Sometimes, collaboration stinks.
Okay, I imagine I have your attention now.
Yes, I am being overly dramatic. I guess what I really want to say is that sometimes a really good idea gets overdone, twisted up, misguided. Collaboration is generally a good thing of course, but it seems sometimes we just do it or at least try to do it whether it is needed or not, whether or not we truly believe it makes sense. All of us know that sometimes we do it because funders require it. I called that “coerced collaboration."
Mutual accountability and participation around a common goal or aspiration is a good thing, when it fits. Sometimes, collaboration drag us around and around. Too many voices, too many egos, too many agendas. All of those things harming the very thing we believe should be our practice.
Collaboration as Buzzword.
Sometimes I wonder if we have gotten to the point where individual effort is devalued and frowned upon. But is collaboration the answer we keep telling ourselves it is? Here’s a perspective offered by Todd Cohen who blogs for Inside Philanthropy, which is published by The Philanthropy Journal.[1]
Collaboration has to be one of the most bloated, overworked and misunderstood buzzwords in the charitable marketplace.
Funders and donors preach and deman
d it. Trade groups and consultants peddle it. And non-profits, nodding to the sermonizing of their funders and donors, pay endless lip service to it.
Sadly, far too few of any of them actually practice it or even know what it is or what it takes to make it work.
Collaboration sounds great in theory.
But in practice, it can prove to be slippery, complicated, risky and sometimes plain unworkable.
Collaboration as Method and Principle
Collaboration should not be an expectation in and of itself. It is a method as well as a principle that should be deployed when common aspirations emerge and then are assessed by a group to warrant working together in ways they cannot alone. That decision should not carry the assumption that it will be easy, that everyone will get along, or that people won’t bring hidden agendas.
The purpose or at least one purpose of collaboration is to work through such realities. I have been involved with collaborative projects over the years that were mighty difficult. Often the difficulties were sourced in the complexity of the work, resourcing joint efforts, ensuring appropriate communication streams, agreeing on how decisions get made, and so forth.
Collaboration – Where Turfs Collide.
But of course other difficulties surface that appear to be the antithesis of collaboration: joining to protect one’s turf, participating to steer the boat to a predetermined destination; participating to advance one’s profile or to improve positioning of their organization. It’s a “we” thing that unfortunately is too often mostly about “me.”
My point is not to say “shame on you” but rather to suggest these are natural realities of collaboration. Who doesn’t have turf to protect? Who doesn’t have their ind
ividual ideas of where the collaborative journey should land? What leader does not want some measure of recognition for their organization and their leadership? Each player at the collaborative table carries with her or him the expectations, pressures, and politics of their organization. Do we really expect one another to shed all of that at the door?
I think one of the compelling reasons to collaborate is to struggle through individualism and its many manifestations and, in the end, achieve common outcomes in spite of the very barriers and side-turns that present themselves during the course of the work.
Welcoming and Working through Conflicts
Some of the best outcomes
I have experienced via collaboration involved personal conflicts, bad behaviour, and inappropriate side bars. Why were the results good? Because through it all, the participants kept on keeping on through implicit, if not explicit, checks and balances, because of good leadership and facilitation, and because all of the players in the final analysis were committed to doing the “right” things or the things that “fit together.”
Sometimes I get frustrated when I see bright people clashing over territory or ego. It especially frustrates me when I do that. It slows us down. It is embarrassing because it’s childlike to be so possessive
Imperfect people lead organizations. Leaders make good and bad decisions. Collaborators don’t always collaborate well. I also get frustrated when I hear others who are not part of a collaborative effort criticizing those that are as if the critics somehow “know” how things should work in the group doing the work or as if they are exemplars of collaboration (when they very well realize they are challenged by the same issues and individual perspectives and behaviours we all are).
There are of course certain expectations we have of one another. Be respectful, convivial, transparent, and “other” focused. Pick the hills you will die on; in other words, don’t have too many hills. But we will fail at times to live up to our expectations. That’s just how things go, isn’t it?
Don’t Stay if You Should Leave.
