The Culture of Collaboration

Collaboration, Mergers and Acquisitions

The acid test for collaboration is mergers and acquisitions. Getting two organizations with different cultures to work well together while tying the knot presents significant challenges. The key is to instill collaborative culture. As I noted in my April 12 post, which you can view here, the lack of collaboration has likely derailed such mergers as Daimler-Benz and Chrysler.

The lead story in today’s Wall Street Journal by Ellen Byron tackles Procter & Gamble’s $57 billion acquisition of Gillette, which I cover in The Culture of Collaboration book. The gist of the story, which requires registration to view here, is that combining the oral care units of P&G and Gillette involved particular complexity. Gillette’s Oral-B unit preferred meetings, while P&G’s Crest team liked memos. While P&G/Crest deliberated more, Gillette/Oral-B made relatively quick decisions.

Both meetings and memos have limitations in merging two geographically-dispersed organizations. Meetings require scheduling and travel. Memos are one-way, asynchronous and anti-collaborative. The most effective tools for integrating two companies are often real-time tools including instant messaging, web conferencing and videoconferencing. Presence brings these tools to life by showing which colleagues are available and by enabling instant connections through text, voice and video.

Ironically, I describe in the book how P&G and Gillette used presence-enabled tools extensively while managing the merger. The desire for spontaneous decision-making and problem-resolution drove the use of the tools. However, the tools took hold because P&G extended its highly-collaborative culture to the Gillette team, which was generally receptive. Judging from the Wall Street Journal story, there may have been pockets of anti-collaborative behavior during and after the merger. However, the broader story, which The Wall Street Journal article did not address, is that the P&G and Gillette merger is succeeding because of collaboration.

Instant Messaging Changing Workplace Dynamics

Behavior once considered a faux pas at best and professional suicide at worst is now considered collaborative. As business adopts instant messaging and other forms of real-time, spontaneous collaboration, workplace dynamics are changing. In forward-thinking organizations, instant messaging or even a spontaneous video chat with your boss’s boss or somebody several levels down the organization chart is becoming acceptable.

By 2010, 90% of people with business email accounts will have IT-controlled IM accounts, according to Gartner. Also, Gartner reports that the enterprise IM market is growing at 20% per year through 2009. IM is more effective than email in making remote workers feel more connected. Remote workers include telecommuters, road warriors, and people working from small branch offices and outsourced workspace. By 2010, more than 40 million people in the United States will work remotely or from home, according to JALA International, which analyzes data on telecommuting. Currently, almost a third of managers work at home at least part of the time, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

To feel more connected, geographically-dispersed team members are choosing real-time, spontaneous tools like IM. Secure, corporate-sanctioned IM is beginning to eclipse email in many workplaces. With IM at their fingertips, people are checking whether colleagues at all levels of the organization are available. New capabilities allow real time on the fly connections with a single click from a spreadsheet, document or database (see my March 7 post). Rather than wait for a scheduled call or meeting, people are instead collaborating spontaneously.

Real-time collaboration is wreaking havoc on hierarchy and is challenging the status quo. Therefore, as I point out in The Culture of Collaboration book, organizational culture must catch up with new ways of working. However, tools extend and enhance—rather than create—culture.

Let me know how IM is impacting workplace dynamics within your organization. Feel free to post a comment or send me email at [email protected]

Collaboration Issues at DaimlerChrysler?

When mergers sour, many factors play a role. In The Culture of Collaboration book, I describe how anticipating, acknowledging and addressing cultural differences are key success factors in mergers. I also discuss how collaboration can bridge cultures, break down barriers and reduce the impact of silos. Against this backdrop, the book covers what went right with Procter & Gamble and Gillette and what went wrong with AOL and Time Warner.

Now DaimlerChrysler seeks a buyer for Chrysler, and the bids are a fraction of the $36 billion Daimler-Benz paid for Chrysler nine years ago. This merger was clearly a disaster. What went wrong? Tuesday National Public Radio broadcast an excellent story by Frank Langfitt on its flagship newscast, All Things Considered. You can listen to the story here.

In a nutshell, Langfitt reports that the companies had almost nothing in common. Barriers included language and culture. Daimler was a German company known for luxury brands and Chrysler was a scrappy, price-conscious Detroit carmaker that nearly went bankrupt in the 1980’s. Mercedes engineers had limited interest in the cost-per-unit of components and resisted sharing parts for use in Chrysler-branded vehicles for fear of diluting brand value. In contrast, Ford Motor Company—as I describe in the book—shares parts across Volvo, Ford Europe and Mazda.

DaimlerChrysler uses collaborative tools, both real-time and asynchronous. The company has standardized on the IBM Lotus suite including Sametime instant messaging. Nevertheless, collaboration has been inadequate to break down barriers and ensure a successful merger. Why? It takes more than collaborative tools to collaborate! As I point out in the book, tools extend and enhance—rather than create—collaborative culture.

Instant Messaging Links TV with PC

Gaming and business collaboration share many elements. Both link geographically-dispersed people in social networks. The business trend towards real-time, spontaneous collaboration has its roots in consumer instant messaging. It’s easier to integrate tools into our work styles that we already use in our lifestyles.  IM, which is currently becoming an IT-sanctioned enterprise tool, is taking off in workplaces because we are comfortable text chatting with family and friends.

Microsoft, which is focused on both business and consumer collaboration, is enhancing social networks by bringing Windows Live Messenger to Xbox 360 game consoles. This announcement flings open the door so that Xbox users can interact with PC-based IM users, further linking the PC and TV platforms. Also, Windows Live Messenger users will see at a glance whether their friends have gamertags and therefore whether they’re available for gaming.

Windows Live Messenger, the largest IM community, includes over 260 million active accounts. Xbox users can already engage in text messaging plus voice and video chat within the Xbox community. Later this year, published reports suggest that Microsoft will offer voice interaction between Xbox and PC-based Live Messenger users. This parallels the Microsoft Business Division’s moves (see my March 7 post) to enable text, voice and video chat from Microsoft Office and other applications.

Ultimately, the relationships gamers develop may carry over into the workplace. Teenagers who bond because of common interests and form social networks using text, voice and video chat may nurture these relationships for years. Today’s consumer collaboration is tomorrow’s business collaboration.

Collaborative Leadership

Matt Villano’s excellent column headlined “Want Recognition? Share the Limelight” in Sunday’s New York Times business section tackles the “I” vs. “we” dilemma in the workplace. Use “I” to describe success, and you’re a selfish narcissist, to paraphrase the column. Use “we” and you get less credit than you may deserve.

Nevertheless, “I” has no place in a collaborative culture. Few successes are the work of one person. Unfortunately, too many organizations embrace star cultures in which people are rewarded for competing with colleagues. We can create much greater value through collaboration than through internal competition. Fortunately for the bottom line, star cultures are becoming passé.

And there’s a clear link between tools and culture. Presence is the ability of a person or device to connect with others and to display levels of availability. IM buddy lists introduced us to the concept. Now we can connect with colleagues and business partners directly from spreadsheets, documents and line-of-business systems. We can begin with text chat and, when appropriate, escalate into voice or video interaction.

As we extend collaborative culture through presence-enabled tools, we are becoming more “we” oriented. In The Culture of Collaboration book, I describe the collaborative culture at the Mayo Clinic. Mayo extensively uses collaborative tools including videoconferencing and web conferencing to extend—rather than create—its collaborative culture. And Dr. Glenn Forbes, CEO of the Mayo Clinic’s Rochester, Minnesota campus tells me that at Mayo people are very uncomfortable using the word “I.”