Isn't it great that we disagree?
Why disagreement and divergent views are the essential raw material of collaboration, to be embraced, acknowledged, even celebrated.
Recently I was involved in a project to find a solution to a challenging policy question. While running a workshop with stakeholders I did what I often do and asked each of the 40 people in the room to write down on a sticky note what they think is the problem to be solved by this policy. As is always the case, within 10 minutes we had 40 quite different views of the problem (and some 'solutions') on the wall for all to see. We went to a lunch break and the client came up to me and said something like “that's the problem. Everyone has a different opinion and we can never agree on anything!”.
Back in the workshop after lunch it was clear that the client’s view was widely shared. We disagree! We will never get alignment! This collaboration thing is doomed!
I understand this view, but I believe that the much bigger problem is that we see these differences as the problem. Because I’ve learnt that the 40 different views in the room are the raw material from which a great outcome will be generated.
As usual, my message to collaborators at this point is “isn’t it great that we all see this differently”. And I genuinely believe this for a number of reasons:
- Different opinions decrease the likelihood of ‘group think’ while making something novel more likely to emerge.
- The more differently we see this situation the more likely it is that we are capturing the bulk of relevant issues and concerns and opportunities. If we see things in a narrow way we are probably missing some important stuff.
- The fact that we see the situation differently makes working together more important. In other words, it builds the argument for more collaboration, not less.
- Inviting the difference helps us all see that we have a place in the discussion, that our views and experiences are relevant, even essential as part of the full picture.
- Acknowledging differences and working with them is a great way to build trust among collaborators. Listening across differences helps to build relationships.
So, the next time your collaborators express differences of opinion and are seeing things differently, you can feel ok to step into that difference and draw on it to create something that none could have thought of alone.
Diving in to a collaboration mystery
“It has been great just to spend time on this together. We so rarely come together like this.”
“I was pretty sceptical walking in but having been a part of this workshop over the past few days I feel quite positive. It has been a very useful.”
When I hear comments like these from participants in workshops I’ve been facilitating I find it gratifying of course. But I also find it a little frustrating. My automatic thought is “if it’s so useful, why don’t you do this more often?”
I can’t remember when participants last found that the time spent working together in the room wasn’t useful. So it has always puzzled me that workshops with diverse people from across the organisational system aren’t a regular thing. I know I am biased but they feel so self-evidently productive from where I sit.
The quotes above are both from senior leaders in state government at the completion of a set of workshops I recently ran. Over three days this group tackled the task of creating a high-level plan for a new bit of complex policy. It is challenging work involving some quite challenging concepts and practices, yet after three days they felt they had made excellent progress.
So why aren’t workshops among senior people more of a thing?
I put this question to the project team, who had so ably helped to design and facilitate the sessions (big shout out to them). Their blunt reply was that “most workshops are pretty crappy”.
At which point it all made sense. Why would busy leaders want to come together for those terrible ‘talkfests’ we keep seeing? In their shoes I would run a mile too. Yet the opportunity cost of not coming together regularly seems very high, when I consider how productive diverse groups can be. Not only do they foster new ideas but they build shared understanding and much greater ownership of and commitment to the outputs. Doesn’t every leader want that?
The message seems clear. Nobody wants to waste time in a talkfest, and poorly-managed meetings have given all workshopping a bad name. But a thoughtfully designed and facilitated ‘workfest’ is a different beast. While I understand the impulse to avoid poor meetings, a great workshop always adds value.
At least I now know why workshops aren’t more common; People are understandably scared of wasting their time. So my next question is how can organisations best avoid poor meetings and boring talkfests while finding ways to do productive work together?
Hmmm…that’s a good topic for a workshop…..
The image is of a game of Underwater Hockey, a great sport that was a big part of my life at one time. If you haven't played it, go and check it out where you live. Like all team sports it involves lots of collaboration, and successful teams are more than the sum of their parts. photo credit Caleb Ming for ESPN
The Diamond Ring of Decision-making
Complex problems require a different approach.
