I was at a recent seminar entitled “Looking for the Upside in the Downturn: Time-Tested Models of Nonprofit Innovation” hosted by the School of Leadership and Educational Sciences at the University of San Diego. Notwithstanding the paradox in the title, there was a really good session on collaboration, a subject near and dear to my heart. Dr. Mary McDonald, an expert in non-profit leadership, gave an excellent presentation on social capital, the intrinsic value in social networks that binds us together and breeds personal investment in collective success regardless of personal connections, in a community collaborative network. After jokingly defining collaboration as “unnatural acts performed by unwilling participants”, she used a couple of simple analogies to define 3 distinct kinds of collaborators:
The collaborative network requires much more risk, but it also yields much higher dividends. We are almost all collaborating on some project, although we don’t usually stop and think about the science of it. But when you start thinking about how you collaborate or how your collaboration really works, you might find some of the reasons things are not going as well as you would like. What kind of a collaborator are you and what kind of collaborations are you in?
I was at a recent seminar entitled “Looking for the Upside in the Downturn: Time-Tested Models of Nonprofit Innovation” hosted by the School of Leadership and Educational Sciences at the University of San Diego. Notwithstanding the paradox in the title, there was a really good session on collaboration, a subject near and dear to my heart. Dr. Mary McDonald, an expert in non-profit leadership, gave an excellent presentation on social capital, the intrinsic value in social networks that binds us together and breeds personal investment in collective success regardless of personal connections, in a community collaborative network. After jokingly defining collaboration as “unnatural acts performed by unwilling participants”, she used a couple of simple analogies to define 3 distinct kinds of collaborators:
|
Individuals (with minimum social ties) |
Cocktail Party – Arrive Alone, have a drink and leave |
I am in it for me (and my own group) |
||
|
Direct Relationship (with network social ties) |
Potluck – Bring a dish to share and eat together |
I am in it for you and me (and both of our groups) |
||
|
Collaborative Network (with social ties & social capital) |
Collective Dinner – Prepare a joint recipe “spaghetti dinner” together |
I am in it for all of us |
||
The collaborative network requires much more risk, but it also yields much higher dividends. We are almost all collaborating on some project, although we don’t usually stop and think about the science of it. But when you start thinking about how you collaborate or how your collaboration really works, you might find some of the reasons things are not going as well as you would like.
What kind of a collaborator are you and what kind of collaborations are you in?
June 30th, 2009 04:38
RIch, thanks for sharing this, and great to see you on Musematic!
Your statement about risk and reward reminded me of the collaboration quadrant I put together to help participants of our library, archive and museum workshops evaluate a project. Take a look at http://hangingtogether.org/?p=279. In the final report of that same project, we also took great pains to try to characterize different types of collaborations using what we called the collaboration continuum (page 11, http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2008-05.pdf). The types of collaborators Dr. Mary McDonald outlined seems to correspond to stages 3, 4 and 5 of Tribal Leadership as described by Dave Logan (USC) – you’ll find a quick & dirty summary at http://www.watercoolerview.com/2009/05/corporate-culture-and-tribal-leadership.html.
July 6th, 2009 11:22
I like collaboration, but usually the advocacy for collaboration ignores the potential downsides which are think are the more important parts to grapple with. I agree with you Rich that the collaborative network yields higher dividends — I see most of our professional relationships (which are also personal) fitting into this category. If you ask me for help, I’ll almost always give it unconditionally because we’ve established a mutual level of trust and respect.
But, while looking at the benefits of deeper collaboration, it seems like there’s an inverse sliding scale of de-benefit: loss of control (and direction), dilution of individual ideas, pragmatism (external factors). These aren’t insignificant and depending on your needs at a given moment can be the factors that preclude easy collaboration. There’s no easy answer and there’s not a sweet spot, but I do think it’s important to address and appreciate those factors which can seem negative on the face of it, but are things we all encounter from our ideal of working collaboratively.