Having worked across different organizational structures, I've noticed a key distinction in what the author describes. This "missing collaboration" isn't about teamwork failing, but rather about the difference between procedural coordination and genuine co-creation.
What's often overlooked is how power dynamics subtly undermine true collaboration. When I've led interdisciplinary projects, I found that creating structure around idea ownership helps - documenting contributions without attaching names, using anonymous ideation tools, or implementing round-robin techniques where each person must build on someone else's concept.
The issue isn't that people don't want to collaborate, but that organizational systems often incentivize claiming individual credit rather than pursuing collective breakthroughs. The most productive collaborative environments I've experienced weren't necessarily the most enthusiastic ones, but those where criticism was separated from critique, and where the focus remained steadfastly on the evolution of ideas rather than who suggested them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really like how you framed this—procedural coordination vs. genuine co-creation—that distinction really resonates with me! I’ve felt it firsthand so many times: sitting in meetings where collaboration is technically happening, but in reality, it’s just well-orchestrated alignment.
Your point about power dynamics is so true. I’ve seen how even the most well-intentioned teams struggle with this—people hold back because they don’t want to challenge authority, or they subtly push their own ideas forward because, let’s face it, most workplaces still reward individual wins over collective breakthroughs.
I really appreciate the practical solutions you mentioned. Anonymous ideation tools and round-robin techniques? Brilliant. It’s such a simple yet powerful way to remove ego from the process and let ideas evolve naturally.
This is something I’m thinking about a lot, and I want to share more hands-on ways to make true collaboration happen. Let’s definitely keep this conversation going—what’s one method that’s worked surprisingly well for you? Would love to learn more from your experience! :))
The topic of collaboration, especially in the workplace, is extremely complex. Here are few cents of mine.
1) HiPPo effect. HiPPO stands for “Highest Paid Person's Opinion.” The HiPPO effect is when the highest paid person's opinion carries more weight than anybody else's in the room. That's because we subconsciously endow highly-paid people with a degree of authority that they don't necessarily deserve.
Been there, seen that and you can do a little about that. But it’s like pushing from no collaboration at all to at least someone hearing your opinion - depending how formidable is the second person. But beware - it costs a lot of emotional energy.
One of the techniques is HiPPo speaking as the last one - works to some degree.
To summarize - yes, leadership counts - no doubts about that.
2) True collaboration spotted repetitive number of times in a workplace. Actually it was a team that I’ve worked in and then I led it. The important characteristic? Everyone was hired from the close network - now, we are all friends, even though are paths starting to diverge a bit.
How to repeat it? I don’t know. Maybe it was about the culture we naturally created - each week joint lunch, honest conversation and commentary what works and what doesn’t, regular hackathons where everyone genuinely enjoyed the work and actually work didn’t feel like a work.
Great points Patryk! Funny enough, I’ve never given the HiPPO effect much thought—but now that you mention it, I’ve seen ideas shrink when the highest-paid voice speaks. Having them go last might help, but challenging them still can take serious amount of energy.
And you’re right—trust fuels true collaboration. Those weekly lunches, honest chats, and hackathons that didn’t feel like work, I think they created something special, a bond, a happy mutual feeling and honest engagement. A part of a healthy org culture!
Having worked across different organizational structures, I've noticed a key distinction in what the author describes. This "missing collaboration" isn't about teamwork failing, but rather about the difference between procedural coordination and genuine co-creation.
What's often overlooked is how power dynamics subtly undermine true collaboration. When I've led interdisciplinary projects, I found that creating structure around idea ownership helps - documenting contributions without attaching names, using anonymous ideation tools, or implementing round-robin techniques where each person must build on someone else's concept.
The issue isn't that people don't want to collaborate, but that organizational systems often incentivize claiming individual credit rather than pursuing collective breakthroughs. The most productive collaborative environments I've experienced weren't necessarily the most enthusiastic ones, but those where criticism was separated from critique, and where the focus remained steadfastly on the evolution of ideas rather than who suggested them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really like how you framed this—procedural coordination vs. genuine co-creation—that distinction really resonates with me! I’ve felt it firsthand so many times: sitting in meetings where collaboration is technically happening, but in reality, it’s just well-orchestrated alignment.
Your point about power dynamics is so true. I’ve seen how even the most well-intentioned teams struggle with this—people hold back because they don’t want to challenge authority, or they subtly push their own ideas forward because, let’s face it, most workplaces still reward individual wins over collective breakthroughs.
I really appreciate the practical solutions you mentioned. Anonymous ideation tools and round-robin techniques? Brilliant. It’s such a simple yet powerful way to remove ego from the process and let ideas evolve naturally.
This is something I’m thinking about a lot, and I want to share more hands-on ways to make true collaboration happen. Let’s definitely keep this conversation going—what’s one method that’s worked surprisingly well for you? Would love to learn more from your experience! :))
The topic of collaboration, especially in the workplace, is extremely complex. Here are few cents of mine.
1) HiPPo effect. HiPPO stands for “Highest Paid Person's Opinion.” The HiPPO effect is when the highest paid person's opinion carries more weight than anybody else's in the room. That's because we subconsciously endow highly-paid people with a degree of authority that they don't necessarily deserve.
Been there, seen that and you can do a little about that. But it’s like pushing from no collaboration at all to at least someone hearing your opinion - depending how formidable is the second person. But beware - it costs a lot of emotional energy.
One of the techniques is HiPPo speaking as the last one - works to some degree.
To summarize - yes, leadership counts - no doubts about that.
2) True collaboration spotted repetitive number of times in a workplace. Actually it was a team that I’ve worked in and then I led it. The important characteristic? Everyone was hired from the close network - now, we are all friends, even though are paths starting to diverge a bit.
How to repeat it? I don’t know. Maybe it was about the culture we naturally created - each week joint lunch, honest conversation and commentary what works and what doesn’t, regular hackathons where everyone genuinely enjoyed the work and actually work didn’t feel like a work.
Great points Patryk! Funny enough, I’ve never given the HiPPO effect much thought—but now that you mention it, I’ve seen ideas shrink when the highest-paid voice speaks. Having them go last might help, but challenging them still can take serious amount of energy.
And you’re right—trust fuels true collaboration. Those weekly lunches, honest chats, and hackathons that didn’t feel like work, I think they created something special, a bond, a happy mutual feeling and honest engagement. A part of a healthy org culture!