Collaboration Is So Overrated
22 Feb
The other day, for the godonlyknowshowmanyth time, I heard yet another Gen Yer prattle on about how collaborative his generation is.
Oh spare me. When you’re at the bottom of the org chart, everybody is collaborative. My g-g-g-generation was no less collaborative when we in our 20s (or so I deceive myself into thinking, just as Gen Yers deceive themselves).
Now I see that McKinsey has defined 12 collaboration types like the “administrator” who “repeatedly executes a standard or well-defined process” and the “investigator” who “examines facts and information to determine cause and effect.”
McKinsey says that “to improve the productivity of collaboration workers, we must understand the details of how their work gets done. “
I have a lot of respect for McKinsey, but this is hogwash for a few reasons:
1. Twelve segments aren’t manageable. Study the 12 collaboration types. Go back to work, and a few hours later, write down how many of the types and their definitions you remember. I doubt I’d remember more than one or two (although I’m sure that Gen Yers, with their super powers, will remember 10 or 11 of the types — oh no, wait, 12 different Gen Yers will each remember one type, and then collaborate to put the total list together). I don’t care what type of segmentation you’re talking about, 12 segments is 8 or 9 too many.
2. No one fits into just one segment. How many of you don’t — during some part of your day — execute a well-defined process and examine facts and information to determine cause and effect (although I’m sure that Gen Yers in demonstrate traits of all 12 types — all at once, every minute of the day). How can a manager use the segmentation if no one is in any one category?
3. There are more important things to understand. McKinsey is just plain wrong (and this where the Gen Yers, who pat themselves on the back for being collaborative, miss the point). It’s not that important to understand how the work gets done, nor is it that important to be collaborative. Senior executives don’t know — and don’t care — how work gets done. They care that it does get done, gets done right, on time, and at the appropriate expense. When this doesn’t happen, they care about fixing the problem.
I can picture the following conversation:
Senior exec: Why the hell isn’t marketing and finance working together to improve the reporting of marketing ROI?
McKinsey: Well, Sally in finance is a Counselor, who collects information and provides counsel based on past experience and new insights. She needs whiteboarding and Wiki tools to collaborate effectively. Tom in marketing is an Investigator, and he needs podcasts and document/file sharing technologies.
Senior exec: F*ck that. Fix the g*ddamn problem, or I’ll fire you, Sally, and Tom.
If fixing the problem requires more — or better — collaboration, then what managers need is a guide to understanding what prevents collaboration.
To McKinsey’s credit, they planted the seeds of this guide with their segmentation. For example, what may be preventing effective collaboration could be the “lack of a well-defined process” or “inadequate information available to determine cause and effect.”
And what Gen Yers need to understand is that “being collaborative” is nice, but no big deal. What’s important is understanding why people aren’t collaborating when they need to be, and what can be done to foster collaboration when it’s needed.
You know why Gen Y thinks they’re so collaborative? Because Boomers have designed the academic environments that Gen Yers have grown up in to foster (if not force) collaboration.
But business organizations are different. Org structures, pay/bonus incentives, departmental goals, etc., all create roadblocks or disincentives to collaboration. Being collaborative means diddly-squat.
I’m often involved in the hiring decisions in my firm. When I’m interviewing someone (Gen Yer or not), I could care less if s/he is collaborative. What I care about is finding out how they get others to collaborate when goals and objectives aren’t aligned, or when who-knows-what other barriers to collaboration exist.
On second thought, that last sentence was a load of crap. I don’t even believe it myself. All I care about is whether or not the candidate can get sh*t done. That might involve being collaborative, it might not.
Gen Xers, Boomers, Seniors: I look forward to seeing your comments on this post. Gen Yers: I’ll understand if you decide to collaborate on your responses.
Every generation likes to believe they are truly unique, special and different. Parents like to think kids today are just the same they always have been. Both groups are wrong.
I’m tired of hearing observations about Gen-Y that aren’t unique to them. If Gen-Y is collaborative, then how is their form of collaboration different than how other generations collaborated (beyond the obvious impact and speed of computers)?
You’re asking ME?
