This is one of my favourite research participant quotes.

I am committed to bringing an intentionality to culture and in particular to help build "collaborative cultures", so this is a real focus in my collaboration & partnership joint venture workshops.

We look at developing:

• shared agendas
• shared language
• shared measures

​To deliver:

• shared outcomes

When we are intentional about culture, we realise that it’s really not about big mega changes; it's about "shifting" cultures by “nudging” change.

Intentionality about culture is about changing the paradigm through the stories we tell, the symbols we use, the daily rituals, the degree of reliance on power structures and the control systems in place.

​A move towards empowering leadership and decision-making across the organisation is a significant positive step forward.

Life after the pandemic, will be a call to more and more collaborative cultures and ventures! 

Let's talk if I can help you with building capability, programme set up or help getting an existing programme off the bottom rung of the ladder!

Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | wwwnazaninjenkin.com | nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +634 21 478253
(adapted from two earlier LinkedIn Posts)

(originally posted on LinkedIn)

At the heart of collaboration is "diversity and inclusion"; so it’s core to my values and professional work.

​Not surprisingly the 15th March 2019 events in New Zealand have brought the conversation to the surface and it’s an area I've been getting a few calls about.

For me, as a diaspora, a Persian Kiwi, with experience living and working across countries, this is also a deeply personal conversation.

So have you ever wondered why despite some effort and investment, it feels like we’re treading water?

In today’s Australian Financial Review article “Companies wasting millions on diversity programs”, the author notes that recent research from BCG showed that despite policies and investments
"...only  11% of women, 14% of people from different ethnic backgrounds and 18% of LBGTIQ employees felt they had benefited from the schemes. More than 30% said they had experienced discrimination.”

So maybe we need to change the focus from numbers & tangibles.

Maybe with a deeper focus and intentionality on listening to the stories and capturing the messages we will begin to see changes in the cultural paradigms and a move towards a culture of belonging.

It’s like the difference between being invited to the party & asked to dance!

It's time to go beyond Diversity and Inclusion and talk about "Belonging".
Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | www.nazaninjenkin.com |nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | + 64 21 478253

(originally posted on LinkedIn)
​
The call to Collaborative Leadership is akin to the call to Servant Leadership.

What is Servant Leadership?
"The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” -Robert K. Greenleaf

It requires: a growth mindset, adaptive behaviours, an openness to vulnerability, empowering approach, oodles of humility, readiness to learn and a "dance" between leading & following.

The best test according to Greenleaf - did those served grow and prosper?

For the public service, it is about reimagining the spirit of being a public servant. 

Copyright©2020|Nazanin Jenkin Ltd.|wwwnazaninjenkin.com| nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +634 21 478253

(originally posted on LinkedIn)

Collaboration and creativity are possible only where there is a comfort with ambiguity and “unknown unknowns”, where we can safely learn from failures, in environments that embrace diversity & inclusion. This necessitates “psychological safety”.

“Psychological safety is the biggest distinction in innovative teams” says, Frederik Pferdt, Chief Innovation Evangelist at Google.

In this talk Pferdt and IDEO CEO, Tim Brown come together to talk about fostering creativity and the importance of “psychological safety”.

“They’ve [Google] found it’s not so much who is on the team but how they communicate. It’s essential they have empathy and communicate openly and honestly. To promote psychological safety, leaders can be vulnerable and role model what trust looks like in a team.”  

They include the attached infographic from the World Economic Forum, comparing behaviours when there is “psychological danger” vs. “psychological safety”.

​What are the paradigm shifts needed to ensure “psychological safety” in your workplace?

(originally published on LinkedIn)
​
​Through December our son completed his 21-day OutwardBound journey, which led me to reflect on my own 8-day OutwardBound journey - Discovery Masters, 2006. This was a journey I entered into at a critical point in my professional and life journey. Here is a pictorial of my rock climb - I was petrified and exhilarated simultaneously (the photos are not great quality, but I am so thankful someone picked up my disposable camera and captured this journey for me

Then,  I am at the summit (picture below) - but the conquered rock face is more visible than me. You can barely see me, though to this day I can feel the sense of excitement & accomplishment.
​

Getting started - back to basics
(originally published on LinkedIn)

