Discussion: View Thread

George,

At the risk of oversimplifying ... Synergy results from collaboration
instead of competition... leadership has to do with how you get distinct
individuals to collaborate instead of compete. The distinct polarization
of leader-follower may lead away from capitalizing the individual gifts of
the members that enhance the community as power struggles erupt. Leadership
effectiveness depends on the ability to refocus and transform the power
struggles (competition) among individuals towards a communal and shared
goal (collaboration).

Reframing a bit what you posted...

hard skills(technology),
soft skills (cooperation and interpersonal),
Leadership skills (LMX and charisma).
followership skills (LMX and charisma)

Individuals can be gifted or challenged on each of these skills. If one
side of the dyad has the relevant quality of skills to collaborate, it can
muddle through, but if both sides have it, they can do great things under
the most stressful conditions. I guess that is what you mean by an
effective marriage.

"Yes, it takes leaders' right stuff, followers' right stuff, and a
relationship with the right stuff to create synergy".

In a simplified statement --- Synergy results from collaboration and
leadership just has to do with enabling collaboration...

the building falls down - with poor technology,
the building never gets finished- with poor cooperation and interpersonal
relations,
the building gets deserted- with poor leadership/followership,

Cordially,

Esteban





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

esteban.trevino@neoris.com 07/05/02 02:48PM
Leadership effectiveness depends on the ability to refocus and transform the power
struggles (competition) among individuals towards a communal and shared
goal (collaboration).
Esteban

Dear Estaban,

As usual, well said.

I would like to offer another complementary viewpoint on a key enabler of the leader's "ability to refocus and transform the power".

When a given activity is set up, on one level it is played out thru one of two dynamics: equifinality (different paths to the same outcome) or multifinality (different paths leading to different outcomes).

One key determiner of which dynamic operates has been expressed and popularized to the point of triteness: the leader's vision. What I have found is that all too often people forget that a key requirement of vison is that it serves as a source of satisfaction for both the follower and the leader. That is, the vision must connect in a real way with stimulated needs. Given the variety of needs in a given population the vision must be multifaceted in respects to defining sources of satisfaction, i.e. connects to each stakeholder.

Another key determiner the leader's ability to keep equifinality (or competition) within a productive range. Rules and regulations are often the turned to as the first means to do this. However, a more effective means is to define core values that form an attractive core that limits the range of equifinality expressed. In other words, many see values as a bedrock or as guidelines that keep behavior within. I submit that values best operates as a field generator that keeps behavior within a given "orbit".

Kind wishes.

Ed
Drive On!

Ed,

Thank you. I have been pondering and hold that unless equifinality becomes
the core value we get competition, that lowers the overall returns possible
with collaboration. That is we need the equifinality of collaboration
instead of competition that integrates the multifinality of individuals
into a shared goal.

A couple of examples, the prisoners dilemma comes to mind... without
collaboration the resulting outcomes tends to be less than maximum, where a
slight personal benefit produces a grater cost to the whole. A second
example could be the tragedy of the commons, where resources become
depleted because the individual cost of investing in the land does not
correspond to the benefits obtained by them. A third and last example could
be tit-for-tat, where the strategy that wins the contest happens to be the
strategy that can't win (at best it can tie and at worst be one behind).

I would say that a vision just needs to be sustainable . The leaders role
requires transforming and focusing individuals perceptions so that they get
their needs satisfied under the equifinal shared goal. Unfortunately this
does require individuals resolutions that may seem less than optimal,
especialy under the uncertainty of defectors and free-riders...

Getting a prisoners to collaborate instead of defect seem counter intuitive
without having the commitment of the other... A leader must transform a
zero-sum game into a win-win. The core equifinal objective being
sustainable collaboration instead of individualistic returns. Unfortunately
sustaining such a collaborative vision does require for individuals to
trust and even sacrifice themselves to maximize the groups returns...

Cordially,

Esteban





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

esteban.trevino@neoris.com 07/15/02 08:35PM
Getting a prisoners to collaborate instead of defect seem counter intuitive
without having the commitment of the other... A leader must transform a
zero-sum game into a win-win. The core equifinal objective being
sustainable collaboration instead of individualistic returns. Unfortunately
sustaining such a collaborative vision does require for individuals to
trust and even sacrifice themselves to maximize the groups returns...
Cordially, Esteban
Esteban,

As always, well articulated and valued words. I offer a perspective on collaboration for consideration.

I think the idea of collaboration bears some further study/discussion as it is a very important foundationally dynamic for leadership. Specifically, I believe that to gain productivity, a group has to be taken beyond mere collaboration to effective collaboration. To explain:

Regarding collaboration vs competition, I have come to understand and promote/teach the idea that the default position for any human relationship is competition.

I have devised a simple exercise in which I will put a group of 5-6 people in front of an easel and a marker. I will then tell them their purpose is to be the most creative group in the world; that they are to express their creativity by each person making a mark on the easel or board. I then tell them that at the end of two minutes I will ask them to tell me what they have created. I then say "go".

