The Enabling State: Collaborating for Success - Management and ...

The Enabling State:Collaborating for SuccessContentsReport for the FCO intoCollaboration and PartnershipLucian J. HudsonSpecial Assignment, FCO (July-October 2008)(Report updated at Ministry of Justice, June2009, after Whitehall consultation)Copyright 2009 by Lucian J. Hudson.All rights reserved.For further inquires, contact:lucian.hudson@googlemail.comThe views expressed in this publication are thoseof the individual contributors and should notbe read or interpreted as statements of HerMajesty’s Government (HMG) or Foreign andCommonwealth Office (FCO) policy. Nothingcontained herein should be considered as givingrise to any legitimate expectation that HMG orFCO will take any action or adopt a particularposition.SummaryAcknowledgementsIntroductionChapter 1: Understanding collaboration(Appendix Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode Instrument)491223Designed by: Rod Crowhurst,Foreign and Commonwealth OfficeCrowd image supplied by Getty ImagesThe text in this publication (excluding the RoyalArms or departmental logos) may be reproducedfree of charge in any format or mediumproviding it is reproduced accurately and notused in a misleading context. The material mustbe acknowledged as Crown copyright and thetitle and author of the source documentspecified.Where we have identified any third partycopyright material you will need to obtainpermission from the copyright holdersconcerned.Chapter 2: Effective collaborationPart 1 An approach to building collaborationPart 2 Steps to take, and model to develop relationshipsPart 3 Common challengesChapter 3: Collaboration and its impact on organizations(Appendix Collaborative Partnerships Model)Chapter 4: Social collaboration: how it can workChapter 5: Collaboration and its implementation49506892114140175Any enquiries relating to the copyright in thisdocument should be addressed to the Office ofPublic Sector Information (OPSI), InformationPolicy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU ore-mail:Notes/References/BibliographyAppendix: Compendium of Case Studies217235licensing@opsi.gov.ukAppendix: Survey257Available online at:www.fco.gov.uk/pdpublicationAppendix:Risk and Regulation260Appendix: Naked Generations267Appendix: Group Relations2793

SummaryThis report is both acomprehensive account ofwhat makes for effectivecollaboration and partnershipbetween and withinorganizations, and acontribution to the debateabout how at a time ofpressure on resources,governments, business andNGOs can do better for less.Collaboration is a simple idea,yet it is often much moredifficult in practice.The big prize is better performanceand better governance: making savingsthrough synergies, and involving thepeople most affected to feel part of thedecision-making process, owning thechanges rather having them imposed.If regulation is ultimately about howsystems connect, and becomeself-supporting, this report arguesthat no changes in regulation willwork unless we have also takeninto account the human side ofcollaboration. Whatever policies arein place, the tough challenges that weface - climate change, fighting diseasessuch AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria -require institutions and citizens to worktogether.Policy-makers need a framework inwhich independence, interdependenceand dependence all co-exist, and have apart to play, or we risk tackling only partof the problem, and ignoring how therest of the system responds, and actson its own. A holistic approach is notjust about seeing how a whole systemfunctions, but also about how each ofits parts interacts, and generates newproblems and solutions, and howone system interacts with another.Organizations now have to respondto that reality rather than work on theirown. The thinking and case examplesin this report plug the gap betweenthe rhetoric of closer collaborationand what it takes to make it real.Anger and dissatisfaction withinstitutions must at some point giveway to a more honest relationshipand a shared sense of renewal. Ifgovernments are to reconnect withtheir citizens, they must focus bothon what their policies are designedto achieve and how those policies areimplemented. This means effectiveengagement with the issues and withothers.An enabling state collaborates forsuccess. Efficiency, effectiveness andengagement are inextricably linked.Working to a common end which noone person or organization can achievealone, collaboration requires advancedleadership and team-working skills anda change of attitude. We need to getmuch better at building collaborationand making partnerships work. Thegrowing global role of the East onlyserves to remind many in the West howmuch many Asian cultures are built onthe importance of relationships and thevalue put on trust and reciprocity.Collaboration does not offer magicsolutions and is often tough-going. Butif done for the right reasons and in theright way, it can open up possibilitiesand deliver breakthroughs whichtraditional means of planning andcontrol cannot produce.Collaboration begets collaboration.There is a proverb used in reconciliationefforts in Rwanda: “to go fast, walkalone; to go far, walk together”. In an4 5

interconnected world, it gives us morechoice in how we tackle apparentlyintractable challenges because it tries totap more of the ideas, aspirations andconcerns that are critical to successfuldelivery. In so doing, it builds legitimacyand commitment, and generatesoptions. Whether the initiative beginsat the top or on the front line,collaboration makes it possible toweave together different contributions.Power comes through effectiveinteraction rather than from whooperates which lever. The secret ofeffective leadership is to use one’sstrengths while not crowding out thestrengths of other people and to createthe conditions in which responsibilityand credit are shared.Key Conclusions1. Collaboration is both prevalent andpervasive. It is becoming increasinglyimportant as organizations work withothers to build together what theycannot achieve alone. The quality ofcollaboration and partnerships variesgreatly, whether in the private, publicor non-profit sector. We are missingopportunities all the time. Weuse collaboration as part ofimplementation when we couldalso use it more strategically andinvolve others in the very definitionof the problem we seek to solve.We use the term “partnership” asexhortation rather than workingthough what precisely effectivepartnership means.2. Collaboration works. But it can workso much better if we treat it explicitlyas a resource in which we invest timeand energy and if we deal with thecomplexities of working incollaboration. Our investment incollaboration should carry a returnfor all those who contribute to it.It has costs, including opportunitycosts, but thinking strategicallyabout collaboration makes betteruse of resources in both the shortand long term. Collaboration allowsus to handle complex, fast-changingand emergent situations in whichwe can build intentions with limitedknowledge, respond to unintendedconsequences and implementlearning as it happens.3. Collaboration changes the game.It can produce possibilities thatcannot be delivered by conflict andnegotiation. But we need to exploitwhat is changing and dynamic insituations rather than impose ourown assumptions if we are to tapthe potential of others’ contributions.Collaboration can be with a narrowgroup or a wider network or sets ofnetworks. It can be scaled to fit thenature of the challenge that needsto be tackled.4. Collaboration changes how peopleand societies develop. Most socialor organizational problems do notlend themselves easily to solutions,not because the technical meansto tackle them do not exist butbecause the political will and publicengagement are not there to makethe changes. Markets and hierarchieshave their place but we need also tocreate and support collaborativeworking on issues that bringsectors, organizations and citizenstogether. Leadership is not enough;collaboration of all involved is alsoneeded. Collaboration helps us toexplore issues of power and explorediffering agendas and intendedoutcomes.Report structureChapter 1:Understanding collaborationDefines what collaboration is and thepart it plays for governments, businessand NGOs.Successful collaboration integratescommon purpose, participation,resources, teamwork and groupdynamics. It works with difference(it is something less than completeintegration or unification) andcommonality (there is some sharedgoal which is the focus ofcollaboration).Chapter 2:Effective collaborationSets out what it takes to build effectivecollaboration, establish collaborativepartnerships and successfully implementstrategy. Spelt out are the approaches,steps and techniques, particularly therelationship model and combining trustand task.Key to success is value-focusedcollaboration, and understanding whatvalue means to different people.When tensions are transformed intoopportunities, what makes collaborationdifficult is made easier and thereforemore possible. This involves being firmabout some things (such as ends) yetflexible about others (such as means).Leaders have a crucial responsibilityto develop meaningful conversations.The hallmark of an “appreciativeconversation” is that people listenwithout judgment, not seekingconsensus or compromise but sharingthe sole purpose of continuing theconversation in order to sustainrelationships of mutual respect.Chapter 3:Collaboration and its impact onorganizationsAnalyses what collaboration meansfor decision-making, group dynamicsand organizational development.With QinetiQ and others, developsa collaborative partnership model tosupport organizations through the cycleof steady state, crisis, and recovery.An organization that is fit-for-purposeshould not have to reorganise itself6 7

Acknowledgementswhen it is hit by a crisis. Today’sorganizations are expected to haveenough agility and resilience to respondto shocks. The extent to which anorganization collaborates with othersdepends partly on whether theenvironment in which it operates issteady or turbulent.Collaboration gives organizations anadvantage in dealing with emergingor actual crises over organizations thatdo not collaborate. It can be seen as atemporary organization and transitionalspace in which to foster innovation andlearning, essential for long-term survival.Chapter 4:Social collaboration: how it canworkSets out what makes for effective socialcollaboration, showing how governments,business, NGOs and wider civilsociety can together make a difference.Governments can put value asmuch on being architects and builders(shaping the conditions in whichcollaboration happens and deliveringtheir part in it) as on being leaders(taking the primary responsibility forsecuring results). Governments canembrace their role as interested enablers– interested in achieving an outcome,yet open to what it takes to achievethat result. They need to treat othersincreasingly as equals rather thanadjuncts to governments. Corporatesocial responsibility is a means forcompanies to connect better with theirstakeholders and customers as well astheir own employees. NGOs can play acrucial role in delivering on social goals,particularly in development — but theyneed to build capability for the challengesthat lie ahead. NGOs are an essentialsocial investment.Chapter 5:Collaboration and itsimplementationPromotes ways to improve our useof collaboration and developcollaborative behaviour – particularlyto bring on high-performing teams andto engage better with the citizen. Thefinal chapter demonstrates the linkbetween increasing uncertainty aboutsolutions to problems and the increasingrequirement for collaborative resolution.Technologically, we have never been soable to connect. What holds us back isnot the technology but the culture andbehaviour that go with collaboration.The final chapter shows us how to thinkmore analytically about developingcollaborative relationships and toevaluate the impact of their decisions.It provides strong current examples ofcollaborative leadership across sectors.Organizations can help empower. Butwhat makes the difference is individualinitiative and enterprise, and creatingthe conditions for mutual respect andtrust.This report for the FCO draws on my experience in media, BBC and ITV; a shortspell in the City and with a dotcom; and in four Whitehall departments includingthe Foreign Office. It is also inspired by experience of leading a media-industrycharity, The Rory Peck Trust, and serving as Chairman of the Tavistock Instituteof Human Relations. My work with diplomats and their teams included visits overmore than two years to 25 posts worldwide. I spent time with Shell International,Lloyds TSB, QinetiQ, European Commission, NATO, Geneva-based internationalorganizations particularly the Global Fund to Fight AID, Tuberculosis and Malaria,and Futerra Sustainability Communications. I visited Mexico and four countries inthe New Europe — Poland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria — to explore statesthat are wrestling with the growth of civil society, and tested my approach tocollaborative strategy at the annual reunions of Polish and Romanian diplomats.I worked with a FCO outreach programme that included discussions with Muslimcommunities and their representatives in Manchester.I discussed these issues with other communication directors at a cross-sectorround-table of the International Public Relations Association; with healthprofessionals at the international symposium on influenza epidemic preparedness,and security experts at George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.Simon Lewis, then at Vodafone, gave me a very useful business perspective onthe scope and limits of stakeholder engagement. As a visiting researcher at theBritish Library, I had first-rate support: access to the management literature onorganizations as well as literature from related disciplines. I explored topics withleading academics: Peter Allen (complexity science), Chris Huxham (collaboration),Alan Murray (corporate social responsibility), Keith Grint (leadership), Nicholas Cull(public diplomacy) and Philip Giddings (international relations). More than 120organizations, including 20 governments, helped me to think through what ismeant by collaboration and how it works. More than 250 colleagues, external andinternal, have been involved in reflecting on the practice, testing suggestions forimproving how collaboration is used and how partnerships are sustained. Colleaguesfrom 14 Whitehall departments contributed ideas, particularly at the Office forCriminal Justice Reform, Ministry of Justice, Home Office, DFID, Communities andLocal Government, Business, Innovation and Skills, Department of Health and theTreasury. I am grateful for the many contributions from the FCO’s Chevening alumni,one of the best networks that a researcher can tap. All have collaborated in theproduction of this report, though the line of argument and any views expressedare my own.89

