Collaborating effectively: the 'Inverted Tardis Principle'

I recently listened to a short talk by Stephen Robertson (CEO of 'The Big Issue', a social enterprise business that helps homeless people into work). Many aspects of what he had to say made an impression on me, but one very simple thing stuck in my mind. He said that even though The Big Issue was a well-known organisation with large coverage and influence it was, in terms of its core administration and people, quite a small concern.

This characteristic of being an inverted version of Dr Who’s Tardis, of being ‘large on the outside’, in terms of reach, reputation, influence, etc., but ‘small on the inside’, in terms of people and resources and/or the way the organisation is internally organised, segmented or shaped, is a characteristic of many collaborative initiatives or, like The Big Issue, single organisations that need to collaborate to get things done.

For example the Hurley Group, a multi-practice partnership offering health services, has made itself ‘bigger on the outside’ by partnering with 18 general practices in 10 London Boroughs. Its significant presence within London has helped it increase its profile and influence and the scope and quality of its work, so enhancing the health services available to its 100,000 registered patients.

By building relationships and working collaboratively with the wide range of complementary agencies, authorities and social enterprises it overlaps, intersects with and lies beside, the multi-practice has been able to offer new and innovative services in a wide range of areas. These include asylum seeker and substance misuse services, school health and anti-bullying education, and initiatives that seek to address the wider social and community issues impacting upon health and wellbeing.

By making itself ‘smaller on the inside’ through cutting out duplication of resources and sharing administrative support services, medical facilities and equipment, the multi-practice has been able to deliver its services more efficiently.

Also, by minimising its management layers and making its internal organisational segments small scale and local, the multi-practice has been able, consistent with its aims and purpose, to empower GPs to take responsibility for their localities and make decisions and take actions that benefit their patients.

Keeping the organisational structure small scale and locally segmented, based upon the size of a traditional GP practice, encourages the multi-practice's GPs to engage meaningfully with patients, develop productive relationships with complementary local groups, agencies and businesses, and identify and take advantage of the synergies and opportunities that arise as a result. It also reassures the local population that medical resources have been allocated to their area and that these can be accessed as and when needed and, importantly, accessed via a human face.

In short, by creating a small scale segmented internal organisational structure focused upon localities, the multi-practice has created protected spaces which, whilst remaining part of the greater tapestry of the partnership, allow those working within them to think and act in ways best suited to the localities served.

Large global organisations, such as the United Nations Development Programme, work in a similar way.

They are large on the outside, with gigantic recognition and presence, which allows them to engage with and be open to many influences and potential sources of knowledge, experience, expertise and resources.

In terms of their intrinsic internal organisational structures, however, they tend to favour regional or local projects that have their own ring-fenced resources and, importantly, recognisable and accessible human faces. As with the Hurley Group example given above, this encourages those working within the projects to engage with the local population and complementary local agencies and groups. It also, again as per the above example, provides the space within which local managers, workers and volunteers can feel empowered to take advantage of the synergies and opportunities that emerge from their developing local relationships. (And once again, keeping things regional and local reassures people that they have not been forgotten and that their needs are being addressed.)

So, if you are developing a collaborative initiative or working within an organisation that relies on collaboration to get things done, be guided by the Inverted Tardis Principle. Strive to be ‘big on the outside’ in terms of coverage, presence and influence, but work hard at  keeping things ‘small on the inside’ in terms of use of resources, organisational structure and segmentation. If you do this you will, as shown by the examples given above, give your collaborative efforts the best chance of achieving their goals and realising their potential.

 

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition

The status trap and how to avoid it

What do we share? What do we keep secret? Two questions, the answers to which are crucial to a collaboration's effectiveness.

This post and the ones that follow will reveal and explore some of the complexities hidden within these two seemingly simple questions.

I will start with what I call the 'status trap':


The status trap

Take a look at the following unrelated articles from the Guardian Newspaper:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/29/gist-tony-blair-talks-george-bush-iraq-war-chilcot-inquiry

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/15/mums-carers-treated-like-criminals-hidden-cameras

The first is about the Iraq Inquiry's agreement to receive 'gists and quotes' of relevant correspondence between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush. The second examines recent calls for surveillance cameras to be installed in care homes.

Juxtaposing these two articles highlights the powerful role status plays in deciding whether or not to be open with and share information, especially when we consider what the reaction would be if the agreement and call for action were swapped between them.

Calls for the surveillance of the Prime Minister's and President's conversations would undoubtedly be dismissed outright on the basis of national security and the infringement of their personal rights to privacy, and out of respect for their respective offices.

