Joining Forces: developing a shared language to build collaboration
Summary of key points
The theme of the discussion was ‘developing a shared language to build collaboration’. The main points which emerged from the discussion were:
Shared language matters, but must be simple and direct, and making time to develop shared language at an early stage of collaboration is usually time well spent;
Language can be divisive, and it is a good idea to consider the language we use about the people we work with;
We need to get past the jargon used within and across organisations and get to the person;
Radical listening can help to generate a more empathic shared language, in favour of the individual;
Shared understanding is what matters most.
In more detail
Steve Wyler, co-convenor introduced the model of change set out in the recent Better Way publication Time for a Change.
In this cell we are exploring the ‘joining forces’ element of this model while noting that there are connections between all four elements, and indeed that applying them in combination makes each more effective.
Our focus this time is developing a shared language to build collaboration ’is how we can work on the shared language that engages and motivates people and underpins successful collaboration.’
We started with two presentations:
Cate Newnes-Smith, who has agreed to be thought leader for the cell, pointed out that joining forces really matters because, as set out in the Time for a Change document, we can’t solve complex problems alone. She gave an example of efforts in a local authority to overcome silo working, and noted that this is really difficult. For instance, local authority staff are much happier to ask people what they think about specific council services, rather than find out about their lives, in case things come up that are outside their particular remit. It would be better, said Cate, if council staff were to join forces across departments and with others in such exercises, so the right people would be in the room, people could talk about things that really matter to them, and a system-wide response could be considered.
Cate said she has been on a journey to understand the difference between collaboration and partnership, and likes the term ‘joining forces’, because it is harder to claim to be joining forces when it’s not happening. To join forces well there are many things that have to be got right, and we hope to explore these in the cell. On the question of language, Cate hasn’t come across instances where people have really been able to build shared language, and hopes to hear from others examples of this.
Steve pointed out that we are not looking for a single shared language that everyone can use in any circumstances. Rather we are keen to understand the process whereby people seeking to work together can build an understanding among themselves and support that in the language they use.
Kevin Franks offered some provocations, as requested. He asked whether we really need a shared language, and whether if we had one it would be useful for improving services, outcomes, and communities? And indeed, can a shared language really underpin successful collaboration? To take one example, organisations have many ways of talking about engagement with those they serve. They might talk about involvement or participation, for example, and the engagement might take different forms, e.g. engagement in decision-making, or a sporting activity, or a training course. There are as many different meanings as there are different organisations. It would be very difficult to find a common term with a single meaning for everyone to agree with, and not necessarily useful to attempt to do so.
Kevin agreed that a lot of the language we use can exclude – how many people understand co-production, for example? But the real difficulties are not about language. Many of the things we seek to change are connected: unemployment and problems with mental health and isolation and loneliness and substance abuse and crime and poverty for example. None of these sit outside the others. Funding and projects often focus on one particular symptom, and don’t address causes. And furthermore beneficiaries are often excluded from design of solutions. These are complex issues which require complex and collaborative solutions, not a shared language.
We need to focus on shared values and shared power, in how we influence, learn from, and work with each other. Kevin said he has moved away from talking about partnerships, and prefers to use the term collaboration, and likes the term joining forces. But actions speak louder than words and no amount of shared language will make any difference, unless it is backed by behaviours that result in meaningful change.
In response to Kevin, Cate pointed out that the lack of a shared language can sometimes get in the way of a collaborative effort. She gave an example where schools, concerned about the mental health of some of their children, were making referrals to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), but the referrals were rejected because the language the schools were using was different from that used by the CAMHS team.
Discussion
Breakout sessions were then held to consider the question: Can we develop a shared language to build collaboration? In the feedback and further discussion participants made the following points:
Shared language matters, but must be simple and direct, and making time to develop shared language at an early stage of collaboration is usually time well spent
For those working together on a project or a service it is often necessary for all of those involved to establish some shared language, with agreed definitions, for reasons of efficiency and to avoid misunderstandings. Spending some time early on doing this is usually worthwhile.
The language used by service managers and frontline workers among themselves and the language they use with service users or members of the public is often very different. Perhaps they need to be brought closer together.
From the perspective of a service user a shared language can be important. One person may have contact with many different services and if they are not using the same terms they won’t join up and understand each other, and the service user may find it difficult to understand them and engage with them.
Shared language needs to be as simple as possible. If we want to make services accessible and intelligible we need to avoid jargon.
To attempt to bring everyone across society to the same language is another matter. Different sectors have very different ways of talking about things, academics, corporates, charities, for example. By way of illustrating the difficulty of this, some felt that the Better Way model for change is expressed in terms which are direct and simple, and are likely to be understood across all sectors, but some of the text in the full document may be less effective for some people from some sectors.
Language can be divisive, and it is a good idea to consider the language we use about the people we work with
Language can be divisive, reinforcing an ‘us and them’ culture. For example, it is common in service delivery partnerships to talk about some people as ‘hard to reach’. Often they are not in fact hard to reach (they are likely to be in contact with someone, after all). ‘Seldom heard’ would probably be more accurate.
When organisations are seeking to join forces, a discussion between them about the implication of terms such as ‘hard to reach, ‘vulnerable’, ‘disadvantaged communities’, ‘NEET’ etc. may help them reach a fresh understanding of what they really want to achieve and how to do that, moving beyond a deficit model which implies that the people they work with are the problem.
We need to get past the jargon used within and across organisations and get to the person
Sometimes new terms are very necessary to define things well, to bring coherence and clarity to a complex situation, and convey meaning quickly.
However, a lot of the language which is employed in any one sector doesn’t really serve this purpose. Instead it functions as a way of claiming distinctiveness or difference from other sectors. If we want to join forces we need to be willing to express ourselves in simpler more direct language.
When we are attempting to do something new, and want to present it as such, is it really necessary to generate a new set of terms to reinforce this? Or is it preferable to make us of existing and commonly-used terms, accepting that this might indicate that what we are trying to do may not be so new after all?
Furthermore some terms used by service providers (‘crisis’, ‘acute’, etc.) can actually make it harder to join forces and can generate misunderstandings because they are used in very different ways by different organisations.
Most significantly many of these terms fail to connect with the lives of the people the organisations are seeking to serve. We need to get past the jargon to get to the individual person.
Radical listening can help to generate a more empathic shared language, in favour of the individual
If organisations are to serve people well, they need to find ways of establishing a shared language that is able to build a deeper and fuller understanding with the individuals they work with.
This may require a reflective practice. For example, a playback technique sometimes used in radical listening (a topic which is being explored in another Better Way cell) can help to generate an empathic understanding between people, especially where there is a power imbalance. This is where the listener plays back what they have heard but speaks in the first person, thereby putting themselves in the shoes of the other as they speak.
A listening session could be followed by a sense-making session, to consider what has been said from multiple viewpoints, not just from a single perspective. We felt that such techniques (as sometimes practiced in appreciative inquiry) could be helpful in achieving better collaboration, not only between an organisation and its service users, but also between organisations.
The New Systems Alliance, established by the Mayday Trust, has been exploring a PTS (person-led, transitional, strengths-based) model of coaching, working without referrals, to give more power to the person within the coaching relationship, using simple language, and allowing them to set the terms of the discussion.
Building empathy needs to be undertaken with care when working with people with experience of trauma, to avoid re-traumatising them and sending them into a downward spiral.
Shared understanding is what matters most
Shared understanding is what really matters when joining forces, it was felt. Shared goals and shared purpose and shared language can be important, but shared understanding is the foundation for the type of collaboration that leads to effective concerted action and makes the most difference.