When Managers Can't Collaborate Effectively -- What Is the Main Cause?

Earlier this month, Andrew S. Humphries and Linda McComie published a book entitled Why Managers Don't Collaborate: Revealing the Myths and Truths. The purpose of this book is to dispel the baseless myths that are preventing managers in organizations from moving forward and reaping the benefits of collaboration. 

When I spoke with Andrew this past week, I asked him: "What has been the main cause preventing managers from collaborating effectively?" Here is his complete answer:

The main cause preventing managers from collaborating effectively is their belief that no special arrangements, skills, or structures are needed to collaborate. Our book makes this point repeatedly and forcefully.

Across the underlying research, managers consistently claim they are collaborating, but in practice, they behave exactly as they always have: “they have claimed they are collaborating, but in reality, it was not happening,” and this false confidence forms the First Big Myth. Managers assume that existing processes, governance, and attitudes will somehow deliver collaborative outcomes, even though these were never designed for joint working.

The Second Big Myth reinforces the problem: managers “believe that they do not need to make special arrangements to collaborate successfully.” They fail to recognize collaboration as a professional discipline requiring investment, leadership, relationship management structures, and new ways of working. This leads to avoidance, excuses, and a reliance on habitual practices that undermine joint performance.

The book explores the deeper drivers behind this misconception:

• Short‑termism and management myopia, where immediate operational pressures overshadow long‑term value creation.
• Organizational resistance to change and fear of losing control, especially in governance-heavy environments.
• Vested interests in functions like sales, commercial, and finance that resist new ways of working.
• Over‑reliance on technology as a substitute for relationship management.
• Lack of champions and leadership, leaving alliances without direction or accountability.

In conclusion, the real fault lies with senior leaders “who do not understand the power of collaborative management,” leaving managers unsupported and unprepared to adopt the additional responsibilities collaboration demands.

In short, the main cause is a pervasive misunderstanding of what collaboration requires, leading managers to believe they are already doing it -- or that it is unnecessary -- while failing to invest in the structures, skills, and leadership that make collaboration succeed.

Do you agree with Andrew's perspective that managers fail to collaborate effectively because they do not understand that collaboration requires a distinct professional discipline? That is, a discipline that demands long‑term thinking, structural investment, behavioral change, and dedicated leadership, and instead relies on myths, assumptions, and excuses that keep them locked into traditional, siloed management practices.

If so, have you seen managers make this mistake in your company? Were these mistakes corrected?

New Business Leaders -- What Are Their Common Mistakes?

Back in February, Julian M. Allen published a book entitled Operational Leadership Uncensored: Real Talk for Burgeoning Manufacturing Leaders, which is geared to young business leaders who are seeking to accomplish real results, greater responsibilities, and career advancement. This book presents both fundamental and sophisticated leadership approaches, including occasional moments of levity, to advance career management and interpersonal competencies for emerging leaders. These principles transcend generational boundaries and maintain their relevance throughout the evolution of organizational leadership.

When I spoke with Julian this month and told him I'd like to include his thoughts in a blog post, I asked him, "What are the most common mistakes new business leaders make?" Here is his complete response:

Hey there, current and future leaders, especially those stepping into manufacturing or operations roles. I’ve led through four facility startups, multiple expansions, and high-stakes turnarounds across 17 sites. Trust me, I’ve watched plenty of talented new bosses flame out fast. The crazy part? Most of their mistakes are 100% avoidable if you catch them early.

Here are the three that show up most often (and that I tackle head-on in Operational Leadership Uncensored):

1. Chasing personal glory instead of team wins. New leaders often obsess over the title, their power, or the biggest paycheck. They become “chaos creators”-- the ones who care more about their own trophy case than lifting their crew.

2. Falling into the classic “three-year shuffle." Year one: lots of big talk, zero results. Year two: blame everyone else. Year three: grab credit for the smallest win and jump ship before the wheels fall off. It’s predictable… and preventable.

3. Tanking credibility through poor communication or “spinning.” Bad breath, jargon-heavy emails, or stretching the truth to look good -- any of these kills trust instantly. Once your team starts fact-checking everything you say, you’re done.

Here’s the straight truth I share in the book:  

“Here’s the secret sauce of leadership: it’s not about you. Seriously. If you’re more worried about your own trophy case than your crew’s wins, you’re toast.”

Leadership isn’t about being the smartest person in the room; it’s about being a decent human with real empathy, clear communication, and the humility to put your people first. My book gives you the uncensored playbook: real stories from the floor, simple tools, and reflection exercises so you can skip the rookie mistakes and start winning from day one.

