Power, Conflict & Learning in Interorganizational Domains Barbara Gray Pennsylvania State University...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of Power, Conflict & Learning in Interorganizational Domains Barbara Gray Pennsylvania State University...
Power, Conflict & Learning in Interorganizational Domains
Barbara GrayPennsylvania State University
and
Visiting Chair, Tilburg University
Wageningen UniversityWageningen University 27 September 2004 27 September 2004
Origin of the Concept
“Collaboration”: A necessary response to turbulence in inter-organizational domains (Emery & Trist, 1965)
Domain: Poorly-defined meta-problem that concerns many different stakeholders
Turbulence: Confluence of external pressures that individual organizations can not control unilaterally
Collaboration is a collective response by domain stakeholders that enables them to tackle the problem and stabilize the domain
The Nature of Problem Domains
Meta-problems, “wicked” problems, poorly-defined problems
Whose problems are they?
• Who is affected by them?
• Who is responsible for them?
• How to identify/disentangle causes
• What are the boundaries?
e.g. biodiversity, refugees, homelessness, aids/HIV
Problem Domain: Global extinction of Northern White Rhinos
Exemplifies a case of failed or blocked collaboration Problem domain is complex, volatile and critical. A pressing societal problem with social, ethical and
economic implications: the precipitous decline in global biodiversity which some have termed catastrophic”
Why did this effort fail even though virtually all the parties came to the table to preserve the species?
What can we learn about the dynamics of such processes and how to manage them successfully?
Problem Domains
Domains must be cultivated by all parties concerned. Unless the meta-problems are commonly appreciated, the messes will never be cleared up. This requires a more future-oriented as well as more holistic posture. When a longer time horizon is taken, people tend more readily to see the interdependencies of their objectives and to envisage more of the consequences which will affect them all. They are therefore more prepared to collaborate.
(Trist, 1978)
Key Features of Collaboration
1) Interactive process to deal constructively with differences
2) Creation of shared rules, norms & structures the govern
3) Joint decision making about the domain
4) Stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the domain
4) Collective authorization of some to act on others’ behalves
5) An emergent and fragile process that must be continually
reconstituted
B. Gray: Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, San
Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1989.
Quote from Stanley Baldwin
I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sideness of truth
Arenas for Collaboration
Environmental issues
Health Care, Education & Social Welfare
Business
• Worldwide biodiversity
• Forests & logging/deforestation • Parks/recreation• Energy/ Water/Land use
• Health/Mental health
• Education • Refugee systems • Social service delivery and disaster relief• AIDS Prevention/Treatment
• Social responsibility
• Strategic Alliances• Suppliers and competitors
Advantages of Collaborating
Wider array of resources available Creative solutions emerge from differing
perspectives Builds community through inclusion of many
parties Improves relations among diverse groups Builds cooperation among governmental units No one has/knows entire solution
Driving forces Restraining forces
Strategic org’l factors
Institutional factors
Government incentivesLegal/regulatory mandateNew opportunity arises
Factors Motivating/Preventing Collaboration
Knowledge generationNeed for resourcesEconomies of scaleInterdependenceHurting Stalemate
Perceived loss of controlLoss of constituent supportInternal conflict
History of conflict & mistrustDisincentivesPower differences
Stakeholder’s Purposes
different
shared
large small
Four Types of Domains
Power disparity among stakeholders
Volatile Fragmented
Suppressed Organized
Fragmented
Oppressed Organized
Purpose
disparate
common
large small
Processes of Domain Change
Power Difference
Volatile
collaborationconscienticizacion
contention
compliance
CONAIE in Ecuador—Case of Contention then Collaboration
1994 Land Reform Law passed with help from IDB Law broke up tradition land management system of the
indigenous communities, and reversed the existing agrarian reform program that redistributed land to land-less peasants.
Confederation of Amazonian Indian Nationalities (CONAIE) objected to provisions of the new law
Mobilized a two week protest with help from Catholic Church and Bank Information Center (BIC)
Staged blockages of Pan American Highway & filed legal challenge in courts
Gained access to negotiations with IDB & Pres. Iglesias
Role of Contention
Antecedent to collaboration Promotes access to collaborative table for low power
parties Forces powerful players to recognized their
interdependence on others Faciltates leadership development among low power
stakeholders Creates “hurting stalemate” that stimulates
collaboration
Fragmented
Oppressed Organized
Purpose
disparate
common
large small
Processes of Domain Change
Power Difference
Volatile
collaboration
3 Phases of Collaboration
Problem-Setting Phase
Negotiation Phase
Implementation Phase
“Getting people to the table”
“Reaching Agreement on What to Do”
“Ensuring that the Agreement is Carried Out”
Phase I: Getting parties to the table
Envisioning the joint problem/opportunity
• Identifying the stakeholders --scope --legitimacy
• Getting a commitment to collaborate
• Identifying a convener --credible --powerful
• Finding resources
Barriers to Collaboration
Some groups or organizations resist coming to the table? Why?
