Iconic Collaboration

Human history is full of moments of individual inspiration – think Einstein’s Relativity – but what about examples of successful group collaboration around an idea?

A few hundred years ago, a particular group of backwoods provincials gave birth to perhaps the best idea of all – a limited republican government designed to protect against tyranny.  Their idea was radical and untried in human history – a system of governance based on freedoms, individual protections, assumption of innocence – one that favored merit over bloodline.  This spark of an idea then smoldered for years until it was codified by this same group in the form of the U.S. Constitution, establishing a political gale which has blown steady across the globe through to today.

Group Portraits

Group, or solo, achievement?

First, was this really a group achievement or should credit really be placed with an individual?  Perhaps Joseph Ellis said it best, as he often does on this topic, when he writes in American Creation:

…the success of the founders was partially attributable to their ideological and even temperamental diversity.  Although George Washington was primus inter pares, first among equals within the leadership class of the revolutionary generation, we speak of the founders in the plural for a reason.  The American founding was a collective enterprise with multiple players who harbored fundamentally different beliefs about what the American Revolution meant.  Adams and Jefferson went to their graves arguing with each other about what they had actually founded and how they had somehow done it.  Unlike the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, or the scores of Third World revolutions in the twentieth century, the American Revolution never devolved into one-man despotism – Napoleon, Lenin/Stalin, Mao – that became the sole face of the revolutionary project. The American founding was, and still is, a group portrait.”

There are the obvious and most visible contributors:  Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin.  Followed by lesser known figures:  Jay, R. Morris, G. Morris, S. Adams, Lee, Livingston, Mifflin, and others.  And then those on the periphery who also contributed in significant but indirect ways:  Paine, Henry, Schuyler, Burr. Their group portrait would have to be quite large!

What are We Collaborating On, Anyway?

A notable point about group collaboration, as pointed-out by Ellis above, is that while a group can productively collaborate around an idea, there will usually not be a singular notion of what is being collaborating on.  Paine/Henry, Adams, Hamilton/Washington and Jefferson/Madison had distinctly different notions of the meaning of the founding of America, and it was exactly this tension among competing views which produced such an effective system.  Humans can only really see things through the lens of their own mind’s eye, so we shouldn’t expect everyone to be pulling towards the same goal.  Adams and Jefferson, in particular, shared much in common and yet had starkly different notions of what the revolution and formation of a republican government should mean.  Members of this founding group also had distinct motivations for participation – those ranging from opportunism and playing for posterity, to indignation, to a burning sense of what they felt was right, to frustration, to a desire to have their way prevail.  What’s particularly important is to understand that group collaboration brings together individuals who might be there for very different motivating factors, individuals who might see the object of collaboration very differently from you.

Collaboration is Hard

As the founders experienced, collaboration is difficult.  Our design firm, Arc90, is a highly collaborative environment and group buy-in is essential.  Dictatorial calls are often resisted, particularly those that have to be carried out by the group.  We have a group of highly intelligent and motivated people, and it’s not often that we’ll all immediately see eye-to-eye.  Debate ensues and individuals each attempt to convince the group that their way is “best.”  More often than not, the convincing and the debate itself shows us the way to the optimal solution, no matter how painful the path to it was.  Debate = value.  Perhaps that obviously flows from the notion of group collaboration – else you wouldn’t have a group collaborate at all, you’d do it yourself!  Similarly, the debates at the Convention themselves became codified in the document: the compromise between state and population-based representation, unresolved sovereignty, unenumerated powers being vested in the States. The items most hotly debated were to be resolved over-time, in law and in the Courts.

That an idea presented in public and debated creates value in and of itself also plays out in Kindling, the collaboration tool we’ve created for internal use that’s now available to others. Not only is the end-state idea (one that is approved in Kindling) stronger for having been enhanced by the debate, but it stands a better chance of being implemented once the group has participated in its refinement and buys into it.  Group collaboration around an idea is of two-fold value – it both enhances the idea itself, and puts it in a stronger position for actual implementation.

Who is Your Group’s Washington?

If it’s true that there’s a natural and effective tension in any group, that people will come to any group with differing motivations and that collaboration is hard, then every group needs its George Washington.  Passionate debate and barter is important, but there needs to be someone that can either explicitly make a call or at least influence the decision-making of the group by indicating a preference.  Washington carried enough stature, both physical and reputational, that he could swing any and all conflicts simply by weighing-in.  Make sure your group has that role filled, a person that can ultimately break ties or settle a heated debate, else you risk your group devolving into endless argument without compromise. Or worse, a fight to the death.

One way out of an argument