Planning When The Future Is So Unpredictable

The Current Question

I get asked a lot of questions as an executive coach. Some are common and some are unique to an individual’s personal journey. A common question right now is the following one: “How do we plan for the future when the future is so unpredictable?”

Sometimes, I can give a concise and concrete answer to a question. Other times, I focus on sharing some material to help a person have a greater understanding of the subject we are about to explore. I also have been known to share a story and a lesson learned as a way to answer a question.

But on certain days, I answer a question by asking a question. Given the aforementioned question, I in turn often ask this question: “Where does the future come from?” This often stops the conversation for a moment. People really have to think about this question, because there is not a quick and fast answer.

“It often feels these days as if the future arrives from nowhere,” writes Margaret Wheatley in her book, Turning To One Another: simple conversations to restore hope to the future (Berrett-Koehlers, 2001). “Suddenly things feel unfamiliar, we’re behaving differently, the world doesn’t work the way it used to.” Right now, I think we all know these feelings and we all are struggling with how to process them and work with them in a productive manner. 

As Wheatley continues, “The future doesn’t take form irrationally, even if it feels that way. The future comes from where we are now. It materializes from the actions, values and beliefs we are practicing now. We’re creating the future everyday, by what we choose to do. If we want a different future, we have to take responsibility for what we are doing in the present.” 

There is so much to unpack in the previous sentences. First, the future comes from what we are doing right now. Second, the future is a reflection of the choices we make, and the beliefs and values we practice every day. Third, if we want to change the future, we have to take responsibility for what we are doing in the present, and then make changes accordingly. 

So, how do we plan for the future when the future is so unpredictable?

The Missing Perspective

The concise answer to the aforementioned question about planning is to plan as we normally would. At the exact same time, we need to go deeper into some specific areas and understand how certain things have changed. For the goal of planning in unpredictable times is to create a plan that is flexible, adaptable, and resilient. 

Over the last few decades, strategic planning has focused on creating a plan that positions a company in it’s current external landscape. During unpredictable times, strategy needs to move from a solution to current problems, and instead become a dynamic process that guides the development of the company, specifically its identity and purpose over time. For this later perspective, I often turn to an articled called “Putting Leadership Back Into Strategy” by Cynthia A. Montgomery in the January 2008 issue of the Harvard Business Review.

As Montgomery explained, the prevailing approach to strategy is to create a long term plan that is sustainable and offers a competitive advantage within its current market. This plan is often created by the CEO and outside strategy consultants. Once the plan is developed, it is an unchanging plan. The formation of this strategy comes from various analytical, left-brain exercises generated during an intense period of formulation. This is followed by a prolonged period of implementation. Furthermore, those involved defend it as the established strategy over time. 

However, Montgomery proposes that strategy needs to become a dynamic process that is focused on creating value. Next, the CEO is the chief strategist within the context of a team, and the creation of the strategy can not be outsourced. While the planning process is organized, it also is adaptive, holistic and open-ended. Instead of separating planning from execution, she instead encourages all involved to frame up both events, i.e. planning and execution, as needing to be continuous and unending. This ongoing activity will foster competitive advantages and continue to develop the company over time. 

For those who are interested in more detail, I encourage you to read the aforementioned article, and to discuss it as a senior team before you engage in the next round of strategic planning. 

Strategic Planning During Unpredictable Times

With the above framework in mind, I have encouraged leaders to think of strategic planning during unpredictable times as a four step process. First, they need to accept and understand their current reality. The best way I know to do this is to routinely do an in-depth environmental scan or PESTAL analysis (political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal factors/trends). Studying these trend lines over time provides us with a greater level of situational awareness and a more holistic understanding of what is, and what is not happening. 

