LeadAbility Group

We all know that effective client and stakeholder engagement is key to ensuring a positive culture, high productivity and on time delivery. We also know that the language of engagement has shifted with a focus on empowering individuals and teams, fostering leadership at all levels and supporting positive organisational cultures.

The first thing I need to be clear on is that there must always be alignment between what you say and what you do. With that in mind, when we use words like collaboration, are you really doing that? For most people, I would say the answer is no. Now, that is not such a bad thing, and here’s why.

For me, there are three main engagement types we need in a modern world:

1. Consult

This is the more widely used engagement approach and perhaps more than we would like to admit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to consult is to ‘try to get advice or information from others’ and in case you are wondering otherwise, that makes it a verb!

Consultation is most effective when there are predetermined constraints on the outcome. And who hasn’t been there? So, consultation is usually used when you have something to deliver but are unable to influence the end point or the full design. As such, you are engaging with partners, clients and stakeholders perhaps on aspects of the whole, or how to best implement a policy or program, or to better understand the impact of an action. Consultation will help you develop response or mitigation measures to improve the success of implementation.

One reason consultation has a bad rep is because we don’t clearly articulate the constraints or boundaries therefore often raising expectations that we are engaging others in a more comprehensive user-centred design approach. Another reason is the inexperience of those driving the consultation is reinforcing that suggestions and/or improvements will be adopted when they won’t be or can’t be. If you can’t (for whatever reason), say so and if you can, be willing to change your thinking or approach – otherwise your credibility will be at risk!

2. Partner

One formal definition of partner is ‘two or more people who are involved in a project or undertaking’ (Oxford English Dictionary). My expanded definition is two or more parties coming together to achieve an agreed outcome, where each partner has a key role to play.

Now, the engagement in this case is equal in relation to contributing to the outcome (even if each partner’s contribution is not equal in resource or effort terms) but not all partners are equal when it comes to defining or redefining the outcome itself. This can become complicated if the parties are not clear on what can or cannot be influenced.

3. Collaborate

In my view this is nirvana but one formal definition of ‘work together on an activity’ (Oxford English Dictionary) falls very short of the expectation that is implied by the way today’s leaders use ‘collaborate’.

The key here is that the outcomes are mutually agreed and the benefits are shared. A ‘sum of the parts’ philosophy applies with the underpinning assumption that greater benefit is created from joint effort. This is not to say that each party will receive the same benefits; the emphasis is on benefits of most value to each party. In practice, collaboration in this context is rare.

However, if we mean collaborate to be merely working on an activity together, then the way we usually approach collaboration is OK. But I think that is far from the intent. And even further from the potential.

Take the time to clarify the outcome and the extent to which that outcome can be influenced to help you adopt the most appropriate engagement approach. Real collaboration IS worth the effort for complex challenges in a dynamic world but let’s not pretend we do, can or should collaborate on everything!