Collaboration with diverse others: Why is it so difficult?
By: Mille Bojer
Tags: Systems Thinking, Collaboration, Diversity, Systems Change, Reos Partners

We know we need to collaborate. In my work, I repeatedly hear people stating the obvious reasons why it’s important to work together with diverse others:

“None of us have all the answers.”

“We can be stronger and more resilient together.”

“We waste resources by competing and duplicating work.”

“We are dealing with complex problems that can’t be solved by a single actor.”

“The issues are multi-dimensional and interconnected and require the involvement of various disciplines.”

It often sounds as if people are trying to convince themselves and each other that collaboration is necessary and what is missing is only the will. But what if the understanding and desire is already clear and we still aren’t succeeding?

Why is collaboration so difficult?

One reason may be that we don’t understand it very well or reflect on it sufficiently. Below, I challenge four common assumptions about collaboration and share some thoughts on how to make it work better.

Assumption #1: Collaboration is always the best, most effective choice

As Adam Kahane points out in his book “Collaborating with the Enemy”, when faced with a complex shared challenge, it is helpful to be aware that collaboration is not the only option available to us. If we have power and influence in a situation, we also have the option of trying to force others to do things our way. If we have low power and influence, and it is difficult to make our voice heard, we have the option of adapting to how others are shaping the situation. Forcing and adapting can both masquerade as collaboration — whereby we pretend to collaborate, but actually we are either making others agree with us, or going along in a situation without actively participating and contributing. This is not genuine collaboration.

If collaboration is too difficult, we can also choose to exit, to quit altogether, or to work apart and bear the consequences of duplication, fragmentation, and competition. The option of exiting often gives us important and valid leverage in a situation, but it is difficult to keep a collaboration healthy when the threat of someone leaving is constantly present.

In assuming that everyone should collaborate, we neglect to realise that collaboration is a choice, and it is not always genuinely available or in everyone’s interest. People have other alternatives and when collaboration becomes too difficult, painful, or costly they often choose a different way. Among our options, collaboration is not always the easiest or accessible choice to make.

Rather than assuming that everyone wants to (and should) collaborate, we can:

be aware of, name, and acknowledge that we all have a choice;

clearly articulate the purpose, principles, scope and approach of the collaboration to make it a clearer and worthwhile choice to make;

explicitly choose to step into collaboration (rather than into forcing, adapting, or exiting); and

give voice to the power dynamics that may be impeding genuine collaboration.

Assumption 2: Collaboration is pleasant

When we think of successful collaboration, the mental image that springs to mind is often one of people being nice and agreeable with one another. We think it is as clear cut as coming together and defining a shared goal and working seamlessly towards that goal. If it is working, it ought to feel good.

That may work in situations where there is homogeneity, but in situations of complexity and diversity, this is not a realistic expectation. Collaboration in these situations is more like rafting than rowing. We are in the same boat, highly dependent on one another, somehow managing to move more or less in the same direction, but context is interfering, people’s capabilities vary, emotions are at play, and alertness is key.

Rebecca Freeth and Guido Caniglia have co-developed a framework that maps the different zones in the context of inter-disciplinary collaboration and the tensions that may happen in each:

· In the epistemic space, we see tensions and debates over things like definitions, concepts, and outputs;

· In the social space, we see tensions over things like competition, prejudice, styles, and different responses to failure;

· In the symbolic space, we see tensions over values and norms and these are shaped, at least in part, by power dynamics;

· In the spatial space, we see tensions about our how our physical and institutional setup is blocking or enabling collaboration;

· In the temporal space, we see tensions around time, deadlines, and between speeding up and slowing down.

Each of these spaces has a comfort zone, a learning zone, and a discomfort zone (also sometimes called a panic zone). Each team member may experience different levels of comfort and may be in different zones at any given time. This diagram offers a helpful map of all the potential spaces of tension and alludes to the futility of thinking that collaboration is seamless.

Having this knowledge does not make the tensions go away, but sharing such a map during a collaborative effort can normalise and pre-empt the tensions, and in doing so, make them less emotional and frustrating.

Rather than assuming collaboration will be pleasant, we can

acknowledge that tension and discomfort is normal;

acknowledge and discuss the underlying issues that inhibit collaboration; and

pay attention to discomfort as a trigger for learning.

Assumption 3: We need to agree

Central to conventional notions of collaboration is the idea that it means working together towards one shared goal, and that everyone will make their own needs (seen as the needs of the “parts”) secondary to the needs of the “whole”. It is true that collaboration requires some shared direction, but in general we tend to think we have to agree more than is actually necessary.

