Acronym

Sometimes though, collaboration is a core value for a group. Take the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra that plays without a conductor.

Their process for bringing an orchestra piece to performance is highly collaborative and takes more time than just having a director conduct the group to her/his musical interpretation. But for Orpheus, the learning and interaction that comes during the collaboration outweighs the cost of the time involved.

Are they the best chamber orchestra in the world? No. Are they one of the best chamber orchestras in the world? Absolutely, and they achieved that status while playing on their terms and brining a core value to life.

I'm not saying collaboration should always be a core value or that it will always produce the best results. But when it is, one of the results undoubtedly will include the process that was involved.

And in reading Marsha's post, Joe, I think the quote you pulled relates more to over-commitment, not over-collaboration, but maybe I'm interpreting it wrong.

I love that we wrote opposite posts today! I agree with the point about needing more expanse of time. And if we really want to dig into the topic of collaboration, we'll have to define our terms more precisely (as evidenced by Jeffrey's point about it being more about over-commitment than over collaboration). And your last line is key as well: doing it right. A lot of collaboration makes things worse because it's done poorly, or we're not being strategic about what parts should be done solo and what parts collaboratively.

Thanks Jeffrey and Jamie. You've both done a nice job in cutting through my general angst and reaching a more nuanced look at collaboration.

Jeffrey: indeed there are groups or even situations in which collaboration is an end, not just a mean. In those cases, a conscious decision has been made to make the process of collaboration the top priority, and I support that (heck, we experimented with crowdsourcing an issue of our magazine for that exact reason). So, I should have been more specific: It's not that putting process ahead of results is always backward. My concern is that associations often do this unconsciously, without taking a moment to think about whether the experience of the collaborative process is an end itself, or if not, whether a collaborative process or an expert mind or some other style is the best choice to reach the desired result.

Which brings to Jamie's point about doing it right (which he made here and in a post on his blog that he posted at almost the exact same I posted mine, entirely coincidentally): Doing collaboration right is vital. We just came at it from different directions. Jamie urges us to work hard to make collaboration work because, when done right, the end results can be so powerful. I urge the same thing because, when done poorly, collaboration can be a monumental drag.

And you're both right that Marsha's main focus was on time consumption. She alluded to "over-collaboration" as a potential cause; I wanted to dig a bit deeper because "over-collaboration" probably means we're not choosing carefully when collaboration is worth while and when it's not.

Joe: It seems like your posts suggest that groups of people making decisions = collaboration. That's no more collaboration than naming any mere group of individuals a team.

It's a necessary, but very insufficient condition as you and Jamie suggest.Check out this resource on Collaboration:

http://www.fieldstonealliance.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=4

Ive experienced this three ways:

Some groups are really good at collaboration. They have members who are used to collaborating, and leaders who exemplify collaborative behavior.

Other groups who are good at collaboration have to work harder at it, train staff and members how to do it, and choose their collaborative projects more carefully.

Then there's the cat-herding scenarios where we have meetings for the sake of not making a decision (seemingly).

Honestly, I was never a group project girl. It's something I'm actively working to change about myself. I have to schedule "git er done" blocks now. That helps me, when I get over committed.

Yes my main point was more about over-commitment than over-collaboration, but I do suspect association execs are not sufficiently discriminating about when to collaborate and when to just go it alone and get the job done.

The best return on collaboration comes from greater creativity and multiple perspectives that lead to better outcomes. I would also opt for collaboration to gain deeper understanding and buy-in within a group. But even these returns are easier to reap if you design your meetings and processes better than most do. People fall into some very bad habits—that can also keep those of us who do facilitation and signature project management in clients. I agree with both my good friends Jamie and Jeff on their analysis.

Mostly I was just trying to use a little humor to remind people to think about the serious cost involved in all this collaboration before they operate in this default mode. As I said in the close of my blog: “Countless leadership books and speakers caution executives to build some down time for reflection into their schedules. I would rather think of this as “up time”. The only way any of us can work up to our full potential is when we open up the time to do our best and most significant work.”

Thanks Marsha. Indeed, I used your post as a springboard into a somewhat different question, but I'm glad you've followed up. You and your fellow commenters have made important arguments in favor of collaboration and its high potential value. What I think everyone seems to agree on is that association professionals simply need to put more effort into collaborating effectively and purposefully, rather than operating in "default mode," as you say, without much care or consideration for ensuring effective outcomes. That's when it starts to get out of control.