Interested in time travel? Vary and balance your time speed

(To see the other posts in this series go to the March and April 2018 Blog Archive.)


Collaborations need to vary and balance their 'time speed': they need to work within slow 'evolutionary' time and fast 'urgent' time.

Slow evolutionary time slows apparent progress but increases innovation. It encourages people to think transformationally and plan strategically: to reflect, to create and share knowledge, and seek lasting consensus inside and outside a collaboration that will ensure effective and lasting results.

Fast urgent time quickens apparent progress but decreases innovation. It encourages people to think transactionally and plan tactically: to cut quick, often bilateral, deals inside and outside a collaboration that will immediately gain demanded results.

The need to vary and attain a balance between these time speeds is illustrated by the experiences of Regional and Local Strategic Partnerships in the UK. When these partnerships were first created, a strategic planning cycle of three years was imposed. This created an imbalance in the time speeds applied to the partnership: fast urgent time was emphasised at the expense of slow evolutionary time; deals were cut to ensure short-term wins rather than knowledge created and shared to realise superior and lasting results. When the effects of this imbalance were recognised, they were addressed by increasing the planning cycle to five years. This encouraged partnerships to invest in slow evolutionary time to enhance the quality of their results.

The tensions created by the need to work in both slow and fast time further complicate the mix of clashing time perceptions and preferences present within a collaboration. (The most significant ones have previously been described here and here.) People often feel pulled in one direction or another by the demands of one or other of these time speeds, and people's perceptions about how quickly things need to be achieved and preferences for specific periods of time (e.g., the past or the future in general, or past or future agreements and actions) will often subtly influence the direction they favour.

Those who favour the past will demand things slow down so the collaboration can reflect upon the achievements of the past and how they can be safeguarded and built upon. Those who favour the future will not hesitate to create a feeling of momentum that will carry the collaboration speedily towards the demands of the urgent new challenges they have identified as important. Those who perceive the collaborative 'watched pot never boiling' will obviously embrace the demands of fast urgent time; those not watching or caring about the collaborative pot's rate of temperature increase will be content to let 'evolution' take its cause'.

Behavioural cues of a preference for slow evolutionary time or fast urgent time are virtually the same as those previously described here. However, the motivations for these preferences are different. The motivations for preferring particular time periods or having specific perceptions of time are based upon personal habit and experience and/or influenced by the interests, cultures and priorities of organisations, etc. The motivations for preferring evolutionary slow time or urgent fast time are more fundamental: the former is based upon the motivation to be effective above all else; the latter is based upon the motivation to be efficient above all else. In this sense, the respective motivations for preferring either slow evolutionary time or fast urgent time could be said to be 'purer' than those driving preferences for specific time periods or specific ways of perceiving the passing and pace of time.

Why is this significant?

It is significant because the more fundamental motivations that lie behind slow evolutionary time and fast urgent time are likely to exist within and influence the behaviour of all partners, regardless of partners' or partners' organisations' preferences for specific time periods (e.g., the past or the future) or habitual ways of perceiving the passing and pace of time. This means that tapping into these fundamental motivations can be a powerful way of creating a pulse or feel of time that all those working within a collaboration are comfortable with and willing to help maintain.

And an important aspect of the above 'pulse and feel of time' is attaining a balance between slow evolutionary time and fast urgent time that is appropriate and effective for the collaboration.

The previously described mix of time preferences and perceptions will still rub-up against and tangle with each other, causing external scaring and internal conflicts and damage, but the fundamental need for effectiveness (through investment in slow evolutionary time) and efficiency (through application of fast urgent time) will ensure the vital organs of the collaboration remain intact and that its heart continues to power the flow of the collaboration's activity and progress.

To tap into partners' fundamental need to be efficient (through applying fast urgent time) and effective (through investing in slow evolutionary time) two things need to be done: 

1. The clutter of time perceptions and preferences that partners bring with them based on their habits and experiences and work with other organisations need to be temporarily put to one side.
2. Partners need to be encouraged to see the collaboration they are working within as an independent entity with its own unique needs and potential.       

