Nancy from Full Circle Interaction Online Blog has a great post where she Challenges the Myths of Distributed Collaboration. I especially like these two paragraphs and support her point of view 100%.

I challenge the notion that collaboration will increase simply because of the availability of a new set of interrelated tools, or Web 2.0. This is the same trap that allowed thousands to think of e-learning as a fast and cheap alternative to other options, when in fact it is a complex and viable approach, but not always fast, nor easy, especially when you want quality outcomes. Good elearning requires a shift in operating culture. Likewise, collaboration requires a cultural shift...

I believe there is a great deal of potential to distributed collaboration. I'd go so far as to say it will be a required competence and essential business/organization activity. It will be facilitated to some extent by tools. But it won't happen without us increasing our skills, practices and intentions for collaboration.

What I find the most interesting is that those who are charged with implementing collaborative technologies in today's organizations (usually IT/IS departments, functions, etc.) are not natural collaborators and usually don't give a hoot about the company culture, norms and ways of working. (I know I am broadbushing and generalizing here, and what I should say, is that in my own experience, IT/IS groups usually do not take into consideration the PEOPLE implications and/or cultural implications during their technology implementations.)

In this (old) Microsoft case study at Jim Beam the goals of implementing collaboration technology were focused on improved communications, efficiency and speed of decision making, and productivity for employees. The pilot was conducted in the "finance department" (another group of what I would consider non-natural collaborators.) The case study identifies many of the steps that led to successful outcomes. But this write-up doesn't seem to address what I would consider the "softer" side of the project or the parts of the project plan designed to address the change of mindset from "I fundamentally do not believe that collaboration is in my best interest here in this company" to "I fundamentally believe that collaboration is a good thing and will use the new technology because it will help me do a better job, be a better person/worker, etc."

This article by Steven Coats called The Conundrum for Collaboration articulates the softer side of the equation that needs to be considered when moving to a collaborative working environment. He reminds us of what gets in the way or hinders collaboration in organizations. These are:

-Who do you recruit and hire? Individual Stars or Collaboration Stars?
-How do you pay people? Individual Pay Plans or Group/Shared Goals/Team Awards?
-How is the org structured? In functional silos or in cross-functional/matrix orgs?
-Who gets promoted? Those who make things happen on their own or those who collaborate to get things done?
-What do you teach people? Time Management, Presentation Skills or Group Dynamics and Decision Making in Groups?

Coats states that the biggest barrier to collaboration in organizations is this:

People want to look good at work. They want to succeed. And because of the organizational issues mentioned earlier, success is often defined based on personal achievement, not cooperative effort. Therefore, collaboration is often perceived as having to give up something, or as a sacrifice for the benefit of others. And if the desire is to come out on top, a person will have to carefully think about how much sacrificing she or he is willing to do.

One recommendation that I have for change efforts such as these when a significant "cultural twist" is required is to take a "diagonal slice" of the organization and put them all on the "change/implementation team." The team then consists of a broader base of employees at all levels, in different functions, with different expertise and different perspectives who can best address many of the above stated hinderances/obstacles. In this way you are demonstrating collaboration in the process of rolling out collaborative technologies. It sends a reinforcing message and this is really important. Words and actions need to align.

Coats offers some additional advice for CEOs moving their organizations to more collaborative cultures.

As a leader, one of the most difficult challenges you face in attempting to lead any kind of change is getting people to believe in the positive impacts of the change before they actually see it. Getting everyone to shift their prevailing mindsets and accompanying behaviors from a departmental or silo mentality to a cross-organizational collaborative outlook will be no different. Their internal voices of self-interest will likely be warning them to continue to take care of number one, or at least to wait and see. You will have to ensure that they see and experience immediate and very visible evidence about the ways collaborating is benefiting them. This will not be a one-time event, as you will have to find ways to continuously provide positive proof. You will also need to be willing to help others see and understand the consequences of not collaborating.

So despite the implementation of great technology to help people collaborate better, we've got to hope that the above issues are given enough time and attention on the project plan. I have seen these issues left out of technology implementations and inevitably of course they tank. It's not about the software that is designed to help us collaborate better; its about the environment and culture being designed to create the room for collaboration to happen and to reward it when it does happen. Then the technology can do what it is supposed to do.

Now you talk...