Good collaboration is key to success in almost every field, from business to finance to sport. We explore how organisations can encourage staff to work together to share ideas, avoid mistakes and improve performance.
12 minute read
Vince Lombardi knew a thing or two about building successful teams. An American Football player turned coach, Lombardi led Wisconsin’s Green Bay Packers to an unprecedented five NFL Championships and two Super Bowl trophies in the 1960s.
But while his leadership abilities are legendary, Lombardi was aware his achievements would not have been possible without the contribution of his colleagues, from his players and fellow coaches to the ground-staff who tended the turf at Lambeau Field stadium. As he once put it: “Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.”
Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.
Individual commitment to the group effort has never been more important in driving success, especially in industries where the knowledge base is becoming increasingly specialised. Take science, technology, engineering and mathematics. In the 1960s, when Lombardi’s team were conquering all before them, it was common for a STEM paper authored by a single expert to rack up citations. Nowadays, single-author papers are more-or-less unheard of; the most influential research tends to come from cross-disciplinary and even cross-university research teams.1
The same is true in other complex, technical fields such as asset management. Collaboration is crucial in ensuring investment professionals are able to build portfolios that deliver the outcomes clients want. In firms that lack good communication, asset-class specialists may work in silos, failing to share insights that would enable their colleagues to identify opportunities and avoid risks. But while the importance of collaboration is widely recognised, putting it into practice is another matter.
How can you incentivise a truly collaborative process? Without attention to the details it’s just a buzzword.
“In the asset management industry, finding, testing and implementing the best investment ideas is crucial to good performance, and that is impossible without interaction among teams at all levels of the business,” says Sunil Krishnan, head of Multi-asset Funds at Aviva Investors. “The real question is how best to facilitate collaboration. How can you ensure staff commit to the group effort? How can you get the best from everyone, and not just a few stars? How can you incentivise a truly collaborative process? Without attention to the details it’s just a buzzword.”
In this article, we set out the lessons we have learned while building a collaborative culture at Aviva Investors, along with insights from other disciplines such as business, sport and psychology. We highlight four key principles for successful collaboration: promote idea flow; challenge groupthink; choose the right technology; and incentivise. These solutions needn’t be operationally difficult or expensive – but they can deliver big results.
1. Promote idea flow
- Optimise office layouts to promote interaction
- Don’t allow the loudest voices to dominate meetings
- Promote ‘psychological safety’ so everyone feels able to contribute
‘Idea flow’ may sound like a piece of management-speak, but it denotes something simple and important: the transmission of ideas and creative energies around an organisation. For large companies that rely on bringing together professionals with different specialisms, idea flow is key to making the best use of their talent.
Companies in technical and creative industries have long experimented with different ways of improving interaction among staff, with some surprising results. Take Google. In 2013, as the company’s executives surveyed the canteens at its plush San Francisco offices, they noticed staff in long queues were more likely to strike up conversations with those around them. So they devised an experiment to find out the optimal length of time baristas should spend making a coffee: long enough to promote serendipitous conversation, but not so long as to annoy employees thirsty for a caffeine hit. The answer was four minutes.
“We try to make it so that you wait four minutes for a coffee on average, regardless of the amount of people who are waiting,” says Kirk Vallis, global head of creative capability development at Google. “The baristas speed up or slow down depending on the length of the queue. It’s all about maximising the opportunity for that productive collision.”
Tweaking the layout of workspaces – or ‘optimising spatial management’ to use the technical phrase – can also make a difference. A recent study from the Kellogg School of Management found evidence of a positive spill-over from high-performing individuals to colleagues sitting in a 25-foot radius around them, boosting team-wide performance by as much as 15 per cent – the kind of results usually associated with expensive training and recruitment initiatives.2
What we know about idea flow is that the environment needs to be ‘psychologically safe’ for it to work.
But for collaboration to truly take hold, employees need to feel comfortable sharing ideas in more formal settings such as meetings, and this can be more difficult than engineering casual conflabs in the coffee queue or around a desk. One widespread problem is that meetings can be derailed by powerful voices – wary of contradicting senior members of staff, individuals may be reluctant to contribute their thoughts, allowing their louder colleagues to dominate discussions. We are culturally hard-wired to pay attention to hierarchy, which can stifle credible voices.
“What we know about idea flow is that the environment needs to be ‘psychologically safe’ for it to work,” says Tabitha Alwyn of Alliance Coaching, a consultancy. “Creating such an environment can be challenging, because it requires a measure of equality within a space. Generally, meetings tend to be governed by historic levels of seniority. People want to impress the higher-ups so they say what they believe people want to hear, rather than what they really think.”
In more substantive debate it’s important to have the senior leaders speak last, so they don’t influence the others.
