Spoiler alert: how collaboration is derailed

Behaviours that inhibit or derail collaborative conversations are usually easier to recognise in other people’s behaviours than in our own.

Some of those spoilers are regarded as mildly annoying but unavoidable aspects of interpersonal communication processes, about which nothing much can be done. Others are more pronounced but difficult to categorise objectively and figure out constructive responses.

All are worth scrutiny, modification and constructive responses in the interests of genuinely collaborative conversations. Recognising our own is a useful first step, so here’s a little support for that: three lists of the most common.

When we eliminate them from our own behaviours, we influence changes in other people’s. When a team or group reduces or removes them from their collective practices, greater capacity is released and many efficiencies can be realised.

Mindset and attitudinal spoilers

Collaboration will be impeded if the people involved believe that constructive discussion depends on constant clarity, calm rationality, unambiguity, tidy procedures and orderliness, others’ reasonableness, rapid agreement on solutions to problems, and reliance on top-down decision-making or majority vote to settle differences.

Other attitudinal spoilers arise when they:

• approach collaborative efforts as though they are merely occasions for cooperation

• mistake agenda for purpose

• focus on issues or minutiae unconnected with purpose, losing sight of the big picture

• are attached to being right, and winning arguments

• assume their perspectives are of less value than those of other contributors

• choose to ‘feel attacked’ or victimised by others’ expression of values, disagreement or disapproval

• hold dominate–and-win, or yield–and-lose attitudes to differences and personal power

• tend to uneasiness in the presence of divergences, strong feelings, criticism or distress

• allow anxiety about causing offence, upsetting others or triggering conflict to impede advocacy of their own perspectives or responses to others’ divergences 

• hold claims to vested authority, moral or experiential superiority, or greater wisdom

• regard others’ divergences as evidence of their being insufficiently educated, stupid or evil

• assume that constructive problem-solving begins with a search for solutions.

Behavioural spoilers

These fall into two broad categories (A and B below), any of which may arise at any time at any level of intensity. When they give rise to strong emotional reactions, responses involving sophisticated skills are most necessary – practices difficult or impossible to engage at those times unless previously developed, honed and habituated.

a: express perspectives in ways others find difficult to respond to

These can arise when we –

• abandon or reduce agency, withhold our true thoughts or advocate them indirectly or with passive voice

• compete for others’ attention, speaking space, our preferred ‘solutions’ or to have the last word

• derail the agreed focus by allowing others’ contributions to remind us of irrelevant autobiographical material we then introduce (thereby encouraging others to do the same)

• produce excessive substantiation of our arguments, especially with reference to peripheral or marginally-relevant matters which may be ‘awfulised’ to exaggerate their severity

• advocate perspectives inflexibly, disrespectfully, overbearingly, sarcastically or imperiously

• make assertions or maintain positions as incontrovertible ‘truth’ or as facts, although based on insufficient research, untested assumptions or without real evidence

• react with defensiveness or hostility to others’ perspectives, criticism, disagreement, disapproval or strong feelings because we ‘feel attacked’ or victimised by them

• express token or artificial support for ideas and proposals to avoid confronting differences or challenging people we believe possess greater experience, confidence, authority or influence (aka ‘going along to get along’).

b: apply insufficient curiosity and enquiry

These arise when we –

• make unsafe assumptions about other parties’ assertions, meanings and intentions, while failing to respectfully probe and inquire into the experiences and evidence on which those are based

• rush to fill pauses and silences we find uncomfortable

• insufficiently acknowledge and reflect our understanding of others’ perspectives and feelings

• make untested assumptions about others’ meanings without enquiry and clarification

• choose to react with defensiveness or hostility to others’ perspectives, criticism, disagreement, disapproval or strong feelings, instead of inquiring into their causes

• allow others’ autobiographical and irrelevant or marginally relevant narratives to trigger recollections of our own, and as opportunities to speak about them 

• listen in order to contradict other parties or point out flaws in their logic or positions, rather than patiently inquire into divergent perspectives and progressively reveal understanding of them

• listen for and respond to only the logical content of others’ discussion, overlooking or minimising the importance of emotional content

• encourage or support proposed solutions to problems whose causes are unclear and insufficiently explored.

All these unhelpful behaviours (and many more) are examined and discussed in my guidebook and workbook – Collaborative Dialogue: Self-Management Practices at the Heart of Collaboration – now available from Amazon.com.au or Amazon.com. It outlines remedies for our own spoilers, and constructive responses to others’. Two chapters explore and guide attitude management practices.

The book is “Packed with ideas and thought-provoking scenarios designed to challenge the reader to become more aware of their own interpersonal communications and strategies., and those of others in relation to them. Ample exploration (both theoretical and sample based) is provided on each of the pivotal issues, behaviours and responses. It is deep and fulsome with rich stories and insights. [. . .] brimming with useful content [. . .] backed up with an extensive toolkit of examples and workouts so the reader can self-analyse and engage with the exercises. The holistic approach includes five core areas which are interconnected [and which the author] interrogates in depth.” [Prof Desna Jury, AUT, retired]