In my I wrote about Sam Kaner’s Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making, which has always helped me think about what authentic collaboration feels like. It can be hard work.
The diamond shows us that after some ‘groaning’ we get to a point where we can converge on an outcome or outcomes, which has always been very encouraging. Yet I also know that when confronting our more complex and intractable problems the reality is that we rarely get to ‘the answer’.
For example, improving water quality and management at a catchment level is one of those ‘forever’ problems that never really go away. Catchments and all that goes on within them are an ever-evolving suite of dilemmas, dynamics, pressures and responses. We can always improve what we do, but the problems are never ‘solved’.
So what does this mean for the diamond of participatory decision-making? As a map for visualising how we tackle complex problems, perhaps the diamond is actually a circle. Rather than getting to the end, we continuously cycle back, through periods when our thinking is diverging and periods when our thinking is converging.
I have tried to illustrate this idea here.
I see this journey as a cycle of learning. In a way we never leave Kaner’s ‘groan zone’. Rather we recognise that when dealing with hard problems we are always sitting with uncertainty, incomplete knowledge, unintended consequences, different worldviews and different ideas. While outcomes are always important, our overarching approach is not about finding ‘the answer’ but about constantly finding new questions to ask and new ways to test our understanding and our ideas. Dave Snowden of fame suggests we “probe, sense and respond” in the complex domain. That is, we test ideas. When we find things that seem to work, we do more, building on success while always watching for signs that this is no longer delivering.
One way to look at this cycle is to see that it is groaning all the way down! But let’s embrace the complexity and reframe our approach from groaning to growing, from solving to learning, from convergence on the answer, to convergence on ideas as we go.
Perhaps this is the diamond ring of participatory problem solving?
From Groaning to Growing With Your Collaborators
“It was hard today. It felt like we did more arguing than anything and I’m not sure we made any progress!”
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard comments like this from clients. I’ve made the same comments myself from time to time. You may have too, because, let’s face it, working with diverse groups on difficult problems can be hard. We seek agreement, decisions, progress, but can’t seem to avoid frustration and exasperation as we ‘wade through treacle’.
Groan!
And those times that make us groan feel like failure. “What am I doing wrong?”
But what if you and your collaborators saw the tough times as the most useful times? What if you reframe that experience as not groaning but growing?
Yeah, I had the same reaction. But then someone pointed me to the Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making from Sam Kaner. This little framework gave me a whole new way to think about the collaborative journey and the role, even the value, of what Kaner labelled the groan zone.
What Kaner showed me was that the groaning is necessary, not evidence of failure. The tough times are the mother of innovation, invention, inspiration. That is, when we are groaning, it tells us we are doing the difficult work of collaborating on hard things together. If it was easy we would have solved this ages ago. If we are disagreeing it shows that this is important to us. And if we are challenging each other, we stand a chance of learning something new and finding novel solutions together.
Our fight or flight instincts are strong, and we tend to shy away from conflict, or do anything to avoid going there. But a quick look through clearly shows us that the urge to avoid the groaning and get to the decision is itself the thing to be avoided. When working together we need to allow time and space for divergent thinking where new ideas and new questions emerge. We need to allow time and space for convergent thinking where we get to agreement and answers. And the journey from one to the other is through the groan zone.
Yes, collaboration on complex problems is hard work. But that groaning you hear is the sound of old ideas fading and new ideas emerging. It is the sound of exploration. It is the sound of growing. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Resetting your collaboration
In Stuart’s , he identified some signs that a reset might be necessary. Let’s look now at what a reset might look like….
Having decided that something needs to be done, the typical response is to focus on structural, process and content issues. For example, the way we are set up, and the way people are working, especially the behaviours we see and don’t like, redesigning meetings or agendas, getting a better facilitator, managing the meeting dynamics better, calling out poor behaviour, etc.
