| Collaboration | | | | Trust and Collaboration The development of trust in |
| 'More than 97 percent of senior leaders believed | | | | nurturing collaborative relationships is a vital skill for |
| collaboration is essential to success. However, only 30 | | | | leaders (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Trust is built on |
| percent of respondents and 47 percent of senior | | | | perception and history. How our motives and |
| leaders believed leaders in their organization are | | | | activities are perceived determines if others will trust |
| actually skilled in collaboration. Results indicate leaders | | | | us. If we trust, we share. If not, we don't. How |
| must learn to work across boundaries to collaborate | | | | other's perceive us is their reality -outside of our own |
| effectively in the coming years.' (Centre for Creative | | | | motives. If we are perceived as promoting our own |
| Leadership, 2007) | | | | agenda or trying to create our own "empire", others |
| Collaboration is a process of participation through | | | | are reluctant to become involved and to share. This |
| which people, groups and organizations work | | | | applies to organizations and individuals. |
| together to achieve desired results. Common factors | | | | Affect- based trust are feelings of emotional |
| and characteristics have been identified by research | | | | involvement and sincere caring for each others |
| as influencing the collaborative process, including the | | | | welfare. Cognition-based trust is the belief that |
| skills of leadership, communication, sustainability, unity, | | | | others are competent and responsible. Both of these |
| participation, and a history of successful | | | | forms of trust are the foundations for collaboration in |
| accomplishments (Hogue, et al, 1995; Keith et.al, | | | | organisations (McAllister, 1995). Interpersonal trust is |
| 1993). Borden (1997) has identified four factors: | | | | also viewed as a key to facilitating and enabling |
| internal communication, external communication, | | | | coordinated social interactions (Coleman, 1988). |
| membership, and goal setting. | | | | Learning to Lead Collaboration People can tend not to |
| Borden & Perkins (1999) identified and defined | | | | collaborate, this may be caused by issues of |
| the following factors in the development of a simple | | | | understanding, time, our work environments or |
| self evaluation tool. This tool can be used by groups | | | | politics. Collaboration is a relatively new concept and is |
| to stimulate discussion after self rating the | | | | unfamiliar to many people. We were taught in school |
| collaborative effort for each key area. It can also | | | | to compete and that the world is survival of the |
| provide an overview of the key factors necessary | | | | fittest. Collaboration can seem to run contrary to |
| for success in a collaborative project. | | | | what we were taught to do and be. If people are |
| • Communication - clear and open with an | | | | used to seeing knowledge as a scarce resource (and |
| established process. | | | | through ownership of knowledge it can create |
| • Sustainability - there is a plan for sustaining | | | | increased power for the individual or group) people |
| participation and resources throughout the project | | | | may be less inclined to engage in open idea exchange |
| including guidelines in regards to the replacement of | | | | and collaboration. |
| members. | | | | Innovation needs to occur in an environment of |
| • Research and Evaluation - a needs assessment | | | | experimentation. However, if innovative ideas are to |
| has been conducted, goals are clear and there are | | | | be effective, they need some structure to allow for |
| measurement processes in place to collect data and | | | | consistency. The environment should foster both |
| review those goals. | | | | innovation and standardization. |
| • Political Climate - there exists positive history | | | | Politics and bureaucracy also need to be addressed |
| and environment surrounding power and decision | | | | and understood within the organisational context and |
| making. Political climate may be within the group as a | | | | the context of the collaborative effort. Good ideas |
| whole, systems within the group or networks of | | | | aren't always the ones that are implemented. Ideas |
| people; | | | | that are connected to the right people in the right |
| • Resources - there is access to the required | | | | positions can often gain acceptance quickly and easily. |
| resources. Resources refer to four types of capital: | | | | Who has power? Influence on key decisions |
| environmental, in-kind, financial, and human; | | | | sometimes rests outside of formal processes. |
| • Catalysts - the collaboration was commenced | | | | Sometimes, people on the "outside" have a profound |
| due to the existence of problem(s) or the reason(s) | | | | impact on key decision makers. Ignoring other |
| for collaboration to exist required a comprehensive | | | | stakeholders can sink new ideas and innovations. |
| approach; | | | | Tools for Collaboration The IT industry has |
| • Policies/Laws/Regulations - the collaboration can | | | | recognised that collaboration and social networking is |
| function effectively under the existing policies, laws, | | | | the way of the future and there is a strong move to |
| and/or regulations or these can be altered or created | | | | create products which seek to improve productivity |
| • History - the group has a history of working | | | | by virtualizing communications and business processes. |
| cooperatively and solving problems; | | | | People and organisations are looking at ways to |
| • Connectedness - members are connected and | | | | connect with each other virtually and Web 2.0 |
| have established informal and formal communication | | | | products are being designed to fill those needs. |
| networks at all levels; | | | | However we already have easy access to tools such |
| • Leadership - there are leaders who promote, | | | | as video and tele conferencing, chat, bulletin boards |
| facilitates and support team building, and who can | | | | and email - simple tools which enable groups to |
| capitalise on diversity and individual, group and | | | | communicate. Many tools are readily available as open |
| organizational strengths; | | | | source software or at low cost making them |
| • Group Development - this collaboration was | | | | accessible to all sectors. There are also more |
