The Seven Deadly Sins Of Collaboration

Tweet

First, collaboration has to be a team sport. It requires players on the field and willing to participate in the game, which is not always possible. Second, it demands patience and political will, items that are sometimes in short supply. Third, there are no guarantees. If consensus isn’t reach, people are left frustrated and fatigued. If agreements are reached, they can be minimalist “Kumbaya” moments that regress to the lowest common mean.

In the punctuated equilibriums of organizations, nations or families, the two other alternatives to collaboration -– the blunt use of authority and/or free-for-all competition –- aren’t that great either. Each has an upside, each has a downside. Collaboration, however, has one other dark side which makes the waters of consensus-seeking murky and sometimes shark infested. It is easily gamed. The process can be defrauded either by sponsors and conveners, by facilitators and moderators, or by the players themselves. In short collaboration demands that sometimes fleeting and effervescent quality we call good faith.

Here then are seven venal temptations which like the Cardinal Sins of greed, sloth, gluttony, pride, lust, and the others, can defeat our noblest intentions.

1. Fait Accompli.

Literally, “an accomplished fact.” The sin: disguising a predetermined outcome inside a seemingly collaborative process. Players are convened (sometimes seduced) to participate, they work hard to negotiate, only to find key gatekeepers are checking a box and putting a participatory face on a decision made behind closed doors.

2. Hidden Money.

The sin: disguising or not disclosing the sources of funding for a collaborative effort, which might otherwise influence the decision by some to participate.

3. Stakeholder Omission.

The sin: intentionally excluding from participation one set of unpopular views, voices or perspectives. Sometimes there is a “club” of elites that prefers to keep decisions close at hand. In other instances there are extreme voices on the left or right who are perceived to be disruptive. In a few instances stakeholders are cherry picked to ensure that a deal is forthcoming.

4. Stacking the Deck.

The sin: employing a moderator or facilitator who cannot remain independent and who tilts the playing field in favor of a single perspective.

5. No Rules of Engagement.

The sin: not disclosing how decisions in a given collaboration will be made, how confidentiality and media relations will work, and where the negotiating authorities lie.

6. Excluding Information.

The sins: ensuring that certain kinds of information -- economic, scientific, technical, historical, cultural or legal – are not given consideration.

7. Mischaracterizing the Results.

The sin: misrepresenting the outcome of a collaborative process to others without the group’s willingness or consent. In highly politicized or legalized contexts, nuances and subtleties matter.

“Sin” has subtle implications and extended meanings and, truthfully, I’m not so sure that lust and sloth belong on the original list anyway. The devil lies in the details. Still, people who encourage, convene, facilitate, and mediate or “gate keep” collaborations need a moral compass. Without one, we run the risk of seeing the very processes we want to encourage misused, vitiated and estranged.

Biography

Tweet

Comments

Tweet

---

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

Nate	coresolution.adr@gmail.com      01/16/11
Thanks for the insight--it's important to be reminded that the process of collaboration can disguise, and thereby enable, the competitive intentions of the parties. For a method of preventing collaboration from being so "easily gamed," read the CRQ article on co-resolution (Vol 26 no 2) or visit www.co-resolution.com. Add New Comment

David  ,   Wellington	david.hurley@dol.govt.nz      01/11/11
The hallmark of a valuable paper is the extent to which it triggers self-reflection and further questions. As in "what is the basis and sustenance of my own "moral compass"?" How does it fit with "The Moral Landscape"(Sam Harris 2010 Bantham Press; and the New Atheist debates with Church based morality) or www.edge.org - The New Science of Morality Conference of last year. Should professional bodies have a Moral Code as well an Ethical one? Does at some point in some contexts impartiality become immoral? So - for both the content and the thoughts so triggered - I add my thanks. Add New Comment

ken cloke,   santa monica ca	kcloke@aol.com      01/04/11
Excellent article Peter. As in other cases, most notably with democracy, listening, and similar virtues, we need to distinguish between saying all the right things while allowing image, pretense and "being nice" to obscure the fact that our hearts are not really in it, and the hard work that is required in order to genuinely collaborate with people - especially those we disagree with. As I read your list, it reminds me of the use of "legal" definitions, i.e., of democracy, which are often used to block the real thing. Thanks, as always, for your insights. Ken Add New Comment

susan  ,   Denver CO	01/04/11
Always a pleasure to read your views, the sin in reference to stakeholder omission is common in the regulatory world, it's hard to get our arms around all the players! Hope you are well and enjoyed the holidays! Best in 2011, Susan Add New Comment

David Bogan,   Auckland	david@davidbogan.com      01/04/11
Seven Deadly Sins
Thanks Peter, it's a very timely New Year's reminder for us all. Add New Comment

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.