Have you noticed that most leaders and workers consider themselves quite collaborative? How about you? Are you collaborative? I used to think of myself in that way. By that, I meant that I worked well with others. Then I was introduced to the Collaborative Operating System™ (COS), and everything changed. It occurred to me that I'd never asked the questions of my team: What is collaboration? What would it take for us to become more collaborative? What undermines collaboration? Even after being trained in the theory and practice of the COS, I realized that I had only just embarked upon a lifetime of learning.
For anyone who feels similarly compelled by these questions, I offer the following description. If this blog post clarifies why I’m so excited about the COS, then as far as I’m concerned, my time and energy will have been well spent. If it serves to inspire you to become involved, even better.
The Collaborative Operating System™ Described
The
Collaborative Operating System (COS) is predicated upon a new paradigm in
leadership. I know the word "paradigm" is overused these days, so allow me to be more specific. What I mean is that it’s nearly impossible to appreciate what the COS is from the perspective of the prevailing paradigm. Paradigms are those beliefs
that are so solidly entrenched in our way of thinking that we can’t, without
great effort, imagine an alternative way of thinking or believing… and often, we
get scared of even trying. There’s too much at stake.
At the
risk of over-simplifying what the COS offers, I’ll attempt here to “bottom line”
what the COS espouses by contrasting the Current Paradigm with the COS Paradigm. Then
I’ll describe the tools that enable new COS practitioners to “install” the
system into their organizations.
The
“Current Paradigm”:
As a
leader who operates by the “current paradigm”, I must provide a path forward to
those who would follow me. I must articulate that path clearly and with enough
conviction to ensure that my followers do what is needed to move us forward…
because I cannot do it all myself. Time is often my enemy. I must cut through
resistance quickly and often forcefully. I begin by offering my “rationale” for
the necessity of what I’m advocating for. When people are sufficiently
resistant, however, I must use my power and authority to ensure that my
followers comply. As I go about leading in this way, my unconscious tendency is
to treat those who resist me as poorly behaved children. Whenever those
unconscious tendencies assert themselves in my observable behaviors (language,
tone, actions, etc.), I reinforce the parent/child dynamic. My followers begin
either to lose faith in themselves (their training, experience and wisdom), or
they find my leadership objectionable, even intolerable. The former leads to
compliance or “groupthink,” and reinforces the leader’s perspective that his or
her strong “leadership” is required; the latter leads to further and often
undisclosed resistance, sabotage and disengagement. Either way, the group’s
collective intelligence remains under-utilized. We all learned this “current
paradigm” while growing up in hierarchical families and educational
institutions, and it’s self-reinforcing in the way that most paradigms
are.
The
current paradigm is attractive because it puts the emphasis on the speed of
decision-making. The cost is that relatively quick decisions too often give way
to poor execution and compliance.
The “COS
Paradigm”:
As a
leader who operates by the “COS paradigm”, I must ensure that all the
stakeholders (myself included) are fully engaged in our collective work. I have
no inherent power over anyone, nor does anyone have power over me. I also have
no less power than any member of the collective. My full engagement will
inspire others, and their full engagement will inspire me. Full engagement
requires that I take responsibility for ensuring that I’m “sufficiently aligned”
with others around the work that we’re doing. In other words, that we see and
understand our work in the same way, at least to the extent necessary for us to
engage without resistance.
- Definition of Alignment: The extent to which we see and understand something (e.g., a problem, decision, or outcome) in the same way.
Full
engagement also requires that everyone feels a “sufficient level of ownership”
in the work that we’re doing. In other words, when the work is complete, each
contributor sees the results (good, bad or otherwise) as a reflection of his or
her own efforts and his or her own level of engagement. The opposite of taking
ownership is that of being a victim and blaming others for less than optimal
results.
- Definition of Ownership: The extent to which we feel or believe that something (e.g., a problem, decision, or outcome) is ours.
Ownership
and Alignment (O&A) are the two principles that underlie everything that we
do in the COS. Every tool that we use is designed to increase the level of
ownership and alignment that is shared among the stakeholders involved in our
work. For this reason, the COS is often described as a “go-slow-to-go-fast”
system. Planning and decision-making are typically slower, but engagement is
higher and execution speed is much, much faster. And with practice,
collaborative teams become more trusting, which speeds up even the planning and
decision-making processes.
The COS
Toolkit:
1)
The
Problem-Solving Template: This basic tool, when used in conjunction with an
awareness of what builds O&A, helps the stakeholders become clear about and
fully engaged in their work.
2)
Stakeholder
Types/Rings of Involvement: These tools help to identify different categories
of stakeholders and how to involve them in a way that creates sufficient levels
of O&A among everyone affected by the work.
3)
Meeting
Design Template: This tool helps to structure meetings such that participants
feel a sufficient level of O&A around both the content of the meeting (what
will be addressed) and the processes that will be employed (how the group will
address each content item.)
4)
Collaborative
Facilitation Technique: This module addresses the techniques that help meeting
facilitators build O&A before, during and after group meetings, and
highlights “traps” that facilitators often fall into that serve to undermine
O&A among the group.
5)
Team
Charter: This tool helps a collaborative group become clear about the overall
purpose of their work, and to specify individual roles and boundary conditions
around the work the team is to perform.
6)
Team
Governance/Agreements: These tools help a collaborative team make explicit how
the group will function so that no single member of the group is needed to step
in as a traditional (authoritative) leader. (For example, when conflict arises,
the group has sufficiently robust agreements to resolve the conflict without any
intervention by a powerful and authoritative leader.)
7)
The
Collaborative Plan: This tool helps groups see their work from the meta level…
and helps guide their planning process in a clear and structured manner that
leads to a high level of O&A among all the
stakeholders.
What if all people everywhere were guided by the principles of ownership and alignment? I wonder. If this brief description of the COS has served to pique your curiosity, you can find out more about it here. Or write a comment below. Either way, I look forward to exploring with you.