There are some simple ways to ensure meetings are truly collaborative, according to Alwyn. Interruptions should be disallowed; psychologists have observed that when a speaker is interrupted their brain often goes into ‘fight or flight’ mode, in precisely the same way as it might react to a physical threat. The consequent surge of adrenaline hampers creative thinking and may increase tension among other people in the room.
Structuring meetings so that everyone has an equal chance to contribute can also help, according to Krishnan. “We have found that opening a meeting by inviting everyone present to speak in turn – even on a relatively routine matter such as recent portfolio activity – can loosen up the group. In more substantive debate it’s important to have the senior leaders speak last, so they don’t influence the others. Everyone has to believe they will be listened to, and challenged, equally if the best ideas are to be discovered, properly scrutinised and implemented.”
We put these principles into practice at our quarterly House View Forums, in which asset-class specialists from across the investment floor come together to discuss the key macro themes influencing markets. The objective is to elicit a range of views that will feed into the construction of individual investment portfolios. “Each meeting is an opportunity to identify the whole market landscape that will drive investment performance – and to do that, you need people to describe what they see from their different vantage points,” Krishnan adds.
2 . Challenge groupthink
- Question consensus through devil’s advocates
- ‘Diversity versus merit’ is a false choice
- Avoid reliance on stars
One of the chief barriers to good collaboration is groupthink: a desire for harmony that overrides the inclination to correct bad decisions. Psychological safety may be important in freeing up individuals to contribute to discussions – but if the group is too comfortable then a stultifying consensus may take hold, and ill-thought through ideas may go unchallenged.
In his landmark 1972 study, Victims of Groupthink, psychologist Irving Janis uncovered groupthink at the heart of some of the 20th century’s worst political miscalculations, from the failure to anticipate the bombing of Pearl Harbor to the escalation of the Vietnam War.
...if as a group you believe an investment decision is a no-brainer, that should set alarm bells ringing.
The dangers of groupthink are exacerbated by a related psychological phenomenon known as the ‘risky shift’, whereby an individual feels less responsibility when acting as part of a group than when they are alone – a particular hazard among financial professionals who manage risk on the behalf of others. Krishnan says that appointing a designated ‘devil’s advocate’ to take the other side of an argument and probe its weaknesses can focus minds.
“As an individual you might think an investment decision is a no brainer, but if as a group you believe an investment decision is a no-brainer, that should set alarm bells ringing. There must be an argument on the other side because otherwise the price of the asset wouldn’t be where it is. As chair of a meeting, I might push someone forward to take the other side and attack a proposition. That can mitigate the risk of groupthink.”
Groupthink can also take hold at the industry level, which means challenging received wisdom on a particular subject can open up new ways of approaching problems. For instance, Aviva Investors recently brought its emerging market debt and sovereign rates teams under the umbrella of the multi-asset function to try to improve communication and knowledge-sharing.
“This was quite an unusual move in the context of the industry,” says Krishnan. “We did it because it enables a greater cross-fertilisation of ideas than if the asset class were to be managed entirely separately; we agreed the conventional definition of fixed income was getting in the way of making sure the right people are talking to one another. So by placing two teams that would not normally sit together, despite a commonality of subjects and themes they ruminate on, you can foster greater idea generation and critical thinking.”
Diversity is another important factor. Groupthink is more likely to arise in an environment that lacks diversity: diversity of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and social class are all important. Bringing different perspectives to bear on a problem can yield solutions that might not seem immediately obvious to many people in the room.
This is not about political correctness or box-ticking. Numerous studies suggest diversity is a better indicator of high-performing teams than other metrics, such as aggregate academic performance or IQ. In 2015 McKinsey surveyed 366 public companies and found those in the top quartile for ethnic and religious diversity in management were 35 per cent more likely to have financial returns among their industry mean, while those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15 per cent more likely to outperform.3
Bank of England economist Andy Haldane argues organisations should approach recruitment in the same way investors approach portfolio construction. The best asset may not be the one that offers the highest returns or the lowest volatility, but the one whose characteristics complement the wider portfolio – a low correlation to existing assets will offer diversification benefits, for example.4 Following the analogy, the right hire may not be the candidate with outstanding individual skills – the ‘star’ performer – but an alternative whose qualities fit better with the existing talent pool.
The evidence for this is compelling across different fields. In a study of NBA basketball over a decade, for example, teams with only three ‘star’ players won more games than teams with four or five. The star-studded teams had fewer assists, missed more of their shots and grabbed fewer rebounds, as the players struggled to coordinate – they all wanted to be ‘top dog’. Or consider football: it may be significant that neither Lionel Messi nor Cristiano Ronaldo – the most famous and talented players of their generation – have won the FIFA World Cup.
