Thinking aloud about collaboration
Judging from the chat in my twitter bubble, the Coronavirus lockdown led many organisations to behave more collaboratively in order to cope with the pandemic. This is certainly something we’ve seen at The Children’s Society, during research to explore how the crisis changed our ways of working (check out my colleague Nerys Anthony’s recent reflections on collaboration).
This observation got me wondering how the lockdown changed collaborative dynamics inside organisations, which in turn led me to realise I don’t have a mental model for how collaboration inside organisations works. Cue the start of a personal learning journey…
Over the past couple of weeks, lots of people on Twitter have generously recommended reading and resources to help me better understand collaboration. I thought it would be worth pulling them together in a blog post, in case they’re useful for others — and to explain a little how they’ve informed my thinking to date.
Before diving in, I should highlight the visuals below are best seen as personal brain dumps. They certainly don’t do justice to all the research and reading people have shared (I haven’t done anything close to a systematic synthesis) and they’re not intended as a presentation of ‘truth’. I hold it all lightly — so let me know where I’m off track, or if I’ve set off on the wrong track entirely! Equally, if you can recommend further resources, please do share them on Twitter.
Version 1:
This was my first effort at mapping collaborative dynamics. It’s based on my own observations and experiences, and builds on conversations with colleagues and friends over the past few months. The emphasis on framing failure and psychological safety is influenced by the work of Amy Edmondson.
You’ll see there are 4 broad domains, which reflect an existing (very high-level!) mental model I have for effective organisations (that is, effective organisations consist of a Big Idea, Good People, Good Processes and are made sustainable over time through the building of Good Relationships and strong Learning Systems).
I posted that visual on Twitter, along with the following request:
Here are some of the recommendations I received (with apologies if I’ve missed any).
- Emma Proud shared USAID’s recent literature review of the “Evidence Base for Collaborating, Learning and Adapting”. This prompted me to update my model with more emphasis on the role of leadership in establishing a learning mindset within organisations, which in turn is a key enabling condition for psychological safety.
- Kathy Peach shared the “Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups”. It finds that a group’s ability to perform well against a variety of different tasks is determined by the 'social sensitivity' of group members, conversational turn-taking and the % of women. This prompted me to emphasise the role of inclusive leadership and participatory processes.
- Phoebe Tickell highlighted the “Going Horizontal” website and book, which emphasises seven domains of practice for collaborative working. These are Autonomy, Relationships, Purpose, Meetings, Transparency, Decision Making, and Learning and Development. This led me to think more carefully about the “good processes” needed for collaboration. She also emphasised the importance of ‘personal leadership’ and ‘practice’ over personal qualities, which prompted me to change the wording of one of my overarching domains from “Good People” to “Personal Leadership”.
- Jack Noone shared research he’s competed with colleagues, titled "Measuring Dynamic Collaboration", which looks at the structures and processes underpinning collaboration between organizations. This prompted me to recognise 'Resources' as an important domain to enable collaboration within an organisational context.
- Carla Williamson shared “The Tragedy of the Commons: How Elinor Ostrom Solved One of Life’s Greatest Dilemmas”. It’s a write up by David Wilson describing Elinor Olstrom’s design principles for the commons. It got me thinking about the role of monitoring/sanctions for self-serving behaviour. Carla was also kind enough to spare me 45mins to talk me through some impressive work she’s been doing applying the principles in her workplace.
- Amanda highlighted Google’s research on "The Five Keys To A Successful Google Team". These are Psychological Safety, Dependibility, Structure and Clarity, Meaning of Work, and Impact of Work. The emphasis on clarity got me thinking about the role of strategy in translating purpose into tangible priorities. Drawing on the work of the most thought-provoking strategy books I’ve read ("Good Strategy, Bad Strategy" by Richard Rumelt, and "Wardley Maps" by Simon Wardley) I’ve tried to represent this more clearly in the updated visual (below).
- Chris Bolton pointed me towards Matt Wyatt’s diagram on the "Phenomenology of Praxis". As a result I tried (not hugely successfully!) to indicate that all aspects of collaboration need to be approached with emotional intelligence. Matt has also challenged me on the idea of "shared purpose" (but I haven’t fully got my head around this yet).
- Robert Laycock shared a report on learning from the Collaborative Action Fund, based on the experience of eight cross-sectoral collaborations. It led me to reflect on the importance of a shared understanding of motives for collaboration, although I’m not sure I’ve done a great job of reflecting that in the updated visual.
