Comfort Zones & Safety Zones

When dealing with adaptive challenges and complex adaptive systems, we have to remember that “humans tend to regard chaotic that which they can not control”, notes Richard Pascale, Mark Millemann and Linda Gioja in their book, Surfing The Edge of Chaos: The Laws of Nature and the New Laws of Business (Three Rivers Press, 2000). When we operate within our comfort zones, we can, for the most part, achieve a degree of control, order, and predictability. Most of our problems or challenges are technical in nature and do not call into question fundamental beliefs, choices, or habits. 

However, once we are outside our comfort zone, the world around us starts to feel like a chaos zone or even worse, a panic zone. We are overwhelmed and stressed, struggling to process numerous variables and opinions over which we have minimum, if any, influence, control, or input. 

While we may intellectually understand that true change does not occur until we step outside our comfort zone, I believe that when we deal with complexity and adaptivity, we also experience loss. We loose not just the familiar, but our confidence, clarity, and competence. We are unsure whether or not we have the capacity at the personal or the professional levels to deal with the problems and challenges before us. We also are unsure whether the organization has the capacity to deal with it, too. The combination is very difficult for all involved. 

Simultaneously, as we step outside our comfort zone, we lose the feeling of being connected to others. We tend to feel alone with the challenges before us. And this loss impacts our ability to self-govern or self-direct the choices before us. 

The outcome of this experience, and the related feelings is that we experience something called disjointed incrementalism, i.e. we know where we want to go, but we are not sure exactly how to get there. Many leaders in situations of this nature are worried about the uncertainties and difficulties that come with dealing with complexity. They may even feel confused about what is most important to do first. 

I think the difficulty of this situation is that when we are inside our comfort zone, there is an assumption, and often the experience, that change will be predictable. We assume our actions and our plans will all work. We assume that  there is a degree of normal predictability and control during their implementation. Furthermore, there is the assumption that a solution is known in advance and the systems are present to implement it.

However, with complexity and adaptive challenges, this is not the case. The continual dynamic nature of the situation generates risks and unknown variables which can not be controlled or made predictable. Therefore, we have to create new choices and new ways of doing things. 

When effective people move outside their comfort zone, they need to find or create, and then maintain a safety zone. This is very important because when dealing with complex and adaptive challenges, we have to recall that they will require a new perspective, expertise, and solutions. They also call into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Plus these same complex and adaptive challenges can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties. Doing this level of work and leading others through it without a safety zone is a pathway to disastrous results. 

If, on the other hand, we recognize this element of the work and understand the importance of safety zones, then we can create them. The first step is to build healthy and supportive teams. This relationship-centric approach recognizes that when we are a part of a safe and trustworthy, relationship environment, we are willing and able to ask questions and seek new answers. 

The second step is to “zoom out before zooming in,” referencing the work by Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen in their book, Great By Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck - Why Some Thrive Despite Them All (HarperCollins, 2011). The goal here is to create and to maintain strategic perspective, not just operational execution. By seeing the bigger picture and understanding how the trends and the risk profiles are changing, we then are able to make better decisions and develop contingency plans as needed. 

The third step is to focus on making sure it is safe to engage in strategic level dialogue. The goal here is generate healthy, interactive levels of communication so people can think through what is happening. As Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012), reminds us: “People will not actively commit to a decision if they have not had the opportunity to provide input, ask questions, and understand the rationale behind it.  Another way to say this is, ‘If people don’t weigh in, they don’t buy in’.” When dealing with complexity, we want people to buy in and we want them to work as one team given the dynamic nature of the challenge before them. 

Every day, we default to our comfort zones. But during times of complex adaptive challenges, we need to create new safety zones  in order that we can transform what feels chaotic into a surmountable challenge. It takes time and effort to do this work. It also is worth the investment in the short and long haul. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Two Important Questions

Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky in their book, Leadership On The Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading (Harvard Business School Press, 2002) write that the “single most common source of leadership failure --- treat adaptive challenges like technical challenges.” I think this is the result of default thinking and problem solving. 