Second, they need to engage in a two step, process of strategic reflection and dialogue. Step #1 has two options. Option A focuses on how to adapt the core business model to the realities of the current marketplace. During this strategic dialogue, we answer the following questions: What can we still do better than the competition? What must we stop doing? Why do our customers come to us for solutions? What is the real need that connects them to our brand? These questions are a mirror and a window into what is currently happening and our responses to current market conditions. Option B focuses on how to embrace the possibilities of the “new” marketplace. During this time of strategic dialogue, we focus on this one question: What unmet needs do customers have during this unpredictable time period? The combination of both of these options makes those gathered think deeply about past choices and current possibilities. 

Third, they need to engage in step #2. Here, those gathered create a variety of “what if” scenarios, and then figure out how to solve these potential realities. This is often called scenario based planning. 

I have participated in multiple sessions of this nature and have witnessed incredible problem solving, and very productive exploration of innovative ideas. One time years ago, I worked with a group that spent nearly three hours working through a “what if” scenario. It was not a full disaster scenario, but a very scary possibility related to possible funding changes and how to continue providing services in the midst of these changes. The group that gathered that day struggled with the scenario, and yet they did come up with two to three, realistic possibilities of how to manage it if this were to take place. 

Then, six months later, the “what if” scenario became a reality with a major change in funding and a major change in funding expectations. While most other organizations freaked out when this happened, the senior team of this organization, in conjunction with the rest of the group that had previously gathered that day, came together again, reviewed the current situation, reflected on their past two to three options already generated from their “what if” scenario, and then choose the right one given current events. No one freaked out, because they had already explored this possibility. In essence, they were prepared in advance, and had the right mind set, and skill set to handle it. While it was uncomfortable, it was not devastating as it could of been if they had not been prepared. 

Step #4 is to develop highly adaptable plans which include planned short-term wins. The key difference in these plans is that they also have developed a system for updating them or changing them due to fluctuating market conditions, demand uncertainty, or the arrival of unplanned opportunities or challenges. This system is built on quarterly strategic reviews, including an in-depth KPI  (Key Performance Indicators) review. However, most KPIs are lagging indicators, and thus when we review them, we are always looking in the rearview mirror. When possible, we also need to look at leading KPIs in order to respond effectively. 

This four step process to planning during unpredictable time is not easy. It is an investment of time and energy. However, when done well and on a regular basis, it builds capacity for handling the unexpected and unknowns that show up routinely during times of this nature. 

Return To The Core Research

When I have been challenged by senior executives that the aforementioned planning process is too time consuming and rigorous, I ask them to return to the core research by   Jim Collins and Morten Hansen in their book, Great By Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck - Why Some Thrive Despite Them All (HarperCollins, 2011). As they write, leaders “understand that they cannot reliably and consistently predict future events, so they prepare obsessively - ahead of time, all the time - for what they cannot possibly predict. They assume that a series of bad events can wallop them in quick succession, unexpectedly and at any time.” Then, they note, “It’s what you do before the storm hits - the decisions and disciplines and buffers and shock absorbers already in place - that matters most in determining whether your enterprise pulls ahead, falls behind or dies when the storm hits.”

In their writing, Collins and Hansen say that leaders who handle uncertainty and chaos zoom out before they zoom in. During this zoom out phase, they sense whether or not there is a change in market conditions. If so, they then attempt to frame and name it. During this assessment period, they address three key questions: How much time before the risk profile changes? Do the new conditions call for disrupting plans? If so, how?. Once they have answered these questions, they zoom in and “focus on supreme execution of plans and objectives.”

Leaders who do this successfully are externally focused, show productive paranoia, and remain hyper-vigilant to changing market conditions in order to respond in a timely and effective manner. As Collins and Hansen wrote, leaders exercise productive paranoia by “obsessing about what can go wrong. They ask questions like: What is the worst-case scenario? What are the consequences of the worst-case scenario? Do we have contingencies in place for the worst-case scenario? What’s the upside and what’s the downside of this decision? What’s the likelihood of the upside and downside? What’s out of our control? How can we minimize our exposure to forces we can’t control? What if? What if? What if?”. 

