As I noted last time, we tend to think of collaborating and cooperating as similar — so similar that we use the words interchangeably at times. That looseness does little harm in itself. But trouble can arise in two ways. The first is when we allocate time and resources as if we were collaborating, when we're expected only to cooperate. And the second is when we allocate time and resources as if we were only cooperating, when we're actually expected to collaborate.
Briefly, a collaboration forms when individuals or entities form an alliance to achieve a single shared objective. By contrast, a cooperation is a loose collection of individuals or entities who are willing to assist each other in achieving their respective individual objectives, or the objectives of others. The assistance they provide might include actual effort, or it might consist of merely accommodating each other.
An illustration of the risks of confusion
Here's a small illustration of the risks of working cooperatively when collaboration is required:
DataMemes, Inc., is a small (fictional) manufacturer of add-on devices for smartphones. One of their add-ons is an entry into the home-based day trading market. It uses a sophisticated big data analysis package to spot trends in news feeds. It then exploits that information to forecast price movements in financial instruments. Within DataMemes itself, the hardware division (Hardware) and the software division (Software) compete for everything from influencing company strategy to allocating resources. But they do cooperate in a variety of ways, including shared use of the test facility and developing product strategy. Even so, because DataMemes regards itself as primarily a hardware company, Software is viewed mostly as a junior partner.
For DataMemes' customers, both Software and Hardware are critical components. If DataMemes Hardware and DataMemes Software could act as collaborators, they would be more likely to anticipate and respond to trends in customer needs. As things are now, DataMemes market offerings are probably biased in favor of hardware-dependent enhancements such as low cost, high speed, longer battery life, and higher capacity. They are likely biased against software innovations, such as neural networks and applications of artificial intelligence. What customers actually want is a balance of both Hardware and Software perspectives. A collaboration of peers is more likely to recognize this; a cooperation between Hardware and Software with Hardware dominant is less likely to do so.
From cooperation to collaboration
Modern organizations carry out most of their work in groups. We can describe work groups as lying somewhere along a spectrum from cooperation at one end, to collaboration at the other. Most groups lie somewhere between the two poles, and probably move around a bit over time.
There are risks Cooperation is necessary but not
sufficient for achieving a single
shared objective. Success is more
likely when the group adopts
a collaboration configuration.associated with ambiguity as to where a given group lies on the Cooperation/Collaboration spectrum. And there are also risks associated with individuals misunderstanding where their work group lies on that spectrum. These risks are of two kinds. One set of risks arises when a group needs to be a collaboration, but instead is configured as a cooperation. And the second kind is the opposite: a group that needs to be a cooperation, but instead is configured as a collaboration. In this post, I sketch four risks associated with cooperations that need to be collaborations. What follows are examples of these risks. Next time, I examine collaborations that need to be cooperations.
Below are four examples of risks that arise when a group is engaged in work that requires a collaboration, but which is approaching the work as a cooperation. In what follows I use the notation PG to denote the primary goal of the group — the goal that would best be achieved through collaboration rather than cooperation. And I use the notation SG to denote any of the multiple Subordinate Goals that the group is working to achieve by cooperation.
- Risk of multiple objectives competing for resources
- When a group is a cooperation, and when collaboration is what's needed, the group is in a situation analogous to that of DataMemes in the illustration above. There is a risk that the members of a cooperation might not grasp the importance of forming consensus around a single shared objective that everyone aims for. Instead, multiple competing objectives can persist, with everyone cooperating to some extent to permit the supporters of each objective to work toward their own.
- This condition leads to defocusing of the group's attention and resources. The group starts projects but cannot make much progress on them because of resource shortages and schedule conflicts. And in the extreme case, there are many, many meetings because of the large number of projects "in flight."
- Risk of not forming a strong identity
- Collaborations require a single shared objective. But to develop and maintain a single objective that's truly shared, group members must identify with the whole of the group. An ill-defined group identity — or worse, an ambiguous identity — creates difficulties for groups forming effective collaborations because their members tend to maintain affiliations with other objectives. A group that lacks a strong identity risks remaining little more than a cooperation.
- Group members must recognize that cooperation is necessary but not sufficient for achieving a single shared objective. Attaining a single shared objective successfully is more likely when the group adopts a clear identity that incorporates attributes of the objective.
- Risk of contention for authorship
- Although the group is configured as a cooperation, its people might celebrate as a success the achievement of its primary goal, PG. This celebration could be more elaborate and multi-dimensional than what follows achievement of any of its other goals (the SGs). For this reason, there is a risk of outbreak of contention for authorship of the work that leads to the PG. Everyone with even the dullest political sense might want to claim credit.
- Even before the group achieves its PG, contention for credit can evolve into toxic conflict within the group, which can erode the willingness of group members to cooperate. That can reduce the chances of success in achieving the PG or any of the SGs.
- Risk of free-riding and social loafing
- When a group works to achieve its goals, its members must contribute effort to reach those goals. If the group has multiple goals, there is a risk that some members might withhold effort if they regard it as advancing a goal they see as less worthy than another group goal.
- In a collaboration, as compared to a cooperation, such withholding is less likely, for two reasons. First, in a cooperation, there are multiple goals. Because some group members might feel a stronger affinity for some of the SGs than for the PG, they might withhold effort from PG and lavish effort on their favored SG. [Arnold 2012] With regard to PG, this behavior is termed social loafing or free-riding. [Karau 1993]
- Second, because there is only one goal in a collaboration, withholding effort from the PG is withholding effort from the group. There is no SG to which to apply that effort. Because withholding is equivalent to withdrawal, withholding is deterred in a collaboration.
In the next part of this series, I examine some risks associated with operating as a collaboration when the goals at hand are better suited to the attentions of a cooperation. First in this series Top Next Issue
Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Some Costs of COTS
- As a way of managing risk, we sometimes steer our organizations towards commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
components, methodologies, designs, and processes. But to gain a competitive edge, we need creative
- Give It Your All
- If you have the time and resources to read this, you probably have a pretty good situation, or you have
what it takes to be looking for one. In many ways, you're one of the fortunate few. Are you making the
most of the wonderful things you have? Are you giving it your all?
- The Focusing Illusion in Organizations
- The judgments we make at work, like the judgments we make elsewhere in life, are subject to human fallibility
in the form of cognitive biases. One of these is the Focusing Illusion. Here are some examples to watch for.
- How to Reject Expert Opinion: I
- When groups of decision makers confront complex problems, they sometimes choose not to consult experts
or to reject their advice. How do groups come to make these choices?
- Anticipating Absence: Passings
- In times more normal than ours, co-workers who pass on tend to do so one at a time. Disease or accidents
rarely strike many co-workers in the same week, month, or year. There are exceptions — 9/11 was
one such. This pandemic is another.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming November 30: Avoiding Speed Bumps: II
- Many of the difficulties we encounter when working together don't create long-term harm, but they do cause delays, confusion, and frustration. Here's Part II of a little catalog of tactics for avoiding speed bumps. Available here and by RSS on November 30.
- And on December 7: Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts
- Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples. Available here and by RSS on December 7.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info