No mess, no magic!
Koen Vriesacker
building and improving collaborative environments for impact | ecosystems, networks, alliances, clusters | sailor
I'm sitting here in Belgium, looking out of my office windows. The rain is pouring down. The trees are -finally- starting to change their green summer attire for their fabulous red and brown autumn coats. It took a while this year, the seasonal boundaries seem to shift in time. There's something wonderful about the smell summer sliding into winter. The palette of nature easily matches the beauty of the green explosion in spring. It's truly amazing, but also a bit worrying. Rains come down harder, temperatures are too reluctant to dive down. We all feel that there's change in the air. Not only the change of seasons, but also the longer shift we call climate change.
Yes, we do face huge societal challenges. One of the biggest ones, the mother of all challenges these days, is how to react to the changing climate. The United Nations understood when defining their #SDG's. They also understood that collaboration is key to live up to this challenge. By defining their SDG17 -Partnerships for the goals- they added an SDG that is not directly related to building a sustainable future. SDG17 is a coordination tool. The hope, aspiration and believe that bringing all mankind together is the way to create magic.
So where are we now? Are we advancing on the SDG's? Are we pushing towards sustainability? One thing I know: there are hundreds, thousands and even millions of amazing initiatives active in the push for sustainability. You can learn about new actions every day by scrolling through social media. The list is huge and amazing. And the results -even small- are starting to show. We're not there, not at all, but there is progress. But, there's always a 'but' or a 'however'.
The collaboration expert in me wonders about balance and approach. Research has shown that, in case of a wide set of activities that try to achieve the same goal, it is wise to install overarching coordination measures. This increases the effectiveness of the otherwise fragmented initiatives. So, I wonder if we need more overarching coordination. On the other hand, research also shows that building outreach between initiatives reduces their effectiveness. Trying to talk, share and align with other like minded actions is time consuming and increases complexity. This contradiction and the needed balance between these positions is reflected in the stretch between brokerage and closure (Burt 2005 for the academics among us). We need to balance between more or less isolated or closed initiative bubbles and the benefits of overarching coordination actions.
So now what?
Let's reflect. We either lean too much to the overall coordination side, or we slide into the isolated actions side. Where should we aim if we had to choose? Well, the essence of collaborative value, the 1+1=3, grows out of differentiation. The reason collaborative actions are the optimal way of solving really challenging things like climate change is based on the fact that joint decisions and actions result in better outcomes compared to single point decision models. By comparing different points of view, by combining skills and resources, together always proves better when it comes to complex goals. If we loose this diversity asset, we loose the actual complex solving capabilities. If we link this back to our paradox between brokerage and closure, my feeling (idea, assumption, hypothesis... whatever to call it) is that diversity is most safeguarded in the closure extreme. Translated into a more simple message, this would mean that there is no real need for overarching coordination mechanisms. It's perfectly ok to have a highly fragmented landscape of sustainability initiatives. Personally, this conclusion feels nice. It takes away the annoyed feeling I have regarding the need for coordination. It reassures me a bit that things are actually running not so bad.
the essence of collaborative value, the 1+1=3, grows out of differentiation
A big consequence of the preference of a wide set of fragmented initiatives compared to more overall coordination is that it feels rather messy and ineffective. I like that consequence, because it really fits to one of the ideas I always try to spread in lectures and workshops: Messy is good. It's even stronger, if there's no feeling that things are running a bit messy, you have a problem in your collaborative endeavour. No mess means everyone thinks more or less the same, there's not enough conflict and discussion. In scientific terms, this means there is not enough differentiation. As we saw higher up, we need this diversity to solve complex challenges. So, the overall conclusion is: No mess, no magic. Only when the initiatives, actions and projects all feel a bit messy, we can be sure that things will evolve in the right direction.
I don't want to advocate abandoning overall coordination efforts and needs. We do need overall coordination and defragmentation to build efficiencies in the actions. What I want to advocate is the idea that it's not that bad to be in a bit of a messy landscape of sustainability actions. The general idea would be that the balance should always tilt a bit to the messy side. Reflecting a broad set of opinions, expertise and resources.
The general idea would be that the balance should always tilt a bit to the messy side.
What's your feeling? How do you see this messy requirement? Do you agree that it's ok to allow or even push for a bit of messiness in collaborative actions? Do you favour the idea of overall coordination?
领英推荐
Koen is dedicated to design and develop collaboration between organisations and institutions, with the aim of delivering a positive impact on our socio-economic environment.
More info on www.noventus.org
You can also have a look at these links: