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? rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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:

Shooting Ourselves in the Feet

When you give a demo to a small audience, there's a danger of overwhelming them in a behavior I call "swarming." Here are some tips for terrific demos to small audiences.

Who Would You Take With You to Mars?

What makes a great team? What traits do you value in teammates? Project teams can learn a lot from the latest thinking about designing teams for extended space exploration.

Films Not About Project Teams: II

Here's Part II of a list of films and videos about project teams that weren't necessarily meant to be about project teams. Most are available to borrow from the public library, and all are great fun.

Confirmation Bias: Workplace Consequences: II

We continue our exploration of confirmation bias. In this Part II, we explore its effects in management processes.

Irrational Deadlines

Some deadlines are so unrealistic that from the outset we know we'll never meet them. Yet we keep setting (and accepting) irrational deadlines. Why does this happen?

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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