My colleague, Harold Jarche (the PKM guy), has maintained that cooperation is of more value than collaboration. And for good reason, because cooperation comes from internal motivation instead of external direction. But this has bugged me, so I naturally tried to make a diagram that helps me think about it. So here’s a stab an unpacking collaboration and cooperation.
His argument, most convincingly can be summed up in this quote (I’ve simplified) he takes from Stephen Downes:
collaboration means ‘working together‘. That‘s why you see it in market economies…
cooperation means ‘sharing‘. That‘s why you see it in networks…
That is, when you’re offering to work together without some recompense, it’s a higher order. And I agree.
However, I like to think of collaboration as a higher form of thinking. That is, working together to generate a new, negotiated understanding richer than any we could generate on our own. Cooperation means I point to something or give you some feedback, but we’re not necessarily engaged in creation.
The question is how to reconcile this. And it occurred to me to pull it apart a bit. Because I’ve seen, heck I’ve participated in exercises where we collaborate for the greater good. Sharing. So I wondered if I might tease out two dimensions.
I wondered whether there are two types of cognitive actions, e.g. collaboration and communication. That is, for one you’re just offering pointers or opinions, without necessarily having any skin in the game. In the other, you’re actively working with someone to generate a new interpretation.
That’s coupled with a second dimension, whether the goal has been dictated externally (e.g. here team, find a solution to this problem) or has emerged from the participant. It’s about locus of control.
You end up with different types of categories. If someone’s asked you to collaborate, it’s likely some sort of project team. Less intently, it may be a ‘show your work’ type of thing, where the organizational culture is supporting sharing, but it’s also an expectation.
On the other hand, you can be just contributing to others by commenting on their blog posts (hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink). Or you could be part of a Community of Practice and actively trying to improve something.
And I could be totally missing the nuances he’s talking about.
I don’t know if this addresses the issue or not, but it’s my stab at unpacking collaboration and cooperation. And I share it, because I’m wrestling with it, and it’s how I learn out loud. I invite your thoughts.
Thanks for the post, Clark. Now that you have the diagram drawn, can you test it by trying to work it in reverse? That is, do you think it’s true a majority of the time that when people show their work in an organization they do so because they’ve been directed to, or did they do so independently because they’re hoping it leads to others doing the same and leading to something of benefit to them down the road? Similarly, when I comment here, am I not trying to actively improve something?
How does your construct differ from Harold’s “Goal-oriented vs Opportunity-driven” and “Structured vs Informal” dimensions?
I think collaboration and cooperation are interchangeable words. I think examining an opposite meaning like competition will throw more light on working relationships. Elements of competition appear in most relationships and understanding the objects of competition can be revealing.
Brigit, in Harold’s mind, they’re not. Collaboration is something you do to an end, with an expectation of effort or a tangible reward. Cooperation, in his mind, is more a personal willingness to contribute with no direction to do so, and no immediate benefit except to the collective good. It has to do with motivation more than mechanism. I’m teasing out that there can be unmotivated collaboration too (and coopted communication). I’m willing to be wrong, so thanks for the feedback, and will ponder.
Chad, thanks for the feedback. I think some people will show their work in an org (if it’s not a Miranda org), but in other cases it becomes part of the org culture, deliberately or not. And, yes, improving things by commenting is part of cooperation, but it’s not coerced or expected. That’s my story. Not sure I get goal-oriented vs opportunity driven (I’ll have to check with Harold ;), but structured vs informal maps pretty well to operation/cooperation.
Haven’t commented for awhile, and this is an older post, but here goes. One thing that I’ve always struggled with is the notion that collaboration seems to run counter to the 3 principles of intrinsic motivation, which are autonomy, mastery and purpose. Is it possible to have autonomy in a collaborative task, or even mastery (maybe purpose). But when you consider cooperation, you can most definitely have autonomy and mastery, in the sense that I rely on you to get stuff that I need to do my job and you rely on me to get stuff to do your job, so we cooperate for mutual benefits. Can you have autonomy, mastery and purpose in a purely collaborative task?
Christine, those were Dan Pink’s three things, and having learned of Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, I know that the richer picture is mastery, autonomy, and relatedness. That said, I’m a fan of purpose too! (Which is an element of relatedness.) Now, enough pedantry, and to your questions…I think you definitely can have autonomy and mastery in a collaborative task, even if it’s operational (the cooperative collaboration already fits, to me). First, you should be there because you bring unique capabilities (otherwise, you’re redundant), so we’re tapping into diversity, and thus your mastery is why you’re there. There should be facilitation, so that’s supports your continual acquisition of mastery too, and you should be reflecting on what you do back to your community of practice (thinking of the Coherent Organization model). And you (should) choose to contribute in the activity, particularly your own expertise, so that’s autonomy. Of course, to collaborate there should be a clear purpose. At least, that’s my take.
Thanks for your direct response, and I agree that when people can contribute unique talents to a problem/project, it can be rewarding. However, there can be times when people’s skill-sets are too similar. In this regard, it becomes a “too many cooks spoil the soup” situation. And, people need to work and learn independently for much of the time to develop their unique skills in which to contribute to the group. Don’t you think?
Christine, yes, I argue that you want diversity in teams is desirable, and in many ways: skillsets, and all the other factors in DEI. Having similar folks is, indeed, redundant. In the Coherent Org model, you get developed in team work and then back through your community of practice. So, I do think that much of the self-development is, and arguably best, social. However, a good component is also independent, I agree. So you can also do your own self-learning, particularly if your org has helped develop your learn-to-learn skills.