Agreeing that care homes would only be required to submit 'selected highlights' of their work for scrutiny would also be dismissed outright on the basis that it lacked the transparency and rigour necessary to safeguard residents and the quality of their lives.

These are perfectly valid objections. However, think for a moment, the main principles underpinning them can also be swapped around:

Should not the intimate relationship between a care worker and the person they are caring for be confidential? Do not care workers and their residents have a right to privacy?  Do not care workers deserve some respect for what they do? 

Should not the decision making of powerful leaders such as Prime Minister Blair and President Bush be subject to inspection that is transparent and rigorous? Is not such transparency and rigour essential to safeguard the lives and well-being of the millions of people affected by Government decisions and actions?

If very similar arguments can be applied to either situation, what is causing the difference in the way they are perceived and addressed? It could, of course, be that context is everything, that comparing prime ministers and presidents with care workers is like comparing rhinos with wombats, that very different situations and contexts inevitably need very different approaches.

But could it also be that one group of people have high power and influence and the status that accompanies these, and the other group (including those cared for) do not? Could it just possibly be that perceived status and ensuring that it is maintained at the appropriate level (be that high or low) is playing some part in decision-making, calls for action and the taking of action?

If the answer to the above is yes, then it implies that we are vulnerable to the status trap, of putting the preservation of perceived status (be that high or low) before effectiveness.   


A preoccupation with maintaining status can have a powerful impact upon the effectiveness of collaborative working  

If the above is accepted, then the maintenance of status, which always involves limiting status somewhere else, is a powerful but often unacknowledged influence on those that make decisions and take actions, and this can be even more marked within collaborative contexts.

Consider collaborations between medical professionals, social workers, volunteers and the public. Reflect upon collaborations between law enforcement professionals and community groups. Think about collaborations between scientists and lay people, and collaborations between faith groups and charities and the people they try to help. Could it be that the decisions these initiatives make about who can see, do and be involved in what (and in what way) are often based more upon preserving status in relation to each collaborator, rather than upon deciding and doing (including sharing) the best things for all involved?


Maintaining status through what we say

If the above is true, then one of the ways organisations and other groups of people maintain status in relation to others is through the use of language. Using formal, bureaucratic or some other type of ring-fencing or distancing language can send out strong messages about who can see, be and do what, and where someone is within a pecking order.  

'Professional practice dictates...' easily translates into 'Leave this alone if you do not have professional status.' 'This needs to go before the neighbourhood or elected committee.'  effortlessly translates into 'You're not local or elected; you don't have local or elected status.' 'This type of technical data needs very careful analysis.' readily translates into 'You don't have expert status and would not understand this.' 'There are security issues here.' quickly translates into 'Keep your nose out of what does not concern you; you do not have the status of security clearance.' 'You don't understand our needs.' instantly translates into 'Don't understand our needs; we do not recognise your status.'

One of the most extreme examples came from a barrister to a victim of crime: 'You are irrelevant to the system.' which painfully translates into 'You have no status within a legal system that is going to significantly affect your life.' 

The implicit message running through all these stock phrases (which I am sure many of you will recognise) is 'We have knowledge, expertise insight and other things that give us power and status, and we will ensure that we keep this status by limiting and defining your access to them and/or the use you can make of them.' 

Now, of course there is a need for professional practice, for expert analysis, for maintaining confidentiality, for respecting local insight and elected rights, for respecting neutrality, but they should be used as tools for getting things done, not as alienating and dis-empowering 'status bullets' to aim and fire at people threatening the status quo. They should not become the weapons arming the status trap. 


Equating increased informality with decreased respect and credibility

A key reason organisations and other groups use language in the way described above is because they perceive an inverse relationship between growing informality and diminishing respect. This is because, over time, informality tends to dismantle and dissolve the formal, bureaucratic, ring-fencing or distancing language that can close off or at least restrict access to the hard-won knowledge, experience, wisdom and insights which organisations and groups perceive as being the source of the respect and credibility granted to them by others.

This perception of diminishing respect and credibility through increased informality of relationships certainly explains the suspicion many people and organisations harbour for the informal approaches so crucial to effective collaborative working. With a little reflection, however, it becomes obvious that this suspicion is unfounded and even damaging. After all, is it not what people do with their knowledge, experience, wisdom and insights, rather than their mere possession of these things, that dictates whether or not they gain respect and credibility? Suspicion can only lead to hoarding and a lack of sharing, which in turn will only lead to a lack of respect and credibility.  

When increased informality is automatically assumed to lead to a loss of respect, it is a sure sign that the status trap has sprung.   