The bottom line is about what has been accomplished, and what will be accomplished through collaboration. We don’t have to like everybody we collaborate with, though it does help to engage one another with some measure of conviviality. After all, we do have to work with one another. And if anyone one of us reaches the point where we don’t want to work with the others, then we should do the right thing: step out of the collaboration with grace. But when people feel that way and remain at the table and disrupt the work – well, that is one example of when collaboration stinks.
Ideology versus Capacity.
One of the largest barriers to collaboration is the wide gap between the ideology of collaboration and the resources required to support it. Despite the fact th
at collaboration is not an end in and of itself and that it is not always necessary, the non-profit sector has persuaded itself to believe that it is fundamental to nearly everything the sector does. Funders, in particular, espouse the need for it in their proposal calls or granting applications. It’s the salt we automatically season everything with. It’s just how things are supposed to be.
Unfortunately, the resourcing of collaboration is given short shrift too often by too many funders and under-estimated by too many non-profit leaders. One can argue funders lack the resources to optimally support collaborative efforts, but that doesn’t appear to stop their demand for collaboration. Concurrently, non-profit agencies have over-bought into the ideology and because they feel vulnerable to funding, they agree to undertake efforts they lack the infrastructure and capacity to do, or that just don’t really qualify as collaboration.
It is a cycle of dysfunction that all parties perpetuate. All too often the result is underfunded collaborations that cannot achieve their potential or that fail. Or the language of collaboration is used to pitch ventures that are packaged as collaborative but in actuality are more representative of cooperation or coordination, which are less resource intensive.
Drivers of Collaboration
The online Free Dictionary defines “driver” in the context I use it as “something that creates and fuels activity, or gives force or impetus.” I suggest this definition also embraces the notion of a “principle” which the same dictionary defines as “a rule or standard, especially of good behavior.”
Collaboration’s promise is in its potential to increase impact, quality, and the time it might take to make change through a series of independent efforts.
Also, there is so much we need to do that we can’t do it alone. Collaboration allows us to focus on our core competencies and leverage them with the core competencies of others. It can help us extend our reach and impact into the community with others at our side who have talents and capacities we don’t. This is why we have sports teams, orchestras, research teams, and so on. Often, going it alone just doesn’t cut it.
Collaboration should be voluntary.
Required collaboration among organizations is likely to create a corresponding resistance to it. Limiting funding to organizations that must collaborate with other organizations serves to place resources above the range of ideas and offerings that funders might consider, whether by lone organization or a cadre of groups.
There is nothing wrong with funders asking if a project or service lends itself to collaboration, but funding forms that boldly or subtly stipulate collaboration and partnerships as a necessary ingredient in the program recipe limit possibilities and innovation
Being collaborative solely because of funder demands or because of the fear of being left out are among the wrong reasons to collaborate. Funders that assume non-profit organizations have the resources required to collabroate or don’t really need them will render authentic commitment to collaborative efforts difficult, if not impossible, to sustain.
Collaborations should have ambitious timelines.
It is not uncommon for collaborative ventures to give short shrift to the very sense of urgency that likely brought the players together. While collaborations require structure, explicit agreements, and sensitivity to the capacities of those participating, if collaborations are continually stalled by lack of participation by a few or the long decision-making processes of others, the group may have to revisit its membership and mutual expectations.
Participants who continually have to go back to their organizations before they can render a decision or a position will prohibit a timely advancement of the collaboration’s work. This a leadership responsibility, which requires that first, leaders recognize that their participation in too many collaborations thins their capacity to fully participate and have impact and, second, creates a time-drag that is unfair for others.
The purpose and desired results of collaboration are typically a microcosm of a larger issue that needs to be addressed in the community.
For example, work force issues that might spawn collaboration are bigger and more complex than the issues or a solutions a particular collaboration can address. Collaborators must recognize they cannot address all of the issues but must craft cohesion around which ones they have the skills, resources, and time to tackle. Failure to identify this cohesion will work against success. Allowing the challenge to be too big for the capacity of the group is a major reason why collaborations either take too long, under-produce, or fail.
Although implied above, effective collaborations require the resources to be effective.