- David Relph pointed me to a short video highlighting three different levels at which he’s found it helpful to think about collaboration. David was also kind enough to share his experience on a call. It got me thinking about the challenge of understanding motives in a context where the motivations, which we tell ourselves (and others) we have, are often betrayed by decisions in practice that point towards quite different priorities. Revealing this dissonance might threaten our sense of personal integrity and professional identity — potentially even challenging the meaning we’ve attributed to our (life’s!?) work. How can we create the conditions to safely surface dissonance where it exists, allowing for authentic conversations about purpose, motives and meaning?
- Dan Philips shared Involve’s work on citizen assemblies, together with a useful challenge: is 'quick and easy collaboration' a good thing to aim for? This prompted me to clarify my language in the updated visual — I’ve updated it simply to "effective collaboration".
And here are some of the many other recommendations, which I'm still to dive into:
- Tim Hobbs shared a report from Dartington Service Design Lab and Collaborate CIC on "Forms and Features of Collaboration". It looks at the different forms sector-wide collaboration can take, and the infrastructures needed to support each form.
- Giulia Merlo recommended Emily Webber’s book, “Building Successful Communities of Practice”, and John Stepper’s book “Working Out Loud”.
- Wade Schuette suggested learning from the Baha’i faith’s emphasis on effective consultation.
- Benjamin Taylor recommended the work of Ralf-Eckhard Turke and the Requisite Agility website.
- Emily Bazelgette shared Richard Bartlett’s posts on microsolidarity.
- Research for Real shared their report,"Collective Leadership: Where Nothing is Clear and Everything Keeps Changing".
- Jason Brewster recommended the book, "The Human Element" by Will Schutz
- My colleagues Gemma Drake and Dara de Burca both flagged a recent article on “Collaborative Patterns in Innovation”, shared by Helen Bevan.
- Martha Hampson suggested the article "Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship" by Jean Hartley.
- Tom Farrand recommended Adam Kahane’s book "Collaborating with the Enemy".
- Hailey Cooperrider suggested the book "Collaboration by Design" by her friend Mark Elliott.
- Frithjof Wegener shared the article, "The architecture of collaboration" by Fjeldstad Oystein et al.
- Ed Morrison shared his work on "Strategic Doing".
- My colleague Nerys Anthony flagged a new blog post written by Nick Stanhope, called "Conditions for Collaboration".
Off the back of the learning I've managed to do so far, I've updated my mental model as follows:
Latest version: dynamics that underpin effective collaboration
As the model has evolved, I've developed a tentative hypothesis alongside it. That is, when collaborating feels ineffective, it's generally due to some combination of:
- unclear shared priorities (strategic leadership).
- poor psychological safety (inclusive and learning-focused leadership).
- unclear/inappropriate ways of working (team structures, tools and processes are not clear or not matched to the context).
- insufficient resources (e.g. lack of time), perhaps signalling the business model isn't able to support the work.
- weak relationships, damaged over time by the factors above.
What I'm thinking about now…
- Assuming the model is at all useful, what is missing or misrepresented? For example, I’m conscious that, between them, "inclusive leadership", "valuing disagreement and diversity" and "participatory meeting processes" are doing a lot of work addressing the importance of "power" - and yet power itself isn’t a word that’s mentioned. Maybe it would be helpful to be more explicit about its role. Similarly, the importance of "shared language" isn’t explicit (it’s wrapped into "doctrine" and "shared expectations").
- And yet I could add more and more detail without the model ever feeling accurate… it’s a model after all. It’s not real. Rather than worrying about expressing ever more factors, maybe it’d be better to focus on converging back down on something simpler.
- Collaboration being hard isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I’m unsure how to distinguish between useful friction (the kind that challenges perspectives, and inspires new ways of thinking) and unhelpful friction (the kind that slows progress whilst adding little or any benefit).
- If the five barriers to collaboration I hypothesise are useful, then what are the warning signs that signal their presence? What would you be more likely to hear or see in an organisation suffering from each of these barriers? And what can you do to address them?
- Finally, I have a nagging feeling that the whole visual might reflect an unconscious framing of collaboration that is unhelpful. Is there a different way of thinking about it that would fundamentally shift my conception of the landscape, what the pathways are between factors, or perhaps whether pathways are a helpful/necessary framing at all?
