In the previous article I described the benefits and the challenges of being collaborative including the effect of Collaborative Overload described by Rob Cross, Reb Rebele and Adam Grant in their 2016 HBR Article Collaborative Overload. The question is what do we do about it?
Unfortunately, in the unusual times we live in require all of us to be more collaborative through familiar and established means (e.g. phone calls and emails) to newer means (e.g. videoconferencing such as Zoom, WebEx, Microsoft Teams, etc. and collaboration tools such as Google G Suite, Slack, Atlassian Jira, Microsoft SharePoint/Teams, etc.). While many of us collaborate in order to achieve the outcomes expected of us, this is underpinned by the fear of “I have so much of my own work to do but what if I don’t collaborate?”. With global unemployment leaving entire market sectors and economies in ruin is now really the time to be seen as “uncollaborative” and “not a team player”? With many working from home and increased availability for ‘catching-up’ increases the likelihood and severity of collaborative overload. So what is the solution?
As with many things it is about balance. Balancing the need of the individual to complete their own work (their output) with the collective need to collaborate to achieve the organisational outcome. It is about setting both individual and collective objectives. In a previous article (see Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes – Part 1 and Part 2) I discussed the differences between being individually accountability for an output while being collectively responsible for an (enterprise) outcome as one method for distinguishing between these two perspectives. Here “Enterprise” refers to the collection of organisations and individuals that are collectively responsible for delivering the enterprise outcome. The enterprise may be tightly defined and managed through commercial documentation, or loosely organised through an unwritten understanding of individual roles and responsibilities in delivering the enterprise outcome.
Just as important as setting and reporting on individual and collective performance is organisations and managers publicly encouraging, rewarding and celebrating those who achieve this balance.
As way of a sporting example, Article VI(E)(10)(a) of the Collective Bargaining Agree (CBA) between the United States Major Baseball League (MBL) and the player’s union outlines 6 factors that may be considered in making a determination of the player’s value as follows:
- the player’s “contribution to his Club (including but not limited to his overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public appeal)” in the preceding season (often called the platform year);
- the player’s “career contribution”;
- the player’s past compensation;
- the salaries of comparable players;
- any “physical or mental defects” of the player; and
- the Club’s recent performance, which can include “[l]eague standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance.”
As you can see value here is a balance of individual (player) and collective (Club) performance and over the longer term recognising there may be short-term ups and downs.
Unfortunately, for many organisations, this is rarely the case.
So my suggestion for those wanting to incentivise collaboration is to encourage, reward and celebrate those who achieve this balance by assessing value as both individual and collective contributions. By highlighting both requirements we are making it clear that individual success is not enough; rather success is defined as a combination of both individual and collective success.
To finish my story I started with, the person from my former company was fortunately very collaborative. He not only succeeded personally but helped others in the company succeed regardless of location or position resulting in a “champion team”; and who doesn’t want to be a part of that!