I have done this for about 10 years. In one in ten groups will ever stop to plan (e.g. "let's make a house", "let's make a star", etc.) Normally one person grabs the marker and makes a mark. Each person then similarly works independently unless some identifiable pattern develops. If such a pattern develops, the remainder of the group exhibits some synergistic collaboration.

During deprocessing, it becomes fairly evident that members are motivated more to salsify one of McClelland's three motivations (affiliation, achievement, or power) and are less concerned about group satisfaction. Yet groups will argue that they were working collaboratively even though their group process was multifinal.

There are, of course, many other points that can be drawn from the exercise, but I will only dwell upon this one.

Contrary to the popular saying, Leaders DON'T motivate people. People come motivated. Leaders who are exercising leadership shape motivations.

(By the way, this points to a deeper consideration: the context of the situation will cause some filtering and shaping of the follower group since a given context will attract or repel people, depending upon motivational structures and biases. So much attention is placed upon the leader, but so much of the leadership dynamic is contingent upon the shaping dynamics and forces of the context.)

Back to point: Leaders harness motivations so the group effort is equifinal vs multifinal. The key is that they must build the harness. I believe that two key components of the "harness" are goal clarity and a unifying, orchestrating plan. If such is missing, groups who behaving with multifinality may believe they are working with equifinality as they work toward self-defined goals with a self-developed plan.

That is, if a group is working together in a collaborative way that is equifinal in their eyes but will wind up multifinal in the eyes of the manager or leader, is this acceptable collaborative behavior. I think not.

Kind wishes.

Ed
Drive On!

Ed,

Thank you again.

Indeed " a group has to be taken beyond mere collaboration to effective
collaboration" as an orchestrated team.

What I wonder about has to do with changing the identifiable pattern that
emerges and develops so that it corresponds to a desirable one. As you
state "If such a pattern develops, the remainder of the group exhibits some
synergistic collaboration" which itself "cause some filtering and shaping
of the ... group since a given context will attract or repel people,
depending upon motivational structures and biases".

It would seem that weak leader depend on the context and circumstances that
happen to exist to harness and direct a group and that a strong leader can
transform a group desires, motivational structures and biases. I am curious
to learn what others have to comment on these strong leaders, the leaders
that lead the leaders... and the practices they employ.

"Goal clarity and a unifying, orchestrating plan" may happen to only be
understood by the leader who has the duty to coordinate the multifinality
work (with self-defined goals and a self-developed plan) into the
equifinality symphony.

Cordially,

Estebab



____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

On this point, you might find very recent research interesting.

"Brain Scans Show Why We Love Cooperating"
Wed Jul 17, 2:19 PM ET
By Alison McCook

The author points out that "I find it interesting and reassuring that it
seems the brain's default mode is to cooperate, and not to defect". He
is specifically referring to research using the Prisoner's Dilemma game.

Check this out:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=571&u=/nm/20020717/hl_n
m/brain_cooperation_dc_1&printer=1

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Hampton [mailto:ehampton@mail.ucf.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:26 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Collaboration synergy & Leadership

<snip>

Regarding collaboration vs competition, I have come to understand and
promote/teach the idea that the default position for any human
relationship is competition.

Thank you, Bob.

Interesting article...

The title should had read : "Brain Scans Show Why women Love Cooperating"
... The study as reported in the article focused only on women to prevent
any sexual undertones ... which ironically incorporates sexual undertones :
-) In any case I would be cautious, for we may be 'wired' to cooperate but
the predominant social dynamics educated most to compete...

Cordially,

Esteban





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Thank you, Bob, for the article and thank you, Estaban, for the comment.

I have used the Prisoner's Dilemma for over 15 years. My experience is that - while it may be true that we get pleasure from cooperation - the initial choices of the two teams is rarely "AX" which would result in both teams "winning". I have not kept precise statistics, but my gut tells me the predominant choice is "BY" in which both teams lose.

Further, I find that the incidence of lying to win (the game sets up tremendous incentives to do so) is a gut-derived 80-90%.

Two of the many insights gained from using Prisoner's Dilemma that seem germane here:

a. Trust is a huge factor. If there is a prevalent feeling of trust, then there is often a sense of community that promotes risk taking and reduces caving in to the pressure to lie.

b. I have come to differentiate two types of cooperation. One is based in altruism and/or egalitarianism. The other is not. I submit that if cooperation is not based in altruism and/or egalitarianism, it is really masked competition. That is, cooperative behavior is simply a tool to successfully gain a competitive edge; a means to a competitive end. For me, the litmus test is this: is the cooperation approached assertively, i.e. with expressed interest in involved parties getting equitable need satisfaction or is it approached aggressively, i.e. with the central expressed interest (albeit masked) being getting as much self satisfaction as possible while giving up as little as possible in the process.

Kind wishes.

Ed
Drive On!

>>> esteban.trevino@neoris.com 07/17/02 05:01PM >>>
Thank you, Bob.