While these might help, a much more useful approach is to focus first on the relationships. You might think of this like the Titanic and the iceberg - it’s what’s below the waterline that can sink the collaboration. And the relationship element is below the waterline; harder to see and trickier to deal with, but much more likely to allow smooth sailing when tackled.
Healthy collaborative relationships create a safer and more stable working platform in which to deal with current and emerging issues. So what can help reset the relationship and set you up for success in your collaboration?
- Acknowledging the history. Often there is baggage around what has happened before that impacts our behaviour, for example a past event that sticks in our mind and causes us to mistrust what others do. Surfacing some of that history and the consequences for each of us can help clean up the baggage. While this might be seen as opening old wounds, unacknowledged baggage can paralyse interactions, while respectful inquiry and acknowledgment in a safe environment can allow people to move on
- Checking and testing assumptions. Making visible our respective assumptions can be quite revealing, and allow us to test and explore the views we hold about others, and they about us. We can be quite surprised, and sometimes shocked (how could they believe that about us…..?), but we are then in a position test them and consider the implications for our work together. This can be quite cathartic, providing new insights and understanding of why people (us and them) may act the way we do.
- Putting yourself in the other’s shoes. This is where you try to see the world from the other person or group’s perspective. What really matters to them? What do they deeply care about? What makes them tick? What does their boss look for in their work? For example, one group might value social equity, and another may value technical expertise. If each perceives any situation only from their own perspective, misunderstandings and assumptions about motives might make it really challenging to find solutions together, leading to confusion and frustration. Taking time to hear how others think and work provides more shared understanding, facilitating more useful joint action on the difficult issues.
Sometimes clients are concerned that these activities will take time and distract from getting solutions. On the contrary, such reset activities can be a critical and essential investment in a robust working relationship, avoiding risks to solving key issues of structure, process and content. Is it time to reset your collaborative relationships?
Sure signs it is time to reset your collaboration
How to diagnose the health of your collaboration
When people are authentically and effectively collaborating, it’s an amazing thing to be a part of. But as we know, not all collaborative experiences are quite so positive. Sometimes it feels more painful than it needs to be. While we work hard at working together we continue to come up short on delivery of outcomes. We see argument when we want innovation and low commitment when we want buy-in.
If this feels like you, don’t despair. There are ways to reset and get your collaboration back on track. But first, how would you recognise that it’s time to reset your collaboration? In our experience, strong indicators include:
- unsatisfying delivery of outcomes
- people agreeing in meetings then disagreeing later
- a lack of face to face engagement. People reverting to email ‘wars’
- obvious friction in meetings, high stress, low morale
- lack of commitment to taking action
- people feeling left out and unappreciated in the relationship
- people pushing their own agendas and solutions
- not much listening
- information being hoarded and ‘weaponised’
Most organisations understand the need to work differently in collaborative partnerships and many start well. But there is growing evidence that a lack of understanding about what it takes to collaborate means many well-intended collaborative partnerships struggle over time. In such cases it can be useful to reset the relationship, to get the work and the teamwork back on track.
But a reset can’t happen overnight. It needs more than a workshop. In our next blogpost we will be outlining how to reset your collaboration and get back on track to deliver great outcomes together.
Meanwhile, if you need to reset your collaboration, to find out how we can help to get you back on track.
What migraines taught me about overmanaging
I suffer occasional migraines which can be quite debilitating, especially at work when you just can’t concentrate and you just want to lie down and close your eyes.
I now manage them overnight with some specific medication, but previously they would impact me when I was facilitating group work.
On one occasion I was working with a group and was keen to help them get a good outcome. I would usually ensure the process was well designed and organised, pay close attention to the relational dynamics, and intervene throughout to help them.
In this case, I woke with a migraine, and dragged myself to the meeting feeling pretty terrible. Given my state I did the minimum setup and just relied on the group starting the conversation about the topic. Feeling as I did I had no energy to intervene, so just had to sit there and let it happen around me.