Local idiocies

Another sure sign that a collaboration has fallen into the status trap is the presence and preservation of local idiocies: helpful information kept secret for no good reason; insisting on originals of certificates rather than allowing copies or scans, even though allowing them would make compliance to regulations much easier than otherwise; joint reviews not allowed even though they would save time and money, help join up services and increase effectiveness; decisions only permitted at specific meetings and at specific times, even though earlier and more flexible decision-making would greatly improve things; being able to hear someone read a document but not see the document itself; not being able to make copies of documents although copies are available elsewhere and the only consequence is the negative one of wasted time; not allowing local people to make decisions about local issues even though they are the people best placed to make them; insisting on unrealistic deadlines that are of no significance whatsoever; closing a route through a local park by a set time each evening, even though doing so means people have to walk at twilight along a busy, non-pavemented road.

If you spot a local idiocy, the only real purpose of which is to maintain and bolster the status of some group or organisation, you will not have to look that much harder for the status issue that is keeping it in place. You will also likely find a collaboration caught within the status trap, a collaboration that has become nothing more than a talking shop preoccupied with maintaining the status-quo amongst all involved.


How to avoid falling into the status trap

There are four ways you can avoid falling into the status trap:

1. Swap arguments to see how they fit 

As with the Iraq and care home examples given above, swap the arguments for a decision or action between different problems, situations and scenarios that present similar challenges (the Iraq and care home examples shared a preoccupation with privacy and confidentiality). If they are easily transplanted discuss why you have decided they should apply to one problem, situation or scenario and not another. If the only reasons you can find are focused upon maintaining status, you are in danger of falling into the status trap. Revisit your options again and make decisions and take actions based upon increasing effectiveness rather than upon maintaining the 'status-quo' amongst everyone involved.    

2. Express and challenge the meaning you perceive within what people say to you

People talk at us and we talk back, but much of the meaning we perceive remains unsaid within our minds. We hear the phrase 'This needs careful and complex analysis.' and we might perceive it as meaning 'You are not clever or expert enough to handle it.' If we acquiesce to and act in accordance with this unspoken perception we definitely will not be able 'to handle it' and other 'more qualified' people will take care of 'it' for us. The status quo will be maintained; we will have fallen into the status trap. If, however, we express our perception, share what we understand people to be saying to us and then challenge it, maybe we will be offered the knowledge, skills and tools to do the analysis ourselves. The status quo amongst all those involved will have changed.

3. Do not equate growing informality with diminishing respect and credibility

The best marriages are relaxed and informal, but there is also a deep and shared respect for the rules of the relationship, rules to which both parties have agreed. Courts adopt an informal, low key, relaxed approach when dealing with children and other potentially vulnerable people, but most of us would agree that due process is still maintained and respected. Informality does not have to automatically equate to disrespect as long as all parties know the boundaries of that informality, agree upon the rules that will exist within the background of their relationships, and know that they can call upon them as and when needed to regulate and govern interactions and actions.            

4. Identify, challenge and overcome local idiocies

Identify local rules and processes (like those described above), that are illogical, irrational and ineffective. They will be easy to find because they will be the focus of much frustration, irritation, and in some cases anger. Question the reason for their existence and, importantly, suggest alternative and more effective ways of getting things done. Gain help in overcoming local idiocies from those who have been frustrated, irritated and adversely affected by them. Gaining support for overcoming local idiocies is one of the best ways of catalysing people into collaborative action.

A fresh approach to the leadership of collaborations and partnership working

For an explanation of the above, which is a new way of thinking about the leadership of collaborations and partnership working, just click on my photo to your right and go to the relevant chapter.

The 3 levels of sharing and why they are important

During a lecture for the Cooperation Project at Stanford University Steve Weber, Professor of Political Science, Berkeley, identified three levels at which an organisation might need to open up, collaborate and share. 

The three levels he identified (the first level ever so slightly altered by me) are:

1. At the level of its genome, its deep DNA, or put more straightforwardly: its gut values and beliefs about its vision and purpose.
2. At the level of its processes and activities, or put more straightforwardly: how it goes about its day-to-day life and activities.
3. At the level of its products, services and knowledge, or put more straightforwardly: the stuff it produces.

Anyone working in collaboration needs to consider these three levels very carefully. This is because they help collaborations not only focus upon the right things at the right times but also identify why there are problems and failures to deliver.