As Margaret Wheatley wrote years ago, “When confronted with the unknown, we default to the known.” And the default is to define all problems as technical problems. In part, I think this happens, because we are in a comfort zone when we do it. However, over time and when dealing with complex and adaptive situations, this is not always the best choice or the right choice. It merely is a default choice. 

Still, recognizing that the role of leadership is to challenge status quo, and, at times, to change it rather than just to maintain it, we need to to help ourselves and the organization move through the uncomfortable, but normal process of adaptive problem solving. We also have to work on the organization instead of defaulting to only working within it, i.e. solving technical problems. 

One outcome of working on the organization is that we also have to work on ourself and our choices as a leader. And therefore when we choose to do this level of work, we have to ask two uncomfortable questions. First, can I do this? Second, do I have the capacity and support to meet this challenge? 

We need to ask these questions and we need enter into the world of the personal, because we routinely default to the professional or business mindset. We get so busy some days that we forget that leading other people is personal, not just professional. As leaders, we want people to like us and to agree with us. And, though we rarely admit it, we often feel vulnerable at the personal, not just the professional levels when it comes to dealing with complexity and adaptability issues. 

After many decades of coaching people, I regularly have to point out to people in leadership positions that resistance to change is normal, and a form of feedback. It may feel personal and uncomfortable. But given our role and our job within the organizational chart, we must deal with these challenges and problems. While it is hard to separate role form self, it is important to do it. 

Still, we have to learn how to be present with the uncomfortable work of dealing with complexity on the professional and personal levels. “When we attempt to eliminate the personal,” writes John Paul Lederach in his book, the Moral Imagination: The Art And Soul Of Building Peace (Oxford University Press, 2005), “we lose sight of ourselves, our deeper intuition, and the source of our understandings - who we are and how we are in the world. In so doing we arrive at a paradoxical destination: We believe in the knowledge we generate but not in the inherently messy and personal process by which we acquired it.” As he continues, “We must envision our work as a creative act, more akin to the artistic endeavor than the technical process…. the capacity to imagine something rooted in the challenges of the real world yet capable of giving birth to that which does not yet exist.”

In the end, the two questions, namely “Can I do this?”, and “Do I have the capacity and support to meet this challenge?”, need to be confronted and addressed. Inner clarity and confidence is the first step to dealing with complex adaptive systems, complex market conditions, and ultimately leading through complexity. While we may not have all the answers, we can call on our inner strength, clarity, and capacity to ask the right questions, engage in thoughtful dialogue, and discover realistic solutions to the adaptive and dynamic problems before us. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Leading Through Complexity

Currently, quite a few organizations have grown to the point that they are now serving a diverse collection of communities spread out over a large geographic area. This is the result of the company consistently pursuing a series of strategic goals during the last 10 - 15 years. Now that they achieved this desired outcome, they are encountering a unique set of problems. 

One of the most interesting problems, which has surfaced as a result of all this strategic growth, has come in the form of a question: How do we build on the local service opportunities and meet the local needs of each community we serve, and also keep consistency in certain systems and processes across the entire company? 

The original intent of the strategic growth was to honor local choices, local needs, and local decision-making within each community. And, at the exact same time, it was to build a comprehensive and integrated service delivery platform across the entire company footprint. 

The obvious problem moving forward is how to balance local needs with corporate needs and corporate infrastructure. This problem is not going away and will require executives and managers to lead and work within complex adaptive situations and systems on a regular basis. And this is going to be very hard to do during the next 5-7 years because we are dealing with on-going complexity and working through on-going adaptive problems, which is not a primary skill set for many people in leadership position. Still, it is possible to do this level of work in a thoughtful and careful manner once a common framework and understanding is built. 

Words Matter

The best leaders and managers understand that initiating strategic growth and maintaining strategic growth are two completely different actions. Typically, the essential elements for maintaining growth are completely missing in most strategic plans. There is an assumption that SOP, standard operating procedures or processes, will handle all the problems that will surface. However, in a wildly dynamic market environment and when the geographic foot print is wide and diverse, there rarely is enough time for the “standard” within standard operating procedures to be established before it needs to change. 

