11. Teamwork

“We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

—Benjamin Franklin

“When he took time to help the man up the mountain, lo, he scaled it himself.”

—Tibetan Proverb

Human beings are profoundly social animals. Characterized by a need for membership and getting pleasure from giving and getting help, it is natural that emotionally healthy people cluster into groups, spending most of their lives in association with others, especially family members, friends, and work associates.

This book is about the workplace, not about relationships per se. Yet, the quality of social relationships in the workplace—its “social capital”—is of great importance, not only because of the general need people have for camaraderie, but because cooperative relationships are critical for effective performance and, therefore, for a sense of achievement in one’s work.¹

If you try to talk, the forelady comes running over with a lot more work to do, or she yells, “Why aren’t you finished yet?”

It sounds like something out of a comedy routine, but it nonetheless represents in very large measure the state of human relations at work not all that long ago.

The field of industrial and organization psychology emerged in the 1920s and 1930s, largely in reaction to these jaundiced views of worker motivation and behavior. On the basis of the famous Hawthorne studies, Elton Mayo, widely considered the founder of the “human relations” movement in industry, made the social needs of workers central to his theory:

Man’s desire to be continuously associated in work with his fellows is a strong, if not the strongest, human characteristic. Any disregard of it by management or any ill-advised attempt to defeat this human impulse leads instantly to some form of defeat for management itself.²

What did Mayo mean by a “defeat for management?” He refers to two manifestations: the negative impact on employee morale and the lessening of the cooperation required for the effective performance of almost every job.

The field has come a long way since the “human relations” movement. Although its theories and prescriptions have been broadened to include other human needs, such as those addressed in this book, the importance of social relationships is undeniable for both the satisfaction and the performance of people at work.

There is one thing that bugs me, not so much my immediate team but some of the people who work for them. It’s their lunch habits—I’m told they can take two hours or more for lunch. I know sometimes it’s with customers, but they also take each other to lunch and, believe it or not, they charge the company, they put it on their expense accounts. That can happen a few times a month. They say they’re talking company business but I don’t know....

The interviews with those managers showed a sharply different picture. They said that they didn’t just socialize over lunch and that they usually got an enormous amount done (by being “away from the phone,” “away from the boss,” and so on). These lunches were mostly work sessions, they said, and claimed that the company was getting more than its money’s worth. Besides, considering their 60-plus hour work weeks and their level, they wondered why anyone would worry about the time they took for lunch.

Would a CEO of a major corporation fret over a matter as apparently trivial as whether senior executives took unduly long lunch breaks? You bet! When it comes to human relationships, the fundamental issues are amazingly consistent from level to level. Pettiness is as prevalent in the executive suite as it is on the shop floor, as any senior manager can tell you.

Do employees want to waste time? Some surely do; those few would spend the whole day socializing if they were allowed. But the overwhelming majority of employees are frustrated when time is wasted. They don’t like to waste time on the job (such as in unproductive meetings) or in excessive work breaks. Of course, they don’t want to and cannot work every minute of every day. Work breaks are no more a waste of time than are vacations.

We are not referring to situations where the work or work environment is so onerous that socializing is an escape from it or a way for employees to express resentment of the company. That is, when workers are apathetic or angry, breaks are more than simply needed pauses in the workday. They are then also likely to be excessive, which causes managers to crack down on the “malingerers,” which further alienates the workforce. This vicious circle harms the organization and its employees.

In organizations that incorporate the practices we describe and recommend in this book, employees are motivated to work hard. Taking time to rest and socialize is nothing to worry about; in fact, it should be encouraged. Such breaks are needed because they add to overall employee performance and provide a sign of management’s concern for employees’ well being, including their health.

In fact, a good deal of the interaction while socializing is work-related. In organizations with good teamwork, the boundary between work and breaks becomes blurred, and even when the conversation is about matters unrelated to the work, socializing helps cement relationships among team members. In effect, through teamwork and simple and repeated social interaction, a work community is established: people who enjoy each other’s company and have a shared commitment to each other and pride in the group’s achievements.

It is fortunate that social relationships are as important as they are to people because practically all work requires a high degree of cooperation. This seems too obvious to mention, but some managers and management theorists still maintain that there are numerous jobs where teamwork is simply unnecessary. The example most frequently cited is that of assembly-line workers performing highly fractionated jobs. What would teamwork add to performance on jobs so simplified, standardized, and segregated into individual tasks? It would just be time wasted in chit-chatting and in useless meetings. We discussed previously the similarly skeptical view about the value of participation in decision making by workers on routine jobs. We showed that that skepticism is belied by the many successful participative experiments that have been conducted in precisely those environments.

In fact, the participative experiments have, to our knowledge, always involved a team approach, such as self-managed teams. The technique requires that people work collaboratively (within and between units) to solve problems and make decisions. This, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, is an enormously effective approach to management and organization.

Why should this be true for work that has been standardized and structured—like that of a machine—into minute and individually performed tasks? It is true because the reality of such work situations is different from the theoretical conditions suggested by the machine model. The fact is that when work is highly fractionated, the interdependence among the parts is actually greater than when a job consists of doing the “whole thing.” The performance of a worker assigned to just one step of an operation depends on receiving work product from the previous worker on time and with the quality required to perform the task. Workers in a multiple-shift organization depend on their co-workers doing the same job on other shifts for a smooth hand-off of the work. There is great dependence on various support departments to provide the resources that enable workers to do their jobs (such as machine maintenance). Changes (in specifications, procedures, equipment) are likely to be frequent, and workers need others to inform them of the changes clearly and on time and provide any training that might be required.

There is, therefore, a great deal of interdependence among workers doing even the most highly fractionated work. In fact, teamwork is needed for just about every job at every level. Things don’t happen automatically; they require cooperation. Cooperation—not job descriptions, not organization charts, not formal procedures—is the glue that binds the parts of the organization.

If senior management ignores these battles, they escalate as a matter of course and can be costly. The costs are not just the time spent in battle but also in not being able to exploit opportunities collaboratively.

Just as a lack of cooperation can escalate into a large-scale problem, good cooperation can have a significant and positive synergistic effect. When organizations are managed as more than a collection of individuals, the resulting whole is typically greater than the sum of its parts. Although groups are often derided as promoting dull conformity (“groupthink”) or, conversely, bizarre solutions (“a camel is a horse put together by a committee”), the research evidence shows that the quality of group performance, such as in problem solving, is by and large superior to that of an individual working alone. In addition to the esprit de corps they generate, groups, when structured and managed correctly, allow for the emergence and consideration of different perspectives, which are vital to solve problems and make good decisions. Further, they generate greater acceptance by the members of the outcome.³ Our own analyses almost invariably show strong positive correlations between teamwork in organizations (as perceived by employees) and organization performance.

At the obvious extreme, there is absolutely no way the Manhattan or Apollo projects and thousands like them could have succeeded without high-functioning teams. For those cynical about doing work “by committee,” keep in mind such well-known products of committees as the U.S. Constitution and the King James Version of the Bible. Committees or teams fail when they are not structured and managed properly (more on that later), or when they are devices put in place to avoid, rather than make, decisions. Those are not the committees or teams we have in mind.

He (the manager) keeps telling us that we don’t work well together. He’s right, we’re always arguing, but it’s mostly his fault. For example, someone gets an assignment in a meeting and then, after the meeting, he gives someone else the same assignment without telling the other person. We’re all running around—and our people are running around—trying to get it done and we find out others are doing it, too. So we assume that the others are invading our turf and we’re p.o.’d at each other. And it’s a great waste of high-priced time. Another thing: he’s always bad-mouthing us to each other.

When it occurs, conflict within units is often the result of a manager’s particular style or the quirks of one or two individual employees. Conflict between units is more frequent because, in addition to individual factors, broad organizational forces at work can create discord. Organizations are divided, by necessity, into business or functional units, and the members of the units focus primarily or exclusively on the achievement of their own goals. They are convinced that achieving their own goals is beneficial not only for them, but for the organization as a whole and for the units with which they interact. In practice, however, they are often at odds with those units.

For example, many organizations are beset by serious and continuing disputes between “line” and “staff” functions. Line functions, such as product development, production, and sales, are directly responsible for accomplishing the end purposes of the organization, whereas staff groups, such as information technology, human resources, finance, and legal, exist primarily to assist the line in its work. (The term “staff” derives from the rod or stick that assists walking, and it comes from a Sanskrit root meaning “support.”) Although staff personnel firmly believe that they are dedicated to supporting the line and should therefore be welcomed by the line, the opposite is often the case. As the saying goes, “With such friends, we don’t need enemies.”

The most frequent example of this kind of conflict may be the one between information technology and the line. We detail that relationship later in this chapter. Perhaps the second most common type of conflict is the relationship between the Human Resources department and employees—yes, employees! Shouldn’t the Human Resources department help employees? Well, take a look at some of these comments:

After choosing (a benefits package), I found there was misinformation from HR, which caused much stress. I found that our Human Resources department was useless. It feels as if we are left out to dry when it comes to benefit issues.

I am never able to find the right people to talk to when we have questions related to human resources. I go in circles being transferred to multiple people who know less than the next one.

I am completely frustrated talking with Human Resources about payroll issues, changing benefits, and getting reimbursement for time or business expenses.

I hate dealing with Human Resources regarding a range of issues. Either I can’t reach the proper person or the person gives me wrong advice and answers. I think each division of this company should have a qualified representative on site that can assist with your needs and that really wants to assist.

It is difficult adjusting to Human Resources and compensation policy changes that are enacted by the leaders of the company without a true warning, such as the elimination of overtime/compensatory time right at the beginning of the busy season. HR is not an advocate of the employee but nothing more than the mouthpiece of higher management.

They [the Human Resources department] are just a bunch of bureaucrats—everything is forms, forms, forms and the answers are no, no, no. We call them Inhuman Resources.

Inter-unit conflict is not limited to line-staff relationships. Consider the tensions between production and sales, which are two line organizations.

From the sales side:

I am in a position of selling to willing customers but our production organization doesn’t handle my orders in the time the customers want them. Not a few of my sales opportunities are therefore lost. How can we get them to respond in a timely manner? They seem completely resistant to trying out new ways that will speed things up. Also, it often takes days for them to return my calls. It’s much easier dealing with other companies.

From the production side:

Our salespeople should understand what we can produce and how fast we can do it. Promising the customer something in a time we can’t deliver it frankly drives us crazy. Before making a commitment, it would be great if they checked with us first. By not doing this, escalations are the norm rather than the exception. We are not working as a team.

Working together is a natural human instinct, yet much internal discord exists. The work community we spoke of earlier seems not to extend, in many cases, to the organization as a whole. Ironically, the problem is magnified by the need for camaraderie. Here’s the downside of the desire for strong relationships with others: it might be satisfied at the expense of relationships with those not in the immediate group. Whoever’s not in the immediate group can be viewed as competitors and even as the “enemy camp.” Employees frequently refer to a “we-they” atmosphere within their organizations: “they” might be the people in another department on the other side of the hall or a group in corporate headquarters on the other side of the country or world.

Conflict, of course, is not inherently detrimental. On the broadest level, conflict and its corollary, competition, are at the heart of our economic and political systems, and they yield great rewards. Companies in the same industry, for example, need to compete aggressively with each other. But such aggressive competition among entities within a company does serious harm to the organization’s effectiveness. The damage has three major elements: the resources that need to be expended to pursue the battle, the loss of collaborative opportunities, and the negative impact on employee morale. Regarding morale, although the “we-they” phenomenon can temporarily boost in-group identification in relation to the “enemy,” few employees enjoy such conflict over the long term. It inhibits their performance and the organization’s performance, and it is tiring. Most employees want to battle the competition—that can be exhilarating—not each other.

Besides being wasteful and debilitating, much of the conflict in organizations is needless and irrational. It is needless because it’s resolvable: the parties can be brought together in a collaborative or win-win relationship. It is irrational because it’s driven by misperceptions of the inevitability of conflict between them. Yes, inherent conflicts of interest exist where one party’s gain equates to the other party’s loss. Numerous issues in labor-management relations are of this kind. No one should expect workers to participate gladly and collaboratively in being downsized, outsourced, or offshored. Incompatible interests of that kind can usually be settled only through the traditional adversarial process, which is basically a matter of the relative power of the two sides, their skill in employing that power, and an appreciation of the costs of not settling the dispute.

Much of the discord between groups in organizations, however, does not stem from an inherent incompatibility of interests, but from a perception that such incompatibility exists. For example, does an inherent conflict of interests exist between an IT function and its “user” divisions? The parties might act that way, but doesn’t IT exist primarily to help its users do their work, and don’t both groups exist to further the organization’s success? The parties don’t act that way because that’s not how they see it: each group sees the other as acting solely in its own selfish or myopic interests and often in ways that are detrimental to the other party. Therefore, each group protects itself and, as the conflict continues, it generates intensifying perceptions of malice in each other’s intentions. In fact, the perceptions then do become grounded in reality because each party, because of its assumptions, does begin to act in ways that seek to undermine the other. It is no longer a distortion for each side to see the other as untrustworthy and dangerous: the conflict process has made the perceptions a reality. In other words, if the parties believe a conflict exists, it does—or soon will.

As we have said, conflicts differ in how real or psychologically based they are. Approaches to reduce conflict must take this into account, and there are two basic strategies:

• Conflict management. The parties agree not to fight and to establish mechanisms to help avoid and settle disagreements.

• Partnership building. The parties agree to collaborate actively in the achievement of mutual goals—that is, to establish a relationship aimed at adding value and not just minimizing discord and its costs.

Conflict management is most appropriate when the conflict stems from a real divergence of interests; partnership building is appropriate when the root cause is misperceptions. The labor-relations arena provides good examples of the two approaches. An antagonistic and costly relationship between labor and management can be converted, through conflict management, into one where workers and the company agree on mechanisms to prevent and handle disputes, such as an orderly and relatively noncontentious grievance procedure and, to prevent strikes, commencing bargaining well in advance of contract expiration. That happens when the parties, despite their different specific financial interests, recognize that the mutual interest of the parties is served by containing or reducing the costs of conflict that can only shrink the economic pie that’s available to both groups.

The parties can, however, agree to go beyond this truce-like result to consider how they can work together to increase the economic pie that they share, by improving quality, efficiency, and the like. That is the difference between a relationship of respectful adversaries and one of active allies.

Getting management and labor to cooperate in areas such as improving quality first requires successful conflict management. Antagonism between the parties on basic equity issues makes a collaborative relationship on other matters difficult. But managing such conflict well does not guarantee that the parties will move to the next level. Another hurdle must be overcome: the misperceptions the parties usually have of each other regarding their interest in matters such as quality improvement and their interest in establishing a truly collaborative relationship to achieve those ends. With regard to quality, for example, management tends to assume that workers don’t really care about quality, whereas workers tend to assume that all that management wants is production, no matter what the quality. These beliefs are rarely accurate or, at least, are distorted significantly. Unless misperceptions are clearly identified and acknowledged, the parties have no chance of becoming allies in a sustained way to improve quality. The foundation for success (like that of the self-managed teams described in Chapter 8) is that both parties trust that they share common goals.

To illustrate, let’s thoroughly examine the relationship we uncovered between the IT function and its “user” divisions in a large financial-services company. The reason for the study was expressed strong user dissatisfaction with internal IT functions. Complaints included errors, excessive costs, and, especially, “attitude,” a sense that many IT personnel were indifferent to providing genuinely good service to users. The senior management of the company, which was largely sympathetic to the users, asked us to determine, in essence, what was wrong with IT and how it could be fixed.

In-depth interviews were conducted with all the managers in those units and with samples of nonmanagerial personnel. What we found was more complex than was thought: the villain was neither party individually, but the relationship between them.

To start, each group considered itself to be competent, committed to serving the interests of the company, and highly dedicated to doing its job well. Contrary to how they were viewed, IT employees felt themselves to be dedicated to providing users with high-quality, timely, and cost-effective work. Each side, however, saw the other as committed only to its own success (that is, unconcerned with either the company or the other party). The IT employees typically considered users to be unreasonably demanding, continually changing their minds about what they wanted (disregarding the impact such mid-course changes had on IT and its ability to do the job), and oblivious to costs (unless the costs were billed to them, in which case they felt they had been overcharged). This was compounded by IT’s view that many users’ ignorance of technology was matched only by their ignorance of their ignorance. It was further compounded by IT’s conviction that users were unconcerned about IT’s frustrations, especially the way that function was bombarded with “the highest priority” projects, all of which required timely and error-free completion that IT just didn’t have the resources to provide.

The user divisions had an equally jaundiced opinion of IT personnel’s characteristics. The IT department was typically seen as having little sense of urgency in doing the work (hence, the frequent lateness in delivery), failing to understand the users’ objectives (even though, according to the users, these objectives were clearly spelled out), being resistant to user ideas and suggestions, being frequently careless in the quality of their work, being unresponsive to the users’ daily needs (including not returning phone calls, which was a tremendous frustration), and grossly overcharging for their work. In parallel with the IT function’s view, the users saw IT as ignorant of (and quite unconcerned with) the company’s mainline business and its changing demands.

In essence, the views were mirror images of each other: each party saw itself as dedicated and competent and the other as largely self-absorbed and ignorant.

Although these perceptions might have had some degree of validity (for example, the users typically did not fully appreciate the pressures on the IT function), they were, in essence, misperceptions because of their assumptions of a basic incompatibility of interests and the other party’s incompetence. There was an assumption of conflict, for example, in the users’ views that IT made mistakes because it didn’t care about serving users well rather than because of inordinate pressures on them or misunderstandings as to what the users want. Also, there was an assumption of incompetence in the view that users change the project specifications continually because they really don’t know what they want rather than because of changing demands on them or new insights.

The reader might be tempted to ask, “Why don’t these people grow up? They’re acting like children, ‘You did this to me,’ ‘No, I didn’t—you did that to me.’ Why don’t they just get down to business and stop the incessant bickering and blaming?”

If only getting down to business was that simple. Childish or not, we know that emotion is rarely absent in people’s relationships, including the relationships between mature businesspeople, and that misperceptions and misunderstandings frequently arise. These feed on themselves, which causes increasing, needless, and serious damage to everyone’s interests and morale. Although at times these problems can be resolved by the parties themselves, they usually need help from a third party, a skilled diagnostician and facilitator.

We now describe in detail an approach to partnership building that has been used successfully in numerous settings. It assists the parties to achieve mutually beneficial and collaborative relationships. The approach has been applied to a variety of relationships, such as between business units, home country and overseas units, acquirer and acquired company employees, and the members of senior-management teams. It has also been applied to a company and its key external constituencies, such as suppliers.

A facilitator manages the process, and its centerpiece is an intensive partnership-building workshop that uses survey data as its springboard. Although the approach must be tailored to the objectives and conditions of the organization in which the work is being done, the following sections describe a fairly typical set of basic steps.

Planning. Having determined that the approach is appropriate and the organization is ready for it, the objectives, procedure, schedule, and specific expected outcomes of the process are finalized.

Communication. The partnership-building objectives and plan are fully communicated to all employees in the organization who will be affected by them.

Diagnosis. Through interviews, or a combination of interviews and questionnaires, the organization’s members are surveyed. The surveys yield in-depth profiles of the views the members hold of themselves and the other party; what they see as the key components, causes, and consequences of the lack of collaboration; the suggestions they might have to increase collaboration; and, what they deem to be the potential benefits of increased collaboration in terms of specific business problems and opportunities.

• Business orientation. Unlike some team-building efforts, the process employed is clearly and directly business-related. The goal is not to build relationships per se, but to build relationships that promote business objectives. This type of workshop rarely uses simulated exercises to get people to work together; instead, they work collaboratively on business issues and opportunities that are real, significant, and best dealt with as a team. The human-relationship issues are identified and resolved within this business context and, as appropriate, the workshop takes the time needed to assess, discuss, and resolve those issues.

• Open atmosphere. It is important that the workshop participants feel free to express their views. This is aided immeasurably by the diagnostic attitude data collected prior to the workshop that assess the viewpoints people hold of themselves and the other party. At the beginning of the workshop, the facilitator presents these data and initiates a discussion to bring those issues into the open that, at least initially, the workshop participants might be reluctant to bring up themselves. The issues then become “safe” topics for discussion and help set an open atmosphere for the remainder of the workshop.

• Constructive atmosphere. The open exchange of views should take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Mutual respect is demonstrated by a visible effort to appreciate the situation of the other party, showing an intention to work collaboratively on the issues and demonstrating trust in the other party’s intention to do so, and avoiding rude, insulting language.

• Action orientation with follow-up. The outcome of the workshop is a jointly developed action plan that involves close and continued collaboration between the parties and will contribute significantly to achieving their mutual business objectives. The plan includes mechanisms for following up to ensure that the agreed-upon actions are being taken, including structural changes, such as changes in the reward system of the total organization that reinforce inter-unit collaboration.

• Flexible approach. Although certain general principles govern the partnership-building efforts, the specifics are often modified as the workshop proceeds. The interactions in the workshop are dynamic and unpredictable in many respects, so it is vital that adjustments be made on the spot.

In summary, the keys to a productive workshop are timely preparation of the participants, an open and respectful expression of views, an unyielding focus on the business objective of what is transpiring, disciplined action planning, and a willingness to make adaptations to the agenda as the situation warrants.

2. The participants present their views of the relationship between the parties, covering key strengths and improvement needs and the specific business activities that could benefit from increased collaboration.

3. The facilitator presents the findings from the diagnostic survey. These normally tend to be more focused than the participant presentations on sensitive relationship issues.

4. The participant presentations and the diagnostic findings are discussed, starting with the human relationship concerns (for example, the misperceptions that cause friction in the relationship) and concluding with the substantive business issues.

5. The participants reach agreement on a limited number of priority business issues that will benefit from collaboration. They then decide how best to tackle the key issues in the workshop (for example, those that need to be dealt with by the group as a whole and those best handled in subgroups).

6. The participants carefully define the priority issues and develop action plans to deal with those issues.

7. The workshop concludes by establishing mechanisms for the following:

• Reviewing, finalizing, and implementing the action plans.

• Determining how the collaborative relationship between the parties can best be sustained. Unless this is addressed, it is almost inevitable that, over time, the teamwork the workshop produced will largely dissipate as the participants resume their normal routines and are subjected to pressures that generate friction and discord.

In addition to the business sessions of the workshop, various social activities are scheduled (usually in the evenings) to provide an opportunity for relaxed and informal interaction.

The workshop participants decided on the following basic objective for their work:

To help IT become a truly user-focused organization, every user must feel that IT is doing its best to help him or her do the job; every user must feel that IT is concerned about him or her individually; every user must be satisfied with the services he or she receives from IT. This will be accomplished both by changing attitudes and processes within IT and by changes among the users to help them become more involved and informed consumers of IT services so that IT can assist them more effectively.

Here, in the participants’ own words, are excerpts from their actions plans:

1. Establishment of a company-wide IT-User Partnership Council to assure smooth working relationships; will meet monthly with an agenda consisting of:

• Specific problems that have been encountered; Council will decide how to resolve them.

• Consideration of basic changes that still need to be made to assure a good working relationship.

• Opportunities for additional collaborative undertakings between IT and the users.

• Review of the results, as they are available, from regular measurements of attitudes and performance of IT and user employees.

Individual user organizations may set up their own Partnership Councils to assure adequate attention to their specific issues.

2. Individuals will be appointed by IT to serve as the interfaces with each user organization. These persons will be the primary—but not sole—points of contact between IT and the user organizations. Through communications and coordination, these persons will work to assure that the users’ expectations of IT are satisfied, including helping set realistic user expectations.