I received the invaluable support of a core virtual team: Mannie Sher, Lorraine Dodd,Dave Marsay and other colleagues at QinetiQ, Alex Allan, Cabinet Office, RogerMiles, Tony Byrne, Michael Schluter and John Ashcroft of the RelationshipsFoundation, Professor Sue Richards, National School of Government, Su Maddock,Director, Whitehall Innovation Hub, Mils Hills and Jas Marrha of Analytic Red, HelenaMemory, Kashmir Birk, Professor Peter Allen and Jean Boulton at Cranfield Schoolof Management, George Eykyn, Andrew Campbell, Danny Rich, David Ferrers,Christopher Lomas, Steve Wells, Mikes Jones, Jeff Miles, Lawrie Siteman, DavidRowling, Bev Ashton, Scott Gronmark, May Seitanidi, and Rod Crowhurst fromFCO Communication Directorate.Deserving special mention are Sir Peter Ricketts and his private office, ProfessorGillian Stamp, Alan Anstead, Joshua Rozenberg, Julian Norris, Sally Halper, BritishLibrary, and my wife, Margaret Prythergch, Cabinet Office. I tested approacheswith 30 high-profile leaders in collaboration. They were our ambassadors in Kabul,Baghdad, Geneva and Dar es Salaam, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, ChristopherPrentice, Peter Gooderham, and Philip Parham; General Sir Rupert Smith; GeneralTim Cross; Bill Yates, International Alert; Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman, BBC Trust;Lord Triesman, Chairman, The Football Association; Sir David Omand, a formertop civil servant whom I advised when he was Chair of the Permanent Secretaries’Risk Group; James Thompson, US State Department; Sir Robert Worcester; JohnCridland, Deputy Director-General, Confederation of British Industry; MarkSchofield, Partner, Pricewaterhouse Coopers; Mary Jo Jacobi; Lord Michael Hastings;Professor Brian Collins, Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for Transport, BIS andDECC; David Behan, Director-General for Social Care, Department of Health; Dr.Bobby John, Global Health Associates; Christoph Benn, Global Fund to Fight AIDS,Tuberculosis and Malaria; Matthias Stiefel, a leading advocate for internationalpeace building; Janis Kong, former Chairman of Heathrow Airport; Baroness RabbiJulia Neuberger who advises the Prime Minister on the Third Sector; StephenWinningham, Managing Director, Financial Institutions, Lloyds TSB; FionaHammond, a leading contracts lawyer; Jean-Francois Bureau, NATO’s top official forpublic diplomacy; Solitaire Townsend, Chief Executive, Futerra SustainabilityCommunications; Olga Edridge, former Director, Joint Ventures, BBC Worldwide;Alex Plant, Chief Executive, Cambridgeshire Horizons; and Stanley Fink, knownas the “godfather” of UK hedge funds and a leader in the trading market forcompanies focused on green technologies.I drew much inspiration for this report from visits to posts, and onversations withambassadors and their teams, particularly Giles Paxman (Mexico City), DominicAsquith (Cairo), John Hawkins (then in Dubai), Michael Arthur (Berlin), Richard Stagg(Delhi), Peter Westmacott (Paris), Nick Baird (Ankara), Robin Barnett (Bucharest),Ric Todd (Warsaw) and Greg Dorey (Budapest). Before she started as Ambassadorto Moscow, Anne Pringle provided a valuable perspective. Sir John Sawers, SimonFraser, Sue Owen, John Ashton, Keith Luck and Martin Donnelly also helped shapemy initial thinking. A conference last year with American Heads of Mission wasparticularly rich in insight. I took part in four highly stimulating conferences hostedby Wilton Park which provided an excellent platform to explore ideas with otherspecialists.The British Academy of Management and British Library, funded by the ESRC, gaveme a platform to use my work to develop policy on corporate social responsibility;and Cranfield School of Management and LSE, also supported by ESRC, allowed meto bring out the connections between collaboration and the expanding area ofcomplexity science.Appendices include references and bibliography, case studies and examples drawnfrom FCO and other organizations, and a survey of experience of collaboration andpartnership in different countries conducted with the invaluable assistance ofBooz & Co.10 11

IntroductionA character called Eric,a postman, is having a badtime in his life. At a momentof despair, he wishes thathe could call on his footballhero, Eric Cantona, for advice.Magically,Cantona appears andthey become friends. Eric asksCantona which goal was hisfavourite when he played forManchester United. Cantonareplies, “It was not a goal, buta pass.” The postman thinks ofthe unconventional pass toDenis Irwin, who scored thegoal. But he asks, “What if hehad missed?” Cantona brieflypauses, and says, “You have totrust your team mates - always.If not, we are lost”.“Looking for Eric” (film on current release)A time for collaborationCollaboration is an idea right for its time. This report shows how. It brings togethercurrent thinking and practice on what makes for effective collaboration andpartnerships, especially between governments, business and civil society. I wroteit when on special assignment for FCO between July and October 2008 and haverecently refreshed it after working with 14 Whitehall departments and otherinterested organizations.It draws on the experience of more than 120 organizations and 250 contacts,quoting from a range of sources across the world. It is a living document, aimedat helping people to think through for themselves what makes for effectivecollaboration.The benefits of collaborationCollaboration brings benefits when we invest the time and thought to make it work.I show that this investment can be made worthwhile by providing methods andtechniques to achieve success in collaboration. The benefits are significant.Collaborative endeavours• exploit synergy• reduce duplication• produce interaction.This generates results that would not have been achieved if people had workedon their own. One big barrier that holds people back from fully exploitingopportunities to collaborate is the investment of time, energy and resources oftenrequired to make collaboration work. This report shows how we can be moreresourceful in using collaboration and partnerships.Creating a culture of collaboration is the main focus of Local Government Yorkshireand Humber. The Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership supports selfdirectingnetworks as its fundamental approach to driving improvement acrossboundaries. One such network is a self-initiated network of Drainage Engineersand others who are concerned with innovative responses to flooding and watermanagement. The scale and nature of the floods in 2007 required a completelydifferent response and so a Learning Alliance has been formed which will enableexperience to be shared and will inform policy across the region.1213

The personal networks of the Drainage Engineers include Rotterdam in theNetherlands and provide new sources of innovation and practice. The creativityand passion of those involved is driving the development of new approaches andresponses to the Pitt Review. Their experience and understanding is informing policyand strategy directly.Carole Hassan, Chief Executive, Local Government Yorkshire and Humber, says,“Working on real issues that impact on people’s lives brings an energy to thework and makes the policy and development process dynamic and based on realexperience. Connecting the political directly to those delivering and engagingthem together in developing policy and working on delivery issues creates adifferent policy process, more immediate and connecting of the whole system.Engaged leaders from across the region are creating a culture of collaborationbased on trust and working on issues.”I draw on empirical research which indicates that the more teams are connected andthe more they generate together, the more they achieve higher performance.We are very good at spotting competition but less good at understanding theunderlying collaboration that makes competition work. When a taxi driver exploitsan opportunity to get past another driver in heavy traffic, such behaviour at onelevel is competitive if not aggressive. But, to avoid an accident, that taxi driver hasto make a calculation about how the traffic normally flows and to assume that otherdrivers behave consistently.Why collaborate?Complexity science emphasises that the world is connected, whether or not onechooses to make something of the connection. We can either choose to enhancethat connection or to work against it. This does not imply seeking consensus,trying to link everything to everything. It suggests working with the patterns andrelationships as they emerge whilst keeping open the propensity to re-form andexplore new links where there are none.Complexity science also emphasises that the future is often unknowable, hard topredict, subject sometimes to fast and radical change. Essentially complex anduncontrollable, collaborative approaches can often help to share knowledge, totease out the best judgments in the face of incomplete information and to weaveintentions in a fashion that is engaged emotionally as well as cognitively.If we accept the limits to making reliable predictions, collaboration has to payattention not only to the strategy and planning stage but also to reviewingimplementation. While a project is still progress, we should check what isworking better than we thought as well as focus on what is less successful. Thereis less separation than we assume between planning and implementation, whereimplementation itself may illuminate other options or produce unintendedconsequences of actions which had not been considered.Complexity thinking stresses the need for collaborative evaluation – where outcomesmay be complex and matters of opinion as well as fact. It focuses on learning asopposed to planning, experimenting as opposed to optimising and on a portfolioapproach rather than too great an emphasis on efficiency.Such collaborative approaches will also need a live focus on issues of power andvalues and intentions. Adam Smith, when expounding the notion of “the invisiblehand of the market”, warns us that unequal or unexpressed power issues candistort the outcomes we desire. We must be alert to what our collaboration isfor. Complexity thinking emphasises that what is there will play itself out.Collaboration is influenced as much by what is not expressed as well as what is;and choosing to disconnect or control will still play its part in the process, whetherwe intend it or not. The work of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations is criticalto better understanding group dynamics and what is hidden, implicit and explicit ingroup behaviour. Without such awareness we cannot tap the full potential oforganizations, working on their own or with others. Working with Peter Allen andJean Boulton at the Cranfield School of Management, and Mannie Sher at theTavistock Institute, I have developed a cross-disciplinary collaboration to use newtools of policy analysis.Collaboration and diversityComplexity thinking, in line with Darwin’s work on evolution, puts value on thecritical importance of diversity — a necessary ingredient for adaptability andlearning. To be effective, collaboration needs to support difference and not seekharmony at the expense of critical tension. It also needs to value difference of skilland perspective.One’s own actions can increase or decrease the likelihood that others will behavecooperatively. Critically, they depend on individual choices that are informed by howothers are able and willing to cooperate. Whether or not one assumes self-interest14 15

or altruism in others, collaborative behaviour over time makes it more possible todepend on others to achieve one’s one objectives. The Relationships Foundationprovides a model for assessing and developing effective relationshipsDr Bobby John, a leader in the global health sector, has used collaborative strategyto build coalitions to tackle malaria. He compares two types of partnership, “Oneis like joining two planks of wood: fitting two inanimate objects and ensuring theystick together. The other, more creative and fruitful, is like watching a team skydiving:you can’t predetermine the ultimate shape in a turbulent or dynamic settingand have to count on how individuals act on their own initiative to work together.”Collaboration makes more of others’ strengths and makes allowances for theirweaknesses, striking the right balance between telling people what to do andempowering them to use their own initiative. It relies on treating others as equalsand builds more honest and supportive relationships that can only increase one’sown performance. Collaboration by itself cannot shift the balance of power butit can mitigate its excesses and create opportunities for changing the balance ofpower. Collaboration takes the vague term “engagement” and gives it teeth: whatdo we want to achieve together as a result of our engagement?Effective collaboration requires both an engagement with the issues and anengagement with others. This is based on understanding the other’s needs,interests and values, whether or not there is agreement. When the future isparticularly uncertain, collaboration builds endeavours that are agile and resilientbecause they encourage people to shape their challenging environment together.I develop a model that supports organizations through looming and actual crisis,putting them in a better position to survive a crisis provided they invest in learningand use it as an engine for change.This report is aimed mainly at organizations but one of its underlying messages isbetter engagement with citizens on their own terms, particularly by governments.Human, political and social rights are not only important in their own right butessential for achieving open, transparent, accountable and responsive government.Governments cannot achieve social change on their own. Lifestyles and behaviourshave to change, not just by enforcing compliance but giving people a stake in livingtheir lives differently.By making the links explicit between engagement, collaboration and complexityscience, this report gives governments an opportunity to do policy differently.We tend to concentrate on describing objects (trains, cars) rather than interactions(journeys, congestion, flooding). Traditional policy development is based on thenotion that the past is a good predictor of the future, that outputs can be specifiedfrom an appropriate model containing clear and measurable data. This Newtonianview of the world is helpful in situations where the context is stable, where onepolicy is little affected by others, where little is likely to emerge that is unexpectedand surprising.However, as the world becomes more complex, interconnected, fast-changing anduncertain, the Newtonian, mechanical worldview is misleading and runs the risk ofmaking policy decisions which are not only quantitatively inaccurate but miss wholesubstantive qualities and characteristics. Complexity science positions Newtonianthinking as a special case and brings to the fore the emergent, interconnected andunexpected developments in the context which policy makers need to consider.Dealing with the downturn, and preparing for an upturnThe report is a mix of concept, practice and experience. It supports government,business and civil society in achieving their objectives by creating the conditions inwhich we can trust one another more to achieve our collective goals. Its real valuewill be in how it is applied to specific challenges during the economic downturn andhow it helps us to make the most of the upturn.When that upturn happens, we will find that, in many cases, “recovery” is not theright word. We will not want to go back to where we were but will need to lookafresh at what we have to do. This could mean closer alignment of perspectives andinterests, leading to common purpose.The state becomes more, rather than less, important because it is more of astrategic enabler, as well as a provider. But governments have to trust business andcivil society more because they bring expertise, credibility and resources thatgovernments do not have.Business, particularly banking and finance, needs a broader concept of the bottomline, one that not only takes into account profit but impacts on communities andenvironment (the sustainable development agenda) and makes best use of resourceslong-term (the resource productivity agenda, which encourages better choices fromstart to completion of product and service provision). But government needs to workeffectively with business of every size and understand the differences.16 17