In order to lead well through complexity and periods of volatile adaptivity, common language and a shared understanding about the meaning of key words is mission critical to effective problem solving and decision-making. When all gathered hold these common definitions and understanding, i.e. common language, it gives all involved the capacity to plan well and the capacity to execute the plan well through dynamic challenges before the organization. 

The first words that need to be defined are technical problems and adaptive problems. As Ron Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World (Harvard Business Press, 2009), explain that when solving a technical problem “the solution falls within the range of current problem solving expertise.” The problem is clearly defined and there are known solutions. The goal then is to “apply the right person or tool to the problem to create right solution.” In essence, the problem “can be fixed by applying existing skills, resources and processes.”

An adaptive problem, or what is often called an “adaptive challenge,” notes the above authors, is one that “requires a new perspective, expertise, and solutions, lest the organization decline.” The challenge to solving this kind of problem is that “defining the problem may require learning,” and “calls into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs.” Furthermore, an adaptive problem “can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties.” In short, it “requires new ways of thinking.”

The second words that need to be defined are complicated and complex. Complicated change requires expertise, planning, execution, effort, and the tracking of key performance indicators or metrics. The result is a series of predictable outcomes. For example, a car is a complicated machine. An expert mechanic can figure out a problem with it, take it a part, and reassemble it without changing much except the broken part. The car is static and the whole is the sum of its parts.

On the other hand, complex change also requires expertise, planning, execution, effort, and the tracking of key performance indicators or metrics. However, the result is an unpredictable outcome, because when things are complex, they also are constantly changing or as some people say “dynamic.” For example, a Brazilian rainforest is complex. The rainforest is in constant flux and the weather patterns are always changing. At the same time, the animal species change or can go extinct. Next, local agriculture impacts the water moving through the rain forest. Thus, the whole is far more than the sum of its parts. And most of what we understand about the rainforest, we understand in retrospect. In short, complexity makes problem solving and execution more difficult. And given current events, we are dealing with more and more complex organizational changes and complex market conditions.

The third words that need to be defined are operational leadership, or often called management, and strategic leadership. Joel Kurtzman in his book,  Common Purpose: How Great Leaders Get Organizations to Achieve The Extraordinary (Jossey-Bass 2010), is one of the best places to turn to when explaining the difference. As he writes, “Strategic leaders are people within organizations who plot the course... Strategic leaders generally can think far into the future...The best of these people understand where the future is going and how to get there.” He continues by explaining that “The role of operational leaders is quite different from those of strategic leaders. Operational leaders make certain the trains run on time, the manufacturing processes are adequate, the logistics systems work, the technicians are well trained, and the the trucks are where they are supposed to be.... like strategic leaders, operational leaders are vital to an organization’s success.”

The fourth word that needs to be defined is capacity. This is a tricky word and it is used often in the world of leadership and organizational change. The dictionary defines the word, capacity, with two very different definitions, namely “the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating” and “the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.” Having spent decades teaching leadership and organizational change, I have often pointed out to students that the word capacity has a dual meaning. One definition is about how people think, i.e. “the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating.” The second definition is about how they work, i.e. ““the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.” It is critical then that when we use the word, we be clear about whether we are speaking about thinking or executing. 

Furthermore, when it comes to dealing with complexity and adaptive problems, we need to understanding that the capacity to plan does not always translate into the capacity to execute. Each requires a unique skill set. Margaret Wheatley in her book, Margaret J. Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time (Berrett-Koehler, 2005) notes that “All change results from a change in meaning.” From my vantage point, the first change to make is to be sure we all hold the same meaning and understanding of key words as we determine what is the best course of action at the local and/or corporate levels when dealing with complexity and dynamic local market conditions. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

People Smart - What Does That Mean? - part #2

With the three core beliefs that I shared yesterday in this blog, individuals who are people smart also engage in three core actions. The first core action is that they notice when things are going right. On one hand, this seems simplistic. However, I spent years as a consultant starting meetings with two questions: “What’s going right? And why did it happen?” The sharing that followed was always insightful and transformative for those gathered. 

