Reflections on a meeting

The Management Team meeting was addressing the failure of an important procedure. When Joel began proposing a solution, Matti introduced a different approach, to which Joel responded, “That’ll never work” and began explaining why. Matti interrupted to demonstrate why his approach was flawed. For 30-40 minutes they heatedly competed for speaking space to explain, justify or fault one another’s reasoning. Others voiced support for their own preference or kept their heads down. Eventually a vote narrowly favoured Matti’s solution.

Later I met my client Rob who I’d been observing at this meeting. I was coaching him to become increasingly aware of the inner mindsets and outer practices that enhance or impede collaboration. He’d made small but significant shifts to transform his approach, especially for navigating conversational complexity. What had he noticed about the discussion?

“It was an embarrassing, time-wasting debacle!” he said. “Joel and Matti had good ideas but neither listened to the other and no-one helped them to. They got no credit for trying to help and the good bits were overlooked. We quarrelled and competed instead of looking for a way forward. Now there’ll be greater reluctance to discuss thorny issues. Nearly half of us disagreed with the vote so it’s bound to come unstuck and need revisiting. Right now I guarantee everyone’s telling people who weren’t present, their personal version of the events - and not in a good way!

Cooperation and competition differ from collaboration

Many people are accustomed to discussions regarded as collaboration but which actually comprise cooperation: differences dealt with by majority vote, by yielding reluctantly to impositions of others’ wishes, and going-along-to-get-along. Cooperation is often necessary for collaboration, but they are not the same thing.

Collaboration is based on the importance of relating to others with respect for our mutual status as equal human beings, whatever differences exist and however we are treated in return. It aims to demonstrate understanding and respect of others’ rights to their beliefs, values, expertise and perspectives, while fully respecting our own, and to bridge divergences. It may involve persuasion but is most concerned with helping people confidently speak about, listen to and thoughtfully consider all parties’ perspectives to work towards something they all want.

This can take longer to reach agreements than those made by cooperation, but outcomes arrived at tend to remain settled rather than requiring re-work. Sophisticated dialogue practices are required, but even without complete mastery of them small behavioural shifts can make immediate improvements.

Even when applied by a minority of participants, collaborative intentions and actions can facilitate beneficial progress, build people’s sense of camaraderie, connection, goodwill, teamwork, trust and deep engagement.

The problem

Much of my career has focused on the critical role interpersonal behaviours and mindsets play in business, civic, and community group efficacy. I’m often a non-participant spectator at variations of the Joel and Matti scenario. Although people usually try sincerely to avoid causing misunderstanding or friction, those intentions are often disrupted by unhelpful habits that confound participants, waste time, and provoke long-lasting (sometimes widespread) disharmony. My clients wonder why these things occur and seek ways to better harness the collective capacity of their groups.

On those matters I offer some broad considerations about cause, effect and desirable development.

Some perspectives

First, real collaboration refers to people’s involvement in progressing and managing shared interests in ways that ease consideration of each party’s needs and perspectives, seek common ground and bring together thinking across whatever differences emerge. At its heart is the search for common ground that brings together thinking across divergences. Very many people find this overly challenging because it requires a higher order of self-management competence than is usually thought necessary for less challenging conversations. That is the origin of the problem: everyday practices become ingrained habits.

Second, two assumptions are commonly made about interpersonal conflict: (i) that the relationship practices and attitudes developed and habituated in everyday unremarkable exchanges are sufficient to deal with those divergences and disagreements; and (ii) should that not be the case, more sophisticated but insufficiently-practised behaviours will somehow become accessible. These are common fallacies. Skill means ability habituated through practise. New behaviours are difficult to develop while we perpetuate those that need upgrading. Common practice is often not good sense.

A helpful resource

My new book, Collaborative Dialogue – Self-Management at the Heart of Collaboration is a comprehensive treatment of the self-management practices necessary for real collaboration. Its guidelines are applicable anywhere, including within families and everyday social relationships. It emphasises personal reflection, self-assessment, agency, clarity, kindness, candour and harmony; not the absence of conflict and complexity but the composure and presence of mind that can carry us through them. Communicating on these foundations is mostly an art, I believe, rather than a precise science.