| mobilized to address important issues. There is a | | | | advanced products such as secure instant messaging, |
| communication system and formal information | | | | screen sharing and other groupware tools. These |
| channels that permit the exploration of issues, goals | | | | types of tools enable geographically dispersed teams |
| and objectives; and, | | | | to come together for virtual meetings allowing for |
| • Understanding Stakeholders - the collaboration | | | | time and cost savings, less travel, and improved |
| understands the stakeholders, including the people, | | | | communications flow. |
| cultures, values and habits. | | | | Conclusion Trust, collaboration, sharing, freedom of |
| Using the factors outlined above as a focus of | | | | ideas, are expressions of belief systems and culture. |
| discussion may reduce fragmentation within the | | | | When we debate the role of collaboration in an |
| group and move group conversation from generic | | | | organization, we are debating our views of how the |
| discussion to focused dialogue leading to sound | | | | organisation as a whole should be organized, power |
| decision making, and action. Open and honest | | | | distributed, diversity allowed, and decisions made. |
| communication within the group can increase group | | | | Collaboration reflects a point of view: that by working |
| effectiveness and commitment. It also assists with | | | | together partners, formal or informal, can bring |
| viewing issues and problems in a holistic manner. Open | | | | different perspectives to bear to solve a problem |
| and honest communication within the collaboration | | | | and bring about change. In order for collaboration to |
| and with stakeholders is critical to success. | | | | occur successfully within an organisation there needs |
| Another key area to be addressed is the setting of | | | | to be a supportive culture and work environment, |
| direction and focus for the collaboration. Ensuring a | | | | encouragement from senior managers and a rewards |
| clear and understood direction and focus between all | | | | system which reflects the importance of collaborative |
| parties for a collaboration defines the purpose of the | | | | practices. For collaboration to be successful between |
| collaboration as what its members seek to create. | | | | organisations there must be clarity, direction and |
| Setting the direction and focus begins with | | | | dialogue. |
| establishing the vision, mission, values, and principles. | | | | Resources For more information about collaborative |
| Defining the outcome(s) further establishes identity | | | | software go to |
| and fundamental purpose. Activities also need to be | | | | References |
| aggregated to provide value to the collaborative | | | | Axner, M. 2007, Promoting Coordination, Cooperative |
| group and to stakeholders. Multiple activities with | | | | Agreements, and Collaborative Agreements Among |
| similar focuses can confuse. Task/role clarity can | | | | Agencies. The Community Toolbox accessed 17/12 |
| create greater involvement, dialogue and | | | | 07 at [ |
| understanding. Applying the range of factors above | | | | Borden, L. M. 1997, Community collaboration: When |
| to the processes and contexts of the collaboration | | | | the whole is greater than the sum of parts. |
| results in a greater shared understanding of what the | | | | Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, |
| collaboration stands for, where it's going, the internal | | | | Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. (Quoted in Borden & |
| and external environment, and how it intends to | | | | Perkins, 1999) |
| make its outcomes a reality. | | | | Borden, L.M & Perkins, D.F. 1999, Assessing Your |
| Collaboration as a Continuum Collaboration often | | | | Collaboration: A Self Evaluation Tool. Journal of |
| means different things to different people, it is useful | | | | Extension, accessed 17/12/07 at |
| to think about collaboration as a continuum. Parties | | | | Centre for Creative Leadership, 2007, What's Next? |
| may consider themselves in relationships that vary | | | | The 2007 Changing Nature of Leadership Survey, |
| from lower-intensity exchanges, in which the groups | | | | accessed 17/12/07 at |
| are more independent, to higher-intensity | | | | Coleman, J.S. 1988, Social capital in the creation of |
| relationships, in which they are more interdependent. | | | | human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94 |
| In one model (Kaplan, 1991), these differences in | | | | (Supplement). 95-120. |
| intensity are reflected in four common terms: | | | | Hogue, T. Perkins, D. Clark, R. Bergstrum, A. Slinski, M. |
| networking, cooperation, coordination, and | | | | & Associates, 1995, Collaboration framework: |
| collaboration. | | | | Addressing community capacity. Columbus, OH: |
| Networking Cooperation Coordination Collaboration | | | | National Network for Collaboration. |
| Lower-intensity' Higher-intensity Independence' | | | | Kagan, S. L. 1991, United we stand: Collaboration for |
| Interdependence | | | | childcare and early education services. New York: |
| 1. Networking Organizations have a networking | | | | Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1-3. |
| relationship when they exchange information in order | | | | Keith, J. G., Perkins, D. F., Zhou, Z., Clifford, M. C., |
| to help each organization do a better job. | | | | Gilmore, B., & Townsend, M. Z. 1993, Building and |
| 2. Coordination Organizations have a coordinating | | | | maintaining community coalitions on behalf of children, |
| relationship when they modify their activities so that | | | | youth and families. Michigan Agricultural Experiment |
| together, they provide better services to their | | | | Station Research Report (529). East Lansing, MI: |
| constituents. | | | | Institute for Children, Youth, and Families. |
| 3. Cooperation When organizations cooperate, they | | | | McAllister, D.J. 1995, Affect and cognition - based |
| not only share information and make adjustments in | | | | trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in |
| their services - they share resources to help each | | | | organisations. Journal of Occupational and |
| other do a better job. | | | | Organisational Psychology Journal, 38: 24-59 |
| 4. Collaboration In a collaborative relationship, | | | | Tschannen-Moran, M. 2001, Collaboration and the |
| organizations help each other expand or enhance | | | | need for trust, Journal of Educational Administration, |
| their capacities to do their jobs. (Axner, 2007) | | | | Vol. 39 Iss. 4. |