In short, it is all about the questions. Then, it is all about execution. And that is why we must be disciplined in our approach to planning and execution during unpredictable and chaotic times. 

Balancing Two Dualities

Now, as we move into the execution of a highly adaptable plan, we must understand leadership as a process of balancing two dualities, namely the strategic and the operational. Robert Kaplan and Robert Kaiser in their article, “Stop Overdoing Your Strengths” in the February 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, note that the strategic focuses on positioning the organization for the future while the operational focuses the organization on short-term results. While the former is taking the long view and has a big picture perspective, the later is engaged in managing the day-to-day details of implementation. 

Next, the strategic leader seeks ways to grow the business and expand capabilities. On the other hand, the operational leader wants to maximize efficiency, conserve resources by cutting costs, and being very selective about priorities. In short, strategic leaders are promoting innovation by questioning status quo and encouraging new thinking while the operational leader is focused on maintaining order by getting things done using procedures and process discipline. 

The challenge when helping an organization execute an adaptable plan is that the strategic and the operational choices can be seen in direct conflict with each other. However, each is important and each counters the other. Therefore, as a consultant and coach, I often discussed with the senior leadership, which components of the plan would require more strategic leadership and which components would require more operational leadership. Both are important and both need to be done well. 

Over time, what I discovered is that the metaphorical right hand did not know what the left hand was doing, i.e. the strategic leaders did not get what the operational leaders were doing and vise a versa. The result was often organization miscommunication, resource conflicts, and a general decline in teamwork and collaboration. Until all involved knew what kind of leadership was being deployed to execute the plan, there tended to be a convergence of problems and priorities. Yet, when there was clarity about the two different forms of leadership that needed to be deployed in order to execute the plan, then all involved could work together through the normal technical and adaptive problems that happen when executing a plan of this nature. 

Three Critical Choices

When the strategic and operational leadership choices are made clear, then senior leadership needs to make three critical choices in order to be successful. First, they need to have a disciplined approach to understanding market uncertainty and market evolution. Given the concept of uncertainty is so big, we need to break it down into three workable distinctions. Market uncertainty reflects what is happening within the market and is sometimes called demand uncertainty. It is based on the question: Are we still offering the right goods and services which meet the changing needs of our customers? Given current events, some leaders are questioning whether or not our information sources about what is happening within the market are still the right ones to be paying attention to. 

Next, capacity uncertainty reflects what is happening within the company. It is based on the question: Do our internal operations have the capacity to meet the changing needs of the market and the customers, and still be competitive at the same time? Here, we need to think about people, structure, systems, culture, plus the health of our supply chain and the strength and resilience of our external partners. 

Finally, leadership uncertainty reflects whether or not people in leadership positions have the correct mindset and the right competencies to deal with market uncertainty and capacity uncertainty. It is based on the question: Do we have people in leadership positions who have the capacity to plan and the capacity to execute that plan given the degree of uncertainty in the market and the organization? Having a common language around uncertainty and a system in place to answer the aforementioned questions on a regular basis will build capacity during unpredictable times. 

Second, all people in leadership and management positions need to understand the strategic intent of the company. This is because the strategies and goals may have to adapt quickly due to a rapidly changing market environment. The goal of this choice is to build alignment around intent. However, John Doerr in his book, Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs (Portfolio, 2018), writes “alignment is rare.” Studies suggest that only 7 percent of employees “fully understand their company’s business strategies and what’s expected of them in order to help achieve the common goals.” A lack of alignment, according to a poll of global CEOs, is the number-one obstacle between strategy and execution. Yet, when we invest the time and energy to create this level of clarity, we are building resilience into the core of the company.  As A.G. Lafley and Roger Marten in their book, Playing To Win: How Strategy Really Works (Harvard Business Review Press, 2013), reminds us: We “compete from the core” of the business. Having an aligned core is mission critical to short and long term success. 

