Collaborate or Evaporate

"Collaboration is a key driver of overall performance of companies around the world. Its impact is twice as significant as a company’s aggressiveness in pursuing new market opportunities (strategic orientation) and five times as significant as the external market environment (market turbulence).

As a general rule, global companies that collaborate better, perform better. Those that collaborate less, do not perform as well. It’s just that simple.”

That is a pretty powerful claim. It is substantiated by a research study done through a collaborative effort of Frost & Sullivan, Microsoft, and Verizon. 

The researchers created a collaboration index to measure a company’s relative “collaborativeness” based on two main factors:

	An organization’s orientation and infrastructure to collaborate, including collaborative technologies such as audioconferencing, Web conferencing and instant messaging
	The nature and extent of collaboration that allows people to work together as well as an organization’s culture and processes that encourage teamwork

Do You Play Well With Others?

This may seem like an abrupt switch from the serious tone, depth, and breadth of the study. But I needed that kind of data to help lead into an important career trait: playing well with others.

The study is right on target by highlighting the need for the right tools, systems, and culture. Yet it ultimately comes down to the individual. If you work in a global organization, you've got some extra challenges: time zone differences, language differences, cultural differences in what constitutes teamwork...(add your own experience by sending a comment!)

I just spent 3 hours coaching a client who is now forced to deal with a highly intelligent, high-performing manager who isn't viewed as collaborative. By anyone. No one at any of their worldwide locations gave him decent feedback on teamwork and collaboration. And this has been happening for a few years. (He continues to achieve all of the goals set out for him--and no one dislikes him personally.)

His side of the story

I sat down and spoke with the manager some months ago about these perceptions and what that might mean to his career. He understood that people didn't see him as collaborative. His take on it is that they are universally wrong. He communicates when he believes it's necessary. I told him that he had to simply initiate more, share more information--even if it didn't make sense to him--and mend some strained relationships with those who thought he was actually hiding something. He  listened, gave intellectual rebuttals for why that didn't make sense, and chose not to do anything differently.

What happened?

His management career is finished...at least with his current employer. He'll probably have a shot at being an individual contributor in a specific discipline; but upward mobility is no longer a possibility.

Some people burn bridges. He never built them. We should take seriously the lessons we can learn from this real-life situation:

1. Organizations thrive because of collaboration. If you want to be seen as a player, then be one.

2. A high IQ doesn't compensate for low EQ. Your Emotional Quotient--your willingness and ability to relate and connect--is important to your company and your career.

3. Task results don't always matter if your behavior disrupts the rest of the system.

4. The study I cited noted the importance of processes, systems, and culture. This company's culture valued teamwork. That was one of their systems. Roesler's rule: Unless you have 51% of the vote, don't fight the system. The system always wins.

Photo source: Pacific Lutheran University

Comments

[Totally Consumed]

I recently just reread Daniel Goldman's books on EQ - classic must reads for anyone who wants to understand and be successful in the workplace. The thing that gives me the most hope is that unlike IQ (arguably), EQ can be learned and mastered even as an adult.

[Jo]

Sun Tzu: only start battles that you have already won.

In terms of the case study, was this person a scapegoat? If he was, you can expect another least preferred co-worker tomorrow, and then another after that.

What did he do or not do that was disruptive? And if it had been going on for three years? The proof of the pudding will be that after he has gone there is a noticeable improvement in something (and the situation doesn't reoccur).

[peter vajda]

My curiosities, Steve:

Who enabled the manager? Moreso, why? (see below)

What was "right" about not collaborating? Something had to be "right" since it was permitted. ("Nothing" is not an appropriate response here.)

You write, "No one at any of their worldwide locations gave him decent feedback on teamwork and collaboration." Basic denial.

This is collusion, a type of fraud, where both parties (or more) agree to (consciously or unconsciously, but "unspoken") agree to allow inappropriate behavior, so both parties are "giving to get" something (what was it they were getting?). Collusion is often found in workplaces where organizational psychopaths and sycophants live.

