Power, Conflict & Learning in Interorganizational Domains Barbara Gray Pennsylvania State University and Visiting Chair, Tilburg University Wageningen.

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

What Factors Motivate Your Organization to Collaborate?

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

However, all domains are not conducive to collaboration

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

Quote for Talleyrand

There is one person that is wiser than

anybody, and that is everybody.