We have to realize that most people at work and at home focus on problems and how to fix them. They are solutions focused and outcome driven. And yet, individuals, who are people smart, recognize that people are often the source of the problem. Their choices and their mindset are generating the problems. 

Furthermore, people smart individuals know that catching people doing something right and noticing it tends to increase the possibility of someone doing the same thing again. As Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall in their book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2019) writes “… people need attention and when you give it to us in a safe and nonjudgemental environment, we will come and stay and play and work…. Positive attention… is thirty times more powerful than negative attention in creating high performance on a team.” As they continue, “If you want your people to learn more, pay attention to what’s working for them right now, and then build on that…. get into the conscious habit of looking for what’s going well for each of your team members.…By getting him to think about specific things that are going right, you are deliberately altering his brain chemistry so that he can be open to new solutions and new ways of thinking and acting.” In short, such a simple act as building on what is going right has a transformational impact on so many levels.

The second core action is that individuals who are people smart build on strengths. They do not focus just on correcting weaknesses. As Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman in their seminal book, First, Break All The Rules: What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently (Simon & Schuster, 1999), wrote, “People don’t change that much. Don’t waste time trying to put in what was left out. Try to draw out what was left in. That is hard enough.” As they continue, “Focus on each person’s strengths and manage around their weaknesses.” 

Six years later, Marcus Buckingham in his book, The One Thing You Need to Know ... About Great Managing, Great Leading, and Sustained Individual Success (Free Press, 2005), builds on this point and states that great managing happens when we “select people effectively, set expectations by defining clearly the outcomes you want [and] motivate people by focusing on their strengths.” Finally in 2019, Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall in their book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2019), capture the essence of this core action by writing: “Something you are good at” is not a strength; it is an ability…. A strength, on the other hand, is an “activity that makes you feel strong.”…. It is this combination of three distinct feelings - positive anticipation beforehand, flow during, and fulfillment afterward - that makes a certain activity a strength.” Individuals who are people understand why building on strengths is the right choice and routinely do it with everyone. 

The third core action is that individuals who are people smart create partners and colleagues, not followers and subordinates. To grasp this powerful action, we first must remember something Margaret Wheatley wrote many years ago: “When confronted with the unknown, we default to the known.” And for individuals who are not people smart, this default is typically to choose command and control forms of leadership and relationships. 

From my perspective, this is a great leap back wards. Life, organizational change, and people working with people is always messy and surprising. Sometimes, we are delightfully surprised by people being their best selves and other times we see their worst. Still, the default choice can not be to control others, because then we are creating an environment where people will need to hide their true identities, thoughts, and feelings in order to fit in. 

Furthermore, individuals, who are people smart, recognize that leadership and just working with others can be not solely defined by the use of authority, power, or influence over others. All successful action between people happens when another person is willing, i.e they are committed and motived, plus able, i.e. has the knowledge and the skills, to do what needs to get done. When we choose to build colleagues and partners, rather than followers or subordinates, we are empowering everyone to rise to the challenges before them and work together toward successful outcomes. In short, we are co-creating the solutions to the present moment and a better future down the road. 

If we seek, at the start of each new day, for people to “specialize in the impossible,” and if we comprehend that in this “fast-changing global marketplace, the half-life of core competencies grows shorter” plus that the only competency that last is “the ability to create a steady, self-renewing stream of leaders,” then we must commit to hiring and retaining people who are humble, hungry and people smart. And for them to be people smart, we must support and educate them about the following three core beliefs: everyone is unique, clarity creates right action, and compassion matters. This must be followed up by supporting and educating people about the following three core actions: people need to notice when things are going right, build on strengths, and create partners and colleagues, not followers and subordinates. The combination of these three beliefs and these three core actions are, in my opinion, the defining difference in individuals who are people smart. And given current affairs, we need a lot more people who are people smart if we are going to figure out how to deal with today’s technical and adaptive problems plus be well positioned for what is coming in the next 2-3 years. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

People Smart - What Does That Mean? - part #1

Theodore Roethke, United States poet and educator who lived between 1908 - 1963, wrote: "What we need is more people who specialize in the impossible.” Given the challenges before society and business at this time period, I agree 100%. 

