Don't Let "Collaboration" Get a Bad Rep

A Harvard Business Review cover story last year raised fears of “collaborative overload.” The authors cite that in many companies 80% of employees’ time is spent in meetings, phone conversations and emails. The authors describe it as an “avalanche” of requests for input or advice and meetings. It should be no surprise then that we now have “collaboration platforms” such as Slack and Asana. These collaboration platforms are apps for workplace chat and instant messaging. One of the companies cites a study that productivity is improved with “connected” employees.

Back up: Communication is not collaboration. In conflict management we speak of collaboration as a win-win strategy to reach agreements that satisfy the interests of the parties in conflict.  Collaboration does not come easily—particularly to people accustomed to bargaining and compromise. Collaboration requires thoughtful and open discussion of interests and development of alternative solutions.

So when some speak of “collaboration” platforms and “collaborative overload,” they are really talking about conversation. Shouldn’t more conversation result in more conflicts being managed productively? Not necessarily. That’s one of the myths of conflict management. More communication may actually result in just the opposite as parties may learn just how much they disagree.