This is a Collaborative Post (or "One of those Words")

Hello...

I love your discussion topic on the word 'collaboration'....

As a lived experience/family advocate engaged at so many systems levels...the work 'collaboration' has become one those power words that has lost it's descriptive impact.

I have been on the MOHLTC Expert Advisory Narcotics, MOHLTC Consumer Advisory for the MH&A 10 year plan, CAMH OpiATE projects and many other CAMH campaigns, work with our Mississauga Halton LHIN, Halton Region, two of the DTFP projects and the list goes on and on...(all as a person with lived experience/family member).

Sadly the word collaboration can actually make people in the room roll their eyes (LOL) BUT I still strongly believe that 'collaboration' has helped to deliver us to a new vision and way of doing things.

I do agree with Tapscott's optimism (but my mind tends to try and find the good in everything, everyone and value in all opinions)

As humans (I think) we tend to 'tire' of things easily and we need more 'descriptors' to re-ignite and excite us again.

The word 'collaboration' has become a buzz word that is quite tired and worn out..... but the other thing I have noticed is that is has become somewhat 'contaminated' by associations with the negative connotations of 'integration and/or amalgamation (which is potentially threatening to people and their job stability or 'reign of power').

The other dynamic is actual experiences of voicing full collaboration when in fact the experience (project) is a far cry from that.

In those cases the word has become 'tokenism'.....

I myself try to come up with words that mean 'collaboration' in it's purest and highest intent before it's fall from grace (LOL) but often can not find an exact word that fits to replace it...

I love words such as 'shared purpose' and partnerships but fear they too may fall into a category of 'buzz word'

Great topic Rob!!!

Thanks for posting...

Betty-Lou Kristy

Hello Stephanie:

Hey...

Looks like you and I think the same and process the same...

Don't know if that is good or bad for you  LOL

Let's just make up brand new words and screw everybody up....

(Bad Betty-Lou)

I liked how Betty Lou explained the de-valuing of words that have lost their original intent as they become buzz-words or words du jour. No offense to you as a senior executive Rob, but it's been my humble experience that the senior levels of management tend to spin off these buzz-words as though they are brand new concepts (remember "stewardship"?) when people on the ground floor/front lines have been following these practices on a regular basis for a long time. I didn't know that I was a stellar "project manager" until that term became the au courant key search term on résumés. To me, it was just "getting the job done" by following whatever process I had mapped out in order to get from A to B (or E or X).

Apparently, even the concept of "communication" is so banal now that we have to constantly evolve the way we say "transmit information and/or ideas from one party to another" by dubbing the terms Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Translation and now, Knowledge Mobilization (this is the newest term I've learned and it made me laugh when I first heard it in conversation).

*shrug*

Part of me agrees with Betty Lou, that the proliferation of new terms is a way to resuscitate old concepts that have always been useful, by breathing new life into the ideas. The problem I have is when we focus too much on the terms and not enough on the original ideas that worked well in the first place without the rhetorical bells and whistles. Shifting the focus from the doing to the naming risks efficiency and time that could be spent getting something done.

Just my $.02

Well it looks like I am required to reply here and will need to give that a bit of thought. Let me say for now that words find their place in time (we still use infrastructure and it comes in handy) but I do think there is a little more going on with "collaboration" than first meets the eye.  Will try to explain in a bit.

This is an interesting and thought-provoking discussion. I wonder if we treat "mis-use" as synonymous with "over-use" of a term. Collaboration has become used to describe a number of initiatives which have an element of consultation and have drawn together multiple "stakeholders" and I think it is powerful for us to ask whether this is "collaboration" and if not, how could it be more so? If genuine collaboration is being described, then I would encourage us to use this apt term. If it is something else in the guise of collaboration, as it sometimes is, this usage provides the opportunity for exploration and examination - and change.

Language does change with the times, yet I feel we have some responsibility to beware the "buzzwords" and challenge ourselves to see if we can walk this talk which we create.

Thank you for this post and for this intelligent dialogue. Good food for thought.

Hello Amy:

On my goodness!!

I am really liking you!!!

Your input was fabulous and I have never seen a *shrug* in written form before....

It was perfect....

C'mon Rob....the ladies have responded....LOL

Hello Allison:

You must have snuck in a post, right when I was answering Amy.