Third, we need to remember The Law of Explosive Growth which John Maxwell included in his book, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow them and People Will Follow You (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998). This law states: “To add growth, lead followers; to multiply, lead leaders.” As he further explains, “Leaders who develop followers grow their organization only one person at a time. But leaders who develop leaders multiple their growth, because for every leader they develop, they also receive all of that leader's followers.” During unpredictable times, we need leaders who are developing leaders, not just developing followers. For in the end, and as we execute a highly adaptable plan, we need more leaders who are becoming better leaders, in order for growth and resilience to take place. 

Create Islands Of Sanity

“Once you've done the mental work, there comes a point you have to throw yourself into the action and put your heart on the line,” writes former NBA coach Phil Jackson. “That means not only being brave, but being passionate towards yourself, your teammates, and your opponents.” And when we put our hearts on the line, and show disciplined passion, there are four key ideas we must keep in mind. 

First, we can not speak our desired culture into existence. Instead, we need to behave in a manner that reflects our commitments and our clarity. We need to role model being adaptive at the strategic level and the operational level. 

Second, as the late Stephen Covey noted, we can not talk our way out of the problems we are are behaving our way into. This is at the personal level, the team level, and even the company level. Our individual and collective actions make a difference. When the future is so unpredictable, they are even more important. 

Third, we must be very aware of what is happening during our interface moments. The late William Bridges defined an interface as the place “where the surface of one thing meets the surface of another. It is less like a dividing line and more like a permeable membrane, and the action at the interface is the interplay, the communication, the mutual influence that goes on between societies . . . that are side by side. The interface is where the vital relationships are established that are necessary for survival in a world of increasing interdependency.” For in the beginning, the middle, and the end, it is the vitality of relationships that will make a profound difference as we manage uncertainty. 

Finally, we need to take to heart the following insight shared by Margaret Wheatley: “It is possible, in this time of profound disruption, for leadership to be a noble profession that contributes to the common good. It is possible as we face the fearful complexity of life-destroying problems, to experience recurring moments of grace and joy. It is possible, as leaders of organizations, communities, and families, to discover deep and aiding satisfaction in our work if we choose not to flee or withdraw from reality. It is possible to find a path of contribution and meaning if we turn our attention away from issues beyond our control and focus on the people around us who are yearning for good leadership and engage them in work that is within reach. It is possible to use our influence and power to create islands of sanity in the midst of a raging destructive sea.”

So, how do we plan for the future when the future is so unpredictable? We create islands of sanity, role model good leadership, and engage people in the work that is within reach. And by doing this, we will move forward together and contribute to the common good.

© Geery Howe 2025

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Teamwork And Collaboration - part #2

Create The Right Environment

“What matters most to collaboration is not the personalities, attitudes, or behavioral styles of team members,” write Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen in the aforementioned article in yesterday’s blog post. “Instead what teams need to thrive are certain ‘enabling conditions’.” According to Haas and Mortensen, the secret to great teamwork and collaboration involves four components: a compelling direction, a strong structure, a supportive context, and a shared mindset. The two enabling conditions I want to focus on here are the strong structure and the supportive context. 

As they explain, “High-performing teams include members with a balance of skills. Every individual doesn’t have to possess superlative technical and social skills, but the team overall needs a healthy dose of both.” Then, they write that that “Larger teams are more vulnerable to poor communication, fragmentation, and free riding (due to a lack of accountability).” From my experience, I have seen both of these elements taking place. When the structure includes “a balance of skills,” and the reduction of the more vulnerable elements listed above, the potential for great teamwork and collaboration will take place. 

However, Haas and Mortensen note one other element that makes a difference when it comes to a strong structure. As they explain, “Teams can reduce the potential for dysfunction by establishing clear norms - rules that spell out a small number of things members must always do (such as arrive at meetings on time and give everyone a a turn to speak.) and a small number they must never do (such as interrupt)….. And in teams whose membership is fluid, explicitly reiterating norms at regular intervals is key.”