“However, iIf business managed their money as carelessly as they managed their people,” write Bill Conaty and Ram Charan in their book, The Talent Masters: Why Smart Leaders Put People Before Numbers (Crown Business, 2010), “most would be bankrupt.” As they continue, “In the fast-changing global marketplace, the half-life of core competencies grows shorter…. Only one competency lasts. It is the ability to create a steady, self-renewing stream of leaders.” And I believe those leaders need to mobilize people to work as a team that can “specialize in the impossible.”

Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Ideal Team Player: How to Recognize And Cultivate The Three Essential Virtues (Jossey-Bass, 2016), writes “I think the problem is that we’ve failed to define what being a team player requires.… real teamwork requires tangible, specific behaviors: vulnerability-based trust, healthy conflict, active commitment, peer-to-peer accountability, and a focus on results.” As he continues, ideal team players “are humble, hungry, and smart…. Leaders who can identify, hire, and cultivate employees who are humble, hungry, and smart will have a serious advantage over those who can not.”

Lencioni defines humble in the following manner: “Great team players lack excessive ego or concerns about status. They are quick to point out the contributions of others and slow to seek attention for their own.” He defines hungry this way: “Hungry people are always looking for more…. a manageable and sustainable commitment to doing a job well and going above and beyond when it is truly required.” Finally, he defines smart as follows: “… smart simply refers to a person’s common sense about people… interpersonally appropriate and aware…. Smart people just have good judgement and intuition around the subtleties of group dynamics and the impact of their words and actions.”

I think the challenge for us at this time period is that we have made an assumption that most people are people smart when in reality this is not the case. In particular, we assume that people in leadership positions are people smart and thus they can develop this in others over time. The difficulty is that we use the term, but do not define it in great depth. 

From my experience, leaders, who are people smart, and who create and support others to be this way too, understand that leadership is a set of beliefs and daily practices woven into the very fabric of their daily individual and communal life. It is not just getting things done. It is really about creating the capacity for people to make the right choices at the right time given the situation before them. 

While there are many books written about what is the right leadership mindset to have, I want to focus on three core beliefs that I believe make a profound difference and are essential in being people smart. The first core belief is that everyone is unique. As Marcus Buckingham in his book, The One Thing You Need to Know ... About Great Managing, Great Leading, and Sustained Individual Success (Free Press, 2005), wrote: “To excel as a manager you must never forget that each of your direct reports is unique and that your chief responsibility is not to eradicate this uniqueness, but rather to arrange roles, responsibilities, and expectations so that you can capitalize upon it. The more you perfect this skill, the more effectively you will turn talents into performance.” 

I have shared the above quote in seminars, workshops, keynotes, and long, in-depth trainings since it was first published back in 2005. And many people have focused on the words “to arrange roles, responsibilities, and expectations so that you can capitalize upon it.” While these are important components of leading and managing people, I think there is not enough focus on the words “each of your direct reports is unique.” Individuals, who are people smart, fundamentally believe in the worth and dignity of each person. They choose to never put someone’s self-worth into the equation of getting something done, i.e. belittling someone or making them feel less than because they did not perform perfectly or achieve a new level of innovation. 

These same leaders also understand something that Brene’ Brown in her book, Daring Greatly: How the Courage to be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent and Lead (Avery 2012), writes: “Vulnerability is the core, the heart, the center of meaningful experiences.” When we start with the belief that everyone is unique, we choose to humanize the work place, avoiding the common choice of using shame or fear to motivate people to be more engaged. Instead, we understand that work and, life in general, comes with uncertainty, risk and difficulties. We all feel vulnerable and exposed. Yet, when the work place is built upon an understanding and foundation that all people have dignity and self-worth just as they are, then what follows are healthy relationships. And healthy relationships are at the core of all successful organizations. 

