COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP
They say experience is the best teacher; maybe….maybe not 
…..and definitely only if you can learn from it. So as a starting point for a #SMchat discussion on April 7th (1 PM EST) here are a few personal experiences. My goal is to use these experiences as a basis for extrapolating some key ingredients of successful collaborative leadership, and begin to answer the question: is collaborative leadership an enabler for successful social communication and social media, and/or is social media an enabler for successful collaborative leadership?
My first company: designed to produce environmental documentaries for television. My founder-partner; a brilliant unknown creative. Me; also unknown (brilliance tbd), no experience in the documentary space, but I was going to sell our first film to a major PBS tv series (no experience in selling into that space either 
Our partnership was a collaborative 50/50, however to avoid situations of stalemate, I had anticipated and included in our agreement, a clause limiting my partner to creative decisions, but giving me full decision-making authority related to marketing and all business processes. Early on we almost crashed and burned on this very point. The marketing video (a compilation of 16mm wildlife film sequences) was produced to sell our film production team to the TV producer, but did not meet my partners approval for creative (a long story in itself). However, I knew I had designed an effective marketing piece and in the end I prevailed, and I was proven right. We made it onto the PBS Nature© series with our first film. This scenario was to replay many times, and the not-quite-50/50 collaborative relationship succeeded (with ups and downs) for several years.
I’ve consulted for quite a few early stage or start up companies, and too often too many cooks spoil the broth! Yes, there can be too much democratic leadership; the team of founders ”hash out” each point in question without regard for their individual expertise, and the” hashing out” becomes the activity rather than the resolution, ie: collaboration w/o resolution. Too often I’ve had to prod a CEO into authoritative “decision-maker” action. This was particularly prevalent in the dot.com era, when so many start ups were created by people with engineering & design smarts, but not necessarily business & leadership smarts.
In the early 90′s I interviewed IBM Senior Scientist Victor Witt, an Incline Village neighbor and friend, for a TV series pilot “Women Mean Business” (can’t remember now why a guy on a woman’s biz show…..), anyway, it was a good interview about leadership, and why his team at IBM was successful in giving birth to the first floppy storage disc system. Victor’s key point was: as the leader you hire the best people you can get, with varied talents, and always smarter than you are. This team process of collaboration and technology (talent) exchange, hatched a world-changing invention. I call the process collaborative leadership in the truest sense; Victor was however reputed to be somewhat ‘dictatorial’ in his management style, but maybe that’s what made the collaboration work: he knew when to make the decision, and move on to the next obstacle.
The collaboration by the two of us in my current company/consultancy has been in effect now for almost twenty years. It’s true 50/50, and though much of our expertise is duplicated, some is not. When one of us leads on a project, the other supports. Or we may lead in different aspects of the same project. Or we take on a project individually. There are often things we don’t agree on, so collaboration to get the job done is the name of the game, and sometimes results in many hours of unpaid overtime:-) Using email as an integral part of our business for over 16 years, allowing for quick, frequent communication, has facilitated the continuous collaboration between us “anytime, anyplace”. We try to avoid ego trips just to win the point, but we both are obsessed (I might say) on arriving at the best or most perfect solution for each client; whether a start up, an architectural project or ourselves. Through our collaborative process, perfected perhaps over many years, we both know when we have come to this point. Goal defined, collaborative problem-solving, goal reached. End of story.
And so to my new start up. I have brought together three founders with very different, though complementary expertise. The other two are both smarter than I (back to lesson 1 . One founder and I have used collaborative problem-solving activity on a project, predominantly by email, for over a year. My CEO (founder three) I met via twitter. Non-social media savvy people, who have not experienced the conversations and problem solving enabled by social media, think we are crazy. However, IMO, social media elevates collaboration to a different level. What exactly is it about SM that does this? Does SM facilitate collaborative leadership? Will my current founders team really remain a collaborative leadership, even when it is a real company; selling real product, with a positive cash flow?