A helpful way to think about this is to distinguish two different ways of mapping the collaboration. One of these sees every participant in the collaboration as a separate “part” and the collaboration overall and its greater purpose as the “whole”. The other way acknowledges that in reality, and especially in multi-stakeholder situations, we are each a part of multiple wholes.

If I join an alliance on behalf of my organization, the alliance is expecting that the needs of my organisation (the part) will be secondary to needs of the alliance (the whole). For my organization, I’m expected to make my work in the alliance (a part) secondary to the needs of the organization (the whole). Meanwhile, in my family, I’m expected to make my work (a part) secondary to the needs of the family (the whole). As individuals, we are under continuous pressure from the needs of multiple wholes and it is neither healthy nor helpful to ignore this.

How this relates to agreement is that in many cases we get frustrated with each other for bringing in “agendas” that are not in line with the needs of the “whole”, and we forget to empathise with each other’s pressures. We do need to agree on key things like budget allocations, timelines, rules, and priorities, and sometimes this requires negotiation across different interests and between the interests of the parts and the needs of the particular whole on which we are working. But we don’t always have to agree on the same list of values, on the nature of the problem, on definitions of concepts, on our interpretations of the past, and so on. In these domains, part of what is going on is that we are desiring agreement because we want to feel justified and to believe we are right. We can allow for diversity here. Often the most sustainable agreements are those that we agree to for different reasons.

Rather than assuming we all must consistently agree, we can:

ask ourselves where we really need to agree and where we simply need to navigate diversity;

acknowledge trade-offs: and

allow people to voice their needs and the needs of their organization without being judged or accused of bringing in their “agenda”.

Assumption 4: We know how to collaborate

Collaboration with diverse others is not easy. It is a practice and there are collaborative capabilities, tools, and mindsets that we can learn to help us. At Reos Partners, we talk of “stretch collaboration”, where the concept of “stretching” helps to convey challenge, exercise, discipline, and a space of ongoing learning.

Stretch collaboration emphasises three “stretches”:

· Embracing conflict and connection: Being able to stay in relationship and empathize with others while also moving into and working through tensions and disagreements.

· Experimenting the way forward: Constantly learning from and acting on feedback from our collaborators and the wider system in order to discover the best solutions and pathways.

· Stepping into the game: Acknowledging the ways in which we, ourselves, are part of the problem, taking responsibility rather than engaging in blaming and labelling others.

Often, too little attention is given to the growth and development of the collaboration itself alongside the achievement of its objectives. We plan for what we will do, but not how we will be together along the way. We plan to evaluate our achievements and substantive learning but forget to take time to reflect on what we are learning about collaboration itself, to check in on how the collaboration is going, and to invite feedback on our collaborative practice.

Rather than assuming we know how to collaborate, we can:

prepare and design for learning to collaborate while collaborating, for example by developing a learning strategy upfront;

set aside time for learning and reflection on experience during the collaboration;

invite in impartial facilitators or team coaches to support collaboration, especially if it’s a complex or longer-term process; and

stay in relationship when the going gets tough.

Investing in collaboration

Acknowledging the many challenges to collaboration may make one believe that collaboration is not worth the effort and investment. One way of ensuring it is more worthwhile is to think of this deeper collaboration with diverse others not as something you do for a single event or minor assignment in order to deliver a given output, but rather to build capabilities and relationships that can be activated for multiple purposes over time.

One example of such an effort is the Sustainable Fashion Lab, a national, multi-sectoral platform for collaboration and innovation to address and transform the primary challenges of Brazil’s fashion industry. The platform, which has been active for more than four years, involves over 80 stakeholders including academia, retail brands, the textile industry, industry associations, media, trade unions, foundations, international organizations, vocational training institutions, public sector, civil society, and Brazilian and immigrant seamstresses.

The Fashion Lab prototyped 26 multi-sectoral initiatives, of which 14 are currently active, in the domains of education, consumerism, environment, working conditions, business models and supply chains, and public policies. When Covid 19 hit, the Fashion Lab network was further activated for a rapid response to enable the production of medical masks and gowns for hospitals and to support emergency measures for small businesses and workers in the fashion supply chain who were most affected by the crisis. The collaborative ecosystem was already in place and could rapidly respond beyond its pre-defined objectives and plans.

Choosing collaboration over easier options, working through tensions and conflicts, navigating diversity and agreement, and learning collaborative capabilities is indeed an investment. But building resilient, responsive, and capable multi-stakeholder alliances and ecosystems is also a potent strategy for sustainable social change. This is especially so in the current context of emergent crises, uncertainty, and accelerating complexity.

It is true that we need to collaborate and we can. We simply need to let go of a few old assumptions to do it well.

(Illustrations by Toa Maes)