First of all, we’re not talking about “observations about Gen Y” — it’s their own assertion (seriously, I’ve heard this on a number of occasions. I won’t say who). Implicit in their assertion is not just that “Gen Y is collaborative” but that other generations aren’t. Hmmm. Not sure how they measure that. Sure as hell wasn’t any Gen Yer who started co-ops like REI or Whole Foods, or who started and lived on communes back in the 60s.
And by the way, my kids ARE just like me. Only smarter, better looking, more athletic, and more sociable. But other than those traits, they’re just like me.
I don’t care who made the observation… whether it be Gen-Y talking about themselves, or some other generational expert reflecting on Gen-Y. The world is so desperate to apply labels and definitions to Gen-Y that they don’t realize how ridiculous the terms and descriptors being used actually sound.
“Gen-Y is collaborative,” the Authority Figure says. And the crowd goes “Ooooohhh! Ahhhhh! Brilliant insight!!”
Phhbbbt…
Traitorous cooperation with an enemy is another definition of collaboration. What if McKinsey was secretly revealing this Gen Y trait?
Question Everything,
A Boomer.
Yes. Well said Ron.
Collaboration is often code for putting up with a silo mentality that rewards a status quo management style.
There is a place for collaborating with teams to achieve dreams. In my view, however, what we suffer from in corporate America is not the lack of collaboration but the abandonment of a dream for mediocrity.
Excellence often fosters conflict. And conflict is perceived as lack of collaboration. Nothing is further from the truth.
Ted: You wrote: “Excellence often fosters conflict. And conflict is perceived as lack of collaboration.”
Amen. And trust me when I tell you that nobody — and I mean nobody — has learned that more painfully than I have over the years.
Great post Ron. Would love to collaborate with you on a future one.
Jordan: Interesting idea. But I’m a boomer. I’d hate to burst your gen’s perception of us, so I think it’s best if we don’t collaborate on anything.
I think Denise’s comment is wonderfully understated.
In a vein similar to your fine post, Ron, I was watching a promo for a social media marketing book this morning. Lots of key words rotating on the screen and an emphatic yearning for how different this all is in the sense of “no one has ever communicated, collaborated or listened in this way before.”
It leaves me cold. Then I had a “flutter” of insight, or I wondered if instead of creating something entirely new with social media we’re just going back to the old ways, dare I use the metaphor, the ways of the village, where you spoke directly to those you bought from and sold to and knew everybody’s business etc., etc. The industrial society with its structures and its hierarchies and its mass media gets in the way of that… Well, deals with interactions in another way.
On how important Gen Y is to all this, assume for a second that social media is transformative. It takes a bit of chutzpah for a generation of people to claim that its doing so because of their character. I say its doing so while they happen to be there. Its like what one of the internal CFO’s at Fidelity once told me. All of the exec’s walked around with their big egos because of the big numbers they were throwing up. At the time the Dow was going up 1,000 points a year. He said “its all just market action.”
It’s not chutzpah. It’s totally predictable and expected. Did not the Boomers — when they were Hippies — claim to be changing the world thru peace, love, and rock n’ roll? Were they not the ones who were tuning in, turning on, and dropping out?
Every generation wants to cast off the sins of their predecessors. I don’t fault Gen Yers for walking around claiming to be “collaborative” (and, by implication, “superior”). I’m just calling them out on it.
My experience is the “sharing” approach to collaboration yields weak outcomes that take way too long to produce.
Participants love it because you can’t “blame” anybody for this end result – you know, it was a “shared” outcome.
Hey, wait a minute, is that good?
Good post. I have found in my short career that collaboration works well on some processes or parts of a project. Although, if you really want to get things done, you need a benevolent dictator to push things along and provide clear direction. I love this quote from the CEO of a CU I visited a few years back: “Everyone will use the new system, including those that replace the one’s that don’t”.
I hate to admit it, but many of the previous comments are correct. Many in my generation use arguments for collaboration as a way to get out of actually accomplishing anything. Although, I do have a feeling this will change over time as we come into leadership positions ourselves. Once we are on the hot seat, and are the one’s who are held accountable, I’m sure sure we’ll be singing a much different tune.
Ninja: Thanks for commenting, and for the honest admission. Your generation is no different from previous generations in that it tries to find ways to distinguish itself from other generations. (Did that make sense?). One way that Gen Yers try to distinguish themselves from other generations (this is based more on my observation than on any scientific research) is by claiming to be collaborative.