The proximity obsession hindering collaboration

Throughout my career in Product Design and Technology, much has been made of the positive effects of collaboration. Real collaboration, however, often falls short, particularly in cross-functional contexts.

In the ongoing work-from-home (WFH) vs return-to-office (RTO) debate, collaboration is a key talking point. Yet, this only highlights how much we overlook what effective collaboration actually takes.

Just as four buskers standing near each other don’t automatically form a band, collaboration has little to do with proximity. The obsession that collaboration is a by-product of being physically co-located in fact distracts from what needs to happen to actually improve it, and ultimately receive the value from it that is promised.

To foster true collaboration, we need to go beyond assumptions of proximity and address what actually drives cross-functional teamwork.

More like, return-to-obfuscation

Working in co-located environments will often mask poor collaboration. Chats around desks, busy meeting rooms, and coffee runs give off a false sense that people are collaborating. Often these activities are actually indicators of people being interrupted, unfocused, or following inefficient processes.

Rating collaboration on noise is about as serious as tracking productivity through “time spent with head down”. Such vanity-based, vibe-driven measures only serve to deny the actual work required to increase collaborative muscle.

Some argue cynically that remote work enables laziness; in truth, it exposes what we are lazy about.

RTO supporters essentially claim that osmosis and self-organised cliques help build domain knowledge, camaraderie, and collaboration.

Relying on nebulous proximity effects shows a failure to actively cultivate collaboration. A transition to remote work exposed this, and zoom-calls won't bridge gaps that meeting rooms failed to.

Companies should therefore balance out the risk of increased resentment, with what they actually gain from their RTO strategy. Dragging people back to the office may simulate collaboration at the cost of actual productivity—trading real gains for superficial optics.

Unlocking collaboration

A true sign of a failed working environment is if it takes over-hearing something to notice someone, or similarly, if butting in is the only way to get yourself included in a relevant conversation or project.

Here are a few tips to help foster intentional collaboration, based on what I've seen both help and hinder it:

• STOP distributing tactical tasks to individuals, and START communicating strategies to teams.
• STOP dividing functions around channels, and START forming cross-functional teams around outcomes.
• STOP obsessing over productivity metrics, and START ensuring everyone is aligned on objectives.
• STOP separating individual contributors by phase, and START co-existing across all parts of the process.
• STOP booking meetings, and START contributing—and inviting contribution—to the Shared Whiteboard, Google Doc, etc.

Every one of these can be difficult, but the tools and frameworks are available to try them. Also, remote work doesn’t inhibit any of these practices; rather, failing to address collaborative methods renders the co-location debate pointless.

In reality, as I see in my current role with a globally distributed team, co-location is a fallacy. Even from an office you will have team members in other locations, or time-zones. Therefore, learning how to collaborate remains important.

Collaboration means, “the action of working with someone to produce something”. A collaborative culture therefore can be defined as, how we work, collectively, on what, and why. If espoused values and shared assumptions aren't aligned—remote, or nearby—you can kiss collaboration goodbye.