A
lot of organizations have a publicly stated value or desire about
getting better at collaboration. Breaking down the silos, working
better together, being more inclusive, seeking more diverse opinions
- all are examples of how companies go about articulating what they
mean by collaboration.
Research
is filled with examples of how collaboration is the right model
for spurring innovation and new growth with today's workers. Even
if the research is disregarded, common sense and logic point to
the value of collaboration. In a world where headcount constantly
decreases yet objectives continue to rise, people must form new
relationships and build alliances with others outside their own
department in order to be successful.
There
are some wonderful examples of how collaboration has produced some
terrific new products and contributions to the bottom line. The
August 2004 issue of Fortune featured some of the cross-organizational
innovations occurring at P&G, and how they were contributing
to the company's strong financial performance at the time. One of
those that caused me to smile was the product called Eukanuba Dental
Defense.
Eukanuba
is a top quality food for dogs, produced by the Iams Company, now
part of P&G. The dental defense piece is housed in the oral
care part of the company, with well-known brands like Crest, which
have been staples in households for years. At first glance, combining
the seemingly disparate functions of pet food and personal dental
care might not appear to be a formula destined for immediate success.
Think about it, would there really be a market for dog food flavored
toothpaste? But fortunately the P&G folks looked at it differently
and produced a product that now provides the much-needed tarter
control for dogs. (Dog owners will tell you what a pain it is to
get their dogs to floss!) The collaboration between the two organizations
produced a new product that continues to improve the overall health
of dogs, while providing a new source of income for P&G.
Are
you actively looking for non-obvious relationships across your organization
as a means of creating new profit-generating products or services?
I would bet you are certainly talking about it, but are you really
following through?
Hindering
Collaboration
A
lot of organizations struggle with making cross-organizational collaboration
a standard way of doing things. So, with clear research, and the
added validity of common sense, what keeps people stuck in their
boundaries and unable to break free to collaborate? What do you
think the major reasons are in your company?
We
have found several. To begin with, many organizations are not built
around a model that fosters collaboration. The people they recruit
and hire are selected based on previous accomplishments, as well
as attributes such as self-drive, competitive spirit, and ambition
to get ahead. There may not be much discussion about or investigation
into the candidate's collaboration history and capabilities.
Along
with that, an organization's pay and incentive systems seldom support
collaboration. In many cases, people feel like they might even lose
financially by collaborating, as someone else will reap the lion's
share of the reward (or incentive comp.). Think about this for a
moment. Does the performance management system in your organization
seek to measure (and compensate) people for what they do, or for
ways they have collaborated? For the record, do you even know
how to accurately measure a person's impact as part of a collaborative
effort?
Structure
is another issue that thwarts collaboration. Despite what they say,
some companies are still organized and invested in silos - lines
of business or geographies, etc. Historically, people have seldom
ventured very far outside their own areas, and as a result, there
are no known, tried and true ways to do that today. Every attempt
feels similar to traveling on unfamiliar roads without a map. And
if your boss is from the "old school," you are not likely going
to get a great deal of support to look beyond your current walls.
There
are also cultural barriers that hinder the process. Survival of
the fittest means the person who accomplishes the most moves most
rapidly upward. If an individual has to rely on too much help from
others, she or he may not be viewed as having what it really takes
to be a top leader. Think of it this way. You are one of two candidates
being considered for a promotion into a higher position. You have
always looked for opportunities to collaborate and have been part
of many successful achievements. The other contender's profile doesn't
focus much on collaboration. Instead it highlights a string of great
accomplishments that this person has been directly responsible for
throughout his or her career. From what you know about how promotions
have been determined in your organization, would you feel like you
are in the strongest position?
Some
organizations are becoming much more credible in their stated desire
to foster collaboration and are recognizing and rewarding those
kinds of efforts visibly and frequently. Others are attempting to
reap the benefits, but still seem to be assessing penalties for
the associates who are trying to work in a more collaborative way.