Governments and business are ready to work with NGOs even more; but, in return,NGOs need to be even more business-focused and to demonstrate that they cangive the best return on investment in areas where they better understand publicneeds. The best NGOs already do this. The question is whether the Third Sector canuse the economic downturn to show that non-profit organizations can collaborateand make better use of resources to deliver public policy outcomes.Collaboration is more than advanced negotiationMy model is based on a spectrum ranging from conflict at one end to collaborationat the other, with negotiation in between. Conflict essentially assumes that for oneparty to win another has to lose. Negotiation varies from combative (win-lose) tocollaborative (win-win) but essentially assumes that any interaction is aboutmanaging trade-offs — even if, with advanced negotiation technique, deals arereached that preserve relationships. Collaboration takes advanced negotiationtechnique a step further and challenges the ground rules on which conflict andnegotiation are based. Collaboration is about facing challenges with a generosityof spirit that invests in the potential of others. It adopts the maxim “If we couldwork together, then we would stand to benefit more than if we were to competeor work apart.”Collaboration is about assertion and cooperation. One without the other weakensany collaborative endeavour. Conflict when dealt with constructively is healthy andproductive.There are times when collaboration is wrong or inappropriate: sometimes we haveto win a conflict outright, avoid it altogether or settle for a compromise. But let usnot rush to such judgments.Collaboration and negotiation are distinct. Collaboration involves not justidentifying and securing interests but creating a transitional space for differentpeople to interact and generate something innovative — and even sometimes tochange the rules of the game. Roles and boundaries are themselves potentiallyre-negotiated. Organizations and institutions lose sight why they were created inthe first place. We should not make the same mistake with collaborations andpartnerships: their temporary nature is an advantage. Participants in a collaborativeendeavour must both represent their sponsoring organizations and make thecollaborative endeavour work in its own right. This is the big prize that exists atevery level of an organization or society and we need to recognise its power andencourage people to use it.Collaboration: higher performance based on differenceCollaboration is not about cosy consensus or messy compromise. It is aboutachieving the highest common denominator and it can be uncomfortable. Ifcollaborations are to produce real value which would not be possible withoutdifferent parties working together, what’s needed is not only accepting but alsoappreciating that working with difference is critical for success. Difference can betolerated, accepted, appreciated and even celebrated. Competition of ideas ishealthy, provided that competition is not a proxy for building or defending egos.Effective collaboration means not only accepting that individuals and evenorganizations have egos but also going beyond egos and focusing on thebenefits that collaboration brings.High performance rises above compromise. It is not just the product of making thebest choices but, crucially, avoiding the need to make unnecessary choices in thefirst place. The task is not to decide between competing objectives but to bringthem together into effective performance on many fronts at the same time. Forinstance, sports teams stand a greater chance of winning the championship ifplayers focus as much on improving their skills as they do on winning today’s game.One of my main arguments is that effective collaboration is based not on dissolvingdifferences but on making them work. A culture of transparency and candour is thegrit in the oyster that produces the pearl. Performance-driven organizations needboth focus and inclusiveness. I challenge those who exclusively promote methodand planning at the expense of spontaneity and those who believe that it is enoughto be present in the moment and go with the flow. Neither, on its own, achieveslong-term collaboration. Creativity has to be reconciled with collective discipline.In collaboration, roles and boundaries are themselves potentially re-negotiated —which can produce insecurity and anxiety that also need to be worked through.Charting a course for collaborative entrepreneursWe can follow the entrepreneur’s example and be creative and resourceful inspotting and transforming opportunities. What entrepreneurs also do is question theground-rules. Inspired by work done by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations,I would urge people to treat organizational boundaries not as walls but as a spaceto re-negotiate. My work is a manifesto for “collaborative entrepreneurs”, whetherthey operate in the private, public or non-profit sectors or in the spaces between.Michael Schluter of the Relationships Foundation, the think tank for a better18 19

connected society, has done much to understand relationships as a way ofsupporting democracy and the market economy. My work is aimed at developinga cadre of people at all levels of an organization who create opportunities to makecollaboration work, who invest the time and energy to work through the inevitabletensions that arise between people with different personal styles, interests andagendas, and yet who keep focused, inclusive and tenacious at extracting valuefrom our collaborative endeavours.Leaders and organizations benefit from making more explicit the scope and limits ofcollaboration and from becoming even more strategic about using collaboration andbuilding partnerships. Involving others should be thought about much earlier in anydecision-making process. Even in a crisis, one should make time to consider otherperspectives. If problems are defined from a variety of perspectives, the likelihood isthat more options will be generated and better solutions found.The best way to plan for uncertainty is to increase one’s options. Collaborationcreates additional possibilities whether the problem is “tame” (that is, open to asolution) or “wicked” (not easily lending itself to a solution). But collaborations willnot generate possibilities unless the group can function as a group rather than as avehicle for the blind implementation of one set of interests.Much is said about the value of leadership but not much is done to developcollaborative leadership. We do not want strong leaders whose strengths crowdout other people’s strengths but strong, collaborative leaders who bring out theleadership potential of others. If we want people at every level to take responsibility,we need to encourage them to use their judgment and discretion to make the bestdecisions. If power is to be effectively devolved, authority and responsibility mustfollow it.Su Maddock, Director, The Whitehall Innovation Hub, says that collaboration isa valuable but “under the radar” skill in government. The network form ororganization has become accepted in the post-production age as an alternative tothe closed, highly-structured organizations. Maddock highlights that networkingand collaboration have slightly different reference points, “Collaboration is betweenpeople, whereas a network is an organizational form”. Networks tend to have abusiness focus, and emphasise the “win-win” relationship between agreed goals,not necessarily challenging existing practice or imply the need for systemic change.Collaboration and innovationCollaboration provides the transitional space for innovation to flourish. It requiresof leaders and teams that they take an imaginative leap, taking into account otherperspectives and allowing something new or different to emerge that could not beachieved if they worked alone.It is a test of interdependence and independence; and the challenge of innovationparticularly draws this out. Innovation is about bringing ideas to market. Howeverinteresting the idea, the market has to be receptive. A good metaphor is a hearttransplant. The operation cannot be judged successful until one is sure that thebody’s immune system has accepted the new heart. The even bigger challengeis effectively a collaborative one, bringing “old” and “new” together andunderstanding that changes have to be absorbed by the host body. The new andthe old have to work together.Collaboration delivers innovation by understanding what brings about successfulintegration. We need to achieve innovation not only in services but in systems andorganizations. Collaboration provides the surest means to make a radicaltransformation that carries thebroadest support and will be properly owned andimplemented. Laws, regulations, codes of practice, structures, systems and processesdo not themselves deliver the judgment and initiative that we need to unleash tomake changes work. My collaborative strategy gives everybody a framework inwhich to rise to a common challenge and play a unique role. There is a certainperspective that one can only get from being at a distance, and seeing why there issuch a gap. In making collaboration work, one of the most difficult personalchallenges is to try to step outside the system as a way of stepping back into it. Wenever really step out, and it is being so close and not far enough that is particularlychallenging. The challenges are not just intellectual ones, but emotional and interrelationalones.Peter Senge and others last year published a far-reaching book,”The NecessaryRevolution: How Individuals and Organizations are Working Together to Create aSustainable World.” It explores what it sees as already emerging: a world in whichcorporations are forming partnerships with environmental and social justiceorganizations to ensure better stewardship of the earth and better livelihoods inthe developing world.20 21

Chapter 1:UnderstandingcollaborationSenge says, “It is almost tautological that fundamental innovation rarely comesfrom the mainstream. Dominant incumbents in industries rarely pioneer radicalnew technologies or products. New social movements do not come from those inthe centres of power. The same will hold true for much of the leadership requiredto create a regenerative society Look to the periphery, to people and places wherecommitment to the status quo is low and where hearts and minds are most opento the new.” (p364).His book was written just before the credit-crunch and the worsening economicrecession, but is now even more relevant. The aim of my report is make the kind ofarguments that Senge deploys urgent and important to the mainstream, so that themainstream can lift its sights to want to innovate, and take certain risks so that itnot only addresses the short-term, but builds for the long-term.In this chapter:• What is collaboration?• What forms can it take?• The nature ofcollaboration• Drivers for collaboration• Collaboration withgovernments, businessand NGOs• Chapter summary22 23

What is collaboration?Collaboration involves individuals andorganizations working together ratherthan going it alone. Although one canassociate collaboration with big setpiecepublic endeavours that draw onthe combined strengths of a range oforganizations, the phenomenon ofcollaboration is just as likely to be smallor unnoticed — often deliberately so.It can involve multiple parties workingon multiple issues at multiple levels —but it can just as easily be focused on asingle issue with just two players.The simplest definitions are often thebest. Since agreement on meaning isitself collaborative, I asked 50contributors what they meant by “collaboration”, “partnership”, and“collaborative partnership”. The mostuncontested definition was the shortest:collaboration is two or more partiesworking together.Beyond this definition, collaborationbecomes more contentious. It is notnecessarily about shared values, sharedgoals or even the same interests. Thereis something in common, but that“something” is not the same across allcollaborations. Collaboration includesthinking and planning as well as action.And, invariably, collaboration is not justabout working together but workingthrough a problem or challenge. Onemanagement consultant with abackground in psychology said: “I can’tcollaborate with my exact replica. Therehas to be a difference between us onwhich we decide to focus and overcome— or at least work through.”One theme running through this reportis that working with difference isessential to making collaboration work.Meades and Schluter (2005) say thatcollaboration implies both difference(it is something less than completeintegration or unification) andcommonality (there is some sharedgoal or activity which is the focus ofcollaboration). “Collaboration is alsoabout relationships – working togetherand not just alongside. It implies morethan activities which overlap or interactin some way and would normallyinclude some conscious interactionbetween the parties to achieve acommon goal. However, an individual’sactions may be interpreted by othersas part of a broader collaborativeendeavour whether or not theindividual sees his or her contributionin this light.” (Meades and Schluter,2005, pp 16-20).Meades and Schluter distinguish thefunctional and transformative purposesof collaboration, showing thatcollaboration is a rational strategy toachieve certain goals. The processof collaboration may change theparticipants, empowering individualsand communities and strengthening civilsociety. These development goals maybe an important policy objective inthemselves — particularly in aninternational context.Not surprisingly, collaboration caninvolve many complex, inter-actingcollaborative endeavours. Meades andSchluter explore this with emergingpublic health networks where differentinteractions at strategic, executive,operational and technical levels can bediscerned. Collaboration is required toensure strategic coherence of goals andpriorities. Such coherence needscollaboration between executivesof relevant agencies to create theorganisational context for operationalcollaboration in the delivery of services.This has to be complemened bytechnical collaboration, in this casewithin public health networks wheretechnical expertise distributed amongsta range of professions and organisationscan be brought together for the benefitof a number of organisations. Anindividual may be involved inrelationships at more than one level.Figure 1.1: A taxonomy of collaboration(Source: Meades & Schluter, The Case of Inter-Professional Collaboration in Health and Social Care, 2005)Aspects ofAspects ofcollaborationGoalLevelProcessStructurePower andInfluenceProximityDurationComplexityExamples of their expressionFunctional or transformationalStrategic, Executive, Operational, TechnicalCo-operation, Co-ordination, Exchange, SharingNetworks, Teams, Pathways, Partnerships, Area based initiatives, MergedorganisationsParticipation, Empowerment, Co-option and control, Infiltration andsubversionIn time and/or spaceTemporary task focused or longer term strategyBi-polar or multi-polar24 25

Collaboration, partnership: wordsthat help, words that hinderThe terms collaboration, partnership,cooperation, alliance and coalition canall be used to describe the phenomenonwe are discussing. It involves differentparties coming together to use theircombined strengths to secure their owninterests; or the interests of somebodyor something else; or both. The termscan either be a barrier to understandingor a lever to ensure joint working.Sir Bob Reid, Chairman of ICE Europe,distinguishes between collaborationand co-operation. “In my experience,co-operation leaves the owner of theinitiative with leadership. Progressdepends on how easy it is to get peopleto help — and that is not always easy,”he says.“Collaboration starts from the pointof joint ownership. The difficulty hereis deciding what you actually own.This becomes more complicatedwhen money inputs are concerned.This will be as relevant to governmentdepartments as it is to industry.”Collaborations can be understood asrelatively neutral descriptions or asestablishing a norm. In managementresearch, the term is broadly neutral.Management researchers explorecollaboration as something similar to,yet different from, negotiation.In countries that retain deep memoriesof collaboration with totalitarianregimes, the term is best avoidedunless carefully qualified. When I metgovernment and civil society colleaguesin France and Poland, we acknowledgedthe negative historical connotations that“collaboration” carried. Although insome other parts of the world it is stilla derogatory term (“collaborating withthe enemy”), it now generally has apositive meaning.Some of my respondents question thewisdom of labelling their activities inthis way because of the baggageassociated with the term. But nobodyhad any difficulty with the concept ofworking together and co-operating toachieve results.Looking back at the World Summiton Sustainable Development in 2002,itself a milestone in creatingpartnerships between state and nonstateactors, one British governmentofficial responsible for setting upenvironment partnerships with civilsociety now wonders whether the term“partnership” has become unhelpfullyloaded. “Partnership implies we wantto hug one another, or should do. Thiscan get in the way of dispassionatelyaligning interests and then taking thenext step of exploring whether a deal iseven possible. The presumptionof partnership can be totally counterproductive,even if that’s precisely whereone wants to end up.”Do we need to use the termcollaboration at all? Two recentexamples of working with the mediashow the phenomenon of collaborationat work — though the term was notwidely used.At the recent WTO negotiations,some governments informallyworked with the media to shareinformation about progress andsetbacks, policies and tactics. Weregovernments and media partners?Both would rightly reject thatdescription. Were theycollaborating? Up to a point; butwhat they did together was enoughto make the collaborationworthwhile. It was aimed atexchanging information, whicheach could use for its own ends:the media to improve their reportingand analysis, the governments tocheck on what other governmentswere saying or not saying.The agreement between theMinistry of Defence and mediaorganizations not to disclose PrinceHarry’s presence in Afghanistan wasa successful collaboration thatproduced benefits all round —though some journalists questionedwhether a deal should have beendone. Broadcast, national print andlocal print media covered differentaspects of the story over three orfour days.Any breach of the agreement wouldhave denied the media the storythey had wanted because the Princewould not have been able to carryout his duties if his deployment hadbeen made public at the time. Thestory did leak, but only after fourmonths. During that period, asmany as 4000 journalists were partyto the private understanding.Bob Satchwell of the Society ofEditors, an organization thatrepresents 450 regional and localnewspapers, told BBC Radio 4 thatthe media had misgivings and theplanning took time, “But at the endwe had superb access. The publicsaw the Prince in a way they hadn’tseen before.” Jon Williams, editorof BBC World News, adds: “Formedia organizations to accept thearrangement, the Ministry ofDefence had to make a compellingcase. This was to protect the safetynot just of one soldier, but a wholegroup of soldiers.”What forms can it take?There can be a spectrum ofcollaboration, from specific time-boundalliances to longer-term genuinepartnerships. The nature and form ofcollaboration are also affected by thenumber and type of organisationsinvolved, including business, NGO,26 27