A practical way of achieving this is to make partners aware of the collaborative conundrum and then use 'Doughnut Thinking' to emphasise the independence and uniqueness of the collaboration.

The collaborative (or partnership) conundrum states the following:

'Partnerships are formed to achieve new things and transform situations. Exactly what these can and will be, however, cannot be known until the partners have come together and begun communicating and sharing their opinions, experiences, knowledge and skills, etc.'

Drawing partners' attention towards this conundrum will create a necessary gap between the demands and goals of the collaboration's work and partners' responses to them.

Without this gap, partners will likely respond with their habitual ways of seeing and doing things (including the way they perceive and manage time); the shadow of old thinking and doing will be cast over the new demands and unique potential of the collaboration, limiting its efficiency and effectiveness. Most crucially, the collaboration's ability to innovate will be significantly diminished.                     
                
With this gap, however, partners will be able to collect their immediate reactions (including their habitual ways of perceiving and managing time) and put them to one side for a while. They will then increase their openness to new ideas and approaches and their motivation to use them to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the collaboration. Most crucially, the collaboration's ability to innovate will be significantly increased.

Once this gap has been created, 'Doughnut Thinking' (which has previously been described here) will help partners address the collaborative conundrum. Doughnut Thinking will encourage partners to not only see the collaboration as an independent entity possessing its own unique mix of people, experiences, knowledge, expertise, skills and potential, etc., but also identify those things that can be done and achieved that could not be done and achieved (or, most probably, even thought of) before the collaboration formed. 

To encourage partners to gain a balance between effectiveness (slow evolutionary time) and efficiency (fast urgent time) that is most appropriate to the collaboration, partner's Doughnut Thinking must focus on not only what the collaboration can do but also how it will do it. (When and where will it do it and, importantly, how will it invest and use the time needed to do it effectively and efficiently?)

By creating a gap between the stimulus of the collaboration's demands and goals and partners' responses to them, the chance is created to clear away partners' habitual and often limiting ways of thinking and doing. 

When partners grasp this chance and begin to see the uniquely challenging and opportunity rich nature of the collaborative work before them, it is likely they will appreciate the need for (and be motivated to find) new ways to be efficient and effective. These will include finding new ways to manage the balance between slow evolutionary time and fast urgent time rather than favouring one above the other and, through this imbalance, failing to achieve the collaboration's potential.

Interested in time travel? Know that the watched pot never boils...

(To see the other posts in this series go to the March and April 2018 Blog Archive.)


As mentioned in the introduction to this set of posts, the pace at which we perceive time to be passing is affected by how important progress towards an achievement or an event is to us: the 'watched pot never boils'.

If something is important to us it can often, regardless of the actual amount of time involved, feel as if ages are passing before it is achieved or happens. If an issue is not important to us, then the amount of time passing before it is addressed is of little or no personal significance (so even long periods of activity can go by almost unnoticed).

Also, how we perceive the passing of time is influenced by the cultures we live and work within and the habits they encourage us to develop. If we are used to working within a fast paced environment, we will become frustrated if results are not achieved quickly and will seek to hurry things up. If we are used to a slower pace, we will not worry about achieving results quickly enough and will happily 'go with the flow'.

These differing perceptions of time and the pace of activity will all be tangling and interacting with each other as a collaboration develops and progresses. This means that whilst people work together, each person may be seeing and working towards differing time horizons. If these differing perceptions are not managed effectively, they will cause mutual frustration and misunderstandings (and perhaps even conflict).

The first step towards managing people's differing perceptions of the speed and pace of time (and how quickly or otherwise people think things are being achieved) is to be able to identify them through behavioural cues and signals.

