In an increasingly complex world, collaboration has become essential. Executives and consultants tout its benefits, including increased innovation, knowledge sharing, organizational agility, and optimized collective performance. However, the considerable efforts required to develop collaboration often yield disappointing results. The imperative to collaborate often goes unheeded, and everyone returns to their silo. Why is collaboration, with its obvious benefits, so difficult? Because collaborative efforts come at a cost.
American historian and anthropologist Joseph Tainter sheds relevant light on this issue in his work on the collapse of civilizations. According to Tainter, as a society evolves toward greater complexity, the costs imposed on each individual also increase. Consequently, the population as a whole must allocate a greater share of its “budget” (time, attention, energy, etc.) to maintaining organizational institutions. Ultimately, society exhausts itself because it becomes too complex. It eventually collapses, breaking down into smaller units that no longer need to collaborate. The system then returns to an acceptable level of energy required for maintenance.
This dynamic also applies to the business world. Each collaborative initiative introduces new levels of organizational complexity that require dedicated resources for maintenance and coordination.
Consider this technical consulting firm. Technological developments, particularly in digital technology and artificial intelligence (AI), are making its traditional business lines, such as compliance work, increasingly commoditized. In response, the firm has begun developing new, value-added services, such as consulting and executive coaching. However, whereas its traditional business lines were relatively standardized and carried out individually with light infrastructure, this evolution requires teamwork involving specialists from different regions. The organization is more complex and requires considerable investment. After years of promoting this change, the firm realizes that the added value of the new services does not necessarily cover the associated coordination costs, which were initially underestimated. The firm is caught between the need to develop a collaborative approach to transition away from declining traditional businesses and the strong reluctance of some partners who question the economic sense of the new approach—not without reason.
When a company fosters collaboration, it doesn’t merely add tools or processes; it establishes a system of dependencies that necessitates ongoing maintenance. Each employee must now devote part of their time and energy to navigating this collaborative complexity. Coordination meetings are multiplying, communication channels are diversifying, and validation processes are lengthening. Project managers and coordinators must be hired. An information system must be maintained to manage collaborative projects. Thus, collaboration represents an additional cost, a kind of tax levied by the system on the daily activities of its members.
This collaborative “tax” is not just a direct cost. It also represents a significant opportunity cost because the time spent on coordination is subtracted from the production of direct value. Furthermore, this constant cognitive load exhausts employees’ mental resources, affecting their ability to concentrate and perform their primary tasks. Collaboration comes at the expense of daily company activities, which explains why reverting to silos is such a strong temptation and ultimately a rational choice.
The more an organization develops its collaborative capabilities, the more procedures, specialized roles, and governance structures it generates. Initially designed to streamline interactions, these elements actually become points of friction that slow down decision-making and dilute responsibilities. The company then finds itself in what Tainter describes as a spiral of increasing complexity. It must invest more resources to maintain a level of collaboration that becomes less and less efficient. Only substantial value creation achieved through collaboration can justify this investment, and it is difficult and takes a long time to materialize.
From incantation to rigorous calculation
Collaboration must therefore be approached as a strategic investment with a rigorous calculation of return on investment. The optimal balance point must be identified, where synergy gains offset coordination costs, before the organization reaches its critical complexity threshold. This trade-off is essential. This threshold must be identified pragmatically. Beyond this threshold, collaboration costs more than it brings in. Experience shows that this threshold is always lower than we think because collaboration is sacrosanct and presented as an absolute good.
Therefore, for collaboration to become a reality, a disciplined approach is required that prioritizes simple interfaces, clear roles, and systematic measurement of the value created by each collaborative initiative.
🇫🇷 A version in French of this article is available here.
One thought on “Why Organizations Struggle with Collaborative Efforts”