Often, the focus a collaboration needs to have is obvious and straightforward: mining companies need to share their geological and technical data with others to improve their processes and the yields from their mines; oil companies need to collaborate with each other to develop new processes for getting hard to reach oil out of the ground; health, social and law enforcement agencies need to share their processes with each other in order to better wrap their services around mutual clients (for example, drug users and people with mental health issues). Banks need to align their policies with those of governments to improve the economic and social well-being of citizens. IT companies need to collaborate with each other to create new products that complement their existing platforms.      

But this bright, spotlight obviousness of focus can blind a collaboration to other areas that, if not also addressed, will impede progress and the achievement of goals: mining executives will be half-hearted in their sharing of geological and technical data if they and their companies believe in competing for scarce resources rather than collaborating to increase the abundance of resources (similarly for oil company executives and their organisations); doctors, police and social workers will not effectively wrap their services around mutual clients if they and their organisations do not deeply believe they have a social role that reaches out beyond their traditional institutional boundaries. Banking executives will pay no more than lip-service to improving the social well-being of citizens if they and their organisations believe in the creation of monetary wealth at the expense of social wealth. IT executives will miss out on new products that complement their existing offerings if they and their companies believe that technical knowledge about their hardware and software is to be hoarded for commercial advantage rather than shared for the greater good of their sector.  

If a collaboration is failing to deliver despite the obviousness and clarity of its focus and goals, the three levels above provide a strong clue as to where the problem may lie; namely, within one, some or all of the collaborating organisations' cultural DNA: their gut values and beliefs about what they are, what they stand for and what they do. 

In these circumstances each organisation needs, with the help of its collaborators, to focus upon its deep cultural values and beliefs and its assumptions about its role in the world, and then identify and address those that are creating barriers to the collaborative development of enhanced knowledge, processes, services, products or other outcomes. 

Using a tool like Johnson's Cultural Web can provide a non-invasive first step towards achieving this. It works by enabling organisations to identify specific organisational attributes that contribute to their overall cultures and influence how they view themselves and how they operate in the world.

In a collaborative context, the cultural web is best used with partner organisations. Each organisation completes a web for each of its collaborators, capturing its perceptions of its partners' cultures and beliefs and preferred ways of being viewed and doing things. It also completes a web analysis of its own culture. These webs are then compared and analysed to identify specific values, beliefs and assumptions, and preferred ways of viewing and doing things, that could be creating obstacles to progress. Once problem areas have been identified each organisation, with the help of its collaborators, can find ways of addressing them, so removing the obstacles they cause.

Splicing new cultural DNA into the existing cultural genome of an organisation is a more invasive but also more effective way of overcoming cultural blind spots and collaboration averse values and assumptions. It is achieved by injecting people from external collaborating groups and organisations into the body of an organisation and giving them meaningful control over some of its major decision-making organs and processes for getting things done. A good example is a Department of Health/NHS project focused upon introducing digital hearing aids on the NHS, which gave an influential leadership and management role to a national charity for the deaf.

So, there are three levels at which an organisation may need to open up, collaborate and share: 1. its cultural gut values, 2. its day to day activities, 3. the stuff it produces. Often the focus of collaboration is clear and obvious and easily associated with the second and/or third levels, but this can blind collaborators to other areas that may be blocking progress. These are likely to be associated with a lack of sharing and collaboration at the first level. This can be addressed by sharing perceptions of an organisation's culture, analysing them and then identifying and dealing with the areas that are causing problems. It can also be addressed by integrating people from external collaborating organisations into internal decision-making and implementation processes.

Collaboration Club of Great Britain - The Big Issue!

Click on the following link to see a short video of the Collaboration Club of Great Britain's latest meeting, and highlights of a presentation from Stephen Robertson, CEO of the Big Issue:

http://www.collaborationclub.org/

 This club will be of interest to anyone with a passion for collaboration.

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition and download it for free.

The Collaboration Club of Great Britain

If you have a passion for collaboration you will be interested in joining the Collaboration Club of Great Britain:

http://www.collaborationclub.org/

If you have talents, knowledge and skills you are willing and able to share for mutual benefit and the benefit of the wider community (and indeed the world!), just click on the above link to find out more about the Collaboration Club of Great Britain and how you can get involved. I know the Chairman, Allan Willis, will be very pleased to hear from you.

And maybe I will see you at future events or talk to you via the LinkedIn group (a link to which you will find on the website).

Charles





For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition and download it for free.

How to avoid 'doing a Justine'

Just before Christmas 2013 Justine Sacco, a PR executive, lost her job because of an offensive tweet. To see the full story click here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pr-executive-justine-sacco-apologises-after-losing-job-over-racist-aids-joke-provoked-hasjustinelandedyet-twitter-storm-9020809.html

This story is important because it demonstrates not only the power of modern social media to affect individual lives but also the inherent risks involved for any activity, including partnership and collaborative working, that uses diverse and multiple communication pathways, be these virtual or indeed face-to-face.