People who perceive time and activity as moving too slowly and that things are taking too much time to get done (the pot is taking too long to boil) will use the following types of easily recognisable phrases: 

• We need some quick wins.
• The deadline is fast approaching and...
• We need to hurry up/get things moving.
• We need to see some progress/see some action.
• There is no sense of urgency.
• We need some urgency.
• When will you start?
• When will you finish?
• What are you doing now?
• What is being done?
• Let's set some interim milestones and deadlines.
• The clock is ticking.
• Quicker/quicker!

People who perceive time and activity as moving too slowly will, as the above phrases indicate, be preoccupied with the perceived rate of progress and achievement. As a result, they will likely express and exhibit frustration and impatience.

In terms of their behaviour, they will be quick and focused in their speech and actions. They may seem a bit pre-occupied and fidgety during meetings. They will probably demonstrate shaping behaviour during interactions with others, seeking to influence people towards clear decisions and actions that will demonstrate progress. When they get the opportunity to lead and ensure progress in a certain direction, they will grasp it firmly (and probably be reluctant to let it go). 

People who perceive time and activity as moving at an okay pace (they are not watching the pot boil) will use the following types of easily recognisable phrases:

• All in good time.
• Things will work themselves through.
• Just give it time.
• Things are chugging along just fine.
• There is no need to rush.
• I'm relaxed about how things are going.
• Let's just allow things to come to a natural conclusion.
• I have other things to get on with right now. These things are taking care of themselves.
• Let's spend longer looking at this.
• That is an interesting idea.

People who are not concerned about time and activity moving too slowly, as the above phrases indicate, will be relaxed about the perceived rate of progress and achievement. As a result they will exhibit contentment and unworried patience.

In terms of their behaviour, they will be relaxed and laid-back in their speech and actions. During meetings they may seem somewhat disinterested or distracted by other things. They may also be inclined to explore apparent side-issues and show significant interest in items under 'Any Other Business'. They will probably exhibit very friendly and engaging behaviour during interpersonal interactions and prefer informal gatherings and one-to-one chats rather than formal meetings. This is because informal gatherings and chats will allow more time for exploration of new and interesting topics and enable people to get to know each other. For a person not worried about when the collaborative pot will boil, this will be perceived as a very good use of time.

They will not be too quick to take opportunities for leadership. If they have leadership positions by right (or given to them) they will ensure things run smoothly and easily and that time is invested in informal 'getting-to-know-you sessions'. They will also want to explore innovative areas of a collaboration's work that are not currently 'centre stage'. Sometimes, feeling content with the rate of progress and perhaps not having too much of a personal stake in the achievements of the collaboration, they may delegate their leadership position to others (who may then seek to speed-up activity and progress).

On reading the above, it quickly becomes clear that there is no 'correct' perception of time and the pace of activity: those who perceive time and activity as moving too slowly, for them the watched pot is never boiling, will add a sense of urgency to a collaboration's work; those who are content with the pace of time and activity, they are not waiting for the pot to boil, will add a sense of reflection and informality to the collaboration's approach and also provide the necessary space for original and innovative thinking.

The two part challenge for a collaboration is, therefore, to avoid favouring one perception over another and find ways to manage and mix them to create a synergy that enables both efficiency and effectiveness: that enables a collaboration to not only get things done on time but also invest the time in getting new things done. 

An example of a collaborative initiative that achieved this is the Harlem Children's Zone; it did so by doing the following three things:

1. It created an ambitious and imaginative vision (which encouraged investment of time in creative and innovative thinking).
2. It focused on being not only innovative but also innovative at scale: producing innovation that could be reproduced more widely within different areas and contexts (which encouraged a focus on getting things done, impact and tangible results).
3. It engaged with a partner experienced in consulting with the social enterprise sector (Bridgespan) that was at one remove from HCZ's day-to-day work. Being one step back from things enabled Bridgespan to see, probably more clearly than other partners, the mix of perspectives about using and investing time that was most appropriate for HCZ. (Did HCZ need to create room for reflecting and incubating scalable innovations? Or did urgency need to be injected to ensure impact at the right time and place?)                                          

More generally, collaborations can begin to meet the above mentioned challenge by discussing partners' expectations and obligations and agreeing the balance and timing of rewards partners will receive.   
 
