The Problem of Pseudo-Collaboration and How to Avoid It

The word “collaboration” is used a lot in the workplace, but do we understand what it means? When are we truly collaborating and when are we (or someone, perhaps the person in charge) simply saying we are collaborating for appearances sake?

The Cambridge Dictionary (online) defines “collaboration” in the business sense as “the act of working together with other people or organizations to create or achieve something.” In the context of interpersonal interactions and managing conflict, Drs. Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, authors of the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, explain that collaboration occurs when individuals are assertive in attempting to satisfy their own interests and cooperative in satisfying the other person’s interests. “Collaborating involves an attempt to work with others to find some solution that fully satisfies their concerns. It means digging into an issue to pinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two individuals” in conflict.

Collaboration cannot be forced if one or both parties, or either or both groups in a business setting, do not desire it or perceive the other is resisting it. Yet, how often do we receive messages within our institutions, among leaders and managers, or within our teams, about how essential it is that we collaborate with others? We are told, in essence, to “work it out” without any effort to understand the underlying context that makes collaboration difficult. Compulsory collaboration leads us to feel forced into engaging in pseudo-collaborative activities and interactions to appease others. We sense this when our needs and interests in the relationship aren’t being met, we kowtow to ensure others’ needs and interests are met, and we feel silenced in our desire to express concerns.

In their zeal, leaders must apply wisdom, introspection, and forethought when considering directives for encouraging collaboration. Dr. Kilmann offers “attributes of a conflict situation” that provide insights for when/when not to collaborate (as well as avoid, accommodate, compete, or compromise). Though they focus on conflict specifically, these insights have application to interactions generally. Guided by this insight, let’s consider parameters by which collaboration is possible, or not:

Rewards and deterrents for collaborating. Kilmann notes that collaboration only occurs when the organizational “culture and the reward system actively encourage exploration, cooperation, and teamwork.” In contrast, employees will not pursue collaborative efforts, whether to address conflicts or to work together on common goals, if the culture discourages individuals from speaking up, requires quiet compliance, or conversely encourages a win/lose fight for resources and opportunities. Leaders are disingenuous if they ignore cultural influences and their employees’ reluctance to collaborate when they perceive there are no rewards or fear, implicitly or explicitly, punishments for doing so.

Complexity and importance of the problems involved. According to Kilmann, collaboration is needed if the problems are complex and multi-dimensional. Collaboration involves synergy and, in truly collaborative relationships, individuals find the resolution of one issue naturally leads to the resolution of others (or, conversely, resolution of one issue isn’t possible without attention to other issues). At the same time, as Kilmann notes, all members involved in the issue must see the “problem as equally important.” If they don’t, some individuals will ignore or dismiss others’ entreaties to address concerns while more interested parties may push aggressively for their preferred approach without consulting others. While leaders may believe certain problems or projects require team or cross-department collaboration, they will spin their wheels if the individuals involved don’t see the issues as consequential or aren’t interested or capable of digging in to work together to manage the many complex issues.

Valuing of relationships. Kilmann notes that collaboration is needed when the parties possess a high level of trust, engage in effective interactions, and want their relationships to last. If the history of the parties called to collaborate has involved distrust, awkward or dysfunctional interactions, or a failure to see the value and worth of their working relationships, leaders will have a hard time expecting them to collaborate at the drop of a hat.

Availability of time to deliberate. Kilmann would encourage collaboration when “there is much time for discussion.” If issues are complex, involved, and truly important, more time is needed to work through challenges. If time is limited, or if precious time is spent due to inefficiencies created by untrusting and dysfunctional relationships, then leaders are misguided to expect individuals to deliberate in ways needed to achieve the synergistic, collaborative outcomes hoped for.

Stress levels. Not all stress is bad, and, for Kilmann, collaboration is best when “stress is stimulating.” I interpret this to mean that individuals will willingly engage in collaborative efforts when they perceive the opportunity will build their energy and enthusiasm rather than drain them. In contrast, Kilmann notes that when parties feel “overwhelming stress,” they turn to fight (competing), flight (avoiding), and freeze (accommodating) responses. Consider the levels of stress, burnout, and disengagement prevalent in today’s workforce. Then, imagine how ineffective leaders ignore these signs as though they are irrelevant and simply expect individuals to embrace opportunities to collaborate on challenging projects.

Collaboration within the workforce, between and among teams, and across departments and functional areas, should be encouraged and supported whenever possible. However, “collaboration” should not be bantered about as though it can simply happen without the necessary precursors that make collaboration possible. Leaders should not fault those they lead for failing to collaborate when they haven’t thought through what they are asking or considered the barriers that impact their ability to collaborate. Yes, when these barriers exist, leaders will need to consider workarounds and negotiate alternative approaches that may result in sub-optimal outcomes. But better outcomes won’t happen simply by wishing for them. Leaders must play the long game and evaluate and work to improve the cultural, organizational, relationship, and time and efficiency dynamics on which possibilities for collaboration will succeed or falter.