government) Cropper at al (2008b)suggest that the relationship has threedimensions:• content (flows of information andresources),• governance mechanisms (such as thedegree of trust, contracts and othercontrols); and• structure (the diversity of relationshipswithin a collaboration; the intensityand clustering of them).Collaboration can be very public. But itmay also take place in private betweentwo institutions sharing similar goalsthough different profiles. One partnermay not wish to be seen as active onthe issue but may still hold the key tocontacts and information.The experience of the armed forcesprovides an insight into two levels ofcollaboration, operational and strategic.Soldiers are trained to understand rulesof engagement and apply that understandingto the needs of a particularsituation. Members of a unit may havedifferent roles and yet need to performas a member of a team. To the extentthat a particular member of the unitfocuses on the task in hand, that taskis de-conflicted from the rest of theoperation. But it is likely that, evenwhen focusing on a particular task,the individual’s activities will have to beco-ordinated with those of the rest ofthe team.At a strategic level, the activities of asingle team may be de-conflicted fromthe rest of the operation yet must alsobe synchronised with the effort of otherteams. This can be summed up as: “Letthem just get on with it; they knowwhat they have to do.”The experience of optimising returnsfrom supply-chains also highlightsthe value of collaboration. Toyotaunderstood early on the need forwider collaboration with its suppliers.In an example he uses on thenegotiating programme at Said BusinessSchool, Professor Leonard Greenhalghshows that, in creating the field for rivalsuppliers to compete for its business,Toyota deliberately doesn’t choose asingle supplier but gives business to thetwo best companies.The better of the two gets the majorityof business, but the runner-up alsobenefits. It’s in the interests of eachcompany to work closely with Toyotaand also to improve their performancein relation to the other company. Pricematters, but so do other factors.Because any deal with Toyota takes intoaccount its implementation, it’s in theToyota and its suppliers need to workthough all the key issues that affectperformance and service. Over time,standards of other suppliers are alsodriven up as they learn what makes thesuccessful bidders effective. As businessgrows, Toyota develops a network ofsuppliers that have a share in its growth.What these two examples share is a mixof the strategic and operational. Giventhat a concern for many organizationsis turning strategy into delivery — oneneeds a good strategy, but greatimplementation — collaboration needsto be a more explicit part of deliveringobjectives.The nature of collaborationCollaboration inherently involves morethan one person or group working withanother person or group, usually butnot always having the same interest orstake in the outcome. Governmentswork with other governments often inthe hope that there will be commonground, though they do not always startfrom that position.In their book Managing to Collaborate,Chris Huxham and Siv Vangen developthe concept of collaborative advantage,which refers in a broad sense to“achieving something that could nothave been achieved by any one of theorganizations acting alone”.Collaboration is more durable whenthe will to collaborate is persistentenough. It’s not always a choice. Ininternational institutions, a countrycan choose to collaborate and canalso be manoeuvred or forced intocollaboration. Organizations receivingfunding might want to collaborate —or be required to do so — as acondition of their support.Collaborations may be voluntary orimposed by other participants —though some of my respondents arguethat imposed collaboration is notcollaboration at all. Whether thecollaboration is coerced or voluntary,it is important to qualify the degree ofchoice and scope for discretion.Collaboration is about finding orcreating common ground. If we wanteffective collaboration, we have tosuspend our assumptions. I explore thisfurther in the next chapter.One of the big dangers thatcollaborations face is inertia. InChapter 2, we shall look at what givescollaborations focus and momentum— and what causes them to get stuck,sidetracked, hijacked or polarised.Collaborations are not a substitute foreffective leadership. They happenbecause somebody wants them; agroup sets them up and makes themwork; others provide support; andpeople supposedly benefit. For anygiven collaboration, one can identifysponsors, participants, supporters andbeneficiaries. Programmes and projectsare collaborations. But collaboration caninvolve more than just programme andproject management.28 29

What grounds collaborationsCollaborations are a means to an end.They have a purpose, preferably a focuson a specific aim — a common causewhich the collaboration is designedto achieve because of the combinedinvolvement of multiple parties. GeneralSir Rupert Smith, who led the UNProtection Force in Sarajevo and othercomplex collaborations, argues thatwhat he calls the “common end” —though important enough to hold thecollaboration together — need not bevery complicated.Respondents differed as to whethercollaboration is grounded in agreementor in relationship. The further eastone travels, the less that collaborationinvolves working with a specific contractand the more it becomes a matter ofdeveloping a relationship over time.Islam specifically forbids “unfairadvantage” in commerce; and this hasan important effect on contracts.Fiona Hammond, a leading contractslawyer with twenty years of experienceof the construction industry, distinguishesbetween the collaboration and therelationship that underpins it.“The two should not be confused,” shesays. “What matters in a collaboration iswhat contributes to achieving an end orobjective. What contributes is effective;what doesn’t is ineffective.”Hammond suggests that contractsshould be structured to share risk andenable solutions — so that they arenot used competitively and defensivelywhen things go wrong.But however important the focusis on purpose, collaboration alsodepends on making relationships work.Resorting to the letter of a contractcan only achieve so much. Far moreimportant is the spirit in which anagreement is reached with partners,contractors, suppliers, one’s own team,other teams and with employees.Despite good intentions, manycontracts, mergers, acquisitions andpolitical collaborations fail becauseinsufficient focus is given toimplementation.Collaboration is more thannegotiationCollaborations are not usually one-offsettlements. Collaboration is anintegration of common purpose,participation, resources,teamwork andgroup dynamics — dealing at its mostcomplex with multiple issues, multipleparties and at multiple levels. They aredynamic, responding to emergingchanges over time. At their best, theybecome more effective in response tochange. This means not only toleratingbut embracing complexity, uncertaintyand ambiguity.Collaborations have this in commonwith sophisticated negotiations: whilebeing clear about goals and what canand cannot be conceded, they createspace and time for gatheringinformation about interests. At thesame time, those involved are buildingrelationships, exploring options forpossible agreement and achievingagreement with the confidence thatit can be implemented.Harriet Harman, when minister at theDepartment for Constitutional Affairs,commissioned a pilot campaign toboost electoral registration in Londonahead of forthcoming local elections.The collaboration involved her owndepartment (now the Ministry ofJustice), the Mayor’s office, theGreater London Assembly, the Londonboroughs, Operation Black Vote andthe Electoral Commission. Its objectivewas to increase the number ofregistrations by reaching black andAsian youths in new ways.The combined resources of thoseinvolved in the collaboration werecritical to its success. Her department’sfinancial contribution was ultimatelymatched five-fold — not throughagreement at the outset but throughinterest and commitment inspired bythe process of collaboration.The framework of the campaign gaveeach partner opportunities to contributemore of their own ideas, skills and time.A tough deal at the beginning of theprocess — “If you put X in, we’ll put Yin” — might have set a minimum butcould not have secured a maximum.Only the shared endeavour to buildcommitment and momentum inspiredparties to give more.Harnessing potentialWhat gives collaboration its focus andmomentum is when it goes beyondsuperficial interests and taps thepotential value that a venture can bring.Trust is what makes this possible.Professor Gillian Stamp of BIOSS thinksof trust not as a “warm fluffy” but asconscious regulation of one person’sdependence on another. Stamp usesa tripod of “tasking, trusting andtending” as a way of thinking aboutthe conditions for people to thrive.This approach can be used to look atany relationship or set of relationships.Tasking involves clarity of intention andlimits (for instance, of resource, time,quality) within which discretion can beexercised. Trusting means entrustingpeople with purpose and letting themuse their judgment to use it. Tendingis “the working that keeps thingsworking”, the mindfulness that keepsan eye on the interweaving of purpose,people and processes through time.In short, tending is the vigilant trustthat actively manages risk. Vigilanceis about having an eye for threat andopportunity.30 31

Trust becomes not just a prerequisitefor the effective conduct of businessbut a way of creating confidence inovercoming barriers. According toStephen Winningham, managingdirector of the financial institutionsdepartment at Lloyds Banking Group,what gives his bank a competitive edgeis its value as a trusted adviser, tailoringsolutions to a particular client’s requirements.This means having to understandthe client’s needs complex needs andbuilding a relationship with that clientover time.“Every context is specific, whateveryou’ve learnt in previous situations,”he says. The clients need to know thatyou’re trying really hard to understandthem and do the best for them. Thismeans concentrating on the relationshipas a means to driving the business.”If an organization wants to be worthyof trust externally, it has to trust and betrusted internally. Organizations thatare too focused on developing their topleadership miss a wider collaboration,tapping the potential for discretion andinitiative in their ranks. Implementationis done not only by the middle ranks butled from the middle, through direct linesof reporting and interaction with othernetworks. One senior diplomat says:“We need to put more value onthe middle and the front-line oforganizations.” Even organizationswith strict and disciplined hierarchiesrealise that there is only so much that“rank on one’s shoulder or down one’sarm” can achieve.After four years’ research into theprivate and public sectors and contactwith 33 million respondents, DavidMacLeod and Chris Brady show in theirbook The Extra Mile that people whoare engaged often go beyond the callof duty to increase quality, improvecustomer service or cut costs. They bringfresh ideas, and infuse their teams withtheir own energy and commitment.MacLeod and Brady argue: “You needpeople both engaged and aligned…And you need to make sure thateveryone knows that engagementmatters, to them and to theorganization. Above all, the variousfoundations and pillars come down toone overriding principle: mutual trust.”Trust plays a pivotal role in theestablishing and nurturing of networks.Whatever vision, strategy, processesand reporting-lines are in place, itis networks that get business done.Diplomats know the value of developingnetworks as a source of information,perspective and opinion — and as away of identifying whom best to influence.Bob Metcalfe developed theformula that the value of a network isequal to the square of its membership.A ten-person network is worth 100 buta 20-person network is valued at 400.Alan Fox distinguishes betweenprescribed and discretionary trustto show that effectiveness andfulfilment in work are intimately linked(Fox, 1974). A contract is an exampleof prescribed trust. As an individualprogresses from simple to more complextasks, decisions are required from himor her. These decisions require judgment— and therefore discretionary space.Collaborations expose organizationsand those who work in them to greaterdegrees of complexity and discretion.Elliott Jaques’s work on organizations(for example Jaques,1990) identifieddifferent levels of responsibility fordealing with tasks, depending on theircomplexity. The lowest level involves theperformance of a specific task; thelevel above requires supervision of acombination of tasks; and at the levelabove that there is oversight of a wholeprocess. On this model, the higher levelsrequire judgment to manage a set ofprocesses and to decide how theymight be improved. Collaboration andinnovation inherently involve handlinghigher levels of complexity.Empathy and understanding theother’s perspectiveCollaborative behaviour, though highlydesirable, is not essential to the successof collaboration. To achieve results,a venture must focus on securing itsobjectives. Feelings of collaboration orpartnership may hinder this effort.It is far more important to understandsomeone else’s perspective than it isto show empathy for it — and the tworesponses should not be confused.(Galinksy et al. 2008) That said,experienced collaborators andnegotiators I spoke to said thatdemonstrating empathy can provedecisive when it prepares the groundfor a breakthrough that would not beachieved just by deploying rationalargument.Stamp distinguishes between cognitiveempathy (understanding the other’ssituation and their reaction to it) andcompassionate empathy (not only understanding,but also taking account of,the other’s situation and their reaction).Because collaboration has a highelement of uncertainty to it, in myview it is prudent to increase one’soptions and show both cognitive andcompassionate empathy. To engageeffectively requires both engagementwith the issues and engagementwith others. To be authentic, thatengagement must be based on tryingto connect with the other’s needs,interests and values. But connectiondoes not imply agreement.Huxham and Vangen (2005) developa model (Figure 1.2 below) todemonstrate that one needs to act inthe spirit of collaboration (embracing,empowering, involving, mobilising) andwith collaborative thuggery (by makingthings happen through manipulatingthe collaborative agenda and playingthe politics). They go as far as to say32 33

that “successful leadership seems toimply the ability to operate from bothperspectives and to continually switchbetween them, often carrying out bothtypes of leadership in the same act”.This model reflects accurately thetension in collaboration betweenachieving a result and keeping thegroup together. But my own approachto collaboration will show that thetension can be turned into anopportunity to drive performance andensure the fullest participation, whereevery party has a stake in making theendeavour a success.Collaboration can be used to supportdifferent leadership strategies, with thenature of the problem determining thetype of leadership style required. What’sneeded are the patience and persistenceto engage; to manage the tensions anddynamics; to explore the options; andto secure real commitment.Collaboration can neverthelessbe understood through the lens ofconflict management and resolution.Competitive behaviour gives risesto assertion without cooperation;compromise requires cooperation whilegiving way on assertion (see Appendix:Thomas-Killman model). In principle,assertion and cooperation can go handin hand if there is a commitment toface issues and deal with them. Thischallenges organizations that equatecollaboration with consensus. Ifconstructively managed, confrontationcan reduce conflict.In chapters 2 and 5, the approachdeveloped — strategic pragmatism —takes these insights into account andmakes the dynamics work througheffective leadership, developing trustand embracing risk.Drivers for collaborationCollaboration has become moreimportant because of four drivingforces:• globalisation• changing environments• changing boundaries• strategyGlobalisationGlobalisation produces complexity anduncertainty, challenging boundaries thatmay be economic, political or cultural.We can see the possibility of tacklingFigure 1.2:The essence ofleadership forcollaborativeadvantage(Source:Vangen & Huxham.Enacting Leadershipfor CollaborativeAdvantage. BritishJournal ofManagement,2003, 14 (1) p.S74.Republished inHuxham & Vangen(2005))EMBRACINGembracingthe “right”kind ofmembersFrom the spirit of collaboration …EMPOWERINGempoweringmembersto enableparticipationINVOLVINGembracingthe “right”kind ofmembersMOBILIZINGmobilizingmembers tomake thingsTheessence ofleadershipenactment forcollaborativeadvantageMANIPULATING THECOLLABORATIVE AGENDAmaking things happenPLAYING THE POLITICSmaking things happen… towards collaborative thuggery.34 35

