Collabor-NEAH/Collabor-YEAH Bernice Moore-Valdez & Eric Belluche

As an organization who’s purpose is to enable collaboration across distance and difference, you would think all our interactions would exemplify the values of open communication, clear understandings, and cooperation. Even with the best intentions, effective collaboration cannot be achieved without struggling through hard times and learning from mistakes.

In this two part blog series, Eric and I are contrasting two experiences; one that worked beautifully and another that failed miserably. By providing you insights into both ends of this collaborative spectrum, hopefully we’ll illuminate some of the do’s and don’ts of this invaluable process.

Here’s Part 1 of Collabor-NEAH / Collabor-YEAH; A slap in the face vs. a pat on the back--hypothetically speaking of course!

The project that went awry was a proposal to develop global project management (GPM) capability for an international team with project managers in Sweden, Germany, Canada, the US, Korea, and China. I was brought in by a consultant and colleague to work with the leadership team. Because I had worked with the international team several times and had coached many of the executive team, I had gained a a strong working relationship with the executives and a basic understanding of what was needed.

Problem # 1. Communication with my consulting colleague was fraught with challenges. He kept telling me, “I want you to lead this project,” while insisting that all communications with the client funnel through him. This limited free flowing communications and collaboration. While developing the proposal, I was unable to talk or communicate directly with the director of the international team to clarify his needs and expectations. Often it would take 2-3 weeks to get a response to emails and revisions to the proposal. It would also take weeks to schedule a conversation and often schedules were not honored.

I partnered with a project management expert in the US to create a proposal that met the client’s needs to the best of our understanding. That expert had a long-term relationship with a project management training and consulting group, (I’ll call them PMPlus), and they had the ability to provide tools, templates, training materials, and consultation around the globe, so we brought them into the equation.

Problem # 2. Unfortunately, PMPlus did not share our values of openness or have a similar commitment to collaboration. Ideas from the expert project manager were not welcomed. The project management expert and I worked hard to break through PMPlus’ roadblocks with our own close collaboration and tag-team insistence on what we felt would be best for the global team. We pushed in concert. PMPlus finally listened and reshaped their proposal.

Problem # 3. The proposal I submitted with PMPlus was seen as too expensive, which was a valid concern. Unfortunately, rather than working together to reshape it, my colleague leveraged my background analysis and framework to create an alternate proposal without my knowledge. He made changes in finances, scope, and resources directly with PMPlus, brought in a project management group in China, and in essence reshaped the project.

When I finally had the chance to review the revised proposal with new players, scope, and financial benefits for my colleague, I was dumbfounded. I was concerned that this new direction would create great expense for the client without developing the company’s ability to manage a global project in real time. The focus of this new proposal provided classroom training for primarily one region, China, and I was afraid that this would exacerbate cross-cultural difficulties the team was already experiencing, undermining their critical need to work as a unified global project management team.

After additional misunderstandings, missed communications, and lack of collaboration, I walked away from the project.

What went wrong?

1. Autocratic leadership; decision making structures that were not open to shared leadership
2. Unclear goals and outcomes based on the client’s perspective and inability to clarify them
3. Restricted access and limited communication with key stakeholders
4. Delays and gaps in communications. Slow responses to critical communications.
5. Lack of openness to ideas and feedback. Often ideas or feedback were received with resistance or rejection
6. Lack of demonstrated respect for the value individuals brought to the project
7. No use of collaborative tools, practices, or processes. In fact, collaboration was not a shared value or practice

While a long read, this post has some critical lessons about ineffective collaboration. Stay tuned for next installment, when Eric and I share a much more positive example of the power of collaboration.

Virtual Team Meetings

Meeting virtually is a breeze. Webcams and video make meetings come to life. The disembodied voice becomes personal when you can see each others' faces.

Seeing the person you are talking to prevents that attention drift that happens when people become bored with the conversation. When the camera is on, it is harder to read email, surf the web, play with your PDA, or text someone (whether they're in the room or not).

Seeing each other, even with small pictures on a screen, improves the sense of connection. You can read body language and even see when someone doesn't feel well or disagrees with something somebody said. People who don't know each other get to see each others' faces and this helps build trust and friendship.

There are lots of different options for virtual meetings: Skype is free for online calls with video and works internationally and within the US. Most of the time it works well, but in my experience, it can be unstable. Because calls drop off unexpectedly, it disrupts conversations and meetings. For example, tonight on a call to China, the Skype connection went out several times. We ended up speaking on cell phones.

WebEx is stable, and provides great meeting and learning tools for a modest monthly fee. I have tried a lot of online systems, and I keep going back to WebEx. When my team and I are working on a project, we can share documents, whiteboards, generate ideas through mind mapping, and even work on the same document together. For training purposes, WebEx is good as well, although the cost for their training center bumps up quite a bit.

Many people recommend Elluminate, and a friend of mine created a fabulous dialogue training through its platform. Elluminate has a breadth of services that are comprehensive and competitively priced.

Some applications provide a bit less than a full solution. Maestroconference includes telephony with breakout rooms, but you can't share slides or other visuals; freeconference call is a free and easy solution to telephone meetings and it includes only conference call capability. There are lots of solutions available, and it takes awhile to find the right solution at the right price.

Virtual team meetings are essential for working these days. We need to collaborate with people around the globe, in the next town or state, and around the block in a home office. For me the right solution includes video, an ability to present and share documents, and the capability to work together on applications, whether its an online learning, writing, or international collaboration.

Crossing Cultures

Working with people from around the world is remarkable. The nuances of meaning that shift across cultures requires an openness of mind and flexibility that we often underestimate or take for granted.

How do you build shared understanding across differences of language, religion, orientation, age, etc?

For me it's a constant desire to create shared meaning, checking things out, recapping what we're learning, and asking good questions. When we create shared understanding in a multicultural, multidimensional team, it is awesome!