Years ago, I worked with a team who had the courage to explore their core values at a behavioral level rather than just at a conceptual level. Step by step, they walked through each of their core values and asked themselves two important questions: What do they  look like in action? What behaviors would make that a reality? Ever since then, I have admired the courage it took for them to hold this conversation and to boil it down to some very specific behavioral norms within the organization. 

I also admired the leader who ran this organization. I believe she had no idea what was going to surface during such in-depth dialogue. Yet, she had the faith and clarity to proceed in spite of her possible fears or worries. The outcome from this work has made a major difference. While her industry has gone through chaotic and transformational change, and her immediate team membership has been fluid, the organization has done exceptionally well. From my vantage point, this has happened because they have established clear behavioral norms and stuck to them through it all. 

Along with a strong structure, the second element that Haas and Mortensen focus on is a supportive context. As they write, “Having the right support is the third condition that enables team effectiveness.” Here, they focus on the team having the right resources, information and training in order to be successful. They also note, “Ensuring a supportive context is often difficult for teams that are geographically distributed and digitally dependent, because the resources available to members may vary a lot.” I have witnessed this often and I have also witnessed a variety of different organizations address this challenge in three unique ways. 

First, they build shared knowledge. As Haas and Mortensen write, “Incomplete information is likewise more prevalent in 4-D teams…. Information won’t provide much value if it isn’t communicated to the rest of the team. After all, shared knowledge is the cornerstone of effective collaboration; it gives a group a frame of reference, allows the group to interpret situations and decisions correctly, helps people understand one another better, and greater increase efficiency.” This level of shared knowledge comes from shared learning experiences and shared team experiences. The overall goal is to increase common language, perspective, and understanding across the entire organization, not just within one team. 

Creating and utilizing common language is critical factor in becoming a team, and improving teamwork and collaboration. “Language is our portal to meaning-making, connection, healing, learning, and self-awareness,” writes Brene’ Brown in her book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience (Random House, 2021). “Having access to the right words can open up entire universes…. Language shows us that naming an experience doesn’t give the experience more power, it gives us the power of understanding and meaning.” 

Furthermore, when teams members build connections on multiple levels through shared learning and shared experiences, the outcome is powerful, namely a sense of belonging. As Brown explains, “True belonging is the spiritual practice of believing in and belonging to yourself so deeply that you can share your most authentic self with the world and find sacredness in both being a part of something and standing alone in the wilderness. True belonging doesn’t require you to change who you are; it requires you to be who you are.” And in the end, that is the challenge for all of us who are wanting to improve teamwork and collaboration. We do not need to change who we are to fit in. Instead, we need to be who we are so we can connect and belong.

Second, they ensure all subgroups feel valued for their contribution toward the overall goal. Returning to the work of Haas and Mortensen, they write, “… there are many ways team leaders can actively foster a shared identity and shared understanding and break down barriers to cooperation and information exchange. One powerful approach is to ensure that each subgroup feels valued for its contribution toward the team’s overall goals.”

I think the challenge here is that many people, subgroups, teams, and departments do not feel like what they are doing is making much of a difference on any level. It is just more effort, more paperwork, and more hassles on a day to day basis. The problem is that they have lost line of sight from their work to the team’s overall goal or goals. 

From my vantage point, the concept of line of sight is vital to success. At work, everyone has things that need to get done. Some are on a daily level and others are on a weekly level. Many of these things are SOP, i.e. standard operating procedures. At the same time, they are working on certain priorities and projects related to the team’s overall goal or goals. When there is line of sight, an individual or team can connect the dots from their actions to the team’s goals, and then from the team’s goals to the organization’s current strategic plan. When this happens, then all involved know two things. First, my job matters to the overall success of the team and the organization. Second, we are making progress and my contribution is helping us to make progress. This level of clarity builds commitment, shared identity and shared understanding. It also helps all involved feel valued as they contribute to the work of the team. 

