“There is no special, secret sauce David,” said Peter, responding to David’s comment.
“Don’t be modest Peter, too late for that,” said David.
“What is that supposed to mean?” protested Peter.
“Just kidding dude. But on a more serious note, for one thing, your employees seem to actually love working with each other!” said David, taking a sip of his beer.
“Yours don’t?”
“It’s different—it’s just work for them,” said David. “Your peeps seem to enjoy working with each other. You guys emphasize collaboration a lot, don’t you?”
“Yeah, we do,” said Peter. “I read a case about Merrill Lynch in my innovation class that stuck in my head. It really brought home the importance of collaboration for me.”
“I don’t remember that one,” said David, smiling wryly. “Maybe that’s why I never emphasized collaboration.” He was disappointed that his drink was all gone. “I need some more,” he said before getting up. “You?”
“I am alright,” said Peter.
“Be right back.”
David walked back to the table with a glass. Peter and David were regular drinking buddies but, to Peter, tonight seemed different. David appeared to have an urgency about drinking that he hadn’t seen before. He also wondered if there was a tinge of bitterness in David or if he was just imagining it. He wanted to help David but not at the cost of creating any tension.
“So, you were talking about Merrill Lynch,” said David.
“Oh yeah,” said Peter, hesitantly—he didn’t want to appear preachy.
“Well, go on,” said David emphatically, leaving him no choice.
Peter started describing the initiatives to increase collaboration at Merrill Lynch. At one time, most brokerages, including Merrill Lynch, had analysts who worked on their own. Across their global operations, all of the company’s nearly 500 analysts worked by themselves. In fact, the star performers doubted the value of collaboration, thinking it was only for the average performers. Analysts barely knew each other. However, the times demanded a change in the culture. Investors needed collaborative research because they were not limited by geography or area of expertise. They needed integrated data on industries as they operated across the globe. The company also needed cross-sector and cross-asset research.
Within five years, under the tutelage of Candace Browning, Merrill Lynch transformed into a collaborative culture.1 There was a concerted effort at making the culture more collaborative, including key initiatives, prodding, and rewards. Over time, the once recalcitrant researchers were spontaneously collaborating, and the result was a slew of high-quality products that differentiated the company in the industry and led to immense client satisfaction.
* * *
We call this the “collaboration mandate” because there is simply no way to be innovative without this core ingredient. In the 21st century, with more people coming into contact across the globe than ever before in human history, the organization that doesn’t build strategies and tactics for collaboration is doomed.2 It may seem obvious, but there is more to the value of collaboration for building a culture of innovation than meets the eye. Let’s break it down a bit.
First, the days of the lone inventor are gone. No one person can have all the right answers. Additionally, once ideas are generated, many people are needed to sift and turn that data into meaningful insights. When one idea coming from one individual is built on by another, it can convert a germ of a concept into an innovative idea. Look at Aflac. When a creative team was trying to wrestle with the problem of making Aflac work, the word Aflac sounding like a duck quack came up in a creative brainstorming meeting. The rest is history.3 This happened because the whole group worked together, building off each other.
Second, breakthrough creativity comes from “chains” of connected ideas and collaboration can speed up these chains. When individuals with diverse knowledge and skillsets work together, the confluence of their skills enhances efficiency and creativity. Even the most accomplished professionals tend to become area experts that create blind spots. The concept of “trained incapacity” gets at this idea—that the more we train ourselves into a field of thought and practice, the more we train ourselves out of all kinds of other ways of seeing and being.4 The beauty of working with others is that it helps cover what we simply cannot perceive without others.
Finally, from a practical standpoint, “buying in” creates strength in numbers: when more people have collaborated, more people will have contributed and are likely to buy into an idea. Such ideas tend to be pushed forward further and overcome resistance more easily. This isn’t a matter of opinion. Paul Nutt’s work studying hundreds of organizations over decades found that the way leaders typically initiate change initiatives—through edict or by making a decision and then trying to persuade others—costs far more time and money than collaborative approaches.5 Collaboration leads to smoother operations and less need to “put out fires on the back end,” according to Jeff Dance, CEO, Fresh Consulting.6 As an example, a focus on collaboration has led Fresh Consulting to be in the top 10 percent of ratings on company culture.7
J. Richard Hackman, a leading scientist studying teams, said that the right conditions for collaboration include “a compelling direction, an enabling team structure, a supportive organizational context and expert team coaching.”8 Some companies provide excellent examples. One unique way Pixar fosters collaboration is to have staff regularly share work that is not yet complete.9 This process makes colleagues provide feedback, putting collaboration in motion. It also builds bonds between employees by showcasing their work and creative output.
Intuit does collaboration slightly differently.10 Its employees are encouraged to move from department to department, like an exchange program (how often does this happen?) within the very organization. The objective is to bring a fresh pair of eyes and perspectives to tasks and prevent the silos that are so common to many organizations (e.g., accounting person swapping with marketing). The length of the swap depends on the manager.