common challenges and exploringcommon opportunities; yet we arealso more aware of how deep thedifferences are. These we might chooseto ignore, overcome or accept and evenappreciate. Collaboration can be botha symptom of complexity and a way ofworking though difference.Uncertainty may make us more vigilantabout whom we choose to trust or dobusiness with. But this vigilance alsoobliges us to look as much for theopportunity as for the threat. Andbecause we cannot control even mostof the consequences, we have nooption but to work with others. Instable environments, we can occupyground, compete for it, reachaccommodation with our competitorsor destroy them. With the growth ofglobalisation, the world is changing atsuch a pace that it is more likely that wewill have to work together. If the focusof organizations becomes what happenswhen they interact, collaboration willeffectively become their centre ofgravity.Changing environmentsThere are other factors that make theenvironment more conducive tocollaboration.• connectivity, particularly the newways in which the internet enables usto work together• the multiplicity of 24-hour mediachannels, highlighting issues andcrises as they develop• the complexity of needs, wants,expectations that state and non-stateactors respond to• the greater importance attached bymany governments and businessesto the more discerning anddemanding consumer, and• the speed at which information, andtherefore decisions, may travel.What accounts for the dynamiccharacter of how organizations interactis their relationship with a changingenvironment.The environment that organizationsnow inhabit is turbulent: the veryground on which they operate is inmotion. In these environments,individual organizations cannot beexpected to adapt successfully throughtheir own direct actions. But they finda solution: the emergence of values thathave overriding significance for all.Common values provide a coherentframework in which to operate. Thesimplest value that all can accept ishaving an interest in an outcome; and,with it, the notion of advancing thatinterest. One shared interest might beto introduce some steadiness in anotherwise turbulent environment(see the seminal paper writtenby Fred Emery and Eric Trist in 1965).However little one can do to shapethe bigger environment on one’s own,collaborations provide an incentive toshape one’s immediate environment —effectively creating a mini-ecosystem. Ascollaborations create a space in whichboundaries are temporarily crossed,opportunities emerge to tap the greaterpotential of participants in differentorganizations and to shapeenvironments.Changing boundariesCollaboration builders know howeasily boundaries between organizationscan be put to one side, putting at riskboth the collaboration and theorganizations that it is designedto serve. One of the dangers is thatteams of collaborators may identifymore with the collaboration than withthe organizations that they represent.This may be a particular problem for theparent organization if people receivemore affirmation from the collaborationthan from their parent organization oftheir skills, their judgment, theircreativity or of themselves.But managing boundaries alsopresents opportunities for innovationand growth. A small example showshow collaboration can give birth tosomething potentially greater thanitself. The United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) developed a financeinitiative which made a slow start in the1990s but which has gathered enomousmomentum since 2000. It succeededin creating funds for responsibleinvestment by tapping a sizeable shareof global equity markets.Under a UN umbrella, it broughttogether banking and financialinstitutions under principles ofresponsible investment. But theinitiative needed to be run by thefinancial institutions themselves. TheGS Sustain framework, which wasdeveloped partly in response to UNEP’sfinance initiative, is now being used toanalyse the performance of over 500clients worldwide on environmental,social and governance factors as wellas performance and value.StrategyStrategic planning is increasinglycommon among most organizationsresearched for this report. Havinga strategy gives the leadership oforganizations choices, rationale andsupport to make changes. Organizationshave no option but to be more strategicin the face of greater competition,giving staff freedom to act within anagreed strategy. McDonalds told methat it attributes its continuing globalsuccess to the scope it gives its localbranches to operate effectively in theirimmediate environment within anoverall framework.36 37

PricewaterhouseCoopers ensures that itsbusinesses in each country function asnational entities, consciously developingits leadership so that it is better able toconnect with the local environment.The principle of having a strategy isbecoming more established. The biggerchallenge is being strategic and turningstrategy into effective delivery.Some business managers in the oil andgas sectors and in pharmaceuticals toldme that they were more strategic thangovernment in some ways because theyhad to plan many years ahead. Theyalso challenged the notion that therewas a choice between competition andcollaboration, “Depending on theopportunity, you have to do both. Youcan often collaborate with anothercompany on one project and competewith it on another. Having to do bothkeeps you focused yet open to doingthings differently.”With a more strategic mind-set,collaboration is seen as crucial toachieve goals, either in steady orturbulent environments. Because sofew environments now are seen to besteady, some time and resource is putaside to plan for different scenarios andthis quickly prompts organizations tothink not just of their competitors butof potential collaborators. Behavingstrategically in turbulent times isessential. Without the widerperspective, opportunities andthreats will be missed and short-termactions will prove unsustainable or evencounter-productive. But, even in steadyenvironments, collaboration givesgovernment and business a way totackle larger-scale challenges.Shell International says it wants toincrease its strategic relationship withcivil society because it has to manageboth the technical risk of oil and gasexploitation and the non-technical riskof ensuring that it operates with thesupport of local communities. BothInternational Alert and Living EarthFoundation confirmed to me that Shellhad moved a long way, from dealinginitially with some NGOs on an adhoc and often reactive basis to a morestrategic relationship. “In the 1990s,they tended to get in touch with us onlywhen they got into trouble,” said onecivil society leader. “Now, Shell says itis in the company’s interest to get anindependent but informed perspectiveof whether a particular plan will work.”Collaboration betweengovernments, business and NGOsAll governments researched for thisreport say they are witnessing moreinteraction between state and non-stateactors, although they have differentpolicies for engaging with businessand civil society. Chapter 4 focuseson relations between governments,business and NGOs, exploring the scopefor greater collaboration.Government and businessIn the UK, the relationship betweengovernment and business is particularlyuseful. This relationship exists betweengovernment as whole andrepresentative bodies such as the CBI aswell as between individual departmentsand business leaders.In the UK, BIS (Department for Business,Innovation and Skills) and the Treasuryhave very close contact with business.However, other departments also workon shared challenges. For example,the Department for Energy and ClimateChange and the FCO are workingwith business to assess the scope forinnovation, linking the climate changeagenda to building a high-growth,low-carbon global economy.A senior figure at the CBI says the issueof climate change demonstrates howreceptive business can be to the politicalleadership given by government. “Butif government is genuine about greatercollaboration with business on climatechange,” he says, “then it needs to doits bit to deliver on planning and otherpolicies that create the conditions thatallow business to take longer termdecisions to develop a low-carboneconomy.”To obtain first-mover advantage,companies are now competingin working out how to make moneyby developing a low-carbon economy.But one government official believesthat business should still take moreaccount of the costs of not pursuinglow-carbon alternatives.The climate change agenda highlightsthe link made between collaborationand the difficulty of the challenge. Itis precisely when it is most difficult tofind a way through a problem thatcollaboration becomes most necessary.Government and NGOsRespondents say that governments andNGOs are thinking increasingly aboutthe quality of their interaction. Butthis has yet to translate into systematicevaluation that would be useful to bothparties. If governments are not careful,they risk going from sporadic contactto a scatter-gun approach whichpromises much but delivers little, eitherto governments or to civil society.Many government officials and someNGOs remain sceptical of the type ofrandom engagement that governmentssometimes conduct, more geared atpositioning government as open andengaged than at involving third-partiesin policy design and implementation.If broader engagement strategiesare pursued, they have to build onsuccessful engagement on singleissue topics. Chapter 5 includessome pioneering work by the Britishgovernment, operating with civil societyin policy areas as varied as pensions and38 39

criminal justice. A crucial test for manyNGOs is engagement on policy designand implementation while managingtheir own expectations of the influencethat they can exercise.NGOs want an honest relationship withgovernment. Talk of collaboration andpartnership can sometimes mislead andmay therefore be counter-productive.Tom Porteous of Human Rights Watchsays that he regards the Britishgovernment as an ally on rule of lawbut a target on human rights. Herecognises that the FCO understandshow to engage with NGOs on humanrights but believes more could be doneto address his concerns. “Human RightsWatch, unlike many other NGOs, couldnever be partners with government,” hesays. “We need to be independent, andto be seen to be.”NGOs say that if there is greater contactwith government, people need to bepersuaded of the benefits. Some NGOsalso express frustration that buildinglonger-term relationships is often mademore difficult because of the size ofgovernment and turnover of officials.“It’s in our interest to deepen acommitment to an issue on both sides,”one says. “If a key civil servant moveson, particularly when there’s noadequate handover, you have to startfrom scratch. This can be a tacticaladvantage, but over time it means therelationship is more superficial than itneed be.” Other NGO leaders I spoketo were even more concerned aboutthe problem of mobility and turnover ofgovernment staff. Public sector bodiesmight have very good policy or humanresources reasons for moving staff,but this imposes costs on otherorganizations. One smaller NGO saidthat when their public sector contactmoved, the project effectively ended,“We would think again about everworking with that organization. Wehad invested heavily in the relationship.There seemed to be no adequatehandover or policy continuity whenthe new person took over.”Government, business and NGOsBoth governments and businessrecognise the need to engage moreeffectively with civil society. But a seniordirector in a multinational companyarticulates a recurring concern. “It’sone thing involving NGOs in some ofour activities: that’s healthy and useful.But if it’s about commercial risk, thecompany pays — and therefore thereare real limits to how closely NGOs canbe involved. We shouldn’t set falseexpectations. That’s bound todisappoint.”Government officials make a similarpoint, although they regard NGOs asthere to inform policy decisions ratherthan to dictate them. One conflictpreventionNGO sees problems in this.If governments are increasingly drawingon NGOs to deliver services on the frontline, officials must still listen properlyto NGOs when drawing up their plans.Otherwise, there is a risk that strategywill be divorced from experience. Ipsos-MORI’s research in 2004 with NGOs,members of the public and experts incorporate social responsibility foundthat 86% of the 21 NGOs who tookpart had close working relationshipswith companies. A similar percentagefelt that companies and NGOs shouldwork towards more co-operativerelationships in future. In 2005, whenthe survey was repeated, researchersfound that 90% of NGOs were aimingto work with more companies “in thenext year or two” (Ipsos-MORI(2005) p3).Companies have various motivesfor collaborating with NGOs andgovernment. An important one isthe hope that companies will learn fromtheir NGO and government partnersand apply that learning to benefit theirbusiness as well as the partnershipoverall. (See, for instance, Journal ofManagement Studies special issue oninter-organizational knowledge transfer,June 2008).Changing role of NGOsThe NGO role is not identical in everycountry and in every sector. Failure tosee NGOs in their different roles is arecipe for misunderstanding theirinterests and the value that they canbring to a relationship, whether it takesthe form of collaboration, partnership orsomething else. Regardless of whetherNGOs are large or small, global or local,they have at least one of five possibleroles• Advocacy: pursuit and promotion ofpolicy objectives• Delivery of services: complementingor substituting for government orother public services• Enabling solutions, working withgovernment or business• Improving governance, the rule oflaw or transparency• Harnessing existing or new markets incountries where NGO credibility helpsbusiness achieve local support.If there is a single commondenominator, it is the NGO’s abilityto make a tangible differenceon a specific issue. Even thoughgovernments, business and NGOsall identify their respective roles inserving citizens, they each acknowledgethat citizens’ needs and concerns area more important influence on theirorganizations. Collaboration withothers is a better way of meetingcitizens’ expectations. When effective,40 41

collaboration involving localcommunities can close the both thedemocratic and the delivery deficit.The issue most frequently raised bygovernments and business is howrepresentative NGOs are and how muchthey can find solutions to the issues theychampion.Le Grenelle de l’Environnement,President Sarkozy’s comprehensiveinitiative to involve civil society onsustainable development policies, triesafter years of disagreement to turn theachievement of working with 330stakeholder representatives — NGOs,local authorities, trade unions andemployers’ association — into a specificlegislative programme. Frenchenvironment and development NGOswere sceptical at first about how muchwould be achieved by such a process.But a combination of politicalcommitment (the initiative was drivenby the Ecology super-ministry) andsophisticated programme managementhas enabled France to complete itsfirst phase. This has given French NGOsgreater confidence that they can bemore involved in the design andimplementation of future policies.Interestingly for the democratic process,the Grenelle — a term borrowed fromthe clashes of 1968 — was problematicfor some French parliamentarians. Theyhad to come to terms with a form ofdemocratic engagement which,depending on one’s point of view, eithercompeted with the legislature orcomplemented it: see Hudson andAnstead (2008).The example of CTS Mexico shows thata NGO can fulfil a combination of roles.Working with the Mexican governmentand the city authorities to design newsustainable bus services, CTS’s aim isto develop low-cost, accessible andenvironmentally friendly city transportas a cheaper alternative to undergroundtrains. Asked what makes herorganization different from a pureconsultancy, its director, Adriana Lobo,says: “I have a social mission, and I usemy technical expertise to achieve thatmission.” CTS Mexico is part of anetwork of similarly focused NGOs inIndia, Turkey, Brazil, and soon Andino.The role of NGOs is evolving. NGOsthemselves recognise that thinkingmore strategically about collaborationand partnership clarifies their role inadding value, raising finance andmanaging the expectations of itsstakeholders. One leading figure in adevelopment NGO says that it is timefor a greater realism in the relationshipbetween “northern” and “southern”NGOs. “Let’s not pretend it’s some cosypartnership of equals when some ofthe time it’s effectively a commercialrelationship between a client and aprovider. It’s none the worse for that.NGOs are also businesses.”Greater collaboration and thedevelopment agendaAshraf Haidari, political counsellor atthe Afghan embassy in Washington,says there is a challenge of collaborationat every level. As well as arguing formore resources to establish effectivegovernment and security throughoutAfghanistan, he singles out the need forgreater strategic coordination amongmore than 70 countries, internationalorganizations, and NGOs. “Of all thetechnical assistance, which accountsfor a quarter of all aid, only one-tenthis coordinated among donors or withthe government,” he says. “Nor is theresufficient collaboration on project work— which inevitably leads to duplicationor incoherence of activitiesby different donors.”Haidari also makes the links betweencollaboration on delivery and engagingAfghan citizens effectively. “Although abuzz-word of the aid community, localownership of the rebuilding process —with Afghans in the driver’s seat — ismostly absent. That is because most ofthe aid resources bypass the Afghanpeople and our government and goesto donor-related non-profit and privatesector institutions.”Strategic communications providea critical means for making the linksbetween what is invested inAfghanistan, the commitment ofmultiple stakeholders and the benefitsfor the population. Britain’s ambassadorin Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles,says that strategic communications areintegral in the counter-insurgencycampaign. “Collaboration is essential,both within the UK team in Kabul andLashkar Gah but also in and withLondon,” he says. In his view, therealso needs to be collaboration betweenthe UK team and others such as theAfghan government, the UN publicaffairs team and the ISAF spokesmen.A key test will be how thecollaboration among all theinternational organizations workingwith the Afghan government and localcommunities can show Afghan citizensthat reconstruction projects aresustainable. Simon Anholt, anindependent vice-chairman of theFCO Public Diplomacy Board, visitedAfghanistan last year and makes thepoint that what is needed are deedsrather than words. “Small powergenerators were issued to villages andwere regularly attacked by the Taleban.Then the local people were charged forthe generators. We found that, nowthey had responsibility for them, thegenerators didn’t have to be replacedbecause they fought off the Taleban.”On the global development agenda,the US Government has entered intopublic-private partnerships (PPPs) forreasons that include project42 43