3. Communication and involvement:

• Within each user organization, communication sessions will be held with IT in which:

– The relevant aspects of the user’s business will be fully described for IT.

– The relevant IT processes will be fully described for the user.

– Guidelines will be presented for the kinds of behavior—on both sides—that constitute a cooperative working relationship.

Enough time will be allowed for questions and discussion, with time for socializing and interaction. Each session’s agenda will be developed jointly by IT and user representatives to assure clarity and relevance.

• All projects will now begin with a full discussion between IT and the users of the project’s objectives and requirements; requirements will be recorded, but as a working document that will likely change (versus a legalistic and static document); will be followed up with regular meetings reviewing project status, changes, etc.; also, electronic notification will be provided to users regarding project status; “no surprises” billing: costs fully detailed and explained at beginning of project; when modified, detailed explanation will be given to user with opportunity to question and negotiate.

• IT projects which are not initiated by a user but will affect that user will be discussed in detail with the user to assure understanding and to obtain user input.

• Telephone inquiries from users will be answered within two hours.

• Monthly newsletter will be published (electronic) for both IT and user personnel (accomplishments, new developments, etc).

4. Training to be scheduled:

• For IT personnel (including help-desk personnel) in basic communication and customer-relationship skills

• For IT personnel in new technologies (both on- and off-site training)

• For user personnel in systems that have been developed for them

5. IT internal structure and processes:

• Will reduce needless bureaucracy: A lengthy approval process to be shortened considerably by reducing the number of approvals required, especially in the applications development process; a “destroyer” task force will review all paperwork and eliminate paperwork that is no longer useful.

• Cross-functional communication mechanisms (meetings, etc.) will be strengthened within IT.

• New and transparent prioritization process will be developed (combination of time of request, urgency, and amount and availability of resources).

Action implementation began. A follow-up interview survey, conducted eight months after the workshop, revealed sharp gains in most respects in collaboration-related attitudes. Here’s a typical comment from an interview with a user:

Things have changed for the better here. Most of them (IT employees) have a different attitude now. They actually return my phone calls and right away. Most seem to want to help. A big change is how we now plan development projects together and we don’t have to worry about dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” because we know that things will change anyway, and we’ll have to keep communicating and working together. Also, if things will be late, they tell us; if they don’t understand what we want, they ask us. The only real problem is with one small group of programmers who are stuck in the past. It’s their manager—he’s still the same arrogant (expletive deleted). Also, I think their internal approval process is still a little too bureaucratic and time-wasting.

This comment is taken from an IT employee’s interview:

I enjoy my work more now—the haggling is much less now. We understand each other much better now. I used to think they were not so smart—that’s the way I always thought about bankers: expensive suits, not much else. They’re still not really up on technology but I see now a lot of dedication and business sense on the part of most of them. It’s great working together to solve their problems and I’ve gotten more interested in the business. We still have problems with them wanting too much too soon, and they get frustrated with us. But, the anger isn’t there like before and they now almost never go around us to top management to force us to give in to their demands. One guy still does. We talk more face-to-face about the problems and we work most of them out. We understand more the pressures on each of us.

The partnership-building process does not result in Utopia. Certain issues remain and must be dealt with and, given the forces in an organization that pull people and units apart, attention must be paid continually to the relationship or serious problems will certainly recur. It is, therefore, a good idea for the parties to meet periodically offsite for a day or so to examine fully and candidly the state of their relationship. This examination usually leads to further changes to reinforce and enhance collaboration; some changes might be quite basic and some might be painful to individuals.

For example, the parties might decide that structural modifications are in order, such as decentralizing segments of a staff function into the line organization. Certain relationships might lend themselves to modifications in compensation to make pay more reflective of teamwork and not just individual effort. Personnel changes might be needed, such as moving an employee to another job, or even firing those individuals who, despite counseling and time to change their behavior, simply will not or cannot conform to the new collaborative norms. These measures make partnership-building more than a passing fad or a temporary fix for a problem. They serve to institutionalize and sustain a genuinely collaborative culture.