When we think of collaborating and cooperating as similar, and then fail to appreciate their differences, we risk giving too little thought to how we organize work groups, business units, or even entire enterprises. As a brief reminder, 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 individual objectives, or the objectives of others. The assistance members of a cooperation provide each other might include actual effort, or it might consist of merely accommodating one other.
Collaborations are more effective than cooperations when there is a single shared objective. Cooperations are more effective than collaborations when there are multiple relatively independent objectives, especially when those objectives aren't synchronized.
A case of choosing to be less collaborative
For example, Collaborations are more effective than
cooperations when there is a single
shared objective. For multiple objectives,
cooperations are more effective.consider the case of MoPower, Inc., a (fictional) company that provides battery-powered equipment to the home market — leaf blowers, snow blowers, lawn mowers, and so on. To date, MoPower engineers have operated as a collaboration, which worked well because the batteries were so similar in size and capacity from product to product. The power required by a particular appliance drove the rest of the design of the appliance. A collaborative approach worked well for MoPower, because the different devices shared so much in common.
MoPower has decided to enter the market for battery-based storage of renewably sourced electric power. This market differs from the mobile equipment market in three ways. First, battery weight and size per watt-hour stored are less important in this market than in the mobile market. Second, the energy storage required is much greater, and more variable from product to product. And third, MoPower is providing only the battery, not the entire piece of equipment. Strategic partners provide the rest of the product.
In this new market, a cooperation-based approach is more workable, because there is so much variation from offering to offering. MoPower must confront the need to change how it approaches product design, manufacture, and support.
To help MoPower decide how to structure its engineering work, let's examine five examples of the risks of using a collaboration-based approach to perform work intended to achieve a stream of loosely related objectives.
- Risk of binary thinking
- Binary thinking, also known as "black-and-white thinking," is an approach to considering a situation in terms of only two options. [Brenner 2002] For workplace situations (and many others) binary thinking is usually harmful, because most situations worthy of consideration cannot be reduced to just two options. Restricting consideration to two options almost certainly eliminates important alternatives. But people find binary thinking more comfortable because it seems simpler, at least superficially, than a more nuanced approach.
- Binary thinking is sometimes described as 'thinking in absolutes," or "all or nothing" thinking. I avoid these terms because they're too specific. There are many more ways to reduce a situation to two possibilities — more ways than absolutism or all-or-nothing. Indeed, using the term "all or nothing" to denote binary thinking is itself an example of binary thinking.
- MoPower is at risk of binary thinking because the entire engineering workforce is accustomed to working as a collaboration. The risk is that MoPower might approach this issue as a choice between two process models — full collaboration and full cooperation. A more useful approach might include collaboration for some products, and cooperation for a collection of other products.
- Risk of zombie collaboration
- Zombie collaborations arise when a collaboration has failed to achieve (or will never achieve) its objective, but it hasn't yet been terminated. This can occur for many reasons, but one way for groups to arrive at this stage of their lifecycles is for the work to be incomplete with the market window already closed or about to be closed. The collaboration continues its work, but the people of the collaboration are unaware that they have failed. A second path to the zombie stage of life is entering into a new market, as MoPower is doing.
- The members of a zombie collaboration need to end the collaboration, or retarget it, or adopt a cooperation configuration aimed at different goals. One goal worth pursuing: find new goals. Another: learn how to avoid this situation in the future.
- Risk of political distortion
- When a group is configured as a collaboration, political power tends to align along the direction of the collaboration. Those with strengths aligned with the single shared objective of the collaboration tend to derive political power from that alignment.
- But if the group adopts new goals that actually require cooperation, the political power of the collaboration-aligned individuals can limit their willingness to cooperate with anyone whom they regard as less politically powerful. Cooperation tends to remain out of reach until the group reconfigures itself — and the power alignments within it — so as to rank the former goal of the collaboration closer to parity with the newly adopted goals.
- Risk of suppressed objectives
- A group that regards itself as a collaboration likely has a single shared objective, clearly stated and supported by all. Or at least it believes it does. To maintain focus, it acts to suppress or defer ideas that bubble up from time to time. This is healthy if the group is indeed a collaboration.
- But maintaining a collaboration orientation when cooperation is required can prematurely narrow the focus of the group as it reconfigures itself. This can lead to a chain of failed restarts. In another failure mode, the collaboration remains fixed on its original objective, even when that objective is no longer achievable, or no longer worth achieving.
- Risk of sticky identity
- When the context changes, the collaboration might need to revise its objective. In some situations, a single shared objective cannot be identified. The group must pursue multiple objectives, and that must be done as a cooperation.
- But the well-defined and well-developed identity of the group can adhere to it even when the group has decided to move on. The identity can become "sticky."
- To move on, the group might need to break its connection with its former identity — to rebrand itself. This can be difficult to accomplish for an internal entity. Reorganization can provide a way to retire the old identity and introduce a new one that can support a cooperative approach to new objectives.
Few business units choose consciously to work together as a collaboration, on the one hand, versus a cooperation on the other. Many would do well to review regularly their current configurations for suitability. And some might find that it's best to be a collaboration at one level of the organization, but a cooperation at a deeper level, or vice versa. Examine the configuration of your workgroup with an open mind. Then choose consciously. 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:
- Email Antics: I
- Nearly everyone I know complains that email is a time waster. Yet much of the problem results from our
own actions. If you're looking around for some New Year's resolutions to make, here are some ideas,
in this Part I of a little catalog of things we do that help waste our time.
- Selling Uphill: The Pitch
- Whether you're a CEO or a project champion, you occasionally have to persuade decision makers who have
some kind of power over you. What do they look for? What are the key elements of an effective pitch?
What does it take to Persuade Power?
- Decisions, Decisions: I
- Most of us have participated in group decision making. The process can be frustrating and painful, but
it can also be thrilling. What processes do groups use to make decisions? How do we choose the right
process for the job?
- How Not to Accumulate Junk
- Look around your office. Look around your home. Very likely, some of your belongings are useless and
provide neither enjoyment nor cause for contemplation. Where does this stuff come from? Why can't we
get rid of it?
- Defect Streams and Their Sources
- Regarding defects as elements of a stream provides a perspective that aids in identifying causes other
than negligence. Examples of root causes are unfunded mandates, misallocation of the cost of procedure
competence, and frequent changes in procedures.
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