Ready to lead like the boss your team actually deserves? Grab Operational Leadership Uncensored and turn those hard lessons into your unfair advantage.

What’s one mistake you’ve seen (or made) that still makes you cringe? Drop it in the comments -- I'll read every one. Let’s learn together.

What do you think of Julian's perspective? Do you agree with his assessment of common mistakes? Did you make any of these early in your career?

Usability‑Engineering Projects: What Are the Common Misunderstandings?

At the beginning of this month, Ilkka Juuso and Ilpo Pöyhönen published a book entitled Medical-Device Usability: Human Factors for Medical Device Development, which simplifies the process regarding the application of usability to medical devices for new developers by providing a thought-out walkthrough of what is involved and how the expectations from the essential standards affect their work and why.

When I spoke with Ilkka this past week, I asked him, "What are the most common misunderstandings developers encounter when starting a usability‑engineering project?" Here is his complete answer:

By far the easiest mistake to make is to think that usability in medical devices is just about an interface that is pleasant to look at and use. That will be a part of it, but far more important is the safety of that interface. An aesthetically appealing user interface is nice, an interface with all the controls in intuitive places is a great start, but what actually matters the most is that it is difficult to use the interface in the wrong way, leading to real harm to patients. That may sound counterintuitive from a general usability perspective – after all, usability typically talks about the ease of all use – but safety and the safe use of a device really is paramount when it comes to health. In an optimal situation, of course, all these rings align so that a safe interface is also intuitive and appealing, and thus hopefully even safer to use. In our book, we approach usability engineering from the viewpoint of safety, but also bring in lessons from the field of general usability engineering, which is useful to a discussion of medical devices.

The second mistake to avoid is keeping usability engineering as an isolated activity, run once and then forgotten about, without much impact on the development or maintenance of the medical device. In the book, we show how usability connects to the overall quality management and risk management activities of the organization, and how usability can actually inform the whole path from an initial product concept to a finished device and beyond. Our message here is that usability engineering is not just something you have to do, it’s something you should want to do because of how it can add to your knowledge of your user, use environment, and the use of your device – and bring benefits to all of these.

For those working in the medical device industry, do you agree with Ilkka's perspective regarding common mistakes? In your organization, does usability connect directly to quality and risk management?

Do Managers Truly Understand How to Measure Critical Success Factors (CSFs)?

Earlier this month, I spoke with James H. Dobbins about his latest book, Critical Success Factors: How to Effectively Identify, Measure, and Apply CSFs, which equips managers with a practical framework to accurately identify, measure, and apply their critical success factors (CSFs). Unlike previous efforts that relied on broad surveys and statistical analyses intended to generate generalized lists of CSFs, this approach honors the foundational definition of CSFs and provides actionable guidance tailored to each manager’s unique context.

During our conversation, I asked James, "What are the biggest mistakes managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs)?" Here is his complete answer:

The biggest mistake managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs) is failing to understand what CSFs are in the first place. Managers turn to the results of research by others, projects often done by academics in the pursuit of an advanced degree. The research objective is to produce a list of generalized CSFs.  Once the list is published, the research is completed, the degree is granted, and the researcher goes on with their life. No measures are suggested. Many researchers worldwide, all with the same objective, have published different sets of CSFs. There is no guidance on which list to use. The biggest problem is that all the research was conducted using surveys of large numbers of managers, and there has never been a valid list of CSFs produced from surveys. Using surveys to identify CSFs has several fundamental flaws.  Some, noted in the Introduction to the book, are:

• The assumption that project managers know how to identify their CSFs,
• The failure to recognize that CSFs are contextually relevant to the manager, and therefore, the elimination of anything not generalizable, is contrary to the definition of CSF.
• The failure to understand that Critical Success Factors are, in fact, critical for a specific manager, and that all must be done well.  CSFs are not something you pick from a menu, like a survey result, hoping you chose the right ones.
• The absence of any longitudinal studies. There was no follow-up with any of the managers surveyed to validate the study's results or to determine whether and how they utilized the CSFs identified in the survey.
• There was no attempt to identify measures for the identified CSFs to help managers track their success in meeting the CSFs.  

Does your company actively use and apply critical success factors (CSFs) in its operations? Does your organization rely on surveys to determine which CSFs to prioritize? And do you agree with the mistakes James H. Dobbins identifies in this area?