To my surprise, I found the group functioned remarkedly well, and maybe achieved more in terms of both their relationships and the difficult topic than I could have hoped.
When I felt better, I reflected on my insight, and subsequently tested my hypothesis around intervening less.
My learning that day has helped inform my practice- that stepping back, intervening less, and trusting the group is powerful in getting better outcomes.
That doing less is actually more.
How to Disappear Completely
Sometimes when collaborating, doing less is doing more.
One of the most collaborative things I’m part of is a small . We perform an eclectic mix of songs, and among our several Radiohead numbers is one called How to Disappear Completely. As with many Radiohead songs I’m not sure what this one is about, but the message in the title resonates.
An idea I often share with those who facilitate diverse groups is that the less I do the more useful I am. It is a counterintuitive idea but I have come to realise that as I step back and stop trying to control the group, the group steps up, steps forward and takes accountability for their own work. Sometimes when collaborating, doing less is indeed doing more.
A simple example that always comes to mind is from some work I did years ago on behalf of a local council. They came to me looking for a “strong facilitator” to run a public hearing concerning a development application. The project was high profile and contentious and over many years a local group of strong voices had opposed the very idea. Knowing the hearing – essentially a public meeting – would be contentious Council seemed to be looking for someone who could control the room and ‘manage’ the ‘troublemakers’.
Initially I was tempted to suggest they hire King Kong, who might just stand some chance of meeting their need to make sure nobody misbehaved. But instead I took an opposite approach. I asked for the names and phone numbers of the obvious members of the ‘vocal minority’ and made a plan to call each of them.
I spoke to a number of people in the days before the forum. In each case I introduced myself, talked about the upcoming forum, asked if they would be there, and then I shared my dilemma with them. I told them I wanted to ensure the meeting was as useful as possible for everyone in the room. I told them what I was thinking as an agenda. I said I thought people in the room would be quite passionate, perhaps angry and checked that assumption with them. They all agreed. And I asked them how they thought I should run the meeting. What was likely to work for them and for others in the room. What would they do under the circumstances?
With their input I made some tweaks to the agenda, but that wasn’t really the point. The real intention was to signal that this was their meeting and I wasn’t there to control them, rather to help everyone in the room get what they could from a difficult conversation.
Then on the night of the event, as those I had spoken to arrived, I was able to great them, thank them for their input and check with them again what I was planning. I again invited them to help me keep the meeting constructive for everyone. As the meeting kicked off I shared with the room that I’d designed it with input from some in the room and again invited everyone to help ensure we all got what we could from the session. And then off we went.
Did everything go smoothly? No. Was there some yelling? Yes. Was I under pressure as the person at the front of the room? Sure. But at no time did I feel I needed to be King Kong. Together we navigated a tough meeting about a tough issue and all left with our dignity intact.
By letting go of the client’s (and my own) need to control people we avoided the power struggle and allowed everyone in the room to take responsibility for getting us where we needed to go. I still worked hard but by stepping back I encouraged others to step up.
In these situations we can easily be convinced that we need to be more controlling, exerting more power to ensure 'good behaviour' or 'effective outcomes' , but controlling less usually works better. This same dynamic is at play any time we work with other people. Rather than seeking more control to wrangle your stakeholders, it often pays to disappear, if not completely, then just a little.
Looking for some tips on how to manage when working with a diverse group of stakeholders? Check out some of our from our Collaboration System.
Overcoming the inertia- just try stuff
We often encounter clients who acknowledge the roadblocks to progress, but seem paralysed in their attempts to deliver substantive change.
I hear a lot of words like ‘until’ and ‘when’ and ‘if’ :
- when the restructure is complete, we can change how we work
- if only I could get commitment from the leaders, then we could try that
- we just need to get the plan sorted, then we can tackle that issue
- when we have built the strategy, we will be able to work differently
- if only people would step up and take responsibility, then I wouldn’t have to keep fixing things up
And the reality is that we never get there- we are always waiting!