Why collaborate 
Collaboration is not necessarily suitable or wise for all projects and outcomes. It is best suited to complex problems that demand effort to achieve a change. So in the first instance take as much time as you need to agree what you are collaborating on. Having identified an "opportunity or issue", take time to go deeper and look at the identified "needs" from the variety of perspectives. Then re-think the early problem/opportunity definition. Is there one (or more) common big opportunity or issue that requires collaboration or a variety of small isolated matters that can be handled independently, supported by communication and coordination? Investing in this first stage will save time later, avoid re-work and duplication. Recently I have heard a re-occurring rhetoric, "don't talk - act", with an apparent agenda to drive quick and early action. The risk is, this becomes busyness for the sake of busyness, which is wasted effort, breaks down good will and trust, and builds frustration. So don't let consultants or managers or politicians fool you into thinking this early effort is wasted time. 

Through my research I developed the iceberg model of collaboration, which showed that the problem definition usually gets buried deep down under other "noise". With the right approach and facilitation, once you have identified the needs and (usually revised) problem definition or opportunity - you can quickly develop an action plan. Recently, following some months of collective work with a variety of governance groups, the leadership team and managers across the organisation in the first stages, I facilitated a collective impact sprint session where integrated groups of kamahi, serving large customer segments across circa eighty service contracts, designed their collective action plans in four hours! In four hours we had agreed integrated plans for the next five years, because we had developed quality foundations first. Together we identified their "quick wins" and they will have their first collective projects completed before the close of 2018. Successful delivery of these early initiatives builds confidence for future investments and longer term projects - my recommendation would be to showcase early and often. Voilà, and there you have it, momentum and capability developed organically!

Do we understand each other 

More often than not we just need to start with the basics, and giving careful attention to the language is so very important. Collaboration can mean different things to different people - even those sitting at one table. The Oxford dictionary’s definition is, “the action of working with someone to produce something”. A little limiting, I think. Selden et al. showed it is actually a continuum that spans “cooperation” through to “service integration”. They said, “On the one end is inter-organisational cooperation, supported by informal and personal relationships between management and staff of different organisations. On the other end is formalised service integration, in which two organisations work together to provide a new package of services to their mutual clients”.

In “Managing for Joint Outcomes”, a research project undertaken by the Victoria University School of Government on behalf of the New Zealand public service, Ryan et al. said collaboration entails not just “co-existence” (working alone), “communication” (talking together), “cooperation” (getting together) or “co-ordination” (working together), but something more: namely, “collaboration” (sharing work). Building on this, in a recent LinkedIn article (which I shared), Bill Ryan said collaboration is "..where participants drop their 'I' and become 'We', merging all into a set of common culture, processes, practices and resources. Responsibility and accountability are collective. Mature, effective co-design demands full collaboration between participants ('partners') and, in theory at least (there is some evidence to back this up but a fair amount of faith among believers), is the most likely means to achieve sectoral or whole-of-government goals and objectives (desired outcomes) sought in policy."

First steps - going beyond good intentions 
​
Never assume that there is a shared understanding of the problem definition or opportunity being sought, the purpose for collaboration, the desired outcomes for collaboration or indeed what "collaboration" means or looks like. Take the time needed to explore and agree and keep those agreements as the anchor for the journey. Be prepared to adapt and allow some flexibility - life is not static and things change. We are working in complex adaptive eco-systems - so if you are just focusing on one aspect, it's likely something else is changing and impacting the whole, under the radar. But keep key touch points and use them to steer the way forward. 
Moving forward we need to promote a culture that is comfortable with ambiguity and the unknowns; enable ongoing opportunities to learn from failures; and, embrace diversity of thought across portfolios. And, it's time to go beyond "good intentions". So going beyond good intentions, my suggestions are:

• take time to agree what you mean by collaboration
• identify the apparent problem definition or opportunity, then consider the "needs" - then re-frame
• agree to a common goal that demands collaboration
• what determines who - grow the coalition of the willing
• consistent communication - agree what needs to be communicated, how and when
• shared measures - agree to track progress in the same way across organisations/teams
• complementary partnerships - do what each does best, whilst identifying new ways to work together
• dedicated resources - establish shared backbone structures
• showcase successes early and often
• and most importantly, invest in your people (and probably fundamentally re-think your training programmes!)

Do get in touch if you'd like to know more - I'd love to help you on your journey. Let's make 2019 the best year of collaboration success stories yet!

Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | www.nazaninjenkin.com | nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +64 21 478253

Fill your kete
(originally published on LinkedIn)

An edict to collaborate doth not collaboration make...yet somehow, I see this sort of expectation again and again! The thing with collaboration is that folk think they get it and in some way many have some sort of an intuitive understanding of what it is. However, this in itself can be a problem and simply reduce collaboration to a buzzword! We've got to go beyond gut instincts and buzzwords and fill our kete (basket).

Collaboration doesn't just happen - it needs to be a strategic decision, supported by a change implementation programme. It seems so bizarre to expect folk to wake up one day with some renewed thinking that tells them how and when to collaborate, because politician(s) or senior leader(s) decided it was the way to go. Some effort is required to deliver successful collaboration and we have to understand the context, to fully comprehend the effort that is needed to deliver what is essentially a new way of working across the NZ pubic sector. Here I share a small sample of my research literature review where I looked at this context.

Trajectory of New Zealand Public Service Reforms 

​In the quest for better public services from the mid-1980s through to the mid-1990s almost every aspect of “public management in New Zealand has been redesigned, reorganised, or reconfigured in some way” (Boston & Pallot, 1997, p.382). Through the 1990s this change was heavily influenced by Hood’s work on New Public Management (NPM) (Hood, 1991,1995). It had a strong focus on changes in public accounting and was embraced at the time by many as a paradigm shift for the public sector from public administration and management (PAM) (Christensen & Lægreid, 2002; McLaughlin, Osborne, & Ferlie, 2002; Osborne, 2006). The New Zealand reforms through the decade 1986 -1996 were considered by some to be “a more severe approach” (Pollitt & Summa, 1997) and by others as being radical and progressive (Duncan & Chapman, 2010, 2012). In 1996, Schick undertook a review of the New Zealand reforms, which drew some constructive conclusions and highlighted a range of areas for consideration (see Duncan & Chapman, 2010). In 2008, two decades following the reforms Graham Scott (2008, p. 4) stated that: “After 20 years of experimenting the government should try again to get to grips with the real issues….and chart a course that is more promising than the one we are on.” 
​
In broad brush summary, having "dabbled" in some way with New Public Management (NPM), New Public Value (NPV), and, New Public Governance (NPG), in 2011, the then National Government introduced Better Public Services (BPS). See trajectory summary below - from “Picking up the pace in the public services” by A. Morrison, 2014. The early reforms delivered some efficiency gains, largely through reduced headcount, but were unable to deliver increased effectiveness and the desired outcomes. As Andrew Kibblewhite, Head of Policy Profession (HoPP) indicated in a 2015 address to the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand (IPANZ) “the momentum they tantalisingly promised to deliver didn’t eventuate”. 

Competition to Collaboration 

Whilst I don't want to over simplify the complexities of reforms and policy making and I acknowledge that there are many scholars more learned than I in this field - it is evident that the move to BPS was essentially a move from a competitive model of service delivery to a collaborative model. We are now once again in a new era, with the introduction of the first New Zealand "Wellbeing Budget" by the current Labour-led Government and the "re-introduction" of the four-wellbeings for Local Government. Successful delivery of this approach is absolutely reliant on successful collaboration across some complex portfolios and issues. However, to date, despite many policy initiatives that require collaboration, on the whole the anticipated changes to a transformational collaborative public services delivery have yet to eventuate. We have definitely seen pockets of success (examples include: SmartStart, the Healthy Homes Initiative and the Kaikoura Harbour Remediation to name some); but we have yet to experience the anticipated transformational new way of working and integrated delivery approach across services for citizens, communities and whānau.

