s one way to get a sense of how the world imagines certain concepts, running them through Google image search is a fairly useful starting point.
Search for ‘collaboration’ and some well worn visual motifs emerge: the first is cogs and jigsaw pieces neatly slotting together; like worker bees building a hive, or underpaid minions mindlessly constructing a watch factory, as if peeking at the innermost fantasies of a Victorian industrialist.
The second more prevalent trope is perfect hand stacks, high fives, fist bumps, and handshakes: Group huddles around a desk / computer / whiteboard in a slick office / trendy co-working studio with serious / ecstatic / smug, diverse, monochromic & colour-coordinated soulless corporate professionals / millennial hipsters satisfied with whatever the hell is on that shared screen or piece of paper that remains elusively out of focus.
In these fallacious utopias there appears no pain, no struggle, no fight. No power grabs, no power vacuums, no petty personality politics. This disconnect between the cold hard reality of collaboration and its fantasised ideal is probably a significant factor in why virgin collaborators are often so quick to throw the towel in when the shit inevitably hits the fan. Collaboration simply doesn’t work as advertised.
Cooperation vs combat
I prefer to think of the act of collaboration existing on a spectrum somewhere between cooperation and combat. The sweet spot of good collaboration lies in a zone somewhere between these two extremes. One that is neither too ‘hot’ or too ‘cold’. Recognising and responding to the temperature of a group dynamic is key to ensuring a productive collaboration.
The ‘cold’ state is one that is passively cooperative. This is first recognisable by a silence or quiet that descends on the group. Participants may be reluctant to lean into the conversation, and tend towards avoidance, appeasement or outright surrender to others, typically those holding more power or voice in the group, but without any obvious signs of agreement with their position. Accepting whatever is raised without challenge. This state is characterised by a mindset of concession.
In my experience, the cold state is generally the default state of most contemporary organisations. HR-happy workplaces can generally discourage or reprimand any form of conflict, even the healthy kind. Also, when collaboration is still relatively new or novel, most people haven’t quite found their voice in what can be an atypical way of working; caution is valued over unsettling the herd.
Alternatively, the ‘hot’ state is one that is aggressively combative. This is first recognisable by interruption or excessive noise amongst the group conversation. Problematic discussion isn’t always as explicit as it sounds and, although trickier to define than silence, it’s unmistakable when you see it. Participants may be reluctant to lean out of or exit a dialogue without the final word, and tend towards entrenchment of their position or outright attack on those of others, sometimes without any rational evidence as to why or judiciousness in considering their respective merits. The hot state can often be expressed by those holding more power or voice in the group and is characterised by a mindset of competition.
In my experience, the hot state is generally the default state of more traditional or hierarchical organisations. Workplaces that stake their reputation on strong leaders or efficiency of decision-making tend to encourage stronger behaviours in their workforce, where certainty is valued over vulnerability.
Goldilocks collaboration
In the space between these two extremes lies a ‘Goldilocks zone’ of productive collaboration. A space where possibilities can thrive and evolve with a robust exchange of contrasting perspectives. Unfortunately, because this zone isn’t really a stable state, it can sometimes be difficult to recognise when you’re in it. Productive collaboration rarely achieves perfect balance, especially in its early stages. Like a pendulum alternating between hot and cold poles, it’s more dynamic than static.
The role of a facilitator is to be sensitive to the signs and symptoms of these extreme temperatures, and respond to them accordingly. Perhaps an apt analogy here (amongst a handful I’m about to throw out to see what sticks) is Judo; specifically the idea of using momentum against itself. In this context, any counterbalancing force aims not to ‘win’ but to prevent the collaboration from being pushed or pulled out of its most productive zone: to ensure hot is always moving towards cold, or visa versa. In my opinion, it’s this movement between the poles of cooperation and combat that creates the richest and most fruitful collaboration.
For example, in a passively cooperative state of collaboration, the role of facilitator is to highlight points of contention, or potentially encourage the construction of straw man arguments to be torn down. To raise the temperature of the group. Conversely, in an aggressively combative state of collaboration, the role of facilitator is to highlight points of agreement, or potentially encourage the construction of steel man arguments to be built up. To lower the temperature of the group. De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats is similarly an impactful technique that allows participants to break out of their habitual norms and intuitive mindset, to think differently, irrespective of the default temperature of the group.
All such tactics are ultimately grounded in an adaptation perspective with a mindset of reconciliation: not this or that, but this and that. “Yes, and” could be another way to think of this. When participants in a group dynamic are actively engaged and creating “yes, and” responses to others, collaboration is probably in the sweet spot.
However, let’s not forget: Collaboration is not a utopia. The aim is not to force a perpetual or perfect equilibrium between the extremes. In the same way that the composer doesn’t make music by attempting to create a singular uniform tone, or the trapeze artist never relaxes into a perfect upright balance, harmony in collaboration comes from orchestrating, embracing and accommodating diverse, contradictory forces and ‘multivariate’ perspectives.
Such perspectives and forces are made explicit through the facilitators attentiveness of the group ‘thermostat’. Punctuations and injections of healthy, moderated, creative conflict not only nurtures ideas into solutions that are ‘greater than the sum of its parts’, but also weeds out less resilient or sustainable ideas and positions. As Good Strategy / Bad Strategy author Richard Rumelt says “disciplined conflict calls forth stronger evidence and reasoning”.
As the collaboration evolves, new positions are adopted while old positions are adapted. This is healthy and welcome. Over time this leads the group towards a state of progressively maturing solidarity, more stable and authentic as understanding and empathy improves. Strong fluctuations between cooperation and conflict at first intuitively renew each other, naturally feeding more novel and adaptive solutions, until the extremities begin to wane and subside, as energy coalesces around more valuable and consensual outcomes.
But is conflict really such an essential part of collaboration, given that in circumstances where collaboration proves successful, participants are typically all too ready and eager to return to it?
It’s worth bearing in mind that without conflict, solutions are the exact sum of their parts, given that the ‘part(s)’ in such cases are the sole imagination of their solitary author. Many of these 1:1 problem:solution scenarios can be seem in authoritarian rulers or political & industrial monopolies, where lack of collaboration is most extreme.
When leaders surround themselves with ‘yes men’ too fearful or reluctant to challenge authority, or too blinded by ideological purity to sincerely embrace the needs of the citizens or stakeholders they serve, the onus of sensible, resilient ideas and decisions falls onto the assumed wisdom of a single individual and his pliant henchmen; those who, by their very context, have almost certainly created conditions that limit their opportunities for growth and learning by sheltering themselves from more challenging alternatives.
We should not be fooled into thinking this problem is one exclusive to a Putin or Xi, emperor-like state. Whilst still too soon to predict with any certainty how it will pan out at the time of writing this, Elon Musk’s recent Twitter takeover already appears to share some painful characteristics of corporate dictatorship and collaborative castration.
It’s my belief that the process of collaboration is as valuable as it’s outcome, if not more so. Outside of education, so rarely are we exposed to a safeguarded forum for robust debate and unfettered creativity of thought. Where a change of perspective is not seen as loss or failure but of sophistication and maturity. A recognition of ourselves as imperfect beings fumbling forward, with the capacity and appetite to evolve and improve.
By engaging with authentic collaboration more frequently, we not only become more adept when exposed to similar activities again in the future, we also learn deep notions of creative conflict, compromise and sacrifice that can serve us in life way beyond work.
Myths of collaboration
Part of a series on Demystifying collaboration: explorations into better ways of working together.
