The Collaboration Pyramid revisited
There has been a lot of buzz on Twitter recently about The Collaboration Pyramid model that I developed a few years ago. It started when Helen Bevan shared a redrawn version by Jim Farrell.
The model has received a lot of praise, but it has also been met with criticism. An image can be worth a thousand words, but an image such as this allows a lot of interpretation. It is hard to understand exactly what the model is intended for and how to interpret it just by looking at it. For example, model has compared the model to Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”, likely because Maslow’s model is also illustrated as a pyramid. It lead to the conclusion that the activities in the lower layers are more basic and thus easier/less complex than the activities in the layers further up in the pyramid. But I didn’t use the pyramid shape to indicate a scale of activities from basic to advanced. The model doesn't say that the lower levels are simpler or less complex that the upper ones. Rather, it's the other way around. What the model does is highlighting the very complex social interaction and relationship building activities that are needed for collaboration to happen. Many of these activities are so complex that we have a hard time understanding them and how they connect to simpler activities such as forming a team or coordinating clearly defined activities within a team. Hence organizations don’t do a good job at supporting and encouraging these activities, especially not across teams and locations.
So, to make it easier to interpret the model in the way I intended, I will try to add some flesh to the bones in this post.
If you are interested in knowing more about the Collaboration Pyramid and how it can be applied, I recommend you to buy and read my book "Collaborating in a Social Era".
The activities in these layers happen naturally when people are in close proximity. When people are close, it is easy to be introduced to each other, and to spontaneously meet or go and talk to each other. And what begins an informal and spontaneous conversation might then evolve into a collaboration effort. But as soon as people are located more than 50 feet away from each other, the likelihood that they will meet and have an informal and spontaneous conversation drops dramatically. And so does the likelihood that collaboration will happen naturally.
What is more, these activities, in the lower 5 layers, happen “below the surface”, so to say. Management rarely put any attention to these activities, at least not beyond their own teams, and some even regard them as waste, not work. The activities are usually not visible, recognized, or valued by organizations. Yet, these activities are fundamental both for collaboration to happen, and for a lot of other value-creation to take place. Below the surface you typically find:
The collaboration pyramid illustrates a problem within large and distributed organizations, namely that the activities in the 5 lower layers are hard to scale beyond organizational groups and geographic locations, something that contributes to the creation of organizational silos and groupthink. It is more likely that you will communicate and collaborate more frequently and spontaneously with other members of your group and people in your close proximity than you will with people in other groups and at other locations. If your network stretches further and you have ties to people in other groups, then some communication and collaboration might happen spontaneously across groups.
The problem is that in a large and dispersed organization, most people don't get the chance to develop relationships to people outside their own groups, and hence their social networks are often limited to people that belong to the same organizational group and to people in their close proximity. Those who perform really well in the lower levels are those who have visibility in the hierarchical organization and who have the resources and mandate to invest in these activities. These people are usually not the ones who have the skills and expertise to solve the wicked, complex problems organizations are facing, or who have the ideas that might result in new innovations that might get or keep the organization ahead of the competition. These people are usually to be found in the lowest levels of the organization, on the grassroots level.
I'll end this post with some of the praise that the model has received :-)
The model has received a lot of praise, but it has also been met with criticism. An image can be worth a thousand words, but an image such as this allows a lot of interpretation. It is hard to understand exactly what the model is intended for and how to interpret it just by looking at it. For example, model has compared the model to Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”, likely because Maslow’s model is also illustrated as a pyramid. It lead to the conclusion that the activities in the lower layers are more basic and thus easier/less complex than the activities in the layers further up in the pyramid. But I didn’t use the pyramid shape to indicate a scale of activities from basic to advanced. The model doesn't say that the lower levels are simpler or less complex that the upper ones. Rather, it's the other way around. What the model does is highlighting the very complex social interaction and relationship building activities that are needed for collaboration to happen. Many of these activities are so complex that we have a hard time understanding them and how they connect to simpler activities such as forming a team or coordinating clearly defined activities within a team. Hence organizations don’t do a good job at supporting and encouraging these activities, especially not across teams and locations.
So, to make it easier to interpret the model in the way I intended, I will try to add some flesh to the bones in this post.
If you are interested in knowing more about the Collaboration Pyramid and how it can be applied, I recommend you to buy and read my book "Collaborating in a Social Era".