The second core belief is that clarity creates right action. So many leaders who struggle focus on execution and doing things to get them done. And I agree that this is important. However, the precursor to right action is clarity. As Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012), notes that creating clarity “is all about alignment…. Within the context of making an organization healthy, alignment is about creating so much clarity that there is as little room as possible for confusion, disorder, and infighting to set in. Of course, the responsibility for creating that clarity lies squarely with the leadership team.” 

People smart individuals recognize that questions about WHAT are secondary to questions about WHY. As Kevin Cashman, Global Leader of CEO & Enterprise Leader Development at Korn Ferry, wrote many years ago, “Leaders get what they exhibit and what they tolerate.” When we choose to exhibit and tolerate silo thinking, politics, and turf battles, all of which reflect a high degree of confusion, we are, in essence, condoning organizational and professional misalignments. And this foundation never leads to right or effective action. However, clarity and alignment build trust and ultimately generate sustainable outcomes. 

The third core belief is that compassion matters. During many years of teaching leadership, I have pointed out that words matter. As Krista Tippett in her book, Becoming Wise: An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living (Penguin Press, 2016), wrote, “I take it as an elemental truth of life that words matter. This is so plain that we can ignore it a thousand times a day. The words we use shape how we understand ourselves, how we interpret the world, how we treat others. From Genesis to the aboriginal songlines of Australia, human beings have forever perceived that naming brings the essence of things into being. The ancient rabbis understood books, texts, the very letters of certain words as living, breathing entities. Words make worlds.” This is a profound and an extremely important truth in the world of leadership.  Words shape understanding and they create clarity. But from my vantage point, compassion also matters, too. 

“Compassion is fueled by understanding and accepting that we’re all made of strength and struggle,” writes Brene’ Brown in her book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience (Random House, 2021). As she continues, “no one is immune to pain or suffering. Compassion is not a practice of ‘better than’ or ‘I can fix you’ - it’s a practice based in the beauty and pain of shared humanity.” 

Individuals, who are people smart, recognize that life is the combination of strength and struggle. And that our shared humanity is a strong foundation for resilience and clarity. As Brown explains, compassion “recognizes the suffering of another as a reflection of our own pain: “I understand this; I suffer in the same way.” It is empathetic, a mutual connection with the pain and sorrow of life. Compassion is shared suffering.” When people on teams and in leadership positions understand that we all suffer, then all involved will engage and commit to a course of action from a different level of perspective. The key is to remember that all people are trying to do their best with the information and tools that are available to them. When leaders comprehend that everyone is unique and that clarity creates right action, then they will choose compassion and empathy. They understand that difficulties are a normal part of life. 

FYI: to be continued on Tuesday. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Collaboration - What Does That Mean? - part #2

From my experience, most people assume that the entire goal of collaboration is to get something done, hopefully better and faster than when they work by themselves. But what most people don’t understand is that when we seek to collaborate with others, we have to give up control, i.e. controlling all the details, controlling other people, and even controlling the outcome of certain situations. This is not talked about when it comes to collaboration, and yet it is the source of so many problems when collaboration does not go well. 

To solve the many problems that come with the desire for better or improved collaboration, we have to think of the concept as a combination of two things, each intertwined and impacting the others. First, as I noted earlier, collaboration is a mindset. It’s how we think about the process of working with others. Second, it is a set of behaviors that result in this thing we ultimately call collaboration. Now, some people define collaboration as either a mindset or a set of core behaviors. They are not willing to embrace “the Genius of the AND,” referencing the work and research of Jim Collins. 

I think one of the biggest challenges is not the mindset issue. Most people can understand the reason for collaboration once it is shared and discussed. But, they often struggle with how to actually do collaboration. People can slowly get their mind around the idea that collaboration takes sharing, coordination, co-creation, and accountability. For many, this makes sense, but once the meeting has started, or the project charter is defined and then the project is initiated, then various problems surface and they surface quickly. 