The
Number One Reason
Clearly
there are things about an organization itself that impact collaboration
efforts, but none of those are the number one reason that collaboration
stalls. That reason is much more personal. It is self-interest.
People frequently refuse to collaborate because they do not believe
it is in their best interests to do so. And those organizational
confines just discussed strengthen that argument.
In
the workplace, people want to be treated fairly. And each person
has his or her own personal scorecard for what that means. If you
hear about another person receiving some undeserved credit and even
a bit of an undeserved bonus for a project, you might shake your
head, comment about that person's luck (or political connections),
and quickly move on. After all, it does seem to occur somewhat regularly,
doesn't it? But what happens if that undeserving person is a peer
in your own group, who ends up making more than you, while contributing
much less than you did? How does it feel now that you are more personally
involved? Does it seem fair? Can you shake it off as easily? Does
it make you want to go out and give your all the next time around?
People
want to look good at work. They want to succeed. And because of
the organizational issues mentioned earlier, success is often defined
based on personal achievement, not cooperative effort. Therefore,
collaboration is often perceived as having to give up something,
or as a sacrifice for the benefit of others. And if an individual
wants to come out on top, she or he will have to carefully think
about how much sacrificing will be done.
Have
you ever heard, thought or even said anything like the following:
I'll
help you get better positioned with this new customer, but now
you owe me.
If
I provide you with a couple of my key people for your project,
my results will likely suffer and I will look bad.
Those
people aren't looking for partners. They are looking for more
competent people to come in and do their work for them. Who hired
them in the first place?
If
everyone would just focus on his or her own responsibilities,
instead of worrying about everyone else's, we would be a lot better
off around here.
How
can I expect to get a top rating if my performance review shows
I have had my hands in a lot of things, but have accomplished
nothing of real substance that I can call my own? I'll get labeled
as a good solid B player or something similar, but I certainly
won't be seen as a rising star.
If
you are guilty, don't be too alarmed. In the real world, you have
to be responsible for your own interests and well being.
What
Can Be Done
If
you are attempting to bring more life to collaboration in your organization,
there are a couple of paths you can take. The first path is guided
by the sage management principle - what is rewarded gets done.
Here you can start to tackle some of the current organizational
processes and systems so they will more closely and directly support
collaboration efforts. When a collaborative effort is successful
for the company, you need to find ways to more equitably recognize
and reward everyone who contributed. If a group of collaborators
was paid 5% of the first year sales of a new product, might that
stimulate some new beliefs about branching out? What if 15% of one's
annual pay was based on measurable and verifiable examples of collaborating?
Would that potentially inspire people to act differently? Remember,
what gets rewarded is often what gets done.
What
do you think about the strategy of setting people's goals so high
that they will be forced to collaborate in order to make them? That
is, your collaboration efforts will be rewarded by being able to
keep your job! A lot of organizations have used this approach. It
does emphasize the importance of collaborating and there is a direct
consequence for those who don't play along. Upon reflection, do
you believe this is an effective way to reward people for collaborating?
Will this strategy lead to greater, more productive collaborative
efforts?
The
problem is this strategy is too often based on the assumption that
people obviously know how to collaborate, they just are not doing
it enough. That may not be a wise assumption. Collaboration requires
solid, trusting relationships, where all parties benefit. Developing
and sustaining these kinds of relationships requires both skill
and work. Although many people might think they already have a well
honed, inborn capability for relationships, they actually find they
are not so good at them after all. They realize they have to learn
and get better at some things. And in an environment where goals
are already beyond reach, how likely are people to want to devote
precious time to development of a so-called "soft" skill
like collaboration. And for those that do, does the company even
offer the means - or the money - to make it happen?
When
attempting to better align systems like pay and performance around
collaboration, don't forget to include education and development
processes as well. If you want people to collaborate, you must equip
them to succeed.
The
other route you can take to bring out more collaboration is guided
by a different principle than the one previously mentioned. Rather
than focusing solely on that which is rewarded, this leadership
principle reminds us that what is rewarding gets done.