Having journeyed a pathway of "competition" for so many years, it seems it should be obvious that some effort is needed to turn the tide around to "collaboration". This is fundamentally a new way of working, requiring different skills, competencies and capabilities and undergirded by a "new" approach to leadership. We have a workforce trained in the old way of working and a system designed for essentially silo delivery across agencies and local authorities. As mentioned already, though we have seen some successes, often against all odds, overall we continue to work in a culture that has a dominant fear of failure, continues to struggle with diversity and rewards "known knowns". Even when we enable collaboration, we do not incentivise it and so the effort appears to be wasted. And, if delivering collaboration across teams and organisations in this environment wasn't challenging enough, “generation collaboration” brings four generations of employees together and has to be relevant to all. In short, bringing successful collaboration to fruition is no mean task for any leader. As one US politician is famously quoted as saying, "Collaboration is like cottage cheese. It occasionally smells bad and separates easily."

Fundamentally, collaboration is a strategic change programme that requires set-up, the right people, capability development, resource allocation, an implementation plan etc. Delivering complex portfolios of change across multiple organisations doesn't just happen because it's a good idea!

Filling our kete 

Increasingly, my work with organisations takes us along the whole journey: why, what and how - strategy to implementation, supported by capability development. The lines between strategy and OD are blurred as we move into the collaboration arena.

Maybe as a nation of rugby lovers we can draw on some learning from the sport – a coach would not pick any individual club player and expect them to perform at test match level without appropriate training and practice: nor can leaders expect that of employees. It takes time, effort and investment to be ready on game day. Further, rugby players work and compete separately when members of a club team but, when they come together as the All Blacks – they are one. There has to be provision of environments for learning, in a controlled way, where we can fail safely and learn from that learning quickly. It’s exciting to see examples of these rising in NZ such as the Service Innovation Lab in Wellington and the Auckland Co-Design Lab, to name a couple. There are also workshops and seminars where folk share their learning working with collaboration, a number of which I have been privileged to be part of. The conversations are dynamic and the desire to learn palpable. However, even though there are enthusiasts for this new way of working, for the majority learning how and when to use these sorts of environments and the approaches they offer can be challenging enough. The transition from traditional old ways of working to dynamic and adaptable approaches has been slower than anticipated. We need to find ways to increase the momentum and grow the champions.

For those of us that want to work in this new way and lead in this arena, we have to own our own learning and fill our personal kete with tools and frameworks. It takes time and it’s an investment, but heck it’s worth it! After a number of years of research, practice and wānanga- one thing I am certain of: there is absolutely no “one” way or approach that is suitable for all situations. Each framework that I have looked at, trained in, and “played with” has some value to add – but the clever bit is learning how to mix and match and integrate for the specifics of the context and people and culture. Moving into the maturity of working in this new collaborative way will take time and we will make mistakes along the way, but that should not stop us taking steps in the right direction. The internet offers us unprecedented opportunities to learn with global communities and learning can be an exciting adventure.

In an earlier article I talked about some key collaborative behaviours and skills. Building on that, some collaboration frameworks and approaches that I have found useful include: Appreciative Inquiry, the Cynefin Framework, the Constellation Model, Collective Impact, ISO 44001, Twyford's Power of Co. and Design Thinking. I don't believe in "standards" per se - they're all tools and frameworks that can add value at any given point. Therefore, I choose not to be “an apostle” for any one approach, but rather to work with a portfolio – I am still on a journey and my learning has been to not hold on to any specific approach too tightly, to be open and to listen closely. In my work I design workshops and training to suit the needs of the context.

In my next article I will take you through the first steps of getting started with a collaboration initiative.
​
Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | www.nazaninjenkin.com | nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +64 21 478253


References

• Boston, J., & Pallot, J. (1997). Linking strategy and performance: Developments in the New Zealand public sector. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(3), 382-404).
• Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2002). New public management : The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? . Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19.
• Duncan, G., & Chapman, J. (2010). New millennium, new public management and the New Zealand model. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(3), 301-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00692.x
• Duncan, G., & Chapman, J. (2012). Better public services?: Public management and the New Zealand model. Public Policy, 7(2), 151-166. 
• Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? . Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. 
• Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 20(2/3), 93-109. 
• McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (2002). New public management : Current trends and future prospects. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, c2002.
• Morrison, A. (2014). Picking up the pace in the public services. Policy Quarterly: Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, School of Government at Victoria University, 10(2), 43-48. Picking up the pace in the public services,” by A. Morrison, 2014, Policy Quarterly: Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, School of Government at Victoria University, 10(2), p.44.
• Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? . Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387. 
• Pollitt, C., & Summa, H. (1997). Trajectories of reform: Public management change in four countries. Public Money & Management, 17(1), 7-18. 
• Scott, G. (2008). After the reforms : Some questions about the state of the state in New Zealand. Policy Quarterly: Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, School of Government at Victoria University, 4(2), 3-14. 