It reminds me of Judy Garland and that song - ”Somewhere, over the rainbow…..” , in the hope that our dreams can come true.
Of course the last line is quite prophetic in this context- “Why, oh why can't I?”
Interestingly I also see a frustration from leaders in response to such comments…
- I’m committed, how many times do I have to tell you…?
- you don’t need to wait, we can do it now…
- they can take the lead without us….
I’m intrigued by this dynamic, and hypothesise that experimentation could be a way to break this seeming impasse.
So what might such experimentation or piloting look like?
Rather than needing to know, to wait, to be sure, then perhaps a way forward is an ‘and’ ie to do something while still waiting and planning, etc
This would mean actioning a series of small parallel actions to address the topical issue, while still working on the roadblocks:
- working in a new structural arrangement while organising the restructure
- assuming commitment is there and taking some different actions based on that assumed commitment
- trying something while developing the plan
- trying two ways to tackle the same issue rather than relying on the favoured option
- testing elements of the strategy before it is released
- saying yes to something where the natural and safe option is to say no or avoid taking it on
It would seem to make sense to select small initiatives that you feel OK to try, and that wouldn’t compromise critical aspects if they didn’t work, but may inform you with alternative pathways to success.
Perhaps just ‘trying stuff’ (and living with a degree of uncertainty) can overcome that frustrating feeling that we can’t progress.
Experimenting with Siri
In which some experimentation with Siri got me where I needed to go.
Yesterday afternoon was a typical one for me in many ways. At 2:30 or so I jumped in the car for the three-and-a-half-hour drive to Lake Macquarie City Council to run an intro to collaboration workshop for new and returning Councillors. I have done that drive so many times that I have long suspected that my car could drive itself.
If only.
Turns out there had been an accident on the M1 Motorway and traffic was backed up to a hopeless degree. Soon Siri was telling me I was going to miss my workshop start time by 60 minutes. I needed an alternative!
I had no idea if any alternatives would be better. I didn’t yet know what the problem was, where or how bad. I was trapped in the limitless traffic snarl that was Northwestern Sydney. Yet I couldn’t afford to sit where I was, so I recruited the ever faithful Siri into a process of experimenting the way forward together. That means, I developed some quick hypotheses about alternative routes and tested them. Importantly, I needed to try only those ideas that were safe to fail, that is, that were likely to be no worse than the current scenario. And as the current scenario had me arriving way too late to deliver my workshop, I had some scope to try other ideas, even if they didn’t feel quite right.
So, I picked an alternative destination along my route and Siri plotted the course. She directed me to some odd places but at least we were moving. And then I turned on the radio to check the traffic reports and I quickly gathered some data that Siri didn’t have, about the specific accident and likelihood of clearing up. This gave me some other ideas, and with Siri’s help we tested some new alternatives. One seemed likely to be better so we tried it.
Stop…start…stop…start…stop…. This wasn’t looking good and my goal seemed unachievable. Then more data came via the radio. It seemed that the accident had been cleared up. Siri was directing me to turn left but based on the new data I developed a new hypothesis and went right instead. Good old Siri stuck with me even though I ignored her ideas and, as fortune would have it, the traffic began to move and we were on our way.
The workshop was scheduled to begin at 7:10 and I pulled into Council’s carpark at 7:09. Job done, though I was feeling a little frayed around the edges after close to five hours of traffic jam. But when we collaborate through complex, uncertain and challenging problems it’s not unusual to feel a little exhausted.
Siri and I got where we wanted to go through a process of testing and learning the way forward together. At no time could I be sure that my choices were going to work, but I didn’t let that paralyse me. Instead I embraced the uncertainty and experimented creatively. By good luck and good management we found a solution in a very dynamic and unknowable situation.
I learned two things on my journey to Lake Mac last night. Firstly, this experimentation thing really works. And secondly, Siri could teach us all a thing or two about collaboration.