I have searched online for literature on Collaborative Leadership with a definition and meaning those embracing SM might relate to, and as different to the democratic leadership cited in Dan Golemans 1990 Harvard Review article Leadership that Gets Results (or if this 15 page article is too long to wade through, see relevant excerpts from an e-zine article by Julie A. Fleming inserted as comment one, below).
Do you think any of the six leadership styles covered in this literature equate to Collaborative, or what about a combination of more than one? Let’s collaborate, and see what illumination we can put on the whole subject. Also please add any useful links in my comments below. I am certainly no expert, and can use all the information, help, and collaboration I can get
More about me here.
CASUDI
BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN PEOPLE ~ DESIGNING SUCCESS.
Links:
Thanks to Carl Robinson, Leadership Consulting, for reminding me of Dan Golemans article ~ Leadership that Gets Results
Leadership That Gets Results by Daniel Goleman By Julie A. Fleming
Special thanks to Heidi Cool for the use of her great wildlife image above of Blue-footed booby’s in the Galapagos. Heidi is gravity0069 on Flickr and @hacool on twitter.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Excerpt from ~ Leadership That Gets Results by Daniel Goleman ~ By Julie A. Fleming
Daniel Goleman gained notoriety in the mid-1990s for identifying competencies related to “emotional intelligence,” or the ability to perceive, regulate, understand, and work with emotions to enhance leadership. Those competencies are self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. Based on research by the consulting firm Hay/McBer, Goleman identifies six distinct leadership styles, each of which uses a unique combination of the emotional intelligence competencies.
The selection of a leadership style influences not only the outcome of a particular situation, but the overall organizational climate as well. “Climate” is defined to reflect the organization’s flexibility, workers’ sense of responsibility to the organization, the level of standards set, the degree to which performance feedback and rewards offered are considered accurate, the clarity those in the organization feel about its mission and values, and the level of commitment they hold toward a common purpose. Each style affects each component of the organizational climate as well as the organization’s financial results, and each may be used effectively in certain situations. Highly effective leaders draw on multiple styles:
The styles, taken individually, appear to have a direct and unique impact on the working atmosphere of a company, division, or team, and in turn, on its financial performance. And perhaps most important, the research indicates that leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style; they use most of them in a given week-seamlessly and in different measure-depending on the business situation. Imagine the styles, then, as the array of clubs in a golf pro’s bag. Over the course of a game, the pro picks and chooses clubs based on the demands of the shot. Sometimes he has to ponder his selection, but usually it is automatic. The pro senses the challenge ahead, swiftly pulls out the right tool, and elegantly puts it to work. That’s how high-impact leaders operate, too.
Goleman describes the six styles as follows:
The coercive style, in which the leader unilaterally directs action and requires compliance, summarized as “Do what I tell you.”
The authoritative style, in which the leader identifies a vision and motivates those responsible for achieving the resulting goal to choose their approach to it, summarized as “Come with me.”
The affiliative style, in which the leader focuses on building harmony and strong working relationships, summarized as “People come first.”
The democratic style, in which the leader seeks to build consensus among team members by giving each a voice, summarized as “What do you think?”
The pace setting style, in which the leader sets and adheres to high standards for performance for him- or herself and the team, summarized as “Do as I do, now!”
The coaching style, in which the leader focuses on developing team members’ performance, summarized as “Try this.”
Although each style can be used well in a particular situation, the authoritative, affiliative, democratic, and coaching styles have a consistently positive effect on organizational climate and results. (The article includes a fascinating table that shows quantitatively the effect that each style has on each component of the organizational climate as well as the overall positive or negative effect.)
An effective leader selects the appropriate style based on the situation he or she faces. For example, immediately following a natural disaster, the coercive style would likely yield a positive effect (the leader would identify and provide direction as to what actions must be taken for the organization to weather the crisis), whereas a democratic style would be ineffective in such an emergency, as team members would waste valuable time reaching consensus.
