Collaboration is as much about planning and hands-on work down in the weeds as any other sort of work. It is very easy to see collaboration as the new panacea for many challenges, but it is as hard work as anything else that is successful.
It is also easy to read a library on collaboration, and not find reference to these 6 misconceptions noted by Richard Hackman in this blog post.
Sometimes asking a customer, or potential customer what they want is a bad strategy, as they can only respond from the perspective of what they already know and understand.
When you have something different and unknown to offer, there is not much point asking, you just need to get trial.
The elBulli restaurant run by Ferran Adria has been voted the best restaurant in the world for some years now, it costs a fortune, is very hard to get to, and has anything but a conventional menu, yet thousands are turned away each week. Chef Adria ignores customers, and they love him for it.
Several times over the years I have launched products that were genuinely new, and learnt very early on not to do any quantitative research at all, and no qualitative work unless those involved could see, touch, feel, and use at least a close prototype of the finished product. Only then can they offer an opinion worth listening to, but even then, there is little you can do to prototype the power of the brand which may evolve over time.
To continue the elBulli example. Had Chef Adria put some plates of curry ice-cream in front of a group of a group of people who ate at 5 star locations, and told them how much a trip to his restaurant would cost, and by the way, it was a 2 hour drive through treacherous mountain roads to get there, and they would have to wait 6 months for a booking that had nothing to do with when they may want to eat, it possibly would not get a gold star from the research group. How is it then that it is judged the best, and is probably the most famous restaurant in the world?
Just when you thought you had the rules of marketing nailed, something like this comes along!
Large organisations tend to have what is usually called their own “culture” but when you look deeper, there is a more basic form of “sameness” amongst organisations in a field, particularly those in a public field, Government departments, churches, non profits and industry bodies.
I speculate that this is because they are stable, relatively long term entities, often protected from the discipline of the market to some degree, so they tend to select new employees, promote and measure performance against the criteria of those already there. This will tend to perpetuate the DNA of the organisation, and as people leave, they will often find themselves in similar organisations, thus spreading the DNA laterally.
In the Australian Public Service there is a set of guidelines driving the employment, promotion, performance assessment and cross departmental transfer processes, the “Integrated Leadership System“. It is a complex set of procedures designed to ensure even handed and consistent selection decisions, but which must result in the perpetuation of the genetic code of the APS.
This genetic coding is what makes change in large organisations so difficult, it takes a real gutsy, and very rare leader to alter the rules by which he/she rose to the point at which they can change the rules.
Completing an AAR, (After Action Review) is now widely practiced, effectively a commercial post mortem after any major commercial activity. Completing an AAR has been standard practice for a long time after a capital expenditure, generally called something else, but it embodies the notion of learning from the mistakes, and successes to build capability the next time.
How much better it would be to conduct a formal pre mortem?
Project yourself into the future, a year, 2 years, whatever is appropriate, and assume the project you are considering has gone pear shaped, then conceive of all the ways in which this may have happened, and what the better option may have been. In other words, conduct a “Pre Mortem”
It seems to me that a rigorous pre mortem may be a pretty useful way of avoiding mistakes in the first place, better than having to learn from them.
Rupert Murdoch’s refusal to accept any responsibility for the behavior of his staff in tapping phones to get stories, was grand farce. Did he pay the pie-chucker?
When compared with the actions of the MD of Arnott’s some years ago when there was a poisoning scare and he was televised throwing boxes of biscuits into a dumpster, and Toyota MD Akio Toyoda recently fronting US congressional hearings to accept full responsibility for the recent Toyota quality glitches, and many others, Rupert’s gutless display leads me to a new verb.
To “Rupert”
This describes the situation where the one clearly in charge points at various and varying underlings and says “them, not me”. In all probability, those poor underlings accept the charge, as it appears young “Becky” has, in exchange for either “be quiet” money, or keep “your job” choices.
I think we can have some fun with this.
My local council, Burwood, is currently doing a “Rupert” on the approval in 2002 of a very dodgy DA, and the associated transfer of public land.
There is a bit of “Ruperting” going on in the Liberal party in relation to the support of the Howard Government of an ETS
The airport train yesterday was cancelled without notice, leaving hundreds of very disgruntled train passengers (me included) waiting for almost non existent buses out on Elizabeth Street to take us to the airport. I wonder if the new transport minister will do a “Rupert” today and blame the previous government?
Well, at least I like it!