The key lessons from Justine's story 

Specifically, the key lessons we can take from this story are:

• Information travelling through and between multiple communication pathways will not only travel quickly but also gain increasing power and influence over people's thinking and actions. This is especially the case when the information is damaging or offensive.
• As it travels through the communication pathways the offensiveness of information is not only magnified in power but also focused back upon its source; it is associated with and projected tenfold onto the person who provided it, so causing him/her damage of various kinds (for example, reputational, professional, financial, etc.).
• Where there is no significant personal contact or relationship between those who are the source of the problematic information and those receiving and passing it on a 'game-playing' mentality will quickly form within the communication pathways; people will have fun finding creative ways to ridicule those who communicated the original message. In the above example a game of 'Has Justine Landed Yet?' was quickly initiated and thousands of people enthusiastically began to play.
• Once the original damaging information has been extensively communicated, shared and explored the information and communication pathways will become proactive; people will keep digging in the same direction for new examples of damaging and/or offensive information. And you can trust that they will eventually find them.
• One person's idea of humour can be another person's offence. (This is at the core of Justine's story.)  
• The source of the offensive information is judged and summarily punished on the basis of an ever-growing informal grapevine of negative gossip.
• When the damage has been done, traditional ritualistic apologies are ineffective.
• Eventually, after the damaging or offensive information has been widely communicated and its source extensively ridiculed, after the game has played itself out, some positive aspects of the situation will be identified and acted upon.

The above lessons have obvious significance for those involved in collaborative working, which relies on effective communication with and between multiple players who have diverse connections and wide-ranging communication pathways. If bad news travels fast within the informal grapevine of a single organisation think how quickly and widely it will travel through multiple networked organisations, how powerful and influential it will become, how damaging.


How to avoid 'doing a Justine' 

The way to avoid the above problems, the way to avoid 'doing a Justine', are implied within the hard learnt lessons themselves, and they can be summed up as follows:

• Help people to get to know something of the real person. Build personal relationships and meaningful connections with the people you are communicating and collaborating with. This is perhaps difficult to do effectively or safely through social media, but steps towards achieving it can be taken even here. You need to do your best to align everything you say and write, including passing comments, quick tweets and  Facebook posts, with your personal beliefs and values. Put more simply, ask yourself what you are passionate about, what you really care about, and always align your communication with it. People will then begin to know you and trust what you stand for. They will also be more willing to forgive the occasional slip-up you may make (something we are all guilty of from time to time). 
• Do not rely on ritualistic apologies. If you are going to apologise do so with a meaningful act that will reverberate through the communication pathways, encouraging positive rather than negative gossip. For example, perhaps Justine could have set up a website for donations to an Aids charity, posted her apology on it and started donating money herself. What actually happened was that someone else did this, so Justine lost that particular opportunity. (There were, however, some concerns expressed about the authenticity of the website that was set up - such is life on the web!)  
• The above leads to this next point: if the worst happens remember that somewhere down the line there will be some positive consequences. Try to identify what these positive consequences will be and do your best to make them happen before anyone else does. This will help you rebuild your credibility as quickly as  possible.
• Avoid jokes of any kind until you know your network and collaborators. Always avoid obviously offensive jokes; Justine's experience makes the importance of this self evident. Remember that there is a difference between being pleasantly informal and friendly and trying to gain attention and popularity through being humorous. The latter is seldom effective, and if it is the effects are not long lasting.
• Accept that the boundaries between formal and informal and public and private worlds are becoming increasingly blurred. Remember that all of us are potentially on show all of the time. Not a nice thought perhaps, but more and more of a reality none-the-less. Bring this thought to the front of your mind as you say or write that comment, make that telephone call, post that tweet or Facebook comment.
• Be honest and open. If there are more skeletons in the cupboard shake them out in front of people before you hear the death rattle of someone else discovering them. Demonstrated honesty will slow down the negative gossip about you, quicken the consequences of additional bad news (which means they will be over with that much sooner than otherwise), and provide a small but firm platform of positivity upon which you can start to rebuild your reputation and relationships.       

A final thought 

Most of the above can be summed up by the following phrase:

 'Always think carefully before you say or write anything.' 

But no one is capable of this, not all the time; we are not robots. So if 'doing a Justine' cannot be avoided one other thing is needed: forgiveness.


For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition