Pseudo-Collaborations

Although we can classify workplace collaborations in numerous ways, all forms of collaboration share one attribute: they bring together individuals, groups, or distinct entities to achieve a stated objective. The effectiveness of a particular collaboration or style of collaboration depends, in part, on how well it suits the organizational context that hosts it. But in terms of its stated objective, there is one form of collaboration that is invariably ineffective. I call it the pseudo-collaboration.

Pseudo-collaboration is a form of collaboration that appears outwardly to meet the definition of collaboration. It has a stated objective, and it brings together people or organizational structures that assert — and often believe — that they're working together to achieve that objective. But pseudo-collaborations have elements that distinguish them from the more benign but fecklessly ineffective conventional collaborations. Pseudo-collaborations are inherently incapable (or nearly incapable) of producing the results toward which they claim to be striving.

Two questions naturally arise. First, what properties of pseudo-collaborations deprive them of the possibility of achieving their stated objectives? And second, how can pseudo-collaborations survive in organizations that are supposedly so careful about how they allocate their resources?

What makes pseudo-collaborations so ineffective

Here are three examples of factors that make pseudo-collaborations inherently unable to achieve their stated objectives.

Unintended consequences of the performance management system

Some performance Pseudo-collaborations appear outwardly
to be genuine, but they are inherently
incapable of producing the results
toward which they claim to be striving management systems directly interfere with the performance of the pseudo-collaboration. For example, suppose Team A and Team B are engaged in a pseudo-collaboration, in addition to their regular responsibilities. And suppose that the organizational performance management system assesses the performance of these teams on the basis of a computed metric called velocity, defined to be the rate at which each team produces value from the tasks in their respective backlogs. Since neither team receives "velocity credit" for work performed in service to the collaboration, the teams both assign a low priority to collaboration work. It never gets done.

To address this problem would require including collaboration work in the teams' respective backlogs. But the teams resist this because they would be placing their own velocity ratings in each other's hands. That is, Team A might not be able to work on a task until Team B does its part. To limit this risk, both teams insist on excluding collaboration work from their backlogs.

Insufficient or poorly defined range of authority

To achieve their stated objectives, some collaborations require a defined range of organizational authority that empowers them to take the actions they must. If the actions they need to take require approval of other authorities outside the collaboration, then the effectiveness of the collaboration is at risk.

Two responses can mitigate this risk. Either entities that already possess the required authorities can be incorporated into the pseudo-collaboration, or the required authorities can be granted to the pseudo-collaboration. In many cases, both mitigations are precluded, because the pseudo-collaboration was deprived of them from the outset as a condition of its formation.

Inadequate access to information

Some executive activities, such as strategy development, are highly confidential. They proceed outside the awareness of most people in the organization, until their results are "rolled out" both internally and for the public. In some cases this work affects the work of pseudo-collaborations, but for reasons of security the information is withheld from the pseudo-collaborations.

One workaround for this issue is dissolution of the pseudo-collaboration. But in some cases that action could reveal or suggest the nature of the closely held activity. In these cases, organizations often let the pseudo-collaboration labor on, even though the results they produce, if any, could be compromised by their ignorance.

How Pseudo-collaborations persist

Pseudo-collaborations, by definition, produce little of value. Since most organizations try to allocate resources wisely, creating pseudo-collaborations and allowing them to persist would seem to be puzzling choices. But there are reasons why organizations might make those choices.

Unstated objectives provide one explanation. The pseudo-collaboration might be serving a purpose no one can state "out loud." For example, suppose Engineering views the Agile Software Initiative as unreasonable interference in their work. They would rather work the way they always have, and avoid all customer contact. And suppose further that the Investor Relations function has already announced publicly that in the coming three fiscal quarters, the Agile Software Initiative will make great progress in reducing both time to market the cost of developing new products. In such a case, ensuring that the Agile Software Initiative is a pseudo-collaboration would satisfy both Engineering and Investor Relations. The stated objective in this case is improving the engineering process. The unstated objective in this case is satisfying investors without upsetting engineers.

Other reasons for the persistence of pseudo-collaborations include pet projects, obstructing rivals' access to resources, and the need to comply with regulations, consent decrees, and other legal requirements. The possibilities are endless.

Last words

Although advocating for formation of a pseudo-collaboration can be a most cynical ploy, it's likely that the people directly involved in the collaboration regard the effort as genuine rather than a pseudo-collaboration. The intentional hobbling of a collaboration more likely occurs at the level of the organization responsible for strategic resource allocation. Even at that level, most people involved are trying to create a path to the objective, rather than setting roadblocks in that path.  Top    Next Issue

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

No Surprises

If you tell people "I want no surprises," prepare for disappointment. For the kind of work that most of us do, surprises are inevitable. Still, there's some core of useful meaning in "I want no surprises," and if we think about it carefully, we can get what we really need.

The Solving Lamp Is Lit

We waste a lot of time finding solutions before we understand the problem. And sometimes, we start solving before everyone is even aware of the problem. Here's how to prevent premature solution.

The Tyranny of Singular Nouns

When groups try to reach decisions, and the issue in question has a name that suggests a unitary concept, such as "policy," they sometimes collectively assume that they're required to find a one-size-fits-all solution. This assumption leads to poor decisions when one-size-fits-all isn't actually required.

The Power and Hazards of Anecdotes: II

Anecdotes are powerful tools of persuasion, but with that power comes a risk that we might become persuaded of false positions. Here is Part II of a set of examples illustrating some hazards of anecdotes.

Contextual Causes of Conflict: I

When destructive conflict erupts, we usually hold responsible only the people directly involved. But the choices of others, and general circumstances, can be the real causes of destructive conflict.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 3: Contributions in Team Meetings: Advocating

An agenda in the form of an ordered list of topics might not provide an appropriate framework for a given meeting. For example, if A depends on B, and B depends on A, we must find a way to discuss A and B together in some orderly fashion. Here are some alternatives to linear, ordered agendas. Available here and by RSS on September 3.

And on September 10: Contributions in Team Meetings: Scoping

Some meetings focus on solving specific problems. We call them "working sessions." More often, we delegate problem solving to task teams, while meetings wrestle with the difficult task of identifying or "scoping" problems rather than solving them. Scoping discussions can be perilous. Available here and by RSS on September 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info