The manager, for me, is displaying one form of narcissism, grandiosity ("His take on it is that they are universally wrong") where one needs to blame "them" in order to feel safe, secure and comfortable in the midst of their inner (often unconscious) sense of "lack" and "defciency." (Many workaholics, bullying bosses, and "I am right; they're wrong"-type folks live here).

For me, hopefully for him, the good news is that he's been fired...a wonderful opportunity (interestsing how the Universe tugs on our sleeve when we need to "wake up"), if he so chooses, to take a deeper look at himself and forward the action of his emotional and spiritual journey. Or, not. Life is choices.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve
It's fortunate the person you coached has gone to school and graduated. Deep in his unconscious, I would expect to find several rules he knows not to break:
1. Compete with your classmates for the best grade, don't let them cheat off of you.
2. Prove how good you can be by seeing what you can accomplish without leaning on others or taking the easy way out
3. Notice how bad you feel on group projects where the slackers get the same grade as the heavyweights - don't let that happen again
4. Beware of hypocrite teachers that say teamwork is good while you never see them team up with other teachers or join teams in class

With all this resolved as "the right way to win" and lots of proof gathered to confirm these rules as TRUE, nothing short of a layoff could move this mountain of evidence.

Great post!

[Joan Schramm]

Steve --

I remember a number of years ago, a boss gave me feedback during my annual review and said, "Joan, seriously, you have got to start getting along better with people here."

I responded, "But... they're such idiots..."

Well, long and short of it was, I learned to get along even with the "idiots" and was able to forge new, collaborative working relationships. It took time, because people had been used to dealing with the old me and changing course wasn't easy. Everybody kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. But it was ultimately satisfying, and I bless that boss for making it absolutely clear to me that I needed to change.

It takes more than a single person to develop a worker or manager who won't work and play well with others. If the co-workers and managers allow the behavior, it will continue, because the difficult person doesn't have any incentive to change. Workplace problems never happen in a vacuum, and they aren't solved that way, either.

Joan

[Tom Haskins]

Whoops
I meant it's "unfortunate" that he got schooled in how to win!

[Wally Bock]

Excellent post, Steve. I read your example. First I nod my head. Then I find myself thinking, "Yeahbut."

I think Tom is onto something about lessons learned along the way, at home, at school and at work.

I think Peter's insights about collusion fit some cases.

I know, from my own experience, about companies where the Theory Espoused is "collaborate and share information" but the Theory in Use is "hoarded knowledge means your indispensable."

In short, there are a lot of situations and a lot of ways to encourage and reward the folks who don't collaborate right up till we show them the door.

[Steve Roesler]

Dear Totally,

You know, that's the thing: the information to change behaviorally is there for the taking. You don't have to feel it or, quite frankly, even believe it. You just have to learn to do it.

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

There is no noticeable improvement in group performance. There is probably less stress in daily interaction.

The business results have not gotten better as a result of his departure.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

The precipitating factor was a change in leadership. What was appreciated as expertise and a little eccentricity prior to the new regime was soon viewed as disruptive behavior. Once the "new way of doing things" was intact, he wasn't.

The real collusion originally was that everyone knew each other's idiosyncracies and accepted them. When it became "officially" unacceptable with the leadership change, it was only a matter of time until something happened.

[Steve Roesler]

Tom, I hadn't even gone down that road. Thanks for another set of have been legitimate influences in the individual's behavior.

[Steve Roesler]

Joan,

That's a tale of great courage and grit; let's face it: it's not easy to hear that sort of thing and then do something about it for the long run.

Kudos!

Yes, Joan, for sure--our behavior doesn't develop or continue in a vacuum. So, there has to have been enough support to make it worthwhile not to change. All thoae who supported him also contributed to his demise.

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

I have a feeling that the organization might be pleased if they could get this person back.