Demystifying collaboration: Power
Myth #5: Collaboration needs facilitation
Collaboration’s most noteworthy achievements to date may not be in the outcomes of its labour.
Certainly in some of the loftier geopolitical forums responsible for tackling intractable global issues most ripe for mutual cooperation, such as the United Nations, the IPCC, the G7/G20, deep collaboration has had very few notable successes in recent years. The Paris Agreement of 2015 was perhaps the last. But whatever it has lacked in results, it has more than made up for in reputation.
Collaboration’s greatest success may be in cornering the market as an intrinsically valued way of working that organisations are now almost mandated to adopt and model in order to be a viable modern business. How well this principle is executed in practice however, varies dramatically.
Our unevenly distributed present
“The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.” — William Gibson
As I was reminded of in conversation recently, Gibson’s highly meme-worthy quote, like Brand & Eno’s Pace Layers theory of change, has almost limitless applicability to most discussions on most things. Collaboration is no exception.
While most organisations still grapple with the notion that collaboration can go further than consensual decision-making to unlock better ideas (myths 1&2), many of the few that sincerely embrace this perspective will no doubt still be struggling to convince their boardroom, and other influencing powers, that collaboration can in fact be a more efficient and culturally robust and enriching alternative way of working (myths 3&4). Collaboration is too often seen as a luxury that cannot always be afforded.
As the bulk of progressive workplaces, with the help of ‘future of work’ change consultancies, grapple with these stubborn challenges to overcome deeply entrenched perspectives, any gap between the lofty theory and the lowly practice of collaboration risks it being hollowed out into nothing more than a tokenistic buzzword; a symbolic gesture merely to satisfy the contemporary tastes and trends of their employees, clients and partners.
Whenever organisations try (badly) and fail (often) at collaborating, any future potential for more valuable organisational transformation is at stake. After all, it’s so much harder to revisit a trauma.
Collaboration is at once both a highly effective method for building team empathy, consensus, and resilience — when done well, and also a highly problematic waste of time –when done badly, depending on where you are in your journey of collaborative maturity.
In our current snapshot in time, this is where the superpower of Facilitation comes in. By engaging with an expert who has been there, done that, the full mastery of collaboration can be brought to bear on any/most situations. Or can it? At the risk of suggesting a heretical alternative to what is otherwise universally accepted as best practice common sense, is the role of facilitator actually a barrier to more authentic collaboration?
No matter how well intentioned or skilled, facilitation still requires the application of power. We’re still dependant on the wisdom and empathy of an individual to direct the flow of energy where they feel it is most needed amongst the group. On the flip side, without a facilitator to moderate and “hold the space” of participatory activities and methods collaboration invariably feels aimless and clumsy. A lack of expertise is certainly no perfect antidote to too much expertise leading to too much power.
This leaves me wondering: where do we go from here? What could the collaboration of the future look like, not just the unevenly distributed collaboration of the present which facilitators and consultants have no doubt been espousing for the past quarter of a century or more?
Archetypes of collaboration
It seems to me that a crucial factor in collaboration is finding the right balance between group conformity and individual liberty. Too much of either results in a narrowness and rigidity of perspective(s).
So what might some hypothetical archetypes of collaboration look like on this spectrum?
1. Imposed collaboration
- Mindset: Domination
- Key roles: CEO, Managing Director, “Boss”
In imposed collaboration the stability and conformity of the ‘kingdom’ is prioritised over the needs of the individual or the nuances of the collective. The energy and power is top down, often flowing in one direction only, with the ‘final say’ resting with Rulers who have inherited, or are given, more authority by the system.
Accepted 20th century business governance is heavily dependent on this approach and anyone who has worked in a typical corporate structure will be well versed in this model. Comparative examples in other contexts might be classical composition, and the relationship between the orchestra and its conductor, or even perhaps the state Communist Party of China. From a Westernised Global North perspective it probably goes without saying that it’s baffling and confusing to witness that we live in a state of cognitive dissonance which can so readily accept how our typical workplaces are organised while simultaneously expressing outrage or intolerance when the same models are applied to other nations’ political and civil society.
