Collaboration: Why Good Intentions Aren’t Enough
The Oxford Dictionary defines collaboration as “the action of working with someone to produce something.”
In a business context, collaboration occurs when individuals, teams, or departments work together—sharing skills, resources, and ideas—to achieve a common goal more effectively than they could on their own.
Both definitions rest on two core ideas: producing something and achieving a common goal. What they quietly assume, however, is that we actually know how to work together—and that we understand what the right actions should look like.
But do we?
More specifically, do we understand how to think systemically?
When one person, department, or division takes action to move closer to a goal, do we truly understand how that action affects everyone else in the organization?
A real-life example
Consider a manufacturing company with a central distribution warehouse supplying its sales locations. The organization faces a serious issue: too much inventory. Significant capital is tied up, and top management issues a clear directive—reduce inventory immediately.
At the same time, the manufacturing plant is under pressure. Market share has declined, a major customer has been lost, and the order book looks weak. In an attempt to “help” manufacturing, management increases batch sizes for production runs destined for the distribution warehouse.
They call this collaboration.
On paper, the results look impressive. Manufacturing’s income statement improves, efficiency metrics rise, and productivity appears strong. At quarter-end, the production manager is congratulated—and rewarded with a healthy bonus.
Then management turns its attention to the distribution warehouse.
Inventory has increased by more than three million rand.
This is deemed unacceptable. The distribution manager is summoned and given an ultimatum: fix it—or be replaced.
At this point, it’s hard not to shake your head. How can an organization fail to see the connection between “helping” manufacturing and destroying its inventory position?
And yet, this happens all the time—ironically under the banner of collaboration.
The real issue
The problem isn’t bad intentions. It’s a lack of understanding of how complex systems behave.
If we don’t understand interconnected systems—and if we don’t adapt our thinking, processes, and performance measures accordingly—organizations will struggle to survive.
You might object: “But companies do survive.”
They do. Often by sheer luck. And frequently because their competitors are making the exact same mistakes.
In complex systems, you cannot improve the overall objective by optimizing individual parts. Local optimization does not equal global success.
In a linear system, we assume:
A + B + C = ABC
But in a complex system, reality looks more like:
A + b + C = b
The weakest link (b) determines overall performance.
Are our businesses and supply chains linear systems?
I don’t think so.
If you’re facing similar challenges and need a fresh, systemic perspective, let’s talk.