Back in the Clinton administration, a term was coined that many, at the time, might have said would never last, but it is still used today, and certainly by many who have no idea where it came from or to whom it is credited. The term “It takes a village” is now widely used whenever there is a need to clarify the importance of group participation in organizations and influence in bringing people around to behaving in appropriate ways. At the time it was coined, it was highly political and represented a strong point of view about whose job it was to raise children, but today it is an accepted way to say, “Let’s work together.” Whether it is in our homes, churches, or in the organizations in which we are leaders and followers, it really does “take a village” of people who are committed to each other and to the mission of the organization working side by side in cooperation to get anything of significance done. However, I will say that while it does, indeed, take a village, I believe it is better said that it takes a collaborative. Villages often have dysfunctional elements that plague their collective resolve such as power struggles, bias, and the occasional village idiot, even while they have positive elements as well. If you are thinking that that description is just like organizations, yes, it is. When a group of people come together in a village, they are often stuck with each other due to family, proximity, and culture, but when a group comes together in an organizational collaborative, often they are glad to be included and look forward to putting aside their personal agenda for the good of the mission they share with the rest of the team. True collaborative groups can be free from much of the pettiness of a village.
I came across a great statement this past week in my studies. In an older article, Henry Mitzberg, a prominent organizational leadership theorist, refers to “sophisticated innovation,” which he defines as “requiring the cooperative efforts of many different experts.” That struck me as a wonderful way to describe who needs to be on a collaborative team to get things done. First we need qualified people. I may really like certain people and want to be around them, but if we have a job to do, we need people who really know their stuff. I may know the nicest plumber in the world, but if my computer network goes down, I need someone who knows IT. (Yes, I know there can be a correlation drawn between good plumbers and good IT, but that’s a topic of a paper some other day)! Next, people in a collaborative team must have cooperative attitudes. This may seem obvious, but there are so many examples of teams that have failed, not because of poor technical skills, but because they all wanted to work independently, or worse, all wanted to be in charge. True collaboration happens when people put aside their positional status and personal agenda because the common mission is more important than any one person getting the credit, glory or focus. What matters is that the mission is accomplished. Yes, there will most likely be a leader who facilitates the mission, but they do so as a selfless leader. Hopefully there will be a celebration of the group’s accomplishment, but that can’t be the motivator as to why someone joins the team.
Finally, “sophisticated innovation” implies that there is a deep commitment to thinking differently than the status quo. Collaborators must be able to put aside the cultural influences of “how things are done around here” and think and act in new directions, because in today’s organizational environments, status quo is a recipe for decline and irrelevance, paving the way for the failure of good organizations which fall short of their mission objectives.
As a leader, I hope you will join me in the “sophisticated innovation” which you will find within truly collaborative teams. It is said that every village has its idiot. I would say that in true collaboration you will find a genius or two. I choose the latter.
Lead well.