Dysfunction, Synchronicity & The Police

Hi, it's Dan here.

I’ve recently been listening to a BBC podcast about Sting and The Police.
I’d never quite known their full back story - how they assembled largely by chance, how they rose quickly, and how for a period of around five years in the early 80s, they were the biggest band in the world.

By the time they came to make what would be their final and best-selling album, in the good old fashioned tradition of rock bands, they were not getting along too well.

The story of this album is a remarkable one.

Because despite being called Synchronicity, it’s a tale of active anti-collaboration.

When recording, band protocol was that each member would arrive at the studio with their own tracks; they’d debate these and then eventually whittle down to a final, shared selection.

This time though, Sting (the pre-tantric version) decided to assume complete control, turning up at the studio in Montserrat with a full album of pre-recorded material. The role for Andy and Stuart was therefore purely to play over these tracks, relegated to session musician status.

What followed was ultimate dysfunction.

Not only did they row bitterly for two weeks before recording even a single note, but they then each recorded their parts in entirely separate places, well away from each other.

The worst possible circumstances led to musical greatness.

Which got me thinking about collaboration.

Pre Covid, the doctrinaire view was that for collaboration to work, it was essential to be in a room together. Now it can feel just as easy to operate remotely.

Many of us are regularly in meetings that include people from all over the world. The tech is obviously important. Teams, Mural, Google Slides - whatever your bag is, these are all useful tools.

It seems to me though that tech might not be the most important enabler.

Our business has collaboration in its very DNA and my observation would be that true collaboration is truly enabled by a shared frame of reference.
Are we all clear on exactly what we’re solving for?
Is there alignment on the ambition?
Are there specific frameworks, terminology and templates we’re using, and is everyone comfortable with these? Do we have a system?‍

Workaday stuff, you might contest - but haven’t we all been in situations where these basics are not in place and therefore where collaboration is therefore painfully unproductive? Even when you’re in the same room.

I once had a strategist colleague who was very smart, but as a team leader was utterly unplayable, because the only structure he knew was his own opinion in the moment.
He informed people of his views, rather than uniting them under any kind of shared vision.
He abjured shared mental models.
Quite literally, a strategic dictator.

If there is no shared frame of reference, if the group is second-guessing each other, then it’s very, very difficult to be productive. I give you the UK Tory party.

Collaboration requires common ground: the shortcut to a better place, and the glue needed to stay there.

Whether you’re in the same room or not, well, as Julia Roberts once said, “that’s just geography”.

The Police’s Synchronicity was born of perfectionism and competition.
Arguably these are useful elements in getting to great outcomes in the short term.
But the trouble is that the by-product is antagonism - so it’s just not very sustainable.
‍Synchronicity broke The Police irreparably.

In agencies, it’s often deemed essential to good outcomes that people be physically present in the room. Because “that’s how the best work happens”.

I’m less sure.
If we invest time and energy upfront in creating a shared vision and system, then the group has freedom within a framework. It’s operating from a base of mutual trust. And actually in our own business we have seen that this drives drastically more effective collaboration over the long term - regardless of where you’re sitting.

Just ask The Police.
And, while you’re at it, Don’t Stand So Close To Me.