We need to stop automatically gravitating to seeing collaboration as a cost-management activity. Collaborations are resource intensive. If such resources are not forthcoming, then alternative methods should be pursued that are affordable, such as cooperation or coordination. Funders that insist on collaboration but do not provide sufficient resources to develop and deliver it is akin to not putting your money where your mouth is. Funders should lessen their desire to save money via collaboration efforts and deepen their understanding and support of collaboration’s capacity for producing impact.
Quid pro quo must drive the players in collaboration.
While the benefits of collaborating will not be the same for everyone – just as contributions will vary – all must benefit through their commitments to actions that ensure equitable reciprocation takes place. The key word here is “equitable.” Benefits and recognition should be contextual to what each player is putting in to the collaborative work. As soon as collaboration becomes about winners and losers, we can no longer work together.
Collaborative success requires the acceptance of, and engagement about, individual agendas.
Instead of ignoring individual agendas (which, if we are honest, never really happens), we should invite them, work with them, and use them to foster the common aspirations we seek. In effect individual agendas are often, I suggest, a precursor to common agendas. To pretend participants should leave them at the door is to discount the very reasons why people look to one another for help and synergy.
Inclusion of the right participants must go beyond age, gender, culture, and alignment around the goals of the collaboration.
Inclusion of those who are able to both lead and yield to the leadership of others is critical. Collaborators must work within a matrix of roles and authorities that are delegated by the group to those who have the capacities required to deliver on a particular task or activity. Such assignments require ego-management and faith in others. Collaborations require varied talents, a range of knowledge experts, strong facilitation skills, and a collective ability to address diverse needs and ideas. These elements are far more important than fabricating diversity through seat assignments based primarily on the demography of the participants.
The commitment to the collaboration must go beyond the individuals who participate.
The commitment of each institution, group, or community that sends its representatives to the collaborative table must be explicit and palpable, and continue on regardless of a change in individual representation. Otherwise, the long-term commitment to the common goals will dissipate as individuals come and go.
Participants in collaboration must deliver on the required time commitment but also have sufficient authority to participate in decision-making.
Participants who continually have to go back to their organizations before they can render a decision or a position will prohibit a timely advancement of the collaboration’s work. This a leadership responsibility, which requires that first, leaders recognize that participation in too many collaborations thins their group’s capacity to fully participate and have impact and, second, creates a time-drag that is unfair for others.
Many, if not most, collaborations require tools, helping mechanisms, and external expertise to be effective.
This can include an outside facilitator, research, technology (like a wiki site), training, and so forth. While having the financial resources is a given, participants need to be open to outside help and influences, where applicable. Large scale collaborations addressing complex challenges across a wide variety of stakeholders may benefit from the effective allocation of responsibilities to what John Kania and Mark Kramer call a “backbone organization.”
While collaboration is not an end in and of itself, it is true that collaborative efforts have both internal and external outcomes to achieve.
Messy processes or those built from a foundation of protectionism or distrust are contraindications of a healthy engagement of one another in the pursuit of common results. While an effective process is no guarantee of success, the lack of one will lead at best to lackluster results. Spending time on investigating and agreeing with how people will behave together and how the group will address conflict are mandatory.
Effective collaborations welcome the outliers and the boat rockers.
Having common goals and aspirations does not mean that the members of a collaboration should be homogenous thinkers. The culture of the group should allow for constructive disruption, generative conversations, authentic evaluation time, and broad engagement of participants. Such elements help to foster learning and decision-making that people can support even if they would have decided something differently on their own. John Ott’s suggestion that collective wisdom is best served in an environment that “welcomes all that arises” represents a key criteria for success.
In offering these drivers for your consideration, I am fully aware that lists like these are always incomplete and imperfect. They are presented as a frame or foundation upon which to build a collaboration and no doubt will be adjusted, improved upon, and interpreted in ways that speak to those coming together to collaborate.
My suggestion is that before the collaboration’s membership is set, those sitting around the table begin with a prospective mind about what is required to set the stage for success. Realistically, this will involve more than conversation; negotiation is part of the process as well. However, unlike many negotiations, the negotiating that takes place to frame collaboration should be focused on win-win results and the equitable sharing in the responsibility to inject needed resources into collaborative actions.
