My children grew up at a time when every child who made it from one end of the pool to the other during the Saturday morning swim-meets got a ribbon, not a blue ribbon, but a ribbon nonetheless.  The thinking was that their self-esteem might be damaged if they were not praised for every effort.  Perhaps some of this trend persists today, but it has certainly been challenged by those who believe that motivation and achievement come not only from confidence built on self-esteem but also from knowledge of one’s strengths and pride in the ability to do some things better than most other people.  In other words, competition can be healthy, not only for our economy but for individuals as well. And whether we like it or not, competition is inextricably woven into our American culture.

We seem now to have entered an age in which the notion of collaboration is ubiquitous.  U.S. Intelligence Agencies are urged to collaborate in order to ‘connect the dots’ to prevent terrorist activity, state and local agencies are being asked to collaborate (and one step further – consolidate) to achieve efficiency and cost savings, within organizations, functional departments must collaborate to become more innovative, agile and responsive to customers.  The very word ‘collaboration’ has taken on a motherhood-and apple-pie sort of goodness connotation.

How do these two concepts jibe with one another?  Is it possible to become collaborative when individuals, groups, whole organizations have been programmed and rewarded to compete?  If so, how do we do it? And is collaboration really right for every situation?  How do we determine where it is useful and where it might not be?

We believe that there are definite benefits to becoming collaborative in some situations, particularly those that are characterized by the following:

• The entity as a whole (i.e. nation, state, agency, organization, community, family) clearly has something to gain as a result of all members working together
• The members care about the well-being of the whole and are likely to profit in some way by its success
• There are potential ‘elegant’ and creative paths or strategies that benefit the whole as well as most of the members in the long term

Even when these conditions are present, it may not be an easy thing to turn a traditionally competitive set of relationships into collaborative ones.  One sure-fire way to guarantee failure is to continue to reward ‘winners’ without also compensating collaborative activities and outcomes. Although difficult, it is possible for organizations to create a balance between encouraging healthy internal competition and maintaining a culture that rewards loyalty to the organization as a whole.

To do this takes more than well thought out policies:  It takes a set of skills and behaviors that may not come naturally to most.  These include all of the skills associated with resolving differences and managing conflict constructively.

‘Collaboration’ among many individuals with a variety of orientations is often seen as the source of success for all kinds of organizations.  In government, the Obama administration has highlighted the President’s intention to listen and consider many views before making decisions. In healthcare, the model practiced at the Mayo clinic, which rests on teams of specialists sharing knowledge and information on individual cases, is touted as most effective and efficient. For business organizations, we are often reminded that innovation and responsiveness to customers and clients can best be achieved when people from many functions work together seamlessly and ‘silos are busted’.

If Collaboration is so effective, why aren’t we all doing it?

It takes more than assembling a group of people and giving them a common task to make them effective collaborators. Even with the best of intentions, individuals have a strong tendency to defend their own views, perspectives and interests.  How can organizations harness the power of Collaboration and overcome this tendency?

Check this list:

• Make sure the group is jointly responsible for the outcome – either the entire group is credited and rewarded or no one is; the desired outcome must be very clear
• Clarify each person’s role and contribution – everyone should understand everyone else’s expertise and reason for being there
• Take time to let the group get acquainted and become familiar with one another’s background; people come with different ways of thinking, speaking, relating
• Define practices for ‘how we’ll work together’ – communication, information sharing, decision-making
• Teach people how to participate in ‘Dialogue’, which requires listening for understanding, suspension of judgment, exploration of assumptions, inquiry and reflection
• Expect the group to critique its own practices and progress and self-correct when necessary

Though it takes extra effort to create true Collaboration,
the outcomes generally justify the effort!

The Delphi Group can help you build Collaboration into your culture

Dana Morris-Jones
The Delphi Group, Inc