Chapter 5 of L. David Marquet’s book, Leadership is Language: The Hidden Power of What You Say – and What You Don’t is titled Into the Bluework: Collaborate. A simple definition of collaboration is working with a group to generate an outcome. The dark side of collaboration is coercion. Collaboration with social pressure or with a power imbalance is not collaboration. It is the same as telling people what to do. Last week I listened to the manager state at the beginning of a meeting, “I need to convince you to work this weekend, let’s collaborate.” There was not a lot of discussion and I was glad most microphones and cameras were off. Regardless of the words this was a leader seeking validation for their actions. Marquet states that the solution is to let the followers be the deciders.
Collaboration is a tool to break down the wall between redwork and bluework. Reflecting on the meetings I attended recently, two main goals stood out. They were either information-sharing or persuasive. Almost every meeting included the word ‘collaboration’ in the agenda or meeting announcement. Information sharing as collaboration is absurd. You telling me stuff while I do email is not collaboration. The persuasive meetings as collaboration are even more problematic. The goal of persuasive meetings is to change someone’s thinking. If there is collaboration it is on the periphery of the meeting topic. This meeting approach creates an echo chamber. The team agrees to avoid aggravation. If collaboration is important we need to change how we act.
The author suggests four ways to run the collaborate “Play”.
- Vote first, then discuss
- Be curious, not compelling
- Invite descent rather than drive consensus
- Give information, not instructions
I recently facilitated several team self-assessments. In one group of teams, I noticed a team or technical lead would try to dominate the conversation. Once stated their opinions drowned out dissent. Marquet calls this the “tyranny of the loud.” The result was to introduce an “everything is beautiful” bias to the discussion. This highlights the impact that the combination of positional power and first mover has on others. In organizations, people will defer to power unless you shift the context. To break the pattern I used the vote first then discuss play. The change in pattern allows everyone to state their opinion.
I also implemented ideas from “Be curious, not compelling.” Shifting away from binary questions invites long-form conversation rather than simple yes/no answers. For example, my hometown baseball team lost to a rival 20-6 recently (that is horrible if you don’t know baseball). If I said to my neighbor, “That was a horrible game last night, right?” rather than “What did you think of the game last night?” I would have gotten very different answers. The second question invited a discussion while the first invited a statement. As an experiment, During the assessments, I used the vote-first approach. This helped to identify people with different views so they could take part in the conversation. How and why questions worked better than binary rating questions.
The author has loaded this chapter with good ideas. For example, one actionable idea was opinion swapping. As a facilitator, encourage people to defend and explain different views. A common problem in diverse teams is that different approaches to a problem often emerge. What would one expect in an intellectually diverse group? Facilitating a solution that works for the team requires a lot of effort. Even in the most harmonious team people holding divergent opinions can dig in their heels. In this situation someone has to capitulate in the end – there are winners and losers. An alternative approach is to build an empathy bridge between the two camps. One approach noted by Marquet is to have people argue the opposing view. One drawback to position-swapping approaches that I have experienced is that everyone must be operating with an assumption of good intent. If participants are passively or actively aggressive the outcome of the expertise will not be good. As a leader or facilitator, you need to read the situation before you experiment with a solution.
There are several other useful ideas in this chapter. The Seven Deadly Sin of Questioning is one example. In one simple table, Marquet captures a set of ideas that will make anyone a better coach. I have captured the sins and ideas for avoiding them and taped them on my desk for my experiment of the week. I know I have transgressed on at least a few of the sins…this morning. My goal for the week is to use the sins as a prompt to see whether I can be a better questioner.
Remember to give people information, not instructions. Next week we will tackle Chapter 5.
Previous installments of our re-read of Language Is Leadership
Week 1: Logistics, Introduction, Foreword – https://bit.ly/3sTqyu3
Week 2: El Faro – https://bit.ly/3RnkUue
Week 3 The New Playbook – https://bit.ly/3Llgmki
Week 4: Control the Clock – https://bit.ly/45UFp5Z