sustainability, market developmentand the fact that private bodies bringresources that government can neitherafford to purchase nor acquire throughother means. A sound rationale forPPPs in international development isthat private sector bodies are now onthe ground in developing countries andtheir businesses are employing people,sourcing commodities and selling inthese markets. As James Thompson,regional director at the US StateDepartment, explains, “the privatesector is being looked to as the ultimateanswer to development challenges thatforeign assistance cannot meet alone.But this is not to say that developmentaid is not needed: only that we needto think about how to use our developmentassistance to spur economicgrowth and to do so in coordinationwith the private sector.”For many developed countries, workingin partnerships is crucial to foreignassistance goals and to maintainingthose countries’ interests. The HudsonInstitute’s work shows an increasingamount of private-sector investment indeveloping countries. In 1969, 70%of resource-flows from the US todeveloping countries came from theODA and 30% from private sources.Data from 2005 show that privatecapital makes up more than 80% offlows to developing countries (USAID(2008)).This is happening when the current USadministration has more than doubled itsforeign assistance budget from $9.9bn to$21bn (OECD/DAC statistics). But even asforeign assistance grows,it has been quickly over taken by private-sector investments, remittances fromimmigrants in the US and donationsfrom foundations and NGOs. The UKhas seen similar private-sectorinvestments that are now at leastequal to development spending.We have no option but to get better atcollaboration.There has been much written on thewhy we need to create partnerships,rather less on how to do so and muchless on governance and implementation.Groups such as AccountAbility and theInternational Business Leaders Forumare giving significant thought to theseareas. But more needs to be written bypractitioners.Chapter summary• Having clear and mutually understood aims is critical. But being realisticabout what can be achieved, and considering the interests of each party, isjust as important.• Collaborations are not usually one-off settlements. Collaboration is anintegration of common purpose, participation, resources, teamwork andgroup dynamics — dealing at its most complex with multiple issues,multiple parties and at multiple levels. They are dynamic, responding toemerging changes over time. At their best, they become more effective inresponse to change. This means not only tolerating but embracingcomplexity, uncertainty and ambiguity.• To engage effectively requires both engagement with the issues andengagement with others• Collaboration between business, NGOs and government is an increasinglycommon solution to complex challenges. When effective, it provides thebasis for closing both the democratic and delivery deficits.44 45

Appendix 1:The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)This model helps you identify which style one tends towards when conflict arises.By understanding your instinctive style, and recognising how and when you mayneed to change it, you may be better able to adopt an approach that meets thesituation, resolves the problem, respects people’s legitimate interests, and mendsdamaged working relationships.Assertiveness and co-operation are the two basic dimensions of behaviour thatdefine five different modes for responding to conflict situations:5 modes for handling conflict1. Competing is assertive and unco-operative - an individual pursues his ownconcerns at the other person’s expense. This is a power-oriented mode in whichyou use whatever power seems appropriate to win your own position - yourability to argue, your rank, or economic sanctions. Competing means “standingup for your rights,” defending a position which you believe is correct, or simplytrying to win.5. Compromising is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness.The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution thatpartially satisfies both parties. It falls intermediate between competing andaccommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less thanaccommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding,but does not explore it in as much depth as collaborating. In some situations,compromising might mean splitting the difference between the two positions,exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground solution.Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes. But some people usesome modes better than others and, therefore tend to rely on those modes moreheavily - whether because of temperament or practice. Conflict behaviour istherefore a result of both an individual’s personal predispositions and therequirements of the situation. The Instrument is designed to measure this mixof conflict-handling modes.In today’s interdependent world, problems are interdependent too. As Hausssuggests, it is nearly always more pragmatic to act co-operatively.2. Accommodating is unassertive and co-operative - the complete opposite ofcompeting. When accommodating, the individual neglects his own concerns tosatisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice inthis mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity,obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not to, or yielding toanother’s point of view.3. Avoiding is unassertive and unco-operative - the person neither pursues his ownconcerns nor those of the other individual. Thus he does not deal with theconflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue,postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from athreatening situation.4. Collaborating is both assertive and co-operative - the complete opposite ofavoiding. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with others to find somesolution that fully satisfies their concerns. It means digging into an issue topinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two individuals. Collaboratingbetween two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learnfrom each other’s insights or trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonalproblem.46 47

Chapter 2:Effective collaborationIn this chapter:• Approach to collaborationbuilding: value-focusedcollaborationA rabbi is shown the difference between heaven and hell. He’s taken to hell first. Hesees sad, angry and frustrated people sitting around a pot of delicious-smelling hotsoup. Nobody is eating. He asks why. “The spoons are too long,” he is told. “Whenpeople try to use them, they miss the pot or drop the spoon.” The rabbi is thenshown heaven. Everybody is talking, laughing — and drinking soup. It’s the samepot and the spoons are the same too. But here the people are using the spoons tohelp one another drink the soup.• Drivers for success:15 steps to take• Common challenges:leadership, trust, risk andcomplexity• Chapter summaryRabbinic tale.This chapter provides a framework fordesigning and running collaboration,reflecting on the experience ofpractitioners. Whatever their scale,complexity or circumstances,collaborations share certain dynamics.The more these are understood, thebetter these collaborations can behandled. Although respondents thinkthat collaborations and partnerships areincreasingly common and can quotesuccessful examples, their experienceand expectations are mixed. But thebreadth and depth of experience is richenough to provide a basis for improvingperformance and participation, the twoessential ingredients for success incollaboration.Studies of optimists and pessimists(Seligman, 1991 and Wiseman, 2003)indicate that optimists achieve morethan pessimists because they setthemselves goals and overcomesetbacks better. But pessimists tendto be more accurate. It is important tosuccessful collaborations that the verypeople who are keenest to make themwork show objective judgment at criticalstages. As one experienced practitionerputs it, “extra doses of realism andimagination are needed”, especiallyin relating the bigger picture of whatthe collaboration can achieve to theparticular interests of all those who arepart of it.The skill is to combine the broad viewwith the specific. Part 1 thereforesuggests an approach to drivecollaboration building; part 2 sets outthe specific steps to take; and part 3tackles the most common challenges.4849

Part 1: An approach to collaboration buildingCollaborations make particular demandson leadership, especially in balancingand reconciling different interests. Sincecollaborations are designed to fill gapsthat organizations do not resolveadequately on their own, they requirepolitical and social skills to drive a visionand respond to the needs of others.in collaboration emerge, evolve andchange over time (Hibbert and Huxham,2006). In referring to “tensions”, Beechand Huxham mean that good practiceadvice can pull in different directions.My report refers more widely to theinevitable tensions that arise whenpeople work together.professional identities, withoutunacceptable or illegal blurring ofpowers and interests, and withoutloss of accountability.”(Ekblom, 2004).not think and a combination of braincells produces thought, collaboration isan emerging property of what we dotogether. The challenge is to turn anemerging property of human interaction— something we do for better or worseas a result of trial and error — into aform of energy for making a difference.“Collaboration, by its very nature,means that traditional means ofcontrol — market and hierarchy —cannot be used to managerelations among participatingorganizations. Instead, it dependson the ongoing negotiation ofrelationships by individuals whoare both participants in thecollaboration and, at the sametime, accountable to andrepresentative of the diverseorganizations and communitiesinvolved in, and affected by, it.”(Hardy and Grant, 2005.Quoted in:Lotia and Hardy (2008) pp. 366-367)Lotia and Hardy (2008) argue thatcollaboration is social to the extentthat it requires the negotiation ofrelationships and tensions (Beech andHuxham, 2003); political in that itinvolves individuals playing a dual roleas members of both collaboration andorganization; and dynamic in that rolesCollaboration and partnership arerelated concepts, as this definition byPaul Ekblom makes clear:“Partnership is an institutionalarrangement that shades intoa philosophy. It is a way ofenhancing performance in thedelivery of a common goal, bythe taking of joint responsibilityand the pooling of resources bydifferent agents, whether theseare public or private, collective orindividual. The added value fromsuch a collaborative approachusually stems from an enhancedability to tackle problems whosesolutions span the division oflabour, and/or centre on aparticular locality. The agents inpartnership may bring with themconflicting or competing interests,and different perspectives,ideologies and cultures – so indemocratic and legally-regulatedcontexts they seek to act togetherwithout loss of their separateCase for optimism“If we combine our efforts withother people’s efforts, we canmake our resources go further andachieve more impact.”Steven Fisher, Deputy Head of Mission,British Embassy, Budapest“Whether you are a manager inthe public or in the private sector,collaboration taps a source of valuethat includes, but goes so muchfurther than, price: the value ofwhat people can accomplishtogether if they really applythemselves and if organizationssupport and develop them”.Verna Stewart, Strategic RelationshipDirector, Strategic Development Solutions,Lloyds TSB.Governments, business, NGOs, andcitizens all miss opportunities thatcollaboration can provide if handledwell. Just as a single brain cell doesCollaboration is the technology forthe knowledge economy. It gathersinformation to produce fresh choices,by creating fission – drawing outdifferent perspectives and interests.But it also produces fusion – drawingin the parties to agree on the problemand then to agree and act on thesolution. It pulls together people,resources and process in pursuit of acommon end, joining up organizationsand making them connect with theirstakeholders and citizens. Because itholds out the promise of creating valuewhere value did not exist before, it canexpand the size of the cake and bringabout agreement on the highestcommon denominator. It galvanisesgovernments and multinationalcompanies both to get business doneand — by building legitimacy and publicsupport — to ensure that the risks andbenefits involve those who are mostaffected. It encourages NGOs andothers in civil society — think-tanks,institutes, business schools, universities— to see themselves as part of thesolution rather than as critics or50 51

ystanders. As a catalyst, it bringsabout changes in disparateorganizations to achieve focusand momentum.Vision for diplomacyFor diplomats, collaborationcomplements and reinforces theachievement of negotiation. Effectivenegotiations turn not just on a dealbeing done but on the expectationthat it will be successfully implemented.This also means that agreements haveto be supported more widely by keystakeholders and citizens. What wastrue for diplomacy under the reign ofLouis XIV of France is as true today:“The great secret of negotiation is tobring out prominently the commonadvantage to both parties of anyproposal; and so to link theseadvantages that they may appearequally balanced to both parties.”(de Callieres, 1983, p.110; firstpublished in 1716).But what has changed is that thetheatre of diplomacy has expandedbecause of the multiplicity ofstakeholders, the growth of the mediaand the rapid communication ofinformation, privately and publicly. Oneseasoned international negotiator says:“It’s a negotiation on an even widerscale, with a larger number of playerswith stakes in a decision.” And thosewith stakes tend also to have power andinfluence to support a negotiation or toundermine it.This requires diplomats and their teamsto acquire new skills of public diplomacyand strategic communication. The bestalready know this, and do it. One Britishambassador says: “More time is nowspent dealing with a range ofstakeholders than in dealing withthe host government. The bilateralrelationship will always be importantbut, to be effective, you have to workwith many different people on manyfronts.” They must be increasingly attuned to enable meaningful dialoguewith multiple stakeholders and citizenswith different backgrounds, needs andaspirations.Judging by the feedback received forthis report from British embassies andother diplomatic services, Britain is seenas effective in the way it balances arange of public diplomatic activity. Onsome issues — climate change, forexample — it is explicitly upfront; andnot just in the 20 or so countries wherethe most difference needs to made toreach a deal in Copenhagen inDecember 2009.British ambassadors make the issuea priority. However; they implementthe priority within the political andeconomic circumstances of the countryinvolved. In many countries where theneed to tackle climate change is stillgaining acceptance, links with other,apparently more pressing, agendas —such as rising household bills andenergy security — become theroute into focusing on developing ahigh-growth, low-carbon economy.The British embassy’s work with Polandon tackling climate change initiallyfocused on the rising cost of householdenergy bills and wider concerns aboutenergy security. The economic downturn makes it essential that the linksbetween climate change and otheragendas are articulated.Where other countries are making therunning, Britain’s role may be as aneffective partner, helping to shape theclimate so that real progress is madeover time. Take, for instance, Turkey’splan to join the European Union.Turkey’s potential is worth developingbecause of its strategic geopolitical,cultural and economic importance. AndBritain’s public diplomacy reflects this.On other issues, Britain sees itself asa supportive team-player. In Geneva,Britain is one of many players workingfor human rights, and workers’rights. Its role is to support betterimplementation across the worldwhile having a voice in the reformof international institutions.Britain’s impact overseas is partlydetermined by the work oforganizations such as UK Trade &Investment (UKTI) and Visit Britain,which actively promote business andtourism. Their efforts are part of a widercollaboration with British governmentand business. The dozen or so UKTIlocal contacts whom I met in the courseof my research have skills and attitudesthat mirror those of the sector. Thesepeople are enterprising, knowledgeableand prolific at networking.One can collaborate to enhance furthercollaboration or to strengthencompetition. Promoting UK trade andinvestment involves both collaborationand competition. Collaboration andcompetition strategies need to beflexible enough to take advantage ofwhat the other element brings. One UKTrade & Investment contact in India sayshow effective a British ministerial visitwas precisely because the then minister,Lord (Digby) Jones, was candid aboutwhere other countries had a competitiveadvantage. For this reason, the ministerwas persuasive about what Britishcompanies could offer. This drew abetter response than a narrowlycompetitive hard-sell.The value to the FCO of the BBC WorldService and the British Council is thattheir credibility, legitimacy andeffectiveness are based on genuineindependence — even though theyreceive government funding and mustaccount for their spending.52 53