The Collaboration Pyramid Explained
The Collaboration Pyramid is intended as a tool that will help organizations to understand what they need to do to make collaboration happen naturally across groups and locations, as well as to increase the effectiveness of collaboration efforts. The model consists of 8 layers, building on each other from the bottom and up. The top 3 layers represent activities that we typically think of as parts of structured team-based collaboration, such as forming the team, coordinating activities, and carrying out the actual activities. These are often formalized, visible, measured and evaluated, just as the result that the team produces. The activities in the 5 lower layers are activities of more social nature, and activities not bound to a particular collaboration effort, such as people introducing themselves to each other, having informal conversations, connecting, creating and sharing information with each other, and so forth. Things that happen on a daily basis, embedded in the daily work.The activities in these layers happen naturally when people are in close proximity. When people are close, it is easy to be introduced to each other, and to spontaneously meet or go and talk to each other. And what begins an informal and spontaneous conversation might then evolve into a collaboration effort. But as soon as people are located more than 50 feet away from each other, the likelihood that they will meet and have an informal and spontaneous conversation drops dramatically. And so does the likelihood that collaboration will happen naturally.
What is more, these activities, in the lower 5 layers, happen “below the surface”, so to say. Management rarely put any attention to these activities, at least not beyond their own teams, and some even regard them as waste, not work. The activities are usually not visible, recognized, or valued by organizations. Yet, these activities are fundamental both for collaboration to happen, and for a lot of other value-creation to take place. Below the surface you typically find:
- The activities that allow people to get to know each other, build relationships, and understand what others can contribute.
- The direct and indirect contributions from people outside the team – by the extended team, stakeholders, and external contributors.
- The ongoing community building that makes people build trust in each other and commit themselves to a shared purpose.
- The efforts of gaining the workspace awareness that is necessary for making the right decisions in any collaborative effort
The collaboration pyramid illustrates a problem within large and distributed organizations, namely that the activities in the 5 lower layers are hard to scale beyond organizational groups and geographic locations, something that contributes to the creation of organizational silos and groupthink. It is more likely that you will communicate and collaborate more frequently and spontaneously with other members of your group and people in your close proximity than you will with people in other groups and at other locations. If your network stretches further and you have ties to people in other groups, then some communication and collaboration might happen spontaneously across groups.
The problem is that in a large and dispersed organization, most people don't get the chance to develop relationships to people outside their own groups, and hence their social networks are often limited to people that belong to the same organizational group and to people in their close proximity. Those who perform really well in the lower levels are those who have visibility in the hierarchical organization and who have the resources and mandate to invest in these activities. These people are usually not the ones who have the skills and expertise to solve the wicked, complex problems organizations are facing, or who have the ideas that might result in new innovations that might get or keep the organization ahead of the competition. These people are usually to be found in the lowest levels of the organization, on the grassroots level.
I'll end this post with some of the praise that the model has received :-)
“This image
by Oscar Berg…helped me recognize the role of collaboration supported by social
media tools as the core message in my 30 second elevator pitch.”
“The pyramid
produced by Oscar Berg is an interesting view of the visibility and value of
collaboration. It works well in the context of Enterprise Social Networks
demonstrating that they can be used to develop great foundations for visible
collaboration.”
“Oscar
Berg's collaboration pyramid captures very well the distinctions between formal
and informal collaboration. And central to what this model is about is the
idea that to be able to collaborate with each other we need to shift our
thinking away from a subservience for what the boss wants or thinks towards
taking seriously our experience, our ideas and our interests.”
”Communication culture is all about enabling your teams –
including external stakeholders such as partners, vendors, and clients – to
engage in an open environment and share their best thinking. Oscar Berg, a
consultant working in Sweden, does a good job of explaining his concept of the
“Collaboration Pyramid” in this article. Berg’s concept is consistent with our
own academic findings around best practices for effective collaboration.”
“Oscar Berg
is writing about the conditions needed in an enterprise for value-creation
through collaboration, and suggesting that the traditional model of structured
teams is the tip of the iceberg…The layers below the surface involve a wide
range of ad hoc connection, development of relationships, and development of
trust.”
“I love
this image by Oscar Berg as it explores the increasing value and visibility of
collaboration.”
“Berg’s
Collaboration Pyramid is an astute piece of thinking built on some high level
social norms that we might all claim to live up to – being open, truthful and
attentive. The sorts of behaviours that when consistently practiced generate
trust.”
“The
Collaboration Pyramid displays a broader platform to support a different
context for collaboration that may eventually lead to more authentic and
meaningful personal investment in the team process.”