The Culture of Collaboration

Creating Collaboration Incentives

Too often organizational culture and processes recognize and reward internally competitive—rather than collaborative—behavior. This creates a significant barrier to creating value through collaboration. Companies may say they embrace collaboration, but the culture and processes often say something different. A key process is the recognition and reward system. Organizations committed to collaboration must reevaluate these systems to make sure they reinforce rather than undermine priorities including collaboration.

 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States Intelligence Community has been making wholesale changes in how it operates. Among the many recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was that the sixteen federal agencies that comprise the intelligence community share information. The challenge was to create ways to share and collaborate across agencies in a culture that embraces secrecy. The impetus for cultural change is the desire to prevent future attacks.

 

On the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence invited me to speak to the intelligence community. Some senior intelligence officials had read The Culture of Collaboration book and asked me to talk about its key themes plus other collaboration ideas relevant to intelligence.

 

In the speech, I provided a series of steps the intelligence community could take to institutionalize collaboration. One step is realigning the recognition and reward system around collaboration. I noted that in both corporations and government agencies there is a tendency to hoard—rather than share—information, because people view information as power. If they give up the goods, they feel they become weaker. Information hoarders embrace their role as the “go-to” people on a given subject. This is exactly the issue that the intelligence community and many private sector companies must address.

 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is making progress in multiple ways on the collaboration front.  Regarding incentives, ODNI has publicized a new policy for fiscal year 2009 that makes information sharing a factor in performance reviews. The policy applies to agencies that handle terrorism-related information.  The policy requires agency executives to hold managers and team members accountable for sharing what they know. As part of the directive, information technology departments at these agencies must build or modify systems to enhance information sharing and collaboration across agencies.

 

The key for the intelligence community—and any organization—is that information sharing becomes proactive rather than just reactive. It’s one thing to share information when it’s requested. It’s another thing entirely to take the initiative to share. In a collaborative organization, people reach across departments, functions, business units and regions to proactively share information so that the organization can pounce on opportunities. For the intelligence community, the opportunity may be thwarting an attack. For a company, the opportunity may be making a process improvement, creating a new market opportunity, making a sale or retaining a customer.

 

Organizations must ensure that collaboration is more than a buzz word, more than a check mark or mention in a performance evaluation, and is instead part-and-parcel of how people work.

Mentoring Key to Collaboration

Business is rediscovering mentoring, and the economic downturn is accelerating this trend.

 

In this challenging economic climate, organizations are realizing that the expertise of veteran team members coupled with the fresh ideas and enthusiasm of younger team members can drive innovation and profitability. Besides developing deep industry and functional expertise over time, veteran team members have weathered previous economic storms—so that experience is an added driver.

 

Mentoring is essential to collaboration and is therefore a critical component of a collaborative culture. In The Culture of Collaboration book, I identify eleven approaches a leader can use to instill collaborative culture, and establishing a mentoring system is at the top of the list. Mentoring systems can be formal or informal. Intel has established a formal mentoring process that includes an intranet-based system that matches protégés with mentors. Intel has also institutionalized mentoring through job sharing. Two leaders with complimentary skills may co-lead a business unit.

 

According to an August 18, 2008 story in The Wall Street Journal by George Anders headlined “Companies Try to Extend Researchers’ Productivity,” Texas Instruments is formally matching new hires with mentors called “craftsmen” who coach their protégés. New design engineers, writes Anders, can become “fully effective” in three or four years instead of five to seven.

 

Some companies that were founded on collaborative principles or have developed a collaborative culture over decades have successfully used informal mentoring. In these organizations, people naturally seek out mentors throughout the organization. Many Japanese companies, notably Toyota, successfully practice informal mentoring. For less-collaborative companies seeking to instill a collaborative culture, however, it’s essential to establish a formal mentoring system.

 

There are many types of mentoring relationships relevant to organizations. The traditional relationship is between an older, wiser mentor and a younger, motivated protégé. For this approach to work, the organizational culture and HR practices must value the contributions of team members regardless of age and must acknowledge that team members develop at different paces. Some team members contribute the most late in their careers, and typical performance evaluation systems fail to account for this. Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, Outliers: Why Some People Succeed and Some Don’t, addresses the disconnect between evaluation methodology and individual talents. For more on Gladwell’s Outliers, see my June 6, 2008 post.

Mentoring can transcend the traditional age-oriented mentor/protégé relationship. People with complimentary skills can mentor each other. For this arrangement to work, people must easily morph from the role of mentor to that of protégé in much the same way as a graduate student may teach undergraduates in the morning and become an apprentice to a professor in the afternoon.

Mayo Clinic’s collaborative leadership model pairs a doctor with a professional administrator for each leadership role. Aside from bringing his or her medical knowledge to decision-making, the doctor’s responsibility is to advocate the patient’s perspective in developing policy. The administrator brings a complementary perspective involving things like business processes. Dr. Glenn Forbes, CEO of the Mayo Clinic’s Rochester, Minnesota campus, told me when I was researching the book that he has had about a dozen leadership partnerships at Mayo. In some partnerships, he has played more of a mentor and in other cases he has played more of a protégé. The mentor and protégé roles are dynamic in a collaborative culture.