What factors make you or others reluctant to participate?
What does it take to get you to agree to participate in a collaboration?
Barriers to Getting to the Table
History of mistrust
Power/status differences
Conflicts within stakeholder groups
Technical complexity
Differing ethnic or institutional cultures
Institutional disincentives
Identity issues
Audience dynamics
Example of Identity Issues: Voyageurs National Park
• New national park created on U.S./Canadian border in Minnnesota in 1975
• Land purchased by eminent domain• Conflict over use and management of park• Strong resistance to park by local residents
• Resistance rooted in identity issues
Early and continued protests Lawsuits opposing park decisions 1995 attempt to decommission the park by locals Failed attempt at mediation of the conflict in 1996-7
Identity Frames
One key factor underlying what frames we use is our identity.
Identity = “Who am I?”“Who are we?”
Our identities:• Give us a sense of belonging• Are closely aligned with values• Give meaning to our lives• Help us determine what actions to take
Local Park Opponent:Identity Frame
Frankly, people are upset because they feel like the Federal government, in conjunction with those environmental communities, are trying to take away the culture of the people here, much like what happened to the Native American community. The government destroyed their culture, and the people that live here, that grew up here, immigrated here, have developed a culture here. Frankly, what they (environmentalists) don’t understand is that every time they push that agenda, they are taking away from the culture of the people who live here.
Overcoming Barriers to Collaboration
Understand frames of all stakeholders and the history of the issue
Learn about/anticipate predictable dynamics:
Hire a convener/facilitator Learn or acquire process facilitation skills Acknowledge the identity issues Level the playing field
Cultural differences Status differences Power
Strategies for Equalizing Power
• Induce parties to reinvest in relationship
--Create groundrules that balance power--Use language that reflects balance of power
--Point out interdependencies--Reframe escalatory behaviors as interests/concerns
Establish new boundaries
Strategies for Equalizing Power
Limit Influence of High-Power Parties--Acknowledge privilege--Exercise voluntary restraints--Increase dependence of high on low power parties
--Revisit existing sources of influence--Decrease dependence on high power parties--Form coalitions--Remind tops of consequences of non-participation (BATNA—Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)
• Increase Influence of Low-Power Parties
Phase II: Direction Setting/ Negotiation
Establish groundrules Agree on an agenda If huge problem: Divide tasks by sub-groups Joint education: --explain interests --jointly seek information Explore multiple options Craft consensus solution Reach agreement on next steps
Riceland Partnership (California)
Longstanding pitched battles over allocation and use of scarce water in California
Stakeholders: Farmers, conservation groups, municipal water authorities, ranchers, industry, federal & state regulatory agencies
Partnership created wildlife habitat for migratory birds by flooding rice fields in winter
Win-win solution for farmers & conservationists Used what was costless for one to benefit the other
Phase 3: Implementing an Agreement
Select the best technical and political solution Anticipate and address the “two-table problem”
Build external (political) support for agreements Build in redundancy from planners to implementers Design monitoring/enforcement procedures Establish permanently flexible structure
-- Get feedback constituencies-- Modify the agreement
What Can Go Wrong in Implementation?
Pennsylvania Deep Mining Example 23 stakeholders 2 years of negotiations No consensus on cover letter of agreement
Collaboration Initiated by the New York City Partnership (1987)
Youth Employment Initiative
NY State Employment Office
New York Public Schools
United Federation of Teachers
New York City Employment Office
Urban Partnership
Time-Warner Corp.
New York City Partnership
Citibank
Successful Collaboration Requires:
Anticipating the process issues in each phase Resolving key issues in each phase Frequent reevaluation of how the collaboration is/is not
working “Anticipation of collapse” from:
Accommodations to change
Changes in players Shifts in power & resources Policy changes Natural or human-induced disasters
Tasks of Conveners/Facilitators
Assess readiness to collaborate Decrease resistance to getting to the table Ensure effective representation Help parties establish and enforce groundrules Establish a climate of trust and model openess Design and manage the process/data Help the parties forge consensus Oversee implementation
How Do You Know When You’ve Achieved It?
Knotty theoretical issue—open for debate. Is it enough to:
Get parties to the table? Complete 3 phases? Create trust? Institutionalize the collaboration? Address/improve domain problem?
Consequences of NOT Collaborating
No action: Problems persist or get worse
Blocking & Tackling: Attempts to impose unilateral solutions are resisted by other stakeholders
Parties seek hierarchical remedies that generate high costs, long delays and inferior outcomes that often disenfranchise entire populations