Interesting article...

The title should had read : "Brain Scans Show Why women Love Cooperating"
... The study as reported in the article focused only on women to prevent
any sexual undertones ... which ironically incorporates sexual undertones :
-) In any case I would be cautious, for we may be 'wired' to cooperate but
the predominant social dynamics educated most to compete...

Cordially,

Esteban





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Regarding Ed's differentiation of two types of cooperation, my
understanding of the PD game is that cooperation emerges from a "tit for
tat" strategy. Thus, cooperation in this case may best be conceived as
imbedded in norms of reciprocity.

Best, Kim Boal

P.S. The discussion on leadership was quite interesting. I copyied it to
one of my Ph.D. students who is doing a dissertation on systems dynamics
and leadership. One point missed in the disccussion was the difference
between leadership "in an organization" and leadership "of an organization"
(See Boal & Hooijberg, Yearly Review of Leadership in Leadership
Quarterly, Winter 2000). This distinction allows you to clearly separate
many of the traditional theories of leadership,e.g., path-goal (and
substitutes), LMX, Contingency, and Vroom-Yetton from emerging theeories
dealing with Charisma or transformational leadership (e.g., House & Shamir,
Boal & Bryon, Bass & Avolio).

At 10:15 AM 7/25/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Thank you, Bob, for the article and thank you, Estaban, for the comment.
>
>I have used the Prisoner's Dilemma for over 15 years. My experience is
that - while it may be true that we get pleasure from cooperation - the
initial choices of the two teams is rarely "AX" which would result in both
teams "winning". I have not kept precise statistics, but my gut tells me
the predominant choice is "BY" in which both teams lose.
>
>Further, I find that the incidence of lying to win (the game sets up
tremendous incentives to do so) is a gut-derived 80-90%.
>
>Two of the many insights gained from using Prisoner's Dilemma that seem
germane here:
>
> a. Trust is a huge factor. If there is a prevalent feeling of trust,
then there is often a sense of community that promotes risk taking and
reduces caving in to the pressure to lie.
>
> b. I have come to differentiate two types of cooperation. One is
based in altruism and/or egalitarianism. The other is not. I submit that
if cooperation is not based in altruism and/or egalitarianism, it is really
masked competition. That is, cooperative behavior is simply a tool to
successfully gain a competitive edge; a means to a competitive end. For
me, the litmus test is this: is the cooperation approached assertively,
i.e. with expressed interest in involved parties getting equitable need
satisfaction or is it approached aggressively, i.e. with the central
expressed interest (albeit masked) being getting as much self satisfaction
as possible while giving up as little as possible in the process.
>
>Kind wishes.
>
>Ed
>Drive On!
>
>>>> esteban.trevino@neoris.com 07/17/02 05:01PM >>>
>Thank you, Bob.
>
>Interesting article...
>
>The title should had read : "Brain Scans Show Why women Love Cooperating"
>... The study as reported in the article focused only on women to prevent
>any sexual undertones ... which ironically incorporates sexual undertones :
>-) In any case I would be cautious, for we may be 'wired' to cooperate but
>the predominant social dynamics educated most to compete...
>
>Cordially,
>
>Esteban
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
>Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Axelrod's more recent work indicates that while "tit for tat" (Win-Win)
strategies will evolve throughout a population when interactions have a
future, those resulting collaborative cultures move to a cooperate at
all times paradigm (lose-win), which then becomes very vulnerable to
invaders and mutations that move to always betray -- (Win/lose)

It is an interesting process to try to get consistently collaborative
(give up, lose win) managers to actually try the tit for tat strategy in
real life. Its just not nice...

--
Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior
Stuart Graduate School of Business
Illinois Institute of Technology
565 West Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Voice: (630) 221-9456
Fax: (312) 906-6549
mailto://barlow@stuart.iit.edu
http://www.stuart.iit.edu/faculty/barlow

Christopher,

The vulnerability comes from a lack of communication within the model.
Collaborative culture that evolved into a cooperate at all times paradigm
have a registry of what the individual has done (did last), this eliminates
the vulnerability... In real life this translates into one's prestige
within the community and personal recommendations... , which leads to all
sort of other complications...

In regards to consistently collaborative managers implied lack of use of
tit for tat strategy, because "Its just not nice"... well certainly they
would not recommend / promote nor deal again with someone who betrayed
them... Yes for a time the invaders can exploit and prey on the cooperative
trusting individuals but eventually the word gets around and they loose the
ability to exploit others...

Cordially,

Esteban





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

From: Sue Vickers-Thompson [mailto:sue.vickersthompson@btinternet.com]

Does anyone have any other evidence about collaboration? I'm interested
as
we support on-line collaborative research for assignments but I'm not
sure
about the evidence - collaboration versus competition may equal female
v.
male?? Synergy v. personal achievement? If this is only based on women,
I'd
be concerned about the validity of other studies, not to mention its
usage
for teaching purposes?
Discussions, anyone?
Sue,
Open University Business School