Collaborative Behaviours and Skills
​(originally published on LinkedIn)

Embrace healthy conflict 
By now it will have become evident that a collaborative model of working necessitates a new set of behaviours and skill-sets. It's not about everyone getting on and agreeing, or nurturing a "no conflict" environment. In fact "healthy conflict", where a diverse group of voices have the opportunity to wānanga (meet, discuss and deliberate) issues is key to successful collaboration. Note, I differentiate between "healthy" and "unhealthy" conflict - the former builds strong foundations for successful collaboration, whilst the latter breaks down trust and good will. Sadly, the later is still way too prevalent - often in a passive-aggressive form and through mis-use of power. We need to be courageous and call it when we see it happening; often we know in our gut what we need to do, but we ignore it.

Be prepared to be challenged and feel vulnerable through a collaboration process, it's just going to happen - at some point you're going to feel pretty uncomfortable. However, when we stick with it that's when the growth comes and we hit those magic "aha" moments. I am a Persian Kiwi, so a good discussion is in my Middle Eastern DNA, but not so across New Zealand, where we have a dominant "conflict averse" culture and a palpable "tall poppy syndrome". In this environment it takes an intentional choice and some effort to embrace healthy conflict, enable diverse opinions and celebrate others' successes. "No mud, no lotus."

Key collaborative behaviours and skills 
Through my research and practice I have been able to identify some key behaviours and skills for collaboration and collective impact, that warrant investment of time and training. Here is a brief touch point on some of them - in no particular order, so as not to give more weighting to one or other. They're all important and it's for each of us to decide where we need to focus in any given season of our lives, individually and corporately. This is not an exhaustive list - just a starting point.

• Active Listening - It takes time and effort to develop this skill. There are essentially four ways of talking and listening: downloading and listening within our own story; debating and listening to each other from the outside; creating and breaking down the boundaries; and, reflecting - listening to ourselves reflectively and to others empathetically (based on Adam Kahane's work). When we are creating and reflecting, we provide opportunities to move into a new future.

• Common Language - In a collaborative environment we have to be explicit about what our words and actions mean. We need to be alert to the water cooler conversations, listening to the interpretations of conversations and alert to what's being said in the ever so frequent "pre-meeting" and "post-meeting" chats! We can't afford to "assume" others mean the same as us when they use the same words.

• Continuous Communication - Communication has to be beyond a process and tick box exercise. Key messages need to be agreed, communicated in a timely manner and in a style that's relevant to the context and culture. Often we need a portfolio of approaches (words, drawings, hard copy, soft copy etc.) and in my experience, here the specialists add significant value. Additionally, the digital environment offers us new opportunities to communicate more efficiently. Collaboration software is evolving continually and it's well worth experimenting with a number of options (I use a variety).

• Adaptive & Flexible - Don't hold on to anything too tightly in a collaborative endeavour. Be open and prepared to adjust, adapt and at times totally re-steer. We've talked about growth mindsets vs. fixed mindsets before; creatively exploring the issues, problems and needs provides the environment to discover new opportunities for the future.

• Empowering/Open to Sharing – In this sort of environment, we are comfortable with celebrating others' successes. We give credit where credit is due and leaders move organically into a coaching & mentoring capacity.

• Strategic Value Creator - Collaborators focus on ecosystem value creation. They look and work beyond personal responsibilities, respectfully and collegially engaging as wide a variety of "voices" as possible. They have the ability to connect the big picture strategic perspectives and decisions to implementation (service delivery and product development). It's a unique behaviour and skill set that drives collective impact.

• Champions for Change - Effective collaborators are the champions for change and those that keep a collaborative initiative on track. When researching successful collaborative efforts Ryan et al., working with the project Better Connected Services for Kiwis, identified three clear roles in successful collaborative efforts: “the public entrepreneur” (individuals who drive change / new ideas, despite the rules and often under the radar); “fellow–travellers” (those that support the public entrepreneur); and “guardian angels” (leaders that sponsor and support). If we consider how Moore’s strategic triangle (see earlier article) might play out in a collaborative initiative, the roles identified by Ryan et al. seem plausible. 