The World Service and the BritishCouncil create a space in which otherscan enter into dialogue, whether theysupport British foreign policy or not.The pioneering work done by the BritishCouncil in Canada to give youngchildren a better understanding ofclimate change could not have beendone as effectively by a governmentdepartment.The FCO’s partnerships with thesetwo organizations, as well as itsengagement with former holders of itsMarshall and Chevening scholarships,serve to acknowledge that others canhelp achieve social policy goals becauseof their perspective and experience ofthe world. The FCO’s engagementwith a range of think-tanks and policyinstitutes — IISS, RUSI, Chatham House— is not a substitute for its ownthinking but a way of broadeningdebate. The test now is to use theinternet much more ambitiously inbuilding wider engagement on policydesign and delivery.Diplomacy onlineMuch is made of the potential of theinternet to connect different groupsof people. But its full potential will notbe reached unless the connection ismeaningful. It is one thing to designand deliver the technology; quiteanother to use it imaginatively andproductively. Collaboration gives us theconceptual framework to plan betterengagement using the web. For theweb to be useful, it needs both toengage citizens on their own termsand to draw on those outsidegovernment who can best help designand implement a particular policy.Collaborative strategy about webdevelopment shows that we do notneed to make a stark choice betweeninternal and external collaboration.Some ideas may be developed as“open-sourced innovation”, invitingany contributions. An example is TimKruger’s website www.cquestrate.com.Others may involve in “closedinnovation” — such as an organizationfirst tapping the ideas of its ownemployees — or in “semi-openinnovation”. An example of the latteris the report you are reading now,written in consultation with a numberof contacts, external and internal.I involved more than 250 contactsacross private, public and non-profitsectors in a private discussion beforegiving the report a wider internalcirculation in Whitehall. It was moreeffective developing the argumentsfirst in a smaller group than to gopublic right from the outset. Softwareprogrammes provided, for instance,by Ning, allow social networks togrow at their own pace with a degreeof confidence that discussions can belimited to a chosen membership. Thiskind of protocol is invaluable in buildingtrust and confidence in newer formsof technology.NetworksIt is useful to see collaboration asworking with degrees of separation,either between collaboration partnersand their supporting networks orbetween this universe and the widerworld. This takes into account howpower and influence are differentlydistributed in today’s organizations.Understanding the organizational chartneeds to be matched with a knowledgeof networks and their contribution tomaking things happen. Not surprisingly,some of my respondents emphasisedthe role of networks rather thanhierarchies as the basis of social andeconomic organization. They speak ofthe shift in big organizations from thecentre to supporting the front-line.Collaboration builders need to workwith a mix of organizational designs— some hierarchical, others based onteams or networks.Putting a value on networks does notmake an appreciation of hierarchy anyless important. A single company canoperate different degrees ofcentralisation and decentralisationdepending on how it organises itsfunctions. Business strategies can bea combination of the global and local,taking into account regional and localopportunities. Local connections arecritical, as well as global and regionalones. In Chapter 1, we saw thatMcDonalds operates a policy of“freedom within a framework” toemphasise the importance of the localconnection. In many multinationalcompanies, however, communicationand marketing decisions may be takenat the centre to achieve economies ofscale, standardisation and impact.Social network analysis (SNA) theoryshows that just because people areconnected they don’t necessarily deliverthe same value to each other. Equallyimportant are the ties that each “node”in a network brings and what getscommunicated in one part of a networkrather than another. So while it makesintuitive sense to exploit one’s strongties, such an approach has limits if oneis trying to harness wider interest. Therecommended approach is to tap weakties because these will ultimately bringmore value than one’s limited networkof strong ties (PFC Energy Consultingfor Shell, unpublished report). It meanswe need to engage with weak ties sothat they can then connect with theirstronger ones. But SNA theory fallsshort when it comes to clarifyingwhat conditions would produce tiesof different strengths. Diplomats actas “channels” along which socialinfrastructure can naturally form.That then facilitates and encouragesinteractions – hence “networks”.This has important implications forgovernments, policy-makers and anyonewho depends on networks to yield extravalue. Ideas do not always speak forthemselves. Policies have to developed,54 55

not just presented, to connect indifferent ways with their targetaudiences. The “target audience”is, in a sense, an outmoded conceptbecause the people whose engagementone wants will be communicating intheir own way. The skill is to join theirconversation or facilitate one thatthey will want to join. This presentsa particular challenge for the new publicdiplomacy, as we shall see in Chapter 5.Vision for businessBusiness, too, needs to change. Someof the world’s biggest multinationalsneed a more strategic notion ofcollaboration to survive and thrive.Interviews with 20 managers at ShellInternational and some of theirstakeholders showed the company tobe highly strategic, both in its corporatepolicy and in its choice of staff to drivepartnerships and collaborations moresystematically.It is not just what Shell does to achieveits aim, but how it does it: the companyuses techniques aimed at enabling abetter quality of dialogue to emerge. Itseparates the task of bringing differentparties to the table from the next phaseof framing problems, exploring optionsand agreeing solutions. It has learntfrom experience about not engagingstakeholders early enough and its 20-30year time-horizons oblige Shell to thinkand plan long. The politics of energyexploitation and production mean thatthe organization has to work effectivelywith host governments and localcommunities, now and in the future.But Shell has also taken a policydecision to pay as much attention towhat it calls “non-technical” risk asit does to technical risk. It has alsobrought in specialist advice in what itcalls “social performance”. Shell seesthat what ultimately matters is theextent to which international oilcompanies are trusted as businesspartners — not just by hostgovernments, but by local communitieswho stand to lose the most from thedisruptive effects of exploration andproduction.A strategic relationship between RoyalDutch Shell and the UK-registeredcharity Living Earth Foundation (LEF)demonstrates the importance ofworking in partnership to encouragesustainable development.In 2006, members of the LivingEarth Foundation made a visitto the North Slope of Alaska.They faced suspicion from localleaders, who asked if they wereenvironmental campaigners —“enviros”. LEF member explainedthe nature of their work andrecounted some of theirexperiences in the field ofeducation. This provided a platformon which trust could be built. LEFwere invited to talk to the localschool board. From these earlydiscussions they created anexchange programme for teachers,a programme that was seen by itsparticipants as very helpful.Although its primary role was toprovide financial support, Shell wasgiven the opportunity to listen tofeedback from the programme anduse it to inform the company’s ownstrategies. For Shell and LEF, successis the perception by the participantsof the contribution the work ismaking towards the developmentof social capital. In the words ofRoger Hammond, Director of LEF,“It is not a Shell programme nor isit an LEF programme: it is locallyowned.”Learning points:• Shell would say that “locally owned”means that local people feel that theprogramme is theirs rather thanShell’s or LEF’s: they are involved and,indeed, in the driving seat.• “Social capital” can include capacitybuilding, social networks andstrengthening the fabric of society.In general, it is also locally owned.Even if a Shell or LEF is involvedinitially, social capital is somethingthat local people drive.Case for caution“You have to be tough-minded andhave enough sensitivity to makecollaboration work. It’s not justpeople who have egos;organizations have egos too.”Diplomat at one of the NATO missions,Brussels.Collaboration is a bitter-sweetexperience for many, howevernecessary or desirable it is. In assessingthe scope and limits of collaboration,what most of my 200 respondents feltwas as important as what theyspecifically achieved.Although this report helpedorganizations, teams and individualsto understand their achievementsand reflect on what they would havedone differently, little time is spentassessing the scope and limits of aparticular collaboration. It getsmanaged but rarely thought about.Recurring challenges — complexity,ambiguity, uncertainty and difference— are mentioned, but not tackledsystematically or structurally. We tendto live with these challenges rather thanwork through them.Far from this being a “soft”management issue, it is a hard,leadership one. It makes all the56 57

difference to whether collaborationactually happens, adds real value,secures and advances other interestsand, critically, inspires others to spotand exploit opportunities for furtherpolitical, commercial and socialcollaboration. In parts of the worldwhere conflict or insurgency persist,effective collaboration betweengovernments, business and civil societywill decide whether lives will continueto be lost or whether livelihoods willimprove.A spirit of collaboration may be merelyespoused rather than practised; and thiswill become most obvious when suchventures come under pressure or suffersetbacks. This is partly because the wayself-interest is pursued is still largely onthe basis of a zero-sum game and partlybecause, when we do genuinely strivefor win-win solutions, we are clumsy atcreating, claiming and delivering valuein a way that feels right to all parties.Some of my respondents in othergovernments say that they can see thatthere is a greater expectation thatgovernments, business and NGOs willhave to work together more. But thatis more because the way we organiseourselves demands greater collaborationrather than because we are very goodat it.The collaboration-builder enters a worldthat draws heavily on partnerships but isoften unclear what precisely it wants orexpects; it may not be ready to managethe boundaries of what is acceptablein a collaborative venture. Sometimesthe very ambiguity is what makes thecollaboration possible. But failure toaddress the ambiguity and find commonagreement on how to work with it canoften erode any good work done by thecollaboration.Risk of muddling through“Muddling through” rather thanmaking the best use of collaborationrisks reducing policy options andproducing a vicious circle ofdisappointment, disillusionment anddistrust. It is not only a matter ofwhether collaboration is attractive inprinciple and difficult in practice butalso how we “get real” aboutcollaboration so that it does not acquirea significance that distorts its real value.Studies on trust and goodwill (e.g. Fox,1974) reveal the disturbing truth that,if trust and goodwill are exerciseduncritically, collaboration can maskunder-performance.Parties fail to confront one another’sfailings or do not want to risk supportfor the collaboration, changingtheindicators of success to justifycontinued under-performance.Nothing is more likely to give thenebulous phenomenon of collaborationand partnership a worse name.International institutions risk losingpublic confidence — as well as supportfrom government, business and civilsociety — if they fail to address whatreduces their potential foreffective collaboration.One example given to me when I visiteda number of national missions at NATOwas the way in which the rules permitone country to block debate andtherefore decision. One diplomat saidwryly: “Even the European Union, forall its complexity and the need to workwith 27 member states, can — andoften does — put real pressure on someof its members if the broad majoritywants to achieve resolution.The experience of practitioners is notdissimilar to watching a rugby matchwhere there is a struggle for possessionfor large parts of the game. Suddenlya breakthrough occurs, the line of sightis clearly in view and there’s a dash tovictory. Collaborations need focus andmomentum; yet it is in their nature tomeet resistance to both. One of thebiggest dangers is collaborations gettingstuck. Huxham and Vangen (2005)speak of “collaborative inertia”. As wellas stalling, collaborations risk being:• sidetracked (the collaboration hasmomentum, but loses focus);• hijacked (it has focus andmomentum, but is not carryingeverybody with it);• polarised (momentum is cancelled outas the collaboration tears itself apart);or• fragmented (focus and momentumare dissipated).Value-focused collaboration: the keyto successPolitical or business leadersusually want something out ofthe contribution their organizationmakes. It’s one thing establishingwhat the collaboration wants toachieve. But you also need to knowthat a leader will also have reasonsto get involved: enhancing theirorganization’s reputation, leavinga legacy. There’s nothing wrongwith this and it’s important to workwith it.Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman, BBC Trust.The key to success in any sharedendeavour is value-focusedcollaboration. The focus of anycollaboration or partnership is the valuethat it generates and delivers, so thatany gains or losses are seen in relationto what overall is achieved. Successlies in finding or creating synergies,eliminating duplication and showingthat the cost of not collaboratingoutweighs the cost of collaborating.Cost and value can be seen in strictly58 59