Becoming aware of the six leadership styles may permit leaders to develop those styles that come less naturally and to choose consciously when to employ each style. Leaders may develop styles that don’t come naturally by studying the emotional intelligence competencies that underlie the style, as set forth in Goleman’s article. Although emotional intelligence may seem like a flighty buzzword, each competency contributes meaningfully toward an individual’s ability to motivate, encourage, and lead team members to high performance.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:29 am
Hi Caroline
Congrats on taking on the #smchat challenge – I’m sure this topic will bring up a healthy and vibrant debate!
For my part, as I think you know, I have a strong feeling that the medium for collaboration does not meaningfully dictate the engagement terms. In other words, people want to (and attempt to) collaborate in the online world very much in a similar fashion to how they would in the off-line world. I’ve long had an itch to scratch when it comes to people who believe that just because the medium changes, so does the behavior.
Whilst the medium gives us new tools, and new etiquettes, and new capabilities and limitations to how we can collaborate together; ultimately the effectiveness with which we collaborate comes down to our personalities, and the method by which we engage with people – both in the online and offline world.
The 6 collaborative leadership styles you listed above, are equally valid for me in the social media world; and similar effects would happen should you choose the wrong leadership style for the situation at hand; albeit with a typically much larger, and more diversified audience than would normally be possible in the off line world.
I think your previous collaborations would’ve had the same end-effect too regardless of the medium chosen – although I could see certain behavioral traits being amplified/diminished through the use of certain tools – the asynchronous nature of social media for example changing the pace and the relative interactions between people. However, these are still the same people; and the same behaviors would emerge in the real world if that type of collaboration was possible in the real world.
Looking forward to your #SMCHAT!!! (Wednesdays at 1pm EST everyone!)
Best
Boris
.-= Boris Pluskowski´s last blog ..The Need for Variety and the Innovation Quiver =-.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:00 am
Boris,
Yes, I do agree that the Social Media space has the tools and the enablers and are only as good as the people that use them. However, those of us who do, can be far more effective in efficiency and reach then we ever were if we had to all be in the same place at the same time to collaborate.
But does it disprove mine?
However my 1990 IBM example really proves your point, doesn’t it
When I analyze, it’s the very diminished time lag between Q&A, making things happen so much faster (between a diverse group of people in different global locations) which really appeals to me. Key, we don’t have to all be in the same room as we did in 1990 ~ and in pulling a team together we are not restricted by the potential team member (or their family) having to change their physical location.
Yes, the effective leaders whatever style can be far more effective with today’s collaborative tools if they use them (and IMO they should), however consider Alexander the Great (leader) in 330 BC what tools did he have
?
Thanks for the initial inspiration to get this post written and what I believe will be a continuing conversation. CASUDI
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:25 am
Caroline – looks like a great framing post for #smchat. Looking forward to it
I echo Boris’s premise. SM is just a tool that will allow for exponential collaboration, if, and only if, the mindset of the collaborators is focused on the end-result, and not necessarily how we get there. It cannot be about pushing ideas down people’s throats, and certainly not about ego trips, and “look how great and powerful I am, so just follow my suggestions” kind of approach.
Encouraging, and empowering diverse viewpoints is crucial ( at least in the initial stages, before the domain experts take over), and a belief that everyone has something useful to contribute, is critical.
In the end, it is about changing the mindset. Unfortunately, SM is not the magic tool that can recondition human behavior (yet, nor can it rewire our brains to start thinking differently overnight
Great thoughts. Look forward to continuing the conversation.
Cheers,
Prince
.-= Prince´s last blog ..Are you suffering from the Boiling Frog syndrome? =-.
October 26th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
[...] is an addendum to my previous post on Collaborative Leadership, which I wrote as a framing post for a twitter chat #smchat where I was guest moderator last [...]