Artefact 4

A Moderately Successful Collaboration

I would characterize the results of this group effort as a successful, but limited, example of collaboration. This evaluation is based on what was achieved in this group project, and how much more I feel that I can contribute in future collaborative projects. The group development process requires work and takes time. It is still in the early stages of development (as described below).

A New View of What Collaboration Is

Much of my prior experience working in “collaborative teams”, I would now describe as “cooperative work sharing”, based on my readings and discoveries in this course.

As described by D’Amour et al.  in the Journal of Interprofessional Care, (May 2005) Supplement 1: 116 – 131:

“According to Brill (1976), Ivey et al. (1987) and Satin (1994), collaboration within a team can be described on a continuum of professional autonomy. At one end of the spectrum, professionals intervene on an autonomous or parallel basis, thus creating a de facto parallel practice (Satin, 1994).

At the other end of the spectrum, professionals have a narrower margin of autonomy but the team as a whole is more autonomous and its members are better integrated (Ivey et al., 1987; Satin, 1994).”

Jointly Developing Group Processes

The task structure chosen by the group required both collaborative and cooperative tasks to be completed to an agreed plan. For the collaborative tasks – constructing and sharing the presentation - Google Docs was used to share access to the presentation content. A ‘trial run’ was scheduled using Adobe Connect. Each group member populated the shared presentation with their individual sections prior to the ‘trial run’.

Practicing the presentation identified timing issues, and too much content for the time allotted. Based on feedback from the group, each team member revised their own sections, and the conclusion section was shortened.

At the time, this small group collaboration caused me a great deal of concern. I expected that, as our work progressed, we would become more engaged as a team and achieve better results over time. This was not the case.

We started out well – when the four of us met on Skype, we had a collegial discussion and all seemed to be going well. However, I started to get emails from one group member that I found disturbing and aggressive, and that I felt required a very careful response. Then, for a considerable period, I heard nothing in response to my emails. I noticed that some of my work on the collaborative PowerPoint presentation had been removed without any discussion, so I responded questioning why. My teammate thought my contribution in a particular area was not appropriate and – working as editor – had removed it. It did not seem to be negotiable, and I went along with this decision.

With hindsight, the collaboration of four appeared to me to be quite successful. However when working with just the two of us, it seemed that I had become the employee and my teammate had become the boss. This was not a relationship that I was comfortable with, but at the time I acquiesced.

Initially, I thought that I had inadvertently caused friction with my teammate and I attempted to clarify the issues and apologize for any unintended difficulty that I had caused. However, this did not resolve the issue.

I was concerned, but felt that I should examine my own actions as a teammate and also investigate more about team dynamics and collaboration theories (in order to determine what I was doing wrong). I now believe that my teammate had a specific way of working, based on operating in a corporate environment, directing others, and had expected that my work style and responses would be the same.

In researching team conflict issues, I discovered the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument and gained some insights from it. Specifically, I recognized that I had chosen to take an “accommodating” view. This may be because, although motivated to create the best presentation possible, deadlines were looming and I did not feel confident that my concerns would lead to any change in the outcome. Hence, my goal became to placate (and ultimately to yield) rather than to try and build a true collaborative view. With hindsight, this may still have been the best approach in the situation. I aspired to be in a strong collaboration, but I felt that the particular dynamics I had encountered were too much of a barrier to developing synergies in this particular collaboration.

In one of the web articles referenced in my personal reflection on the collaboration, the article describes different “work styles” that members of the collaboration team might display. The following description seemed to reflect my experience with this one team member extremely well:

Work style: #1 Driver

The Drivers are the ones in charge or trying to control the work of the group. These are the leaders. They are concerned with NOW (present). In general, Drivers are task-oriented and extroverted.

Drivers are swift to take action, move quickly, and want to see results. Drivers are decision makers, willing to take risks, and want to get the job done! Drivers are very high achievers. They are independent, decisive, efficient, practical.

Drivers can often hurt morale, they don’t listen well, and are usually unconcerned with others feelings. They are dominating, harsh, pushy, and aggressive.

Drivers need to learn to LISTEN. ("Collaborative Cultures," n.d., p. 4).

I felt that the above description did indeed reflect my experience, and that differences to my work style may have been at the root of at least some of the difficulties. I reviewed the other three work styles identified: #2 Expressive, #3 Amiable, and #4 Analytical. I believe that I show some characteristics from all three of the descriptions provided. I categorize my work style as “evolving.”

From this – initially off-putting – experience, I became more interested in understanding the dynamics of good collaboration and, based on my reading, I became interested in aspects of successful negotiation. I needed a method of determining what constitutes “good negotiation.” I located the following description, which I have now taken to heart:

Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. (A wise agreement can be defined as one which meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.) Fisher & Ury (1991).

Based on the above description, I would describe my actions at the time as “damage control,” in line with not causing further disruption to the project.

The following quote, from Shell (2001) describes the importance of understanding “bargaining styles.” He characterizes them as both important to understand, and relatively fixed (i.e., non-negotiable):

Bargaining styles, as I see them, are relatively stable, personality-driven clusters of behaviors and reactions that arise in negotiating encounters. They are, in the words of Gilkey and Greenhalgh (1986: 245), “patterns in individuals’ behavior that reappear in various [bargaining] situations” through the mechanism of “predispositions” toward particular courses of conduct. For example, people who strongly dislike interpersonal conflict will likely carry this dislike with them into many bargaining encounters. This trait will affect their effectiveness when the negotiation shows signs of becoming confrontational. Similarly, people who thrive on interpersonal conflict and explicit disagreement in their personal relations will experience stress, and may become less effective, when the bargaining situation calls for subtle tact and diplomacy. (p. 155).

I strongly dislike interpersonal conflict (and potentially it can affect my health) however, I would certainly not describe myself as timid! I think that I have a realistic approach to negotiation and can determine when it is appropriate, and when it is unlikely to yield useful results.

Experiencing a less-than-perfect collaboration on this occasion caused me to do some research that gained me a greater understanding of the issues that can arise in group work. I feel that I gained from this experience, since it motivated me to do considerable soul-searching and additional research. I feel that the results were positive and, I now feel that collaborative work will be at the core of my activities as a supporter of people facing issues, and in working with community groups.

I will revisit this learning about collaboration in my reflection on Artefact five, as I feel that was an experience that truly reflects an exciting, and very successfully collaboration (as well as an informative experience with technology!)