You have some great points Allison and in particular, I really like that you have pointed out the 'genuine' piece.

I think that is why changing terms have to change at times.

I think that is why 'buzz words' can potentially become toxic...

Because they are being used as 'descriptive labels' and not as a genuine core philosophy or practice.

That's my two cents X4  

Ok - take this forum right now for example. I am supposed to be on a chat with Arthur but it took me to the site and I noticed some responses.  And frankly I don't know how the heck to engage in the chat thing.  Anyway this is a real time, multi-party, across distant discussion and it conceivably could involve untold thousands of people. This is an unprecedented capacity in human history and I think that makes things different. We develop tools and then sometimes we figure out how to use them for different things and then sometimes they change the way we do things and sometimes they change us.  We talk about collaboration so much because we have better tools for collaboration and therefor we believe should make better use of them and now, right now, we are in the process of figuring that out.

Emmanual Gobillot (not really familiar with him but I like the argument) argues that leadership during a mass participation era is linked to narrative (story telling) and contribution more than it is to power and prescribed roles. He contends that the real challenge with collaboration is that it needs to be implemented with tools that do not currently facilitate it. Engaging in conversations with people that help paint desired pictures of the future, or apply our knowledge of human behavior from brain science research is at odds with the kinds of structures and processes that currently exist in organizations. Gobillot outlines the four trends that will change the current paradigm:

• The demographic trend, which will make individual experience less important than collective experience. For the first time in history, multiple generations with multiple socio-cultural backgrounds are working together in the workplace, each with their own hopes, fears, expectations and experiences, which others may not understand or relate to;
• The expertise trend, which will make individual technical knowledge less important than collective knowledge. The expertise that drives successful organizations will reside in a network of relationships outside managerial control.
• The attention trend, which will make individual efforts irrelevant, and be replaced by collective social and knowledge networks that replace organizations as a source of coherence and cohesion for all stakeholders.
• The democratic trend, which will make individual power irrelevant compared to the power of consultants, part-time workers, and networks of collaborative associates, outside of the leader's span of control.

This is what I was going to say but this fellow beat me to it! 

Just to add a little to the discussion:

A new friend (Kenneth Mikkelsen)just sent me a link to another interesting article on crowd sourcing research:  http://www.dzone.com/articles/open-innovation-future

I think we could be on the precipice of a new way of doing things. We are bound to take a few wrong turns along the way though.

Heather, It's interesting that the Harvard Catalyst project, which looked for innovations in the field of type 1 diabetes, used open innovation to frame the question itself, not just to solve the problem. And the winning submissions came from individuals who were from different walks of life, including a HR professional, a retired dentist and a college senior. This example shows us that to solve prickly problems, the conversation needs to involve a broad range of individuals.

Hello all:

Heather, I read that article and like Rosanna mentioned...it was very interesting that they went outside of their organization...

There were four 'process' things that captured me: ( I am just cutting and pasting from that article)

1)Being able to open up innovation processes to people outside of their organisation is therefore a pretty big leap into the unknown.

2)First of all it requires a shift in approach

3)They weren't asked to define how they would solve their problem, merely to define the problem itself

4)The temptation is always there to resort to the tried and tested, so it requires discipline to resist that urge

It all intrigues me....

I wanted the word 'innovation' changed to 'innovative' as a core principle/vision/philosophy on a recent project and there was a lot of great interest and discussion around that...

The synonyms for innovative excited me way more than the ones for innovation...

It is quite exciting....

Oh and Rob, I enjoyed your additional post re: Emmanual Gobillot. The four trends are quite intriguing...

It kinda breathes life into that 'social consciousness' that hopefully helps to strengthen a social conscience.

I know it sounds all fluffy and fuzzy ...but I just want the world to be a 'better' place and I want all of us to dare enough to care and be part of the collective solutions...

It's been a while since I've been able to log on here and read the responses. Rob, I thoroughly appreciate your contributions and now I have a list of authors I need to read up on!  I find it so helpful to read about others' definitions, explanations and experiences with respect to "collaboration" because it can be an over-used term that has the potential to lose its meaning and effectiveness if just bandied about without this kind of dialogue.

I so appreciate this community.