3. Choose the right technology
- Use technology to facilitate interaction among dispersed teams
- Choose the right platform – not necessarily the most sophisticated tech
From Flock to Fuze, Skype to Slack, organisations have a plethora of shiny digital tools at their disposal to allow employees to chat and share ideas. These platforms are increasingly important in an era of flexible working, ‘hot-desking’ and open-plan offices. Today, 49 per cent of meetings depend on technology to connect participants far and near, according to research from Forrester Consulting.
Modern collaborative platforms such as Skype can display charts and data in high definition, allowing teams to share and discuss research in real-time as they chat, even if they are based on opposite sides of the globe. And in the near future, augmented- and virtual-reality technology could make these meetings even more immersive. Although it may not always feel like it, we have come a long way from the crackly conference call.
Integrating new-fangled productivity tech is not just a gimmick; it can boost output. Research shows that process and networking tools improve productivity by 20-30 per cent among global software development teams. Modern social communication tools such as Skype and Slack are credited by senior managers with making their organisations more dynamic and agile, because they facilitate communication between different business units (they also cut down on costs associated with older technologies such as phone-calls and texts).5
Confluence allows everyone on the team to access presentations used in meetings, read minutes from previous discussions and assign action points.
A number of software platforms have been developed specifically to facilitate knowledge-sharing and idea flow. Collokia, for example, is a machine-learning powered tool that plugs into Google: whenever team members enter a search term the interface presents them with annotations and feedback on the topic from colleagues with similar interests. Others, such as LeanKit and Workfront, offer digital solutions to make project management more efficient.
But the right technological tool needn’t always be something specifically designed for the purpose. As well as web-based communication tools such as Skype and Webex, we use Confluence; customarily deployed as an IT workflow tool, we found this programme could be repurposed in order to compile and circulate research, and assign tasks, across the multi-asset team, aiding collaboration.
“The platform facilitates knowledge sharing and communication, allowing managers to keep track of which ideas are being implemented,” says Krishnan. “Confluence allows everyone on the team to access presentations used in meetings, read minutes from previous discussions and assign action points. There is also a comment function that allows people to continue the debate offline. All of this has come from a piece of software that wasn’t designed for asset managers – but in our case happens to suit our purposes very well.”
4 . Incentivise collaboration
- Recognise contribution to the process – not just the outcome
- Ensure teams are motivated to collaborate
- The carrot works better than the stick
Incentives are key to improving collaboration. It is especially important to distinguish between process and outcome, a distinction long recognised in the sporting world. Athletes who focus solely on beating a personal best are likely to neglect the sorts of processes – undertaking a set number of practice sessions per week, for example – that may indirectly contribute to that goal.
The same principle holds for collaboration. If only outcomes are incentivised, those who contribute to the process may not receive their due recognition. Indeed, competitive, outcome-focused incentive structures are likely to be antithetical to good collaboration, as team members may come to feel that by helping their colleagues they are wasting time that would be better spent focusing on their individual goals.
In order to properly recognise the collaborative efforts of team members, it therefore makes sense for managers to retain some discretion over pay and rewards. While quantitative data-driven methods of tracking performance are becoming more sophisticated, they tend to track outcomes – reducing the contribution of a fund manager to a basis-point figure, for instance – while ignoring important factors such as idea generation and support for the work of the wider group.
We know receiving any positive feedback from colleagues provides a hit of dopamine and puts an individual in a state of mind that is more conducive to idea flow; negative criticism does the opposite.
“Periodically you hear of firms that operate formulaic pay and reward structures for investors, fund managers or analysts, and sometimes it’s the staff themselves who agitate for it because they feel they want to understand directly how their own performance feeds through,” says Krishnan. “We feel that’s a mistake because long-term performance depends on contributions that might not be picked up in short-term, metric-focused appraisals.”
Improving collaboration is not just about monetary incentives, though. Richard Ryan, a US psychologist who advises Fortune 500 companies, says “culture is king” when it comes to ensuring teams work in tandem. Financial rewards are only a small part of what makes individuals feel valued; creating a collaborative culture in which people are encouraged to help and learn from each other can be a far more effective way to motivate teams. One simple method is to ensure individuals demonstrably recognise and appreciate their colleagues’ work – the kind word is more powerful than the cajoling critique.
“If you talk to the sports scientists who advise some of the best sports teams around the world, there are varying magic ratios of positive feedback you have to give someone so that any negative feedback is actually taken on board, and it’s a wide range – between seven and 25 positive to each negative,” says Alwyn. “Though that ratio may seem huge, we know receiving any positive feedback from colleagues provides a hit of dopamine and puts an individual in a state of mind that is more conducive to idea flow; negative criticism does the opposite.”
