Collaboration that does work: lessons from practice
Many organisations now accept a simple truth: you don’t solve big challenges on your own. We need partners. Yet I still see collaborations stall—not for lack of ambition, but because we move too fast. A team gets assembled, a mandate lands on the table, and we hope the rest will sort itself out. Soon after come the sighs: “Our partners behaved differently than we expected.” Cue frustration, rework, and sometimes an early exit.
Across my years in applied research organisations, I noticed the same pattern: we started at the end. Jumping straight into design and hurrying on to execution, skipping the quiet, crucial half of the work. Since then, I’ve stuck to a simple sequence that consistently changes the outcome: Explore, Share, Agree, Design, Execute.
Explore is where curiosity beats the rush to start. I want to understand each party’s challenge, ambition, and limits. What does success look like for you—and what definitely doesn’t? What’s sensitive? This isn’t a lengthy process; it’s careful listening. Almost always, something surfaces here that prevents bigger trouble later.
Then we Share. We put assumptions, motives, and concerns on the table—even the awkward ones. State your expectations explicitly and invite partners to do the same. What risks do we see? Where are we mutually dependent? The effect is usually immediate: people relax when they no longer have to guess each other’s agenda.
Only after that do we Agree. Who invests what—time, people, data, access—and what can each party expect in return? How will we decide when the pressure rises? I prefer a light but clear governance frame: a decision rhythm, an escalation path, and—unfashionable but vital—a dignified exit. Not legalese for its own sake; clarity so the team can move.
With that foundation, Design becomes straightforward. The roadmap almost writes itself: crisp milestones, clear ownership, a workable cadence. No forest of KPIs—just a few sharp indicators and a simple learning loop: what do we measure, what does it mean, what will we adjust?
Only then do we Execute. We do what we agreed, without losing sight of the relationship. I schedule short reflections where progress and collaboration share the agenda. If results advance but people disengage, we adjust—early, when it’s still cheap.
Does this sound slow? The extra time sits mostly at the start, and it pays for itself quickly: less noise, fewer restarts, more predictability. The real difference shows when friction inevitably appears; that’s when shared language, clear agreements, and trust carry you through.
Already stuck in a difficult partnership? You can still “catch up” on the early steps. Host a short session, revisit the explore/share questions, reset agreements, and refine the design. My rule of thumb: if you can say in one sentence what the other party aims to win, what you bring, and how you’ll decide when things get tense—you’re ready to design and execute. If not, pause for a moment longer.