Why is collaboration so hard? Aren’t humans supposed to be social animals who built civilizations through teamwork? As a social species, we are hardwired to collaborate. Then why can’t all humans that belong to organizations (and that’s all of us) just naturally collaborate? Why does Pixar have to take deliberate steps to create collaboration and become an example for other companies to emulate?
Collaboration to get a fire started or hunt a wooly mammoth is different than collaboration in organizations. Organizations are complex and made of different moving parts. There needs to be collaboration within teams and between teams with different incentives and goals. That’s the challenge.
* * *
“Collaboration often fails because of a lack of trust,” said Peter.
“Trust?”
“Teams have to trust each other. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect, but one thing I made sure was to emphasize that right in the start. It was important to set those expectations right,” said Peter.
“I can see trust within a team, why across teams?” asked David.
“When you are expecting teams to collaborate, you should not create incentives that are not aligned. You can’t have one team doing well at the expense of another and expect them to collaborate. Let me give you an example. We pivoted from our core business and core customer. You know that right?”
“Yeah. You started catering to clothes manufacturers and retail,” said David.
“Yeah, but if we had let only the sales and marketing team go after this segment, and not aligned manufacturing’s incentives to align, they would never have worked with sales and marketing to make sure to fulfill their orders. We had to change their incentives as well to build in an incentive to pivot manufacturing lines to supply to these new customers. Collaboration involves trust. One team should trust the other team they are collaborating with, and it’s on leadership to make sure incentives are aligned and teams trust each other.”
“You sound like a management guru man! Why don’t you start teaching a class?” said David, a bit wryly.
Given that he had pressed him for it, Peter was a little surprised at this comment but decided to remain gracious.
“Sorry, I just get a little passionate sometimes. I am no guru by any stretch, I have a lot to learn dude,” said Peter.
“You do make a good point though,” said David, grudgingly.
Gary Pisano, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, would agree. Gary argues that organizations should balance collaboration with accountability.11 Collaboration does not mean a lack of individual accountability by any means. Besides accountability, it is important to also have individual recognition. It is a balance. Too much emphasis on the team can lead to groupthink, especially if individual recognition is taken away. When a football team is rewarded for being a great team, the team does not cry foul if one of their ranks is declared the most valuable player (MVP). MVPs can exist in strong teams too. There is no “I” in team but there is an “e” for excellence and an “a” for achievement—those should not be stifled. Accountability, recognition, and a willingness to say “I don’t know” or “I didn’t get it right” are critical to trustful collaboration.
Too often collaboration can lead to groupthink, consensus, and uninspiring creativity. While collaboration requires teamwork, it is also important to recognize individual performance as well. Collaboration should never be at loggerheads with team achievement.
Key Takeaways
• Fostering collaboration is key to innovation; innovation does not tend to come from a lone genius.
• An emphasis on collaboration must come from the top.
• Create cross-functional teams composed of people with diverse skills, backgrounds, and perspectives.
• Trust is critical for collaboration; create aligned and transparent incentives among teams so that there is trust across and within teams.
• While emphasizing collaboration, also emphasize individual accountability and recognition.
1 B. Groysberg, and I. Vargas. March 2007. “Innovation and Collaboration at Merrill Lynch,” Harvard Business School, pp. 406–081. www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=32914.
2 J. Lull. 2008. Culture-on-Demand: Communication in a Crisis World (Malden, MA: Blackwell).
3 D.P. Amos. January–February 2010. “How I Did It: Aflac’s CEO Explains How He Fell for the Duck,” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/01/how-i-did-it-aflacs-ceo-explains-how-he-fell-for-the-duck.
4 K. Burke. 1984. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose (Berkeley: University of California Press), p. 7, originated by Thorstein Veblen.
5 P.C. Nutt. 2009. Why Decisions Fail: Avoiding the Blunders and Traps That Lead to Debacles (Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler).
6 “About,” Fresh Consulting. www.freshconsulting.com/about/.
7 “Fresh Consulting,” Comparably. www.comparably.com/companies/fresh-consulting.
8 D. Hevesi. January 20, 2013. “J. Richard Hackman, an Expert in Team Dynamics, Dies at 72,” The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/business/j-richard-hackman-an-expert-in-team-dynamics-dies-at-72.html.
9 E. Catmull. September 2009. “How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity,” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2008/09/how-pixar-fosters-collective-creativity.
10 G. Abramovich. January 25, 2013. “Why Intuit Encourages Job Swaps,” Digiday. https://digiday.com/marketing/why-intuit-encourages-job-swaps/.
11 G.P. Pisano. January–February 2019. “The Hard Truth About Innovative Cultures,” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-hard-truth-about-innovative-cultures.