Is defining collaboration useful
Stumble It!OK so you may be able to define collaboration, but will it help you achieve it?
Wikipedia makes an attempt at defining “Collaboration” which it offers with a 'health warning' - The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Collaboration comes from the Latin 'co' meaning 'with' and 'labore' meaning 'to work' and means 'to work together'.
However wikipedia neatly sidesteps the question by suggesting that more research is required to answer questions like:
- How does collaboration differ from cooperation?
- What qualifies as a collaboration?
- What are the defining principles or elements of this process?
One of the barriers to collaboration is the very word itself - in many places, such as France, the UK and Ireland, the word is loaded with negativity from its wartime meaning of "traitorous cooperation with the enemy".
So it seems to me that a definitional approach to collaboration is unlikely to help us much in trying to produce good collaboration in our teams.
It is sometimes easier to see the symptoms of collaboration
Another approach is to try and understand collaboration by looking at contrasts in a number of domains:
At one end of the spectrum how do things look if collaboration is absent?
And at the opposite end of the spectrum how does the situation look if collaboration is present?
- Developing Documents
Absent: Solo with collaboration on review
Present: Group scoping and development - New Ideas & Innovation
Absent: Linear and Incremental approach
Present: Non-linear and Quantum - Conflict Resolution
Absent: Formal, slow and late to be spotted
Present: Informal, fast and raised early - Problem Solving
Absent: Symptoms only addressed for quick resolution
Present: Causes examined even if disruptive - Conversations and Communication
Absent: Non-disclosive and safe
Present: Disclosive but risky and messy - Opportunities and Business Development
Absent: Narrow focus/ direct-interest only
Present: Broad focus / mutual reciprocity
If you assign numeric scores to each of these six domains you can easily create a quick 'collaboration signature' for your team.
So perhaps it may be better not to try and define collaboration but to ask yourself to what extent you see evidence of its fruits in these (and other) domains of your team's operation.
Tags: collaboration
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
Add to my favourites
Bioteams Books Reviews
Collaborative thinking: four key roles
In his unique book Dialogue and the art of thinking together William Issacs introduces the Four-Player System originally developed by David Kantor. This is a very important technique for supporting real collaborative thinking in teams.
Buy it now from:
Amazon.Com
Amazon.Co.UK
Related Team Leadership Development Articles
Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox
Is leadership superfluous in a self-managing team? Aren't self-managing teams supposed to be self-sustaining and self-sufficient? Associate Professor Paul Tesluk, writing for INSEAD Knowledge, wants to correct this misconception in a short article with supporting video clip.
Effective team leading without authority
Roger Fisher, the world's leading expert on win-win negotiation, describes the power of having Lateral Leadership skills which let you get the job done when you are not the boss.
Team Leadership: Stone Age Management fights back
The Apprentice (BBC TV) which showcases the management style of Alan Sugar, founder and chairman of Amstrad, implies that aggressive leadership is the real secret of business success. However Sally Bibb, author of The Stone Age Company, contends that much of the success achieved by such leaders is in spite of rather than a result of their ‘no-prisoners’ style.
Leave a comment