KEY COMPONENT: VALUE POTENTIAL

The potential for value creation depends on the strength of the coorientation processes and other communicative practices. Koschmann et al. presented a framework of related communicative practices with the capacity to create value.

The first is increasing meaningful participation by paying attention to how people interact and having a variety of forms of interaction. Another is the diversity of interests participating in decision making. Interactions are meaningful if the communicative processes of coorientation are happening. There is ongoing interaction as interests change over time and members may expect their interests to be acknowledged; there may also be deeply held values that need to be made visible.

The second is about managing opposing and converging forces between the interests of the member organisations and collective interests. Koschmann et al. explained that it is not about resolving these tensions but rather about managing them by remaining flexible and being adaptable. At times, the energy will draw people together and at other times, the energy will separate and divide people. It is important to remain open to managing the issues rather than avoiding them; to be willing to explore alternatives and to consider new ideas.

Last, there are processes that help to create a stable identity for the XSP as an AT and these include naming the XSP and constructing a coherent and compelling narrative collaboratively.

4.16.1 Rational and relational aspects of collaboration

Some of the language and concepts used in the framework were drawn from game theory (Kuhn, 2008), which is a form of rational choice theory (Ostrom, 1998), specifically the ideas of marshalling willing consent, attracting capital and mobilising resources. Relational aspects are recognised at the same time so that “XSPs (and their members) are situated within broader relational contexts” (Koschmann et al., 2012).

In adopting a CCO approach, Koschmann et al. also recognised that “communication is a complex process of meaning negotiation and construction”. While they did not expand on the idea of negotiation, they did talk about a process of dialogue in which “meaning, identities, and agendas are always constructed and open to re-construction” and discussed how narratives are constructed collaboratively.

Kuhn (2008) recognised that organisations may be conceived as negotiated orders that are

“continually modified in communicative practice” and “rules are internally and provisionally negotiated” so that the process of organising is “an ecology of infinite game playing”.

The processes of negotiation are not discussed in detail in either of the abovementioned journal articles, which form the basis of the framework of XSP value. Nonetheless, at a conceptual level, these ideas connect the framework of XSP value with other literature that views collaboration as a socially constructed, negotiated order (Gray, 1989: 228-234).

4.16.2 Managing tensions

While some research assumes that collaboration requires shared goals, consensus and cooperation, there is another view that recognises that both conflict and cooperation are necessary in collaborative relationships (Phillips et al., 2000). According to Hardy, Lawrence and Phillips (2006), even when successful, collaborative relationships will encounter disagreement and difference including some degree of discord, dissent or conflict. They explained that managing tensions is key to a successful partnership and argued that while trust and communication are important in a collaborative relationship, power and conflict are also needed. In conclusion, they said that differences do not always have a negative effect and can have positive implications and create opportunities for change and innovation.

Relational aspects also involve tensions, conflict and power and these aspects are explored by Hardy and Phillips (1998) and Hardy et al. (2006). Gray (1989: 273) advocated for conflict to be channelled so that it can “expand, rather than reduce, our capacity to act”.

4.16.2.1Collaborative relationships, power, politics and negotiation

Gray (1989: 119-130) argued that collaboration requires shared power and that relationships are inevitably political. However, she explained that to achieve power sharing, partners need to negotiate and make conscious choices about how power is exercised. She advocated a

theoretical approach to collaboration based on negotiated order theory, which directs attention at micro-level interactions and relationships between individuals within a particular social context.

Gray explained that the dynamics of power shift over time according to the different phases as the partnership progresses.

According to Hardy et al. (2005), collaboration involves “a complex set of ongoing communicative processes” so that to be effective it depends on relationships rather than on market or hierarchical structures. The discursive approach adopted by Lawrence et al. (1999) assumes that collaboration is a socially constructed process that involves the negotiation of roles and responsibilities and highlights the role of context. According to Lawrence et al. (1999), collaborative relationships require agreement on three key dimensions and these are the issue to be addressed, the interests to be represented and who will represent the agreed interests.

They explained that negotiation is necessary as “collaborative issues are highly political” so they require “some sense of intersection of purpose” to determine mutual benefits. Collaboration requires an ongoing process of negotiation of meaning so that the participants establish “sufficient agreement on issues, interests, and representations to allow the collaboration to move forward”.

4.16.2.2Managing tensions: convergence and divergence

Hardy et al. (2006) discussed two types of tension in multi-sector collaboration, so that although multiple parties may all have a stake or connection with the problem or issue, there are ways in which various stakeholders may converge around the issue, and ways in which they may diverge from each other.

The one tension arises because different organisations see the problem differently or favour their own solutions or interests rather than developing something together. So the tension in the first case is between the partners that are working together. The other tension is at a broader level and is between the collaboration and the wider stakeholder community that may be affected by the issue. In the latter situation, the goals agreed by the partners may differ from needs and expectations at a broader level.

According to Hardy et al.(ibid), where there is divergence and a lack of coherence, then confusion is a barrier to communication; whereas greater conformity and coherence can lead to understanding so that communication is much easier. They cautioned that greater conformity may also lead to a lack of creativity as the diversity and difference between the parties is diminished.

They encouraged a balance between diverse perspectives while still achieving a level of coherence to facilitate understanding and communication amongst the partners. They concluded that both convergence (conformity) and divergence (confusion) are needed to create the potential for innovative ideas to emerge from collaborative activities.

Hardy et al. (2005) concurred with this assessment and argued for an ongoing tension between divergence and convergence, between ambiguity and clarity in the collaborative conversations.

They argued that effective collaboration generates innovation only when ambiguity is viewed as an opportunity and is applied productively to challenge and question the status quo.