How to collaborate

According to Battisti & Peter (2011, p. 249),

“understanding the dynamics of collaboration and the persistent forces in the pattern of social activity requires analysing not only the purpose and structure of the collaboration, but relational and cognitive elements as well”.

Networks and social capital are believed to be important aspects of organisational resilience and potential competitive advantage and are generally expected to be an antecedent to a collaborative endeavour. A network is “a collection of relationships that binds a group of independent organisations together” (A. Cameron & Street, 2007, p. 240). Networks help an organisation to

“recognise opportunities or challenges and co-ordinate appropriate responses” (Cross, Liedtka, &

Weiss, 2005, p. 125). The existence of networks or relationships between parties is a potential precursor to those parties entering into a specific collaborative arrangement. Cross et. al, (2005), along with Battisti & Peter (2011), make the point that it is important to promote network connectivity with a view to how it might benefit the organisation noting that more connectivity is not necessarily of benefit to the organisation unless it is with the right connections.

While a network may be seen as the tangible linkages between people and organisations, the value derived from those linkages can be described as social capital which is a concept similar to networks but with a focus on the resource potential of the relationships. Social capital is defined as,

“the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit”

(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 243).

38 Social capital is generally believed to be an aid to business development, innovation and globalisation as well as in adaptive efficiency. In the context of post disaster collaborations it would be expected to be a clear antecedent to the creation of a specific collaboration. However, it is also noted that firms with strong social capital may also be held back from enacting innovate solutions by the strong norms of their network (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Social capital forms from the diverse and complex series of interactions between individuals within organisations. There are a variety of ways of characterising social capital. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p. 244) distinguish three dimensions;

structural, cognitive and relational. Structural dimension refers to the “configuration of the linkages between people or units – the pattern of connections”. The cognitive dimension refers to the shared codes, language or narratives of the network. The relational dimensions describes the actual bonds between the individuals; the degree of shared norms, trust and obligations that develop. Another influential work in this area is that of Granovetter (1973) who discusses strong and weak ties and their roles in spreading knowledge and influencing group norms. Strong ties are, as implied, more frequent and deeper connections, and weak ties are occasional and more superficial. Weak ties are advantageous as they provide the bridge to other networks (Granovetter, 1983). A recent focus on examining the role of social capital in overall recovery from disaster has highlighted its importance (D. Aldrich, 2012; Cox & Perry, 2011; Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004; Stevenson, 2014). A study of recovery in Kobe, Japan, found that social capital was the strongest predictor of population recovery (D. Aldrich, 2011b). Social Capital may also have a dark side. Similarly to Nahapiet & Ghoshal’s (1998) view that social capital may have some negative effects, Aldrich (2011a) found that minorities who are not part of the existing networks in South East Asia may be excluded from the recovery process.

The necessity for trust and the benefits of forming collaborative ventures from existing networks is a common theme with regard to enhancing the success of any collaboration (Austin, 2000; Bradach &

Eccles, 1989; Bryson et al., 2006; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Fukuyama, 1996; Hoffmann & Schlosser, 2001; Hughes & Weiss, 2007; Innes & Booher, 1999; Lipnack & Stamps, 1994). Writing with regard to collaboration in supply chains Daugherty et al (2006) believe that many of the potential benefits of collaboration have failed to be realised due to inadequate attention being paid to the mechanisms of collaboration such as structuring and formalising the relationships. They point out that maximising the benefits of collaboration requires letting go of typical business practices of carefully guarding information and that a key necessity to get past this block is the formation of trust between the partners. They imply that formalising how firms are to work together can assist in building this trust.

This idea is also supported by Dyer & Singh (1998) who suggest that multiple governance mechanisms are commonly used to ensure that opportunism is not risked by reliance on trust only safeguards. Peng (2009) points out that many successful alliances were built upon existing strong relationships between organisations and believes that the existing strong ties help to combat the

39 perceived threat of opportunism by creating an existing culture of trust. Collaboration either within or across sectors is more likely to succeed when effort and on-going attention is paid to trust building activities (Bryson et al., 2006; Hughes & Weiss, 2007). Another perspective on trust is that it can be very difficult to build trust in a multi firm collaboration if two or more (but not all) of the members have existing strong ties (Adobor, 2006; Fukuyama, 1996).

With regard to the process of collaboration, work on domain collaboration – “the set of actors that become joined by a common problem or interest” (B. Gray, 1985, p. 912) is potentially relevant to some of the Canterbury context. Work in this area proposes a three stage process (B. Gray, 1985).

Firstly, that of problem setting where the problem is defined and the relevant stakeholders identified.

Bryson et al., (2006) point out that often a sponsor with a perceived high degree of legitimacy or a similar brokering organisation – a Chamber of Commerce for example, are often the initial force that sets this process underway. During this process, stakeholders acknowledge the interdependence of members and the need for collaborative action. The second stage is of direction-setting where a common vision or purpose is established. Lastly, is the structuring phasing where processes to manage the collaboration may be designed and systems and structures formed to enable the pursuance of the groups’ goals. Within this process model, there are a number of conditions identified for each stage which are likely to facilitate the operation of the collaboration – see Table 5 (B. Gray, 1985).

The role of prior relationships – the degree of structural embeddedness of the members may greatly affect the success of each process stage (Bryson et al., 2006).

40 Table 5 - Facilitative Conditions at Each Phase of Domain Collaboration

Source: Adapted from (B. Gray, 1985)

According to Beck and Plowman (2013, p. 2) collaborations can be emergent; driven by a shared perception of problems that are insoluble by one organisation, or engineered where a central person, authority or convenor proposes the formation of some kind of collaboration to people or organisations who are “unaware of, or uninterested in the need to work with other organisations”.