Collaboration, Cooperation & Competition

A very expensive misuse of resources

When the Senior Management Team meeting considered an important operational failure, Joel proposed a remedy. Matti introduced a different approach to which Joel responded, “That’ll never work” and began explaining why. Matti interrupted to explain where his reasoning was flawed. For 30-40 minutes they heatedly faulted one another’s perspectives and defended their own. Other members argued for their preference or said nothing and avoided eye contact. Eventually a vote narrowly favoured Matti’s solution.

Later I met my coaching client Rob who I’d been observing at this meeting. I was helping him raise awareness of the inner mindsets and outer practices that enhance or impede collaboration and conversational complexity. What had he noticed about the discussion?

“It was an embarrassing contest”, he said. “Joel and Matti both had good ideas they got no credit for but neither listened to the other and no-one helped them to. The good bits were overlooked. We quarrelled instead of searching for common ground; it’s why some people are reluctant to say anything. Nearly half of us opposed the vote so it’s bound to come unstuck and need revisiting. I guarantee everyone’s already told people who weren’t present, their personal version of the events – and not in a good way!”

Cooperation and competition differ from collaboration

Many people are accustomed to discussions regarded as collaboration but which actually comprise cooperation, where differences are dealt with by majority vote, pseudo-consensus, yielding reluctantly to impositions of others’ wishes, or going-along-to-get-along. Cooperation is often necessary for collaboration but they are not the same thing.  Competition of ideas can stimulate creativity but only if accompanied by respectful listening.

Collaboration is based on the importance of relating to others with respect for our mutual status as equal human beings, whatever differences exist. It aims to demonstrate understanding and respect of others’ rights to their beliefs, values, expertise and perspectives while fully respecting our own, and to bridge divergences. It might involve persuasion but is most concerned with helping people confidently speak about, listen to and thoughtfully consider all parties’ perspectives in order to work towards something they all want.

This can take longer to reach agreements than those made by cooperation or competition, but outcomes arrived at tend to be better supported and remain settled rather than requiring re-work.

Sophisticated dialogue practices are required but small behavioural shifts without complete mastery of them can make immediate improvements.*

Even when applied by a minority of participants, collaborative intentions and actions can facilitate beneficial progress, build people’s sense of camaraderie, connection, goodwill, teamwork, trust and deep engagement.

The problem

Much of my career has focused on the critical roles interpersonal behaviours and mindsets play in business, civic and community group efficacy. I’m often a non-participant spectator at variations of the Joel and Matti scenario described above – some involving greater heat and others greater subtlety.

Although people usually try sincerely to avoid causing misunderstanding or friction, those intentions are often disrupted by their unhelpful habits that confound participants, waste time, and provoke long-lasting (sometimes widespread) disharmony. My clients wonder why these things occur and seek ways to better harness the collective capacity of their groups.

On those matters I offer some broad considerations about cause, effect and desirable development.

Some perspectives of the problem

First, real collaboration refers to people’s  involvement in progressing and managing shared interests in ways that ease consideration of each party’s needs and perspectives, seek common ground and bring together thinking across whatever differences emerge.  At its heart is the search for common ground that brings together thinking across divergences.

Very many people find this overly challenging because it requires a higher order of self-management competence than is usually thought necessary for less challenging conversations. That is the origin of the problem: everyday practices become ingrained habits.

Second, two assumptions are commonly made about interpersonal conflict: (i) that the relationship practices and attitudes developed and habituated in everyday unremarkable exchanges are sufficient to deal with those divergences and disagreements; and (ii) should that not be the case, more sophisticated but insufficiently-practised behaviours will somehow become accessible.

These are common fallacies. Skill means ability habituated through practise. New behaviours are difficult to develop while we perpetuate those that need upgrading. Common practice is often not good sense.

A helpful resource

My new book, Collaborative Dialogue – Self-Management at the Heart of Collaboration is a comprehensive guide to assessing and enhancing the self-management practices necessary for real collaboration. Its guidelines are applicable anywhere, including within families and everyday social relationships.

Collaborative Dialogue emphasises self-awareness, goal-setting and planning, candour, clarity and agency, empathy, kindness and harmony; not the absence of conflict and complexity but the composure and presence of mind that can carry us through them.

* It supports safe-to-fail experiments and incremental improvement – making things a little better, not “fixing” them. Once we make things 5% percent better, it’s easier to make them 10 % better, then easier to make things 20 % better, and so on.

. . .

Tom is based in Nelson/Whakatū, Aotearoa/New Zealand. There are US, NZ and Australian reviewer comments about his book at Amazon.au, Amazon.com and in this overview.
For discounted book purchases (New Zealand only) contact Tom directly.