Quality and Innovation

Over the past 25 years (at least), I’ve routinely noticed two (and only two!) patterns of interaction emerge between people, and one of those patterns is wildly superior to the other. This post is my attempt to make you aware of them and recognize there’s a better choice than letting “us vs. them” dynamics take root.

Scenario 1 – The Transactional Style: Party A has a problem to solve. Party B is assigned to solve that problem. Party B aims to detect, elucidate, and satisfy the requirements and needs underlying that problem, and hopefully deliver something that Party A approves of (and maybe even likes). Party B is accountable to Party A to get the job done right. At some point, Party A evaluates the conduct and the output of Party B and determines whether they provided value.

Scenario 2 – The Collaborative Style: Party A has a problem to solve, and asks their trusted colleague B1 to help them convene Party B to solve the problem. Party A and Colleague B1 collaboratively design the team that becomes Party B. Together, Party B team members seek to understand the problem, and work on outlining several different paths that Party A could take to solve the problem. Party B helps Party A understand what options for moving forward are available, and Party A feels like they are actively contribute to the solution. The parties come to an agreement on the best way to move forward, and Party B engages Party A at every opportunity, resulting in a solution that everyone feels they have contributed to.

What’s the difference? Scenario 1 puts people on opposite sides of the problem to solve, and Scenario 2 assumes they’re partners in a quest. In Scenario 1, Party A and Party B might be teacher and student, manager and employee, client and contractor, or customer and provider. There is a convoluted and invisible fence set up between them, because one has a need and the other is required to address and fulfill that need according to one person’s judgment (often subjective). In Scenario 2, Party A and Party B are partners, accountable to each other to solve a problem that lies between them.

While the transactional style is perfectly appropriate for short-term or low-stakes interactions (like going to a restaurant; it would be kind of weird to collaborate with the kitchen staff) it’s damaging in situations where building relationships is ultimately critical to success.

It takes humility to be part of a collaborative team. Usually, the problem the team is working on is bigger than any single person on the team; and typically, the answer lies between the participants and not within one of the participant’s heads. Anyone who walks into the team thinking they’re going to carry the solution is wrong. No matter how many years (or decades) of experience you have, you don’t get to rest on your laurels. You get to solve this problem right now, with these people.

It takes discernment to be part of a collaborative team. Know what you know, know what you don’t know, seek out people who do know when you need them, and figure out how you’ll help each other discover and achieve quality standards. It takes the courage to admit when you don’t know something (pro tip: the more you do this, the easier it gets). It takes courage to say… “Are we sure of that? How do we know?” and hold not only your team, but yourself, to higher standards.

It takes openness to be part of a collaborative team. If you’re hoarding knowledge, controlling the narrative, or resting on laurels you’re working against openness, but likely creating little pockets of power for yourself that feel rewarding (at least temporarily… until people figure you out). Openly sharing information, evidence, thoughts and ideas can be risky – people might find out you’re not as smart as they thought, or you might feel put on the spot. You will be forced to confront the limits of your own understanding. At the same time, they might find out how much progress you can make, together… even if you’re just asking the questions that get everyone to the next step.

The bottom line: there are two modes of interaction. One is transactional and confrontational, focused on each person attempting to make their own worth and value visible. The other is collaborative, emphasizes discovery and problem solving, and focuses on a problem (and solution) that sits in the middle of multiple stakeholder groups.

The transactional mode forces people to categorize themselves and colleagues into “us and them”. In the collaborative mode, there’s only us… facing a shared problem, and committed to discovering a shared solution. Our new “them” is the collection of questions we pose, the investigations we launch, the paths we have to we have to go down, the trails we have to blaze, and the challenges we’re yet to overcome… together.