So, in summary, encouraging partners to think explicitly about how they perceive, react to and use the time they spend working together will discourage unhelpful preconceptions about what should be happening by when. It will help create a shared sense of pace and time that is appropriate to a collaboration, what it needs to achieve and how it needs to achieve it.

Interested in time travel? Beware blaming back and blaming forward

(To see the other posts in this series go to the March and April 2018 Blog Archive.)


Partners who contributed to creating a collaborative initiative or who joined it early might, quite naturally, prefer to look back at the times when they were most influential and able to shape priorities and contribute significantly to achievements in which they believed.

Also, quite naturally, those who joined a collaborative initiative later may prefer to look forwards towards new approaches and ways of doing things that might increase their influence and enable them to shape priorities and achieve things important to them.

When these preferences for either the past or the future clash, they will form the basis of an often heated argument about a collaboration's strategy: should it consolidate and build upon existing gains (so maintaining the esteem, credibility and influence of the founding fathers and early joiners of the collaboration)? Or should it break its mould and flow into new and innovative areas of activity (so increasing the influence of the young and thrusting sons and late joiners of the collaboration)?

Even when a strategy has been agreed, especially if the old or new guard feel they have won or lost the argument, the noise and conflicts from within which it was forged will continue to reverberate down the timeline of the collaboration. They will likely cause uncertainty and disagreements about the effectiveness of the collaboration and the value of its achievements: the old guard, set in its ways, will continue to look towards the past and point to old agreements and contracts as evidence that the collaboration has failed to live-up to initial expectations; the new guard, keen to introduce new ways, will point to new agreements and contracts as evidence of the collaboration's ability to move with the times.

Old and new understandings and agreements will overlay within people's minds in the present of the collaboration, weakening its resolve and clarity of purpose.

New partners will challenge old and founding partners about their failure to do this and that in the first place: they will 'blame it back'. Old partners will challenge new partners about their inability to do this and that now: they will 'blame it forward'.

This mutual blaming will be at its most pronounced and dangerous when old and new partners are separated by time: when old partners have left the collaboration and are no longer directly involved in its activities.

Past partners (some of which will be founding fathers) will be quick to offer their opinions and advice as they watch the future of the collaboration unfold before them. They will be especially sensitive to any criticisms of their work or decision making that are offered as justifications for changes to well-established priorities, plans and practices and very quick to launch counter-blaming offences designed to undermine these justifications and question the competence of those currently doing the collaboration's work.

In response, current partners will immediately seek to safeguard their reputations by countering the counter-blaming with increasingly strong justifications for their decisions and actions. These justifications will most likely increase past partners' perceptions of being criticised and blamed (and separation in time could quickly become separation through antipathy).        

Partners preferring and fighting for the credibility and reputation of different times, agreements and achievements (perhaps accompanied by the ill-feeling this could generate) will create an unstable and damaging 'timeflux' within the collaboration. This will, slowly but surely, encourage ambiguity about the ultimate worth of the collaboration's achievements to grow within people's minds. Eventually, this ambiguity will severely weaken the collaboration's credibility and reputation (and, perhaps most importantly, threaten its legacy).

This situation is most obvious and likely to happen within a large scale "mega-project" collaboration (e.g., Crossrail, Heathrow Terminal 2, and London 2012). This type of collaboration lasts for years and often decades, which means there will be much toing and froing of partners during its lifetime and the type and mix of partners involved at the start will be very different to that at the end.