2. Guided collaboration
- Mindset: Intermediation
- Key roles: Facilitator, Manager (e.g. Product Owner, Scrum Master)
In guided collaboration outcomes are defined, led or steered by Stewards whose role it is to enable and extract the maximum value from individuals expertise. The energy and power flow of the group can be either center in (facilitator requesting) or center out (facilitator suggesting) depending on the exact approach. However power is typically not as distributive as it may first appear: How work is done is largely autonomously self-directed but how each individual strand of work is harmonised with the group is often heavily mediated, along with a diktat of how success is defined.
Early 21st century business governance is embracing this approach, already deeply embedded and codified within technology & startup cultures. We see common examples outside of the workplace through elective, representative democracy.
3. Organic collaboration
- Mindset: Interdependence
- Key roles: None: absolute parity of all roles in the group
In organic collaboration, all participants are inherent Collaborators, accountable to no-one and everyone at the same time. Any intent is emergent, with energy and power flowing distributively between the margins, without any natural center or locus. No-one ‘holds the space’ as the space is already held by all. The key characteristic is the transparency of the individual in relationship to the whole collective. Identification of the self is primarily with the group as an entity, while also recognising distinct and diverse entities nested within.
In order to realise this form of collaboration as the purest representation of authentic collaboration possible, it would probably require everyone to become skilled at the art of facilitation, such that the very notion of facilitation itself becomes invisible and non-existent. Would this also require the entire dissolution of all defined ‘roles’, to avoid relational hierarchy? Who knows.
Jazz is perhaps the only slightly too cliche example I can think of as a real world analogy, but this archetype is difficult to describe or even imagine because there are very few practical examples in working environments today. Note: Let me know if you spot any as I’m currently seeking these out.
4. (Bi)Polar collaboration
- Mindset: Competition
- Key roles: Roles that strongly advocate for pre-determined siloes of expertise
In polar collaboration, Champions coalesce around contrasting positions as some perspectives become more valued than others. The energy flows opposite and across positions through hubs of inherited power, creating camps that draw participants into taking a side. Here, positions require an opponent and opposition to thrive. Inevitably, these poles become antagonistic: “black or white” perspectives that can destroy nuance or compromise and make collaboration virtually impossible.
Different teams seeking greater credibility within organisations can inadvertently slip into this mode by engaging in cross-departmental rivalry. Businesses who define themselves in direct contrast to their competitors, either fighting sector incumbents or rival industries and business models, also rely heavily on oppositional positioning. Contemporary US politics is a vivid real-world example of bipolar ‘collaboration’, with obvious consequences to how counterproductive this model can be to the notion of collaboration at all.
5. Egoic collaboration
- Mindset: Independence
- Key roles: For profit entrepreneur?
In egoic collaboration, the freedom of the Libertarian individual is paramount, prioritised over the stability and conformity of the collective. The energy flows inside out, broadcast out from each individual without any deliberate coherence towards cooperation. In some ways it precisely mirrors imposed collaboration in terms of centralising power in individuals; in this case however the ‘kingdom’ is the self rather than the organisation. Any power is not intended to consciously dominate others, but to enable self-fulfilment irrespective of others. Collaboration is useful only as a means to an end, with the end being the satisfactory completion of an individual objective that answers “what’s in it for me?”.
As is evident from these recognisable archetypes, the appetite for collaboration varies and is unevenly distributed. Collaboration towards the middle of this spectrum more readily embraces complexity and power distribution, given the aim to surface and respond to a diversity of perspectives. By contrast, at either extremity authentic collaboration is difficult and can often be shallow and tokenistic given how fundamentally at odds it is with a desire to ensure efficiency by redacting and minimising complexity by being powerfully decisive.
However, we are yet to really define, model and truly embrace a mode of organic collaboration which, however well meaning, avoids the accumulation of power in certain individuals, whether they be kings, bosses, facilitators, influencers, moguls or entrepreneurs.
As we move towards the middle of the 21st century and leave Victorian-era management practices well behind us, we can only hope our ways of working innovate at the pace required to transform and revolutionise our collaborative paradigm into one fit for the systemic complexity of the challenges we now all face.
Myths of collaboration
Part of a series on Demystifying collaboration: explorations into better ways of working together.
