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.
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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.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.
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.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Workplace Barn Raisings
- Until about 75 years ago, barn raising was a common custom in the rural United States. People came together
from all parts of the community to help construct one family's barn. Although the custom has largely
disappeared in rural communities, we can still benefit from the barn raising approach in problem-solving
- Fill in the Blanks
- When we conceal information about ourselves and our areas of responsibility, we make room for others
to speculate. Speculation is rarely helpful. It's wise to fill in the blanks.
- The Reification Error and Performance Management
- Just as real concrete objects have attributes, so do abstract concepts, or constructs. But attempting
to measure the attributes of constructs as if they were the attributes of real objects is an example
of the reification error. In performance management, committing this error leads to unexpected and unwanted
- Managing Hindsight Bias Risk
- Performance appraisal practices and project retrospectives both rely on evaluating performance after
outcomes are known. Unfortunately, a well-known bias — hindsight bias — can limit the effectiveness
of many organizational processes, including both performance appraisal and project retrospectives.
- Paradoxical Policies: II
- Because projects are inherently unique, constructing general organizational policies affecting projects
is difficult. The urge to treat projects as if they were operations compounds the difficulty. Here's
a collection of policies for projects that would be funny if they weren't real.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 28: Checklists: Conventional or Auditable
- Checklists help us remember the steps of complex procedures, and the order in which we must execute them. The simplest form is the conventional checklist. But when we need a record of what we've done, we need an auditable checklist. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
- And on March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.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