That means that people will engage in behavior that provides intrinsic
benefits, such as joy, fulfillment or personal gratification. People
will collaborate simply because they enjoy it. For them being an
integral part of the team that successfully conquers Mt. Everest
is reward enough, even if they were not one of the few ultimately
selected for the final ascent to the summit. Pay, promotion or individual
recognition opportunities are either less relevant - or icing on
the cake.
Do
not make the mistake of assuming that these folks are unusually
noble or altruistic, and are always willing to forgo their own self-interests
for the interests of the greater good. They may simply find that
collaborating is a much better way for them to pursue and achieve
their own goals. So along with your efforts geared toward organizational
structures and systems, don't forget to check in on your people's
personal values and aspirations as well. You may uncover some additional
ways to inspire their commitment.
Implications
for Leaders
There
are a couple of key ideas for you to keep in the forefront as you
go about building an environment based more on openness and collaboration,
and less on rigid boundaries and separated efforts. First, you must
remember that everyone pursues self-interest in his or her own individual
way. One person's criteria for determining personal success or fulfillment
will not necessarily be identical to anyone else's. As you attempt
to expand the behaviors of collaboration around your organization,
make sure you can describe the reasons for doing so in a variety
of ways, so more of your people can find their own unique ways to
buy in. The mantra, "collaboration is one of our corporate
values, so just do it," is not likely going to be enough to
inspire everyone to want to get much better at it.
If
people are either threatened by or just uncomfortable with the concept
of collaboration, you will get some resistance. And sometimes that
resistance is very hard to see. There are some who will appear very
committed. By mouthing all the right words about collaboration's
importance and describing the number of things they are trying to
do to demonstrate it, they will sound very convincing. At the same
time, they may be acting no differently in their relationship with
others. For people to become more collaborative, they will need
to believe that overcoming their levels of resistance or discomfort
will, in fact, better serve their own interests going forward.
Finally,
you might want to do some deeper thinking about how you will deal
with those who are very clear that their own personal wins are all
that count. That is, they show no willingness at all to collaborate
with others. For example, they will not share new prospective leads
with team members. They will not share knowledge or experience that
will help a colleague achieve success. Frankly, they won't put forth
much effort of any kind to help the team or the company as a whole.
They act as if life is a zero sum game. For them to win (earn the
most money, advance quicker, or whatever), everyone else must lose.
And they play to win.
How
will you handle this kind of situation? Would you deal with it differently
if your non-collaborator is also your top producer - and you need
this person's proven "ability to deliver" to make your numbers -
and your rather ambitious boss has made it very clear that she is
counting on your numbers to ensure she makes hers (or heads might
roll)? The answer is seldom as easy or clear-cut as you would like
it to be. Self interest is often at play in a lot of ways. Yet,
as a leader, you will have to confront and make tough decisions
in circumstances just like this example.
Effective
relationships with others always require some give and take, whether
in a family setting or a collaborative work environment. Some level
of sacrifice is usually part of the deal. In a perfect world, collaboration
would be a win/win for everybody in every situation. The truth is,
there will be situations when some people benefit more than others.
As
a leader, one of the most difficult challenges you face in attempting
to lead any kind of change is getting people to believe in the positive
impacts of the change before they actually see it. Getting everyone
to shift their prevailing mindsets and accompanying behaviors from
a departmental or silo mentality to a cross-organizational collaborative
outlook will be no different. Their internal voices of self-interest
will likely be warning them to continue to take care of number one,
or at least to wait and see. You will have to ensure that they see
and experience immediate and very visible evidence about the ways
collaborating is benefiting them. This will not be a one-time event,
as you will have to find ways to continuously provide positive proof.
You will also need to be willing to help others see and understand
the consequences of not collaborating.
As people get more comfortable with
and begin to more readily act in collaborative ways, they will discover
that the fruits of their cooperative efforts produce more and more
opportunities for everyone to win - themselves, their colleagues and
the organization. Their self-interests will be served and they will
have found a new avenue for achieving success.
Copyright
2005 International Leadership Associates, Steve C. Coats |