Collaboration Strategies

Collaboration Strategies
9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1
Relationships
Morally opposed	Enemy	Opposed	Uncooperative	Neutral	Cooperative	Allied	Unified	Morally aligned
Communications Strategies						Type of collaboration
			Type of negotiation			Agreements	Teamwork	Union
Type of Maneuvering			Positional	Principled	Interest	Resloved
Intractable	Hardball	Pacification	Negotiable
Relationship-building Strategies
Transform into a negotiable situation.	Convince them that there is something to negotiate about.	Convince them that a negotiated settlement is better for them than other alternatives.	Persuade them that there are better solutions available. Show concern for their interests.	Bargain for mutual disclosure of interests. Develop respect, establish trust.	Find an optimal solution that eliminates the conflict.	Appreciate differences, acknowledge partnerships, build mutual admiration.	Appreciate common interests, teamwork, and celebrate contributions.	Appreciate contributions, appreciate the shared vision, share the vision.
Action Strategies
Neutralize, injure, or dominate.	Force compliance, pester, irritate, or trick.	Block action, delay, appease.	Locate possibilities within the intersection of positions, reach compromise, accept non-optimal solutions.	Find agreeable standards or neutral mediation.	Find common interests, build workable solutions.	Coordinate, maintain independence, and forge agreements.	Identify the common good, establish institutions, and build teams and organizations.	Indoctrinate (share the vision) establish general principles, and define expected norms.

Collaboration is defined by the quality of relationships. On the far left side (high numbers) the relationship is characterized by enmity and hatred. On the far right side (low numbers) the relationship is characterized by appreciation and love.

You can generally tell the collaborative level of a relationship or of an organization by looking at the communication strategies that are in use. Refer to the Communications Strategies row in the chart. The first major delineation is between Maneuvering, Negotiation, and Collaboration. If people are generally "playing games" they are in the left half of the chart. The more disgusting and the less productive the games are, the further to the left. If the nature of the relationship is endless discussion, or primarily talk rather than action, then the chances are that the communication strategy is some type of Negotiation. If things are generally working and producing useful results, the the communication strategy is probably some type of Collaboration.

In "Intractable" communications, one or more parties think "there is nothing to talk about." In "Hardball" communications, it is "My way or the highway" -- still nothing to talk about, but there is some agenda present. In "Pacification" communications the idea is to keep the opponent busy to stop them from making any productive headway. This is exemplified by the Palestinian so-called negotiations with Israel. Pacification is all about delay while looking for some way to "beat" the opponent.

True negotiations occur when people really want results enough to communicate. In "Positional" negotiations one or more sides takes a "position" or posture -- they say "I will do this and that is all." There is no compromise possible. In "Principled" negotiations, the parties agree to be bound by some standard or by the decisions of some outside or disinterested mediator. They don't trust each other enough to talk about their real interests, but they will agree to a principle outside of themselves. The result is most often a non-optimal solution. The essence of Principled negotiations is "Compromise" and "Consensus" which leads to poor implementations. Example: Party 'A' wants to go to the beach to surf for vacation. Party 'B' wants to go to the mountains to go snow skiing. They compromise and end up spending the vacation in Ohio. Nobody gets what they want, but at least everyone is equal in their misery. In "Interest" negotiations -- negotiating on the interests -- the parties trust one another enough to place their real interests on the table together. In this way, all of the parties can look at all of the interests and try to come up with a solution that is optimal for everyone. Of course there is no guarantee that an optimal solution is possible, but without negotiating on the interests, the potential for an optimal solution is never really considered.

True collaboration begins when the conflicts are resolved. At the lowest level of collaboration, people operate by making and keeping agreements. Basic functioning begins with being able to make and keep agreements. "I am my word" is the essence. Each level of collaboration builds on this foundation. In Teamwork, people are entrusted to identify the common good and take independent action. Actual decision making and power to respond is distributed among the participants. In Teamwork collaboration, there will still be interests that are not in common, but these tend to be minimized while the common interests are served and celebrated. In Union collaboration, interests that are not in common disappear -- everyone in the organization is in "one boat" and have a shared vision and a shared destiny.

At any collaboration level, you have the choice of trying to improve the relationship or going for results. The Relationship-building Strategies row of the chart identifies at each level what must be achieved in the relationship to get to the next level to the right. The Action Strategies row of the chart describes what can be achieved at that level. In general, every action from the middle of the chart to the left will tend to degrade or damage the relationships, and every action from the middle of the chart to the right will tend to strengthen and improve relationships.