• Trust and Power - It's unlikely to come as a surprise that trust and power are key factors and oft talked about. It's essential to focus on creating trust environments and relationships, as well as reducing reliance on power and hierarchy of roles. Developing deep trust takes time and effort. Collaboration drives us away from vertical organisational structures and towards horizontal organisational structures. Though still emerging and evolving, collaboration frameworks encourage devolved decision making and empowerment of identified collaborators.

• Stewardship - Stewardship and understanding "Kaitiakitanga" (guardianship and conservation) are an integral part of collaboration in NZ and closely tied to an ecosystem approach to value creation. We need to take an inter-generational perspective and ensure sustainable futures, by "cherishing" all that has been entrusted into our care for our time here.

We have to give due consideration to sharing resources and developing shared backbone structures. To reduce bias and enable new opportunities, it's recommended to have an independent provider for all backbone and secretariat services (i.e. not one of the collaboration delivery partners). Mostly my observation has been that whilst maximising opportunities for people, sharing capabilities and stewardship of resources is generally a key driver for a collaborative initiative (often under the umbrella of "shared services"), very few give the necessary time and investment for planning and capability development needed up-front to ensure success, and often one delivery partner will want to keep control. One way to think of it is an "independent partner" for delivery of backbone structures and secretariat - this seems to work really well. As my vicar indicated this Sunday ....even Jesus and the apostles needed people behind the scenes to enable their success! Too often we forget the "invisible" servants and leaders that are integral to collaboration success.

Cultures of Collaboration 

As we encourage and invest in collaborative behaviours and skills, change will happen organically. Slowly and gently we will see nudges in culture and new ways of working becoming the norm.
​
Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | www.nazaninjenkin.com | nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +64 21 478253

Value creation and Lower Level Politics
(originally published on LinkedIn)

Value Creation: One-waka approach 
In the public sector – local government, central government, whatever the agency and even the service delivery partners (generally NFP's) – it's one waka. In actual fact, NZ is so small we need to take a one-waka perspective on everything! We would be remiss not to consider the macro environment across policies and investments and only focus on personal accountability areas/responsibilities. But a trajectory of public sector reforms has resulted in a culture of silo and competitive behaviours from practitioners across the system. This is a complex and difficult environment for public sector leaders to deliver collaborative initiatives. However, it is heartening to see a current review of the State Sector Act in process, with relevant current foci, namely: creating a modern Public Service for a modern New Zealand; commitment to Māori; tools for a flexible Public Service; leading better outcomes and services; the best people for the job; and, a trusted Public Service.
But in the end, even with changes to legislation and the system, the evidence clearly shows that collaboration is contingent on lower level politics. It’s about developing a genuine willingness on the part of persons across teams and organisations to work closely with each other towards collective value creation. And, of course, value creation is not limited to dollar savings - that's a really small lens to assess "value" and even "value for money"!

​What's value? 
One of the key proponents of public value creation was Moore (1995), and he continues to be an important voice in the field. He presented the concept of the strategic triangle (see below), which though based on contemporary strategy experience from the private sector is a relatively pragmatic approach as "... it takes account of the need to engage upwards with political leaders for legitimacy and support, and downwards in order to achieve organisational capability and to ensure that service delivery is feasible" (see Duncan & Chapman (2012) Better public services? Public management and the New Zealand model. Public Policy).
​
In his recent address to the SOLGM conference, Ganesh Nana (Chief Economist at Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL)) presented an alternative model (see below) for change based on the local government four well-beings and suggests that the well-beings be used to address four points (I have paraphrased): critiquing the use of "value" in policy or decision-making; a more inclusive approach to assessing value; considering the "do nothing" option; and, cutting across silos for assessments (see published article in November 2018 issue of the NZ Local Government Magazine)