A collaborative, supportive culture can also promote flow in a different sense. As defined by the Hungarian-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced ‘chick-sent-me-high’), flow is a highly-focused mental state conducive to creativity, high-level cognitive performance and professional contentment.
In his landmark book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Csikszentmihalyi describes how, in the right environment, flow can be a collective experience that optimises performance on a given collaborative task: the team becomes “a single organism, moved by the same purpose…all involved share in a feeling of harmony and power.”6
...a single organism, moved by the same purpose…all involved share in a feeling of harmony and power.
We are effectively in the business of ideas; and finding the very best and then implementing them effectively across investment portfolios is paramount to what we do. Collaboration is key to this and, as Csikszentmihalyi’s poetic turn of phrase suggests, perfecting a collaborative atmosphere is as much an art as it is a science. However, by following the four principles we have outlined above, organisations can take the first steps towards achieving it. The rewards can be significant – after all, as Vince Lombardi said, individual commitment to the group effort is what makes a team work. His cluttered trophy cabinet is all the proof you need.
The CX Factor
30 Jun 2020
Amid the coronavirus lockdown, asset managers are finding new ways to communicate with their clients remotely. The industry has much to learn from tech and e-commerce companies that deliver top-class client experience from a distance.
What do rising US-China tensions mean for global markets?
24 Jun 2020
In the latest instalment of our editorial series, Link, Aviva Investors experts discuss the prospects for financial markets and the world economy in the face of escalating hostilities between the US and China.
Defined Benefit pensions de-risking: A covenant and investment view
23 Jun 2020
In the midst of the COVID-19 shock, Felix Mantz from Lincoln Pensions and Joachim Sudre from Aviva Investors explore how defined benefit pension schemes should plan their journey towards an end game and adopt a more holistic approach to risk.
Have traditional safe havens lost their edge?
9 Jun 2020
COVID-19 has reminded investors of the importance of defensive positions within portfolios during times of stress. But are the ‘safe havens’ of the past still up to the task?
Will COVID-19 prove a watershed for ESG?
14 May 2020
COVID-19 has thrown new light on the interdependencies in human and natural ecosystems, and the vulnerabilities of a closely networked world. Aviva Investors’ responsible investment specialists ask whether this will prove a turning point for environmental, social and governance issues.
The AIQ Podcast: Climate emergency
6 May 2020
This latest episode of the AIQ Podcast goes back to basics on climate: we explore leading scientists’ understanding of how the world is changing, as well as the investment community’s response.
COVID-19: What will unprecedented policy response mean for economies and markets?
27 Apr 2020
While global policymakers around the world have acted with unprecedented speed and force to the COVID-19 pandemic, their actions are unlikely to prevent the world falling into the deepest recession since World War II.
COVID-19: This time is different?
3 Apr 2020
While the COVID-19 pandemic may be unlike anything financial markets have experienced before, the past still offers valuable lessons for investors trying to make sense of the crisis, explains Euan Munro.
Black swan or grey rhino: Should investors have seen COVID-19 coming?
27 Mar 2020
The devastating coronavirus outbreak has prompted renewed discussion of “black swans”: rare, unexpected events that wreak havoc on markets and economies. But is COVID-19 really a black swan? And to what extent can investors ensure their portfolios are resilient to sudden shocks of this kind?
The implications of COVID-19 for real assets
19 Mar 2020
The human cost of COVID-19 is likely to rise significantly, along with its impact on economies and financial markets as nations enact measures to contain its spread. We summarise recent developments and what they might mean for European real assets markets.
RPI may be flawed, but changes shouldn’t cost pensioners and investors
16 Mar 2020
With the start of the consultation for proposed changes to the measurement of inflation in the UK, we look at the likely impact to asset classes, the assets most affected, and the key issues investors should be aware of.
The AIQ Podcast: The psychology of climate change
4 Mar 2020
This latest episode of the AIQ Podcast explores the psychology of climate change and how to engage individuals in the quest for solutions.
Climate change: The journey from denial to crisis
28 Feb 2020
More than 40 years since a senior NASA scientist told US Congress of concerns about human activities disrupting the climate, experts are warning of an impending climate catastrophe and the financial sector is wrestling with the implications.
Why asset managers cannot be passive on climate change
28 Feb 2020
As active investors step up their engagement efforts on the climate crisis, discussions need to be at the CEO rather than board level, argues David Cumming.
Apathy, anger, action: The psychology of climate change
28 Feb 2020
Psychological barriers can prevent people from acting to avert the climate threat, even when they recognise the problem. So how can we best engage individuals, companies and communities in the quest for solutions?
Stranded! When assets become liabilities
28 Feb 2020
Until recently, many investors made light of dire warnings of the risks posed by assets becoming “stranded” by climate change. However, as the threat becomes reality, fears are mounting that whole industries could be wiped out.