I've been with a group doing some strategic planning over the last few days. This is something I enjoy doing quite a bit, and that's a good thing considering how often I do it lately. This group was a particularly enjoyable and rewarding one to work with. After some grueling analysis work, we got into the strategies, and these people were were really thinking beyond their typical functions and standard course of operation.
By the end, teams were creating strategies that they were genuinely excited about, and even elicited some applause. While keeping things within the scope of realism and focus, there was a real bias for positive and ambitious change.
I wish I could share exactly what the conditions were that led to this engagement and result. There are many contributing complexities though, of course. Leadership undoubtedly had a lot to do with it. To have a leader that omits their ego from the process not only opens up the floor, it also inspires confidence. Another part I believe was the opportunity for engagement. Everyone in the room encouraged everyone to contribute. For an entire team to collaborate successfully, everybody has to hold everybody accountable.
I think we achieved that fleeting and elusive "collaborative state".
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your points on what is important for true collaboration, especially in regards to the 'leader'. I've witnessed first-hand in my job people who are incredible, and terrible, at this.
Is there a successful way to let the leader know if they are NOT doing this?
The answer to that varies from leader to leader. A counterproductive ego is not uncommon, and will prevent you from presenting this issue to them very directly. As I've written before, selling them on the benefit of a a collaboration-inspiring approach and leadership position is one way.
Ultimately, it's up to the leader to master the leadership part. You can only really help them by, well, leading. Leading by example, that is.
Post a Comment