The Collaboration Paradox: Why So Many Leaders Sabotage Their Own Collaborations—and Some Tactics for Getting Things Right

7/7/08

(Page 2 of 2)

accountability. Individuals must feel their participation is not just encouraged but vital to the endeavor, and that they can express any view to further that goal. People should be rewarded for digging deep and creating a group culture for curiosity. The goal is not to hold to a comfortable path but to change the level of discourse.

Why is this so difficult to achieve?

Despite all the inflated talk about the importance of teamwork, anti-collaborative traits are ingrained early and reinforced throughout our education and careers. We learn from the start of school that we won’t be rewarded for collaborating. Rather, the big payoffs come from blowing our own horn. And the more specialized we become in our fields, the more tightly we circle the wagons. To get real collaboration, leaders must work against the system, setting clear incentives to encourage individuals to say what they think and advance their best, or most dangerous, ideas. We must also discourage the type of bullying or patronizing behavior that makes people wary of speaking their minds. That is the paradox.

The best collaborators have learned that they gain more by sharing ideas than on their own—no matter how brilliant they are. Such individuals become the “impresarios” of collaboration. They work their magic on the participants, the agenda, and the environment to ensure a successful outcome.

Here are some tactics that can help bring a group into the “collaborative state”: First, recognize that if you exclude those with opposing views, you will have armed them with arguments to criticize the collaboration. You may hear: “They didn’t have the courtesy (or guts) to include me.” You can’t always win them over, but you can neutralize extreme views by talking to them in advance and then summarizing their views at the meeting in a way that respects them and puts their points in an objective and non-emotional context.

Next, examine the participants and ask these questions:

• Are different cultures, ages, silos, and levels of experience and understanding represented?
• Has the stage been set so that the expectations are reasonable and consistent?
• Is there a clear process for dialog that is understood by all?
• Is there an agenda that includes both what you will discuss and what you won’t?
• Are the roles clear for who is moderator, documenter, time keeper, etc.?
• Is there a clear and shared understanding of the desired outcome?
• Do you have a strategy for managing messenger killers, strong egos, or pontificators?

Use this information to carefully create an optimal environment for collaboration.

Groups like FIRST, ISET, and TCT are taking the right approach. The rest of us, particularly in the business world, must follow these leads, examine barriers to collaboration, and take clear steps not only to improve our collaborations but to teach our colleagues, and young people in particular, the skills necessary to become expert collaborators, too. After all, once the technical collaboration is over, to get innovations onto the market requires additional collaboration with an even wider range of participants, including advisors, competitors, potential customers, and regulators.

John Abele is a cofounder and director of Boston Scientific Corporation, chairman of the Argosy Foundation, and owner and developer of the Kingbridge Centre and Institute, a conferencing institute whose mission is to research, develop, and teach improved methods for interactive conferencing. He is also board chairman of FIRST ( For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology), a K-12 educational program. Follow @

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • http://www.lymanbiopharma.com Stewart Lyman

    Interesting article, a key point being the relatively new concept of teaching students to collaborate as part of their education. One field that really lends itself to collaboration is biotechnology. It is usually much faster and cheaper to work with an expert who has developed an experimental model than to try and reproduce the same model in-house. Similarly, collaborating with someone to obtain a key reagent (along with the knowledge of how to correctly use it) brings benefits over reinventing the wheel and trying to make the reagent (e.g. protein or monoclonal antibody) yourself. Problems arise in collaborations primarily because scientists are not taught the proper way to collaborate as part of their training. The key to successful collaborations is to clarify at the outset what each party’s expectations are regarding the key issues, such as publications, presentations, authorship, time frame, etc. It always amazes me that people who would not dream of hiring someone to work in their homes without writing a detailed contract will enter into a collaboration with another scientist without ever discussing what each researcher wants to get out of the collaboration. Readers interested in the topic of how to facilitate successful research collaborations can request free reprints on a variety of collaboration topics on my Website. Stewart Lyman, Lyman BioPharma Consulting LLC

  • Pingback: MaRS Blog - Innovation and Commercialization in Canada » Blog Archive » Making collaboration work beyond the handshake: MaRS and Kingbridge Centre

  • http://www.integrative-thinking.com Graham Douglas

    Thanks for this very helpful article.

    Clearly we need to change the way we train people to think, plan, organize, govern and act. We need to add training in Integrative Thinking and its derivatives to training in Critical Thinking.

    This training needs to be based on our recently much-improved scientific understanding of the human mind and our world.