This toing and froing, together with changing pressures and demands over time (and different partners not only responding to these pressures in different ways but also adding their own vision and priorities to the collaborative mix), means that different partners from different times will very likely seek to justify and defend different decisions and actions and judge a collaboration by baselines they had a hand in creating. This situation is nicely summed up by this quip from a person involved in one of the previously mentioned mega-projects:

"They (the delivery partner) will immediately say 'it's their (the previous partner's) fault, they've stuffed up all the estimates'...and they (the previous partner) will say 'bloody amateurs, couldn't they build it for that?'".
(Lundrigan, C. Gil, N. Puranum, P./2014/The (Under) Performance of Mega-Projects: A Meta-Organisational Perspective/INSEAD The Business School for the World -- Working Paper Series 2015/04/STR)

Being realistic, this tendency to blame back and blame forward probably cannot be stopped, but it can be managed and minimised by doing the following five things:

1. Being consistently open and transparent, especially about necessary changes to the work of the collaboration in response to new pressures and demands (and being patient and willing to repeat these reasons as often as required).
2. Having regular meetings between partners and holding 'scouting meetings' where old and established partners can get to know new and potential partners (and where all present can discuss current activities and how these may need to be continued, adapted, changed or added to in the future).
3. Ensuring meetings between partners are chaired by someone who is trusted by and credible to all, and (to further encourage transparency and promote shared accountability) giving this person the authority to approve meaningful and significant decisions at the meetings with (preferably) the explicit support of all those present (both old and new partners alike).
4. Noticing blaming language and behaviour and challenging it early so that it does not become a habit which could eventually lead to a damaging culture of blame.
5. Ensuring the leaders of the collaboration and other high profile and influential partners model a no blame culture and, where necessary, they receive help and support (including coaching and interpersonal skills training) to help them achieve this.

Interested in time travel?

(To see the other posts in this series go to the March and April 2018 Blog Archive.)

A friend of mine recently posted the above spoof sign on Facebook. It made me smile; then it made me think.

Time is something we all take for granted: tick-tocking at a constant rate in the background of our lives. Except that is not really how time works for us humans. Each of us interact with time in different and very personal ways: some times are perceived as a friend, some as a foe; some times are felt as fast, some as slow; some of us prefer the future, some the past; most of us, understandably, prefer times when we won or succeeded rather than those when we lost or failed.

Our experience of time is subjective and summed up by the well-known phrase 'A watched pot never boils'.

This phrase reveals another important aspect of our personal experience of time: the more important something is to us the more we take notice of it and the time it takes to happen.

And, of course, different people will perceive different things as more important than others. We all have our own important days and events: birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, holidays; or dates for surgery, days in court, receiving life-changing results or verdicts of one kind or another. Whatever the focus, however, the time taken for them to happen can often seem to drag on and on and on. 

There are also events that many people have in common and perceive as important: families, communities and even nations look forward to cultural festivals and celebrations like Christmas and New Year; businesses and companies look eagerly towards the launch of a new product or service; governments look impatiently towards the launch of a new policy or initiative. Invariably, just like those things that are important to us individually, the time taken for these things to happen can seem very long and drawn out.

Lastly, the above sign wording (however humorously and obviously) points to another effect time has upon us: it distances us from the past and often from each other. Time carries us away from old friends and loves; it fades our memories of passed-away relatives; less personally, but almost as significantly, it separates one government regime or company Board of Directors from another.

All these differing and variously shared perceptions, preferences and distancing separations are interacting and tangling between and around us as we go through each and every moment of our lives. They constantly influence what we do and how we react to things, and this is particularly so when we work collaboratively with others (which is when it could be said that we live through not only very interesting but also highly subjective times).

When we work collaboratively with others we do so within a vortex of perceptions of time and differing moments in time that compete with each other for importance and supremacy. If we can grasp and manipulate these perceptions and moments to mutual advantage, we will enhance the effectiveness of our work and the quality and longevity of our achievements. 

Over the next months, I shall be writing about the above mentioned time perceptions and preferences and the distancing effect of being separated in time. More specifically, I will focus upon how these things influence the way we work collaboratively with others from different backgrounds (different communities, businesses, organisations and institutions, etc.)

Hopefully, when I have finished, I will have encouraged people to look at their collaborative work in a new and helpful way: through a lens fashioned to focus upon how we interact with and experience time.