Third, when wanting to create the right environment for teamwork and collaboration, leaders create structured unstructured time. Again, Hass and Mortensen note that effective leaders “… promote shared understanding through a practice called “structured unstructured time” - that is, time blocked off in the schedule to talk about matters not directly related to the task at hand.” As they continue, “How will you know if your efforts are working? … [evaluate] team effectiveness on three criteria: output, collaborative ability, and members’ individual development.” 

There are multiple questions that can be explored during structured unstructured time. The former is one such example. When I was actively consulting and was hired to help a team improve their teamwork and their ability to collaborate, I often utilized the six questions found in the following book: Lencioni, Patrick. The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012). As Lencioni wrote, “Why do we exist?”, “How do we behave?”, “What do we do?”, “How will we succeed?”, “What is most important, right now?”, and “Who must do what?”. Each of these questions has the potential to build a shared understanding and common focus within the team and between teams. The challenge is to make time and space for this level of dialogue and to support people as they explore and process the answers that surface. Creating the right environment for teamwork and collaboration is hard work and worth every minute invested in the process. 

People Are The Solution

“People are the solution to the problems that confront us,” writes Margaret Wheatley in her book, Turning To One Another: simple conversations to restore hope to the future, (Berret-Koehler, 2001). “Technology is not the solution, although it can help. We are the solution - we as generous, open-hearted people who want to use our creativity and caring on behalf of other human beings and all life.” I agree 100% with her assertion that people are the solution, and I have witnessed this numerous times over multiple decades. 

And yet, if we seek to improve teamwork and collaboration in the midst of challenging times, we need to remember two things about people. First, as Wheatley notes, “Thinking is the place where intelligent action begins.” The work of helping people begins when we create uninterrupted space and time for reflection, because this is the effective prerequisite for using “our creativity and caring on behalf of other human beings and all life.” When we commit to this level of preparatory work, we must remember that this level of thinking is messy. Solutions and answers to big questions or big problems do not arrive all neatly packaged, organized and with a bow. Instead ,they come as pieces which we must put together. In short, the solutions to teamwork and collaboration issues are emergent rather than fully organized. Therefore, we must come prepared for the emergent process as we seek “the solution to the problems that confront us.”

Second, Wheatley writes: “People don’t support things that are forced on them. We don’t act responsibly on behalf of plans and programs created without us. We resist being changed, not change itself.” I think in our rush to solve problems we often forget to engage with people in order that they can co-create the solutions with us. Instead, in our rush to fix problems instead of co-generate solutions, we forget that ownership of the problem and the solution is important as implementing the solution. However, when we do seek to create clarity and ownership, we build an environment where generous and open-hearted people can come together as a team or work together as teams in order to create change based on choice rather than force. 

When leaders seek to increase effective teamwork and collaboration, they are making a long term commitment to people and to process. It takes time and energy to develop a shared mindset and to create the right environment to support all involved to move forward together. Yet, when those involved understand what is normal, recognize that effective collaboration is a continuum and the sum of multiple behaviors, then all involved will rise to the challenges before them, whether this is summiting a Mount Everest level problem or going the distance over a mountain range of multiple problems.  Because in the end, as Christopher Novak noted earlier, it is all “about the people we take with us on our journey forward.” And improving teamwork and collaboration is a worthwhile journey each and every day. 

© Geery Howe 2025

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Teamwork And Collaboration - part #1

Introduction

Twenty-four years ago, John Maxwell wrote a book called The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork: Embrace Them and Empower Your Team (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001). In it, he shared “The Law of Mount Everest: As the challenge escalates, the need for teamwork elevates.” I believe that if he wrote the book this year, he would have modified The Law of Mount Everest to state that as challenge escalates, the need for teamwork and collaboration elevates. 

Christopher Novak in his book, Conquering Adversity: Six Strategies to Move You and Your Team Through Tough Times (CornerStone Leadership Institute, 2004), writes that “Collaboration is about the people we take with us on our journey forward.”

Dan Cohen in his book, The Heart of Change Field Guide: Tools and Tactics for Leading Change in Your Organization (Harvard Business School Press, 2005), notes that in the process of stakeholder enrollment collaboration needs to happen before people will commit and advocate for change. 

For me, the subject of collaboration and team work became a very big issue in the summer and fall of 2015. Everyone was talking about it and everyone one was asking questions about it. Recently, this subject has come roaring back on to my radar screen. People are once again interested in this subject and once again asking questions. All of this interest can be boiled down into one important and timely question: How can leaders increase effective teamwork and collaboration?

Three Distinctions

As we explore this subject, I think it is important to clarify three words, namely cooperation, teamwork, and collaboration. In particular, we need to understand that each word creates a different outcome. First, cooperation is an interpersonal interaction on the one to one level, and has the potential to create interpersonal synergy. In mathematical terms, one plus one has the potential to be greater than two. 

Second, teamwork is focused on intra-team interactions. In basic terms, my part plus all of your parts has the potential to create something greater than the team, i.e. the generation of collective synergy and collective results which is always greater than individual results. 

Third, collaboration is focused on inter-teams interactions. Again, in basic terms, my team engages with your team in order to create a level of holistic synergy. At this level, we are all focused on the success of the company as a whole, and the outcome is greater than individual cooperation or team work. However, we must keep in mind that cooperation, teamwork, and collaboration are all critical to short and long term success. 

The Collaboration Continuum

When we focus on collaboration, we must recognize that it is a continuum more than a specific event or singular action. In the beginning, people are working in isolation. There is no need to communicate outside the group and those involved only share with others as needed. 

Next, we see people engage in a level of consultation with other individuals and/or teams. They do this to gain perspective or understanding outside their group. Then, they take the parts that they like, and the parts that cause the least amount of disruption to their group. Still, in the end, they do what they want to do. For many, they believe that this is collaboration. 

Now some will engage in coordination but call it collaboration. I think there is a big distinction between the two. When people coordinate, they work with others outside the group to get something done. It typically starts with the “I have a plan and you have a plan” mentality. Once we recognize this, they meet to share what each have planned. Then, they work together.

However, what I have witnessed that is unique about effective collaboration is that both teams start with a joint analysis which includes an agreement about what is the problem. Next, they continue with joint planning and execution of the plan. Furthermore, they discuss the compelling reason to collaborate, and there are agreed to guidelines to the process. Then, they expect there to be trial and adaptation periods, along with reliance on each other to collectively solve problems. Ideally, each group or team integrates the solutions into what they are doing on a daily basis, too.

Finally, there is one more stage past collaboration which is rarely experienced or talked about much, namely co-creation. This follows the same path as the aforementioned effective collaboration. But they do one more thing, that from my perspective is most unique about co-creation, namely they share resources based on a high degree of personal, strategic and organizational trust. It is the resource sharing that accelerates collaboration into co-creation, and often results in very creative solutions and outcomes. 

A Shared Mindset

Recognizing the aforementioned continuum, we must realize that teamwork and collaboration begins with a shared mindset. All involved know why they need to do the work, and all involved understand what kind of problems or problems they are dealing with during teamwork and collaboration. They also know what to do and are capable of doing it. In essence, they understand the goal from an operational and strategic perspective. 

At this point, I am reminded of some thing that James Belasco and Ralph Stayer wrote years ago in their book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead (Time Warner, 1994). As they explain, "The primary purpose of strategic planning is not to strategically plan for the future, although that's an important purpose of the exercise. It is primarily to develop the strategic management mind-set in each and every individual in the organization. The purpose of the process is not only to produce a plan. It is to produce a plan that will be owned and understood by the people who have to execute it.” The critical elements within this quote are the shared strategic mindset and that the plan is owned and understood by the people who have to execute it. 

Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen in their article, “The Secrets of Great Teamwork” from the June 2016 issue of the Harvard Business Review, write that “Distance and diversity, as well as digital communication and changing membership, make them [teams] especially prone to the problems of ‘us versus them’ thinking and incomplete information…. The solution to both is developing a shared mindset among team members - something team leaders can do by fostering a common identity and common understanding.” Again, a shared mindset is critical at the team level and in the collaboration process. 

Haas and Mortensen then point out something very interesting about effective teamwork which is the necessary pre-cursor to effective collaboration. As they write, “In the past teams typically consisted of a stable set of fairly homogeneous members who worked face-to-face and tended to have a similar mindset. But that’s no longer the case, and teams now often perceive themselves not as one cohesive group but as several smaller subgroups. This is a natural human response: Our brains use cognitive shortcuts to make sense of our increasingly complicated world, and one way to deal with complexity of a 4-D team [diverse, geographically dispersed, digitally connected, and dynamic as in in frequent changes in membership] is to lump people into categories. But we also are inclined to view our own subgroup - whether it’s our function, our unit, our region, or our culture - more positively than others, and that habit often creates tension and hinders collaboration.”

The tendency to sub-divide into small groups may be normal and a cognitive coping mechanism, but in the world of teamwork and collaboration this creates major problems. Leaders have to understand this is normal, and at the exact same time, they need to work diligently on building and maintaining a shared mindset. Given we are dealing with 4-D teams more and more, and given we are wanting these teams to work better as teams, and to collaborate better with other teams, then we need to recognize that clarity about why we need to work well together, and what we needs to get done becomes mission critical to success. We also need leaders who know how to help people collaborate. 

The Sum Of Multiple Behaviors

For many years, I have explained to senior executives, leaders and managers that collaboration is the sum of multiple behaviors. It is not a singular action but the outcome of multiple choices done well over time. For me, there are three core leadership behaviors that result in effective collaboration within a team or between teams. 

The first core behavior relates to communication. When an individual or team is outside their comfort zone and struggling, we need to remember that the support of a team, a strategic perspective, and a safety zone for strategic dialogue makes a big difference. Yet, the tap root all three is the ability to create and maintain safety in communication. While this may seem simple, it is not easy because safety at this level honors both facts and feelings. When I have observed exceptional leadership that has resulted in good teamwork and good collaboration, I have noticed two elements to their communication. First, they are exceptional listeners. The second is that they are credible leaders, because they do what they say they will do. Again, this seems simple but it is not easy because to do both things well, you have to be consistent and disciplined over time

The second core behavior relates to problem solving. While most leaders focus on the solving of the problem, the best leaders focus on the word problem itself. They spend a great deal of time identifying the problems, defining the problems, and analyzing the causes of problems. This takes a great deal of time and energy, but when it does well, the execution of the solutions has greater buy-in and commitment. 

The third core behavior relates to effective planning and execution. Most leaders who want better teamwork and collaboration focus on setting goals and making sure people are executing them. And while this is important, I have noticed that once the goals are set, they often do not take into account the rise of unknown variables or unpredictable issues that surface after the goal has been written. Thus, the execution of the goal by a team or a couple of teams working together becomes problematic over time.

Yet, in circumstances where the goal is written and then executed, a greater level of team work and collaboration will surface if there are weekly tactical meetings to check on the progress related to the goal, and when their are monthly strategic reviews where all involved analyze, debate, and decide if the goal is still the right goal as critical issues, unpredictable problems, or unknown variables surface post goal writing. If so, then all involved can adapt and work collaboratively to accommodate these factors. 

Through better communication, problem solving, and planning and execution, leaders at all levels of the organization can generate effective outcomes and build capacity for future efforts.  The key is to assist people at getting better at all three of these core leadership skills. 

To be continued on Tuesday.

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change