Public Servants & Servant Leadership
The New Zealand Public Sector “Spirit of Service” seems to embody a collaborative approach; and, there appears to be a call to once again capture the heart of being a public servant. Last week, I was delighted to see that "14 public servants from around the country were acknowledged for their outstanding spirit of service to NZ" - these were the inaugural recipients of the State Services Commissioner’s Commendation for Frontline Excellence. Well done! This sort of service is the underlying ethos of public service, where employees are known as public servants, and this should once again steer us towards the principles of “servant leadership”, a concept coined by Greenleaf in his now famous 1970 essay. In that essay Greenleaf said, “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” Yet not so long ago I had the opportunity to work with a group of senior mangers from across agencies and a number were not familiar with the phrase "servant leadership". It took me by surprise, so if it's new to you, I highly recommend a quick google search. In summary, it is well acknowledged that the primary characteristics of a servant leader include: “altruism, empathy, humility, service, spirituality, and stewardship”. Anyone can be a leader anywhere in the organisation.

Understanding Complexity & Decision Making 
Collaborative leadership necessitates an empowering approach, a comfort with ambiguity, and an ability to learn from failures. This appears to be particularly tough in an environment with a dominant “fear of failure” and a reward system that appears to favour “known knowns”. Here I am referring to David Snowden et al's work with understanding complexity and specifically the Cynefin framework (pronounced ku-nev-in), which is a Welsh word that signifies the multiple factors in our environment and our experience that influence us in ways that we can never understand. I am no expert on complexity theory, but it fascinates me, so along with a small group of other enthusiasts I signed up to one of Snowden's all-day masterclasses when he was visiting NZ; I am on an intentional learning journey!

My take is that leaders across the system have to approach the problem definition and subsequent decision making approach differently; and, whilst it may be complex, it doesn't have to be complicated. A flock of birds is a magnificent example of complexity in nature, each individual bird and the flock together, adapt and adjust to respond to the environment and circumstances. Whilst traditional problem solving tools can still add some value, in a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) world, we need new tools for decision making that enable the right action. Again, if you are a starter on the subject, I recommend looking it up and you may find Snowden and Boone's 2007 HBR article "A leader's framework for decision making" a good starting point.

Moving from Fixed Mindsets to Growth Mindsets 
Moving forward it appears we now need leaders with a new mindset – Carol Dweck of Stanford University calls this a “growth mindset” (as opposed to a “fixed mindset”); others have talked about “adaptive” behaviours and leadership. Growth mindset characteristics include: embracing challenges; seeing effort as a path to mastery; persisting in the face of challenges; learning from criticism; and, finding lessons and inspiration in the success of others. These characteristics then guide our behaviours and language. In reality it's a spectrum and we each may operate with either mindset in any given situation; it's about learning to be aware of our own behaviours and responses.

So if collaboration and collective impact are the desired outcome, then there is opportunity to re-assess the capabilities needed in those contexts. In this environment, leaders take on the role of mentors and coaches more readily, and are comfortable with sharing knowledge to empower others. Dweck talks about the power of believing that you can improve - so if you're a natural, that's great; but, if you aren't, there is hope! She says, "in the growth mindset, failure can be a painful experience. But it doesn't define you. It’s a problem to be faced, dealt with, and learned from.” On a personal note, I have found the practices of mindfulness, thankfulness and yoga, and working with a mentor/coach, to all add significant value in my development. Here is a simple practice Dweck suggests - if you/your team or someone you know is not good at doing "x"; add the word "yet"..."I am not good at "x", yet". That moves the fixed mindset statement to a growth mindset statement and recognises we are all on a change journey. Find what helps you and invest in developing the discipline(s).

Shifting the Culture 
Changes in the cultural status quo can be difficult and are rarely (if ever) achieved through large scale re-structuring. A move to collaboration necessitates a gentler culture nudge and shift, which necessitates a reliance on champions and the right people dynamics (giving consideration to communication, power dynamics, building trust, information and knowledge sharing and so forth). We can’t move forward if we don’t put the end recipient at the centre of all that we do - that's our shared interest. To serve fully we need to approach our service delivery collectively for collective impact.

And, in the end, we each need to take time for deep change and make the choice to lead in line with our values, and remember that “there is nothing permanent except change” (Heraclitus) – so let’s try not to make it too complicated, but take the right steps forward individually and support each other as we journey together collectively.

Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | www.nazaninjenkin.com | nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +64 21 478253

​

Collaboration is a Package and People are Key
(originally published on LinkedIn)

Package: Collaboration is a package; and, like a chain, collaboration is only as strong as its weakest link at any given time and in any given situation. My research identified sixteen primary organising themes, which together help build the layers and framework for collaboration - many of which would not be a surprise to practitioners in the field, as practitioners have an intuitive understanding of what collaboration is. But this “intuitive” understanding may in itself have been a cause of complacency to date, almost like: 'I get it, now what?' The risk is that collaboration simply becomes the topic of current interest and is reduced to little more then a buzzword. Successful collaboration is dependent on identifying and understanding all the parts of the package and the parts working cohesively and in a complementary manner together.
​
It's all about people: The deeper conversations continue to be centred on people and the system. At its core collaboration is about people: just as much as people can be an impediment to collaboration, they can be the answer or circuit breaker. Here are two word clouds: the first summarises the perceived impediments to collaboration in a public sector context and the second summarises the descriptors for a collaboration Nirvana, in the same context (both were generated using NVivo). The comparison is evident.

​Working together Here I have a little warning flag - collaboration is not the same as networking. Whilst networking can lead to collaboration, often pre-existing relationships can result in un-conscious and even conscious biases. In turn this impacts our behaviours (who we share information with and such like) and reduces opportunities for diversity and inclusion. It's necessary to take time to agree the problem definition and which part (if any) requires collaboration. That then supports partner selection and determines who needs to be at the table at any given point in the collaboration journey (note: partners can change in a collaboration journey). Through a co-design process we then agree what each brings to the collaborative initiative. This forms a strong foundation for mutual respect relationships and helps avoid the tendency towards competition at the table, keeping a shared interest focus.

Whakawhanaungatanga Collaboration might be better described as “whakawhanaungatanga”; which literally translated is the process of “establishing relationships, relating to others” or metaphorically it is about connecting at both a physical and spiritual level. Real collaboration necessitates intentionality and investment of self. It requires deep reflection and walking out into the fullness of personal courage; and, as Brené Brown teaches, all courage requires some risk, uncertainty and emotional exposure – which is the definition of vulnerability.

Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | www.nazaninjenkin.com | nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +64 21 478253

Mind shift: Focus on moving self interest to shared interest
(originally published on Linkedin)

Systems and processes 

Predominantly, the systems we work in and the processes we work with are not designed for collaboration. Many of the systems we’ve inherited were designed in the industrial age and similarly, many of the processes were designed for specific contexts. Absolutely, we need to take an eco-system approach and improve systems and processes. But major system/process overhauls take time and, in my experience, the most sustainable changes are implemented incrementally. Nevertheless, if the system is designed for competition and the people in the system are incentivised to compete – then competition and self-interest will prevail. It is evident that requiring or legislating and even enabling collaboration across teams and traditional organisational boundaries is insufficient for change. An edict or direction to collaborate, doth not collaboration make; we need a mind shift that moves self interest to shared interest.

Real vs false collaboration 

The theme of “real vs. false collaboration” emerged in my research somewhat unexpectedly and even a little disturbingly – it appeared that at times false collaboration was inadvertent and at times intentional. We are each as human as each other, so the potential impact of human agency should not be underplayed and opportunities to move self interest to shared interest should continue to be actively sought. Real collaboration provides opportunities for divergent thinkers to contribute, and is inclusive – at its core it is a diversity and inclusion agenda.

Shared incentives, measures and story-telling 

Further, it seems that collaboration needs to be supported by shared incentives and shared measures. Evidence indicates that this is beyond structural changes, and scholars provide a range of ideas for consideration such as: peer recognition programmes; value-added performance metrics; monetising system value; building in structured competition (within a collaboration framework); and finding quick wins - to name some. But more and more I see real change and impact on individual lives through collaboration that can't be measured - so we also need to recognise and engage in story-telling, not just as an "add-on", but as a primary source for decision-making.

Values driven 

In the end we need to draw together the hearts and minds of “kamahi” – when people care about what they do, when their task is centred in their “why” or their purpose for being - then self interest organically moves to shared interest and a deep desire for collective impact. If our hearts’ cry is to make a difference where it matters, then we will.
​
Copyright ©2020 Nazanin Jenkin Ltd. | www.nazaninjenkin.com | nazanin@nazaninjenkin.com | +64 21 478253

​