It seems that collaboration has become a magic word, the cure for just about every problem. Some see it as a strategic imperative, others as a lever for innovation, others as a remedy for their lack of agility. It is promoted, invoked and sometimes even decreed, but nothing works: more often than not, it seems like an empty promise, devoid of meaning.
This is why collaborative work has been haunting businesses for decades without really achieving satisfactory results in most organizations, and for one very good reason: collaboration does not happen in a vacuum.
Collaboration does not emerge from a simple desire, it is rooted in the way work is organized and in the quality of processes and operations. It does not work without rigor.
But the fact is that it is often treated as a simple matter of individual attitude or corporate culture, forgetting that it also rests on an operational foundation.
In short:
- Collaboration is based on work organization, not just individual will.
- Clear processes are essential for effective collaboration.
- Social platforms alone have not been enough to create true collaboration.
- The division of tasks and responsibilities structures collaboration.
- Without operational design, a collaborative culture cannot take root.
Collaboration is much more than just soft skills
Collaboration is often presented as a human skill based on listening to others, empathy, and openness. These are indeed necessary qualities, but they are not enough.
Experience shows that environments that promote effective collaboration go far beyond individual qualities. While collaboration improves productivity, it requires clear rules: who does what, with what degree of autonomy and with what tools.
In practice, the “goodwill” of employees never compensates for a lack of clarity in operations, and effective collaboration is not the spontaneous product of human skills but of work organization.
Processes and operations: amplifiers or brakes on collaboration?
Businesses sometimes forget that processes are just the tracks on which the collaboration train runs. Worse, they think that people will break out of processes to collaborate and that collaboration is a good way to improve things without having to rethink processes.
But the fact is that when workflows are unclear, responsibilities are vague and decisions are often slower. In this case, collaboration breaks down, even when people are motivated. Conversely, well-designed operations allow teams to cooperate almost naturally, without unnecessary cognitive overload.
There are, of course, cases where collaboration can compensate for poor processes and work organization, but this is not a situation that should be allowed to continue. When a business sees that, thanks to a collaborative effort, employees have compensated for poor processes, it should not assume that it has succeeded and that things can continue as they are. On the contrary, it should harness this collective intelligence to improve the process as part of a continuous improvement approach (Improving a team’ s work: a story of continuous improvement).
Employee engagement is not and should not be the solution to inadequate work organization. It is a key factor in employee experience (2023 Employee Experience Barometer: the employee experience confronted with its contradictions), and allowing such a situation to continue will only lead to fatigue and disengagement.
Let’s imagine a product launch. If the milestones are poorly defined, the dependencies between teams are unclear, and the validation channels are too cumbersome, it becomes impossible to collaborate effectively, even with the best talent and tools. The project will accumulate delays, tensions, and demotivation. Conversely, a simple process with a clear brief, fast validations, and precise roles allows for more fluid collaboration. Once again, except in exceptional cases, the time spent fighting individually against the process is not spent collaborating together, and when this happens, people collaborate to circumvent and repair the process in an ad hoc and temporary manner, not to move things forward.
Why “emerging collaboration” and “social collaboration” have not lived up to their promise
In the 2010s, the rise of enterprise social networks and collaborative platforms fueled the idea of emergingcollaboration, where spontaneous exchanges, cross-pollination of expertise, and organic contributions would naturally boost innovation and efficiency.
In reality, this promise has not been kept.
The experience of many businesses with platforms such as Yammer and Jive has shown that the majority of employees did not use these tools regularly or productively. Engagement remained concentrated among a few highly active individuals. It is worth remembering that in most cases, 20% to 35% of the added value generated by collaboration comes from 3% to 5% of employees (Collaborative Overload).
Above all, without clear operational guidelines and integration into business processes, so-called “emerging” collaboration often resulted in scattered efforts, growing information noise, and a lack of alignment with operational needs.
This relative failure should remind us that collaboration without a specific goal, without processes that anchor it in daily work, remains marginal and decorative. Effective collaboration does not spring spontaneously from chaos but must be thought out, structured, and integrated into day-to-day operations.
Collaboration does not exist in a vacuum: it is rooted in the way work is organized
Introducing a new communication tool or organizing more team-building workshops is not enough to create a collaborative dynamic. Collaboration takes shape in the way tasks are divided up, decisions are made, and workflows are organized.
It also stems from the way in which objectives are decided and people are evaluated individually and collectively. If success means going against others, if this creates a conflict of interest between members of a team or even between two teams that are supposed to work together, then nothing good can be expected (Tell me how you measure me, and I will tell you how I will behave”).
In concrete terms, collaboration is based on answers to simple questions: How do teams know they need to synchronize? How does information flow? When should individual action become collective action? How do we manage conflicts or trade-offs without deadlock or red tape? How is the success of each individual and the group measured?
In today’s world of work, it is better to have few rules but effective ones, and a framework that allows for collective autonomy (People Centric Operations: adapting work and operations to knowledge workers ) in order to adapt, rather than a straitjacket that stifles initiative.
But until these elements are made explicit and embedded in daily operations, collaboration remains a pipe dream.
Bottom line
Collaboration is not magic, but the result of a work architecture designed to make it possible: appropriate tools, clear processes, smooth operations, and the right soft skills.
This is what enables you to move from good intentions to real impact.
Too many businesses skip the essential step of operational design and are then surprised when the “culture of collaboration” fails to take hold. But wanting to collaborate without rethinking processes and operations is like trying to build a house without foundations.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