Recognizing that collaboration is a set of behaviors, we need to unpack and explore the various key behaviors within it. The first behavior is to work as one team. The challenge with this idea is that very few people have worked on a highly functional team. Most have only worked in single leader work groups where everything from problem-solving to decision-making has to go through a single leader. In order for members from various teams to come together and to collaborate well with others, the first step is relationship building. People need to trust each other and to have a relationship-centric approach to collaboration more than a solutions focus and a “get it done” focus. Over time, a relationship centric approach builds the capacity to collaborate through multiple problems, adaptive or technical, and through multiple complex and complicated situations. 

The second behavior is to communicate clearly and effectively. Most leaders think this translates into speaking clearly and often. However, the best and most effective forms of collaboration I have witnessed over multiple decades, always starts with better listening rather than better talking. The goal, referencing an old Stephen Covey adage, is to “seek first to understand, second to be understood.” 

This concept makes sense only if one grasps the difference between having an awareness of what is going on vs. having an understanding. When people begin the journey to effective collaboration, they start from the place of being unaware. Often, those involved are coming together for different reasons. Some have a goal in mind and others have a problem they are trying to solve. Many times, they are using the same words but holding fundamentally different definitions as to what they mean. The result over time is significant miscommunication or misinterpretation around key information. 

The other problem that experienced leaders understand is simple, but not easy. Awareness is not understanding. We can be aware of a problem or a goal, and at the exact same time not fully understand it. If you are a parent of teenagers or have been a parent of teenagers, this makes complete sense. People who understand something see the holistic implications of what is taking place and recognize the interdependencies and connections of people, systems, structure and culture. They understand that today’s problems and challenges often reflect strategic decisions made 5 - 7 years ago.  

Thus, people, who seek successful collaboration, start by building trusting relationships and then focus on effective communication. They build understanding by creating clarity about four specific things. First, making sure all involved are clear about the purpose or why behind the need to collaborate. Second, they hold a common understanding and/or picture of what done well looks like during and after the period of collaboration takes place. Third, they understand the plan of action that requires collaboration. Fourth, they understand their role in the plan of action. These four things are the foundation of their clarity and understanding and are then transformational to their ability communication effectively, before, during and after collaboration. 

The third behavior is to make effective decisions. Most people think of decision-making as a binary process, i.e. made vs. not made. Those who in engage in successful collaboration frame decision making as a four stage process, namely preparing to make a decision, making a decision, executing a decision, and evaluating a decision. It is the sum of all four steps that builds trust at a group level plus understanding, clarity, and ownership of the decisions being made. 

One critical element to effective decision-making, and ultimately to effective and successful collaboration, is that all involved think through the impact and precedent being set during the decision making process. All involved know this is important because they recognize that on any given work day, someone may be suffering from strategic blindness, namely that they can not see the company’s strategy or strategic intent at the company level rather than just at the department level. Or they are suffering from context blindness, namely they can not see the environmental context within which the whole organization is working and moving through. Thus, when the discussion of impact and precedence happens during decision-making, those involved in effective collaboration check to make sure they are not missing something that over time could become a strategic problem or an operational blunder. 

Along with the above three key behaviors, there is one other element that is critical to successful collaboration, namely the role of managers, and leaders. It is this group of people who can make or break collaboration. Their actions can create the right kind of work environment or a toxic work environment. Referencing the work of Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Truth About Employee Engagement: A Fable About Addressing the Three Root Causes of Job Misery, formerly called The Three Signs of a Miserable Job: A Fable for Managers (and their employees) (Jossey-Bass 2007), effective people in management and leaderships do three specific things. First, they really know their people. Second, they help people know who their work impacts and how. Third, they help these same people also know how to assess their own progress or success. It is the combination of these three factors, which are all highly influenced by the actions of people in management and leadership positions, that create the environment for effective collaboration to take place. 

In summary, the need for collaboration within a company is mission critical to being successful given the challenges within the current market place. We all know we need to solve problems faster and to innovate more quickly.  The goal is to create better solutions and results. Effective collaboration is the pathway to these outcomes. Once all understand what it means, then those involved can quickly come together and work with others to do things that move the company in the right direction. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257