economic terms; but can be seen morebroadly in economic, political and socialterms. Whatever the basis of evaluation,that a collaboration has to contributereal value is unarguable. Even iftrade-offs and sacrifices are made,the collaboration delivers on whatotherwise could not have beenachieved. When tensions aretransformed into opportunities, whatmakes collaboration difficult is madeeasier and therefore more possible.Value-focused collaboration has botha strategic and pragmatic side. Strategyon its own will not help navigate thechanging conditions inside and outsidethe collaboration. Pure pragmatism willgive a sense of coping with change; butultimately it results in being swept alongby the currents. This combination alsohelps keep some things simple, whilenot oversimplifying them.It is a bit like navigating a ship at sea.Ships can be partly rebuilt at sea, butnot if all the planks are removed atonce. Their basic design sets limits onthe captain and the crew, howeverexperienced and enterprising they are.Whatever has to be managed on thesurface can easily be changed by what isbelow the surface. And conditions maychange, often suddenly and radically.Strategic pragmatism, open mindsand open eyesGillian Stamp and Lorraine Dodd aredeveloping a model that helps leadersfocus in their decision-making. Thetwo variables are the extent to whichleaders keep their eyes and ears openand the extent to which they keep anopen mind. Leaders may choose toconcentrate on some things and notothers. But they need to be aware whiletheir eyes are closed. They may wantto think about a problem in a certainway — but they need to be aware thatthey have closed their minds.Some private-sector respondents saidthat procurement in business andgovernment could lead to systematicdistortion of what is thought of asvaluable. Contract specifications andprocurement procedures can mean thatvalue is seen only as price — when whatbusiness or government might findvaluable is the assurance or innovationthat a product, service or relationshipbrings.I tested this requirement — to workwith what emerges rather than whatis predetermined — with a range ofleaders in the field of collaboration. SirMichael Lyons, Chairman of the BBCTrust, says: “Too much is made of theheroic efforts of one leader, because it’san easier and catchier story to tell. Butif you look at what was achieved overtime to make Birmingham thesuccessful city it has become, it’s acomplex and broad collaboration bymany people who’ve all made acontribution between them.”Baroness Neuberger, who advises thePrime Minister on the third sector,argues that value of what an effectivecollaboration can achieve is not alwaysobvious until it has been given a chanceto work. “It’s in the interaction andchemistry that real potential arises,”she said.International Alert’s Bill Yates — whohas made a vocation of trying to bringpeace to war-torn areas — has thiswarning: “What techniques you’velearnt, you have to leave them behindand work with the people you’redealing with on their terms.”Strategic pragmatism balances the needto manage against working with theflow. In The Age of Paradox, CharlesHandy argues that this paradox can be“managed” only in the sense of copingwith it — which is what managementhad always meant until the term waspurloined to mean planning andcontrol.According to Richard Farson inManagement of the Absurd, thepsychologist Carl Rogers thought that,at the point when a therapist thoughtthat he or she could handle a client,it was the start of an invisible erosionof respect. To be truly effective, thetherapist has to respect the client andbe open to whatever might happen.Management is the ability to meet eachsituation, armed not with a battery oftechniques but with the openness thatpermits a genuine response.Some respondents are sceptical abouthow much governments can adaptto a true spirit of partnership becausetheir relationship with the rest of societyis too inflexible. Collaboration is aparticular challenge for government,which has traditionally been in aparent-child relationship with its citizensrather than one that is adult-to-adult.If government wants to encouragea closer engagement with citizens, itwill have to work hard to convincedoubters. It will also have to be patientand demonstrate consistency in itsactions.British government has shown suchinnovation in the road safety campaignsdeveloped by the Department forTransport. What was done to citizensand for them over the years is nowincreasingly done with them and bythem. “For our more recent campaigns,”says David Murphy the department’shead of marketing, “we involve at theearliest stages the very people to whomany campaign would be addressed. Ifit’s young people, we get their ideas ofwhat will, or won’t work, for them.”The process that the communicationdirector and his team follow withstakeholders now has several stages ofinvolvement. First, they sound out anyconcerns and ideas; secondly, they testconcepts and strategies; and, finally,60 61

they demonstrate products before theygo public.Value-focused collaborationacknowledges that actions speak louderthan words in creating and sustainingan atmosphere in which trust andgoodwill prevail. Because collaborationdepends on deepening relationshipsover time, reciprocity prevails: trustgradually begets greater trust whiledistrust quickly begets mistrust. Overtime, people come to share similarattitudes to each other. Technique canmask attitudes only temporarily.However strong the collaboration isamong its participants, for manycollaborations — particularly betweengovernments, business and NGOs —success turns on being able to motivateand mobilise a multiplicity of citizenswhose choices and behaviour areshaped by a range of influences.But even acknowledging the need toengage can reflect a narrowness ofperspective. It is a top-down view ofgame-changing collaboration, attractiveto the conventional policy-makingmind-set: “If only we can work outwhat a rational solution might look like,we can produce a solution and findways in which it can be implemented”.The pure logic of the argument drivesan optimism that might or might nothave traction with others whosedecisions may be driven even moreby apparently irrational choices.One key message for campaigns thatare designed to enlist the supportof partner organizations’ contacts,networks and audiences is not topresume responses or to over-relyon partners’ own assumptions. Suchcampaigns need to invest enough timein listening to feedback and acting onit. Insight into citizens’ preferences andbehaviours will not just affect marketingbut also the design and implementationof policy.Alan Bishop was until recentlyChief Executive of the UKGovernment’s Central Officeof Information. He recalls thegovernment decision in 2003to give limited approval to thecommercial exploitation of GMcrops. It represented a watershedin how government engages andcommunicates on a most complexand contentious issue that cutsacross departments. Defra — theenvironment, food and rural affairsdepartment — developed andimplemented a strategy over12 months that enabled thegovernment to give GM crops thego-ahead. This involved conductingreviews of the science and theeconomics and holding a publicdebate that was governmentfundedbut at arm’s length. Theprocess came close to collapsebecause NGOs and environmentexperts who had been sceptical ofthe government’s intentions wantedmore time and money to debatethe issues. Government officialssuccessfully won their trust andcommitment to make use of theavailable resources and to meetthe deadline. This was achieved bygiving the independent board moreopportunity to review and improvethe design of the debate, bypersuading ministers to acceptchanges and by managing publicexpectations. By giving responsibilityfor the conduct of the public debateto an independent chairman andboard, the Government could showover time that the final decision toallow restricted use of GM cropswas based on an informed andgenuine debate about thearguments as well as a properreview of the scientific andeconomic evidence.Learning points:• As well as the formal public debate,there were many other dialoguesthat tested not only the government’sreasons but its motivations. While thegovernment wanted to be robustabout the timetable and fundsavailable, it had to show flexibility onother issues to ensure an effectivecollaboration.• Ministers showed leadership both increating a space in which these issuescould be more openly addressed andin supporting civil servants andstakeholders to manage the designand delivery.Work with rational assumptions, yetunderstand their limitsRoger Miles, King’s Centre for RiskManagement at King’s College London,argues that the collaboration-builderneeds to take a strategic view of risk.This goes beyond the many sectionalinterests and specialist definitions ofrisk management that are often usedto justify professional intransigence: “A measure of modern leadership qualityshould be a willingness to rely onjudgment, in self and others, ratherthan to seek justifications fromrisk-metrics.” (Miles, forthcoming).Much modern policy-making retainsa weakness which perhaps reflectsa lingering reluctance to abandon acomforting notion that commandand-controlis the natural mode ofgovernment, with government cast inthe role of parent and citizens aschildren. That weakness is a belief thata policy acts directly in the way thatit alters behaviour in the targetedgroups — a mindset described by Milesas “Newtonian optimism”. The termcomes from Newton’s third law ofmotion, which says that an actionproduces an equal and opposite reaction.62 63

In a forthcoming study of rule-bendingbehaviours among bankers, Milesidentifies the real-life difficulties whichhave followed regulatory assumptionsthat rational structures will evokerational responses. This study reflectsa wider change of opinion in theacademic community, rejecting formerassumptions that humans make rationaldecisions in the face of complex riskinformation. A growing body ofresearch now points to intuition,emotional response or simply moodat the time as having a greater impacton decisions than rational argument.As one analyst has put it: “Fear is morepersuasive than logic” (De Becker,1997, p76).These findings add to understandingsgained through Nobel-prizewinningwork on cognitive heuristics. These areways in which human decisions areinfluenced by mental “weightings” and“short-cuts” that are numerous andmay often be misleading — such ashow recently we last heard about theproblem and whether we thought weknew anything about it already.(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).Two particular human behaviours willtend to frustrate the efforts ofrational-school policymakers. Anintervention which evokes a strongemotion-led response can rapidly finditself mobilising public anger or ridiculeof government. Typically, this mayconcern a perceived denial of citizens’rights — such as the right not to becriminalised for failing to carry identitypapers, or eating beef on the bone orselling market vegetables by imperialunits of weight. Secondly, whenpolicymakers have convinced themselvesthat regulated groups will comply witha new intervention, they may haveignored the possibility of “gaming”responses which carry a perverserationale of their own.From among many possible examplesof gaming reported in the media, wemight select:• ASBOs worn as a badge of pride byaspiring career-criminals;• hospitals re-registering in-patientspurely to meet throughput targets;• diversity targets achieved by adding inemployees’ grandparents’ ethnicity;• police arresting children as a way toboost crime clear-up rates; and• local authorities blowing their annualbudgets in the closing weeks of thefinancial year in order to becomeeligible for more money next year.Suspend assumptions whileexplaining them“Conversation is a meeting ofminds with different memories andhabits. When minds meet, theydon’t just exchange facts: theytransform them, reshape them,draw different implications fromthem, engage in new trains ofthought. Conversation doesn’t justreshuffle the cards, it creates newcards.”(Zeldin, 1998, p.14)Rational assumptions are prey tocriticism both by experts in cognitionand by populist rule-bending. If applyinga rational-optimistic model, one cannotpresume understanding — let aloneagreement — on anything that mightturn out to be viewed differently byeach of the parties and the people thatthey represent or can influence.What makes for effective conversation iswhen all sides are prepared to listen toone another, are genuinely interestedand are open to the possibility that theymight be surprised or learn somethingnew. But this does not mean thatpeople have to change their minds andagree. So often in conversation, peopledo not listen to what the other has tosay but use what they hear as thetrigger for what they want to say. Thisstifles the potential of conversationbefore it has begun.For collaboration to work, it requireswhat Gillian Stamp describes assuspending one’s assumptions whileexplaining them to the other. In part3 of this chapter, I describe methodsand techniques that can be learnt andapplied to increase the chances of ameaningful conversation among partieswho cannot immediately see what theyhave in common or how they couldwork together.Bill Yates played a pivotal role inbrokering peace efforts in conflicttornBurundi in the late 1990s.He says: “You need to leave anypreconceptions behind, and reallytry to understand the situation andthe people you’re dealing with. Asa mediator, you need to makeyourself as invisible as the situationrequires — to be a fly on the wallor even a fly off the wall.”Collaboration requires us to bepresent to the situation andmaintain a commitment. Yates adds:“At one point I thought I wouldhave to listen to seven millionpersonal histories about the Burundiconflict. But that’s the price onehas to pay to build the rightrelationship over time and achieveany kind of breakthrough.”64 65

If one observes the editorial meetingof a television news programme teamthe start of a shift, a good test for aneffective collaboration is the extentto which the quietest voice findsexpression, is listened to and isacted on.At BBC World news, in 1996, aftera hostage crisis had ended swiftly atthe Japanese embassy in Peru, thestory the day-shift inherited from thenight team seemed to have no newangles to report. But the teamproducing the lunchtime programmeexplored other possibilities at their6.00 am meeting. One new memberof the team, not herself an expert atmanaging hostage crises, asked whatmight have gone wrong. She wasinterrupted by another, moreestablished, member of the teamwho said the authorities had followedtext-book procedures and it had beena very effective operation. Theprogramme editor neverthelessencouraged her to develop the ideaand line up an expert for when theprogramme went on air at noon.Five minutes before transmission, anofficial from the Japanese governmentbriefed the media that, althougheverybody was relieved that the crisiswas over, there were some concernsabout the risks that had been taken.The example shows the value of the“Lieutenant Columbo” touch incollaborations, asking one morequestion that might provide a betterway of going forward.Studies of the decision-makingprocess in the Challenger spacedisaster highlight the organizationaland institutional pressures to reachconsensus and closure. The decisionto launch the next day was theproduct of a decision-making processinvolving key personnel who were allgiven the opportunity to express theirviews of the relative merits of eithergoing ahead with the launch ordelaying it. The engineers had seriousconcerns but ultimately agreed that itwas a “management” decision andnot just an engineering one. Theytherefore consented to the fatallaunch.Learning points:• The team or collaboration-builder inthe first two examples saw thatcreative solutions cannot be assumedbut need to find expression. Effectiveintervention consists in identifying thebarriers and levers, and clearing thepath for others to make their journey(Covey, 1989).• A leader can make a significantdifference by setting the strategic“ceiling” — the point at which issuesor angles can be discussed — highor low.6667

Part 2: Drivers for success and steps to takeTo produce value, collaborationmust be anchored in both realityand possibility. It is about managingwhat can be planned and respondingappropriately to what emerges. A rangeof respondents across governments andcivil society were asked what this meansfor leadership. In pulling together theirresponses, I have drawn up some keydrivers to guide collaboration.To be effective, collaboration buildersneed to:• See collaboration as part of a biggerpicture. The collaboration must bealigned with a strategy to deliver thebest possible outcome. Collaborationcan be at the heart of plan and it canalso complement and reinforce otherplans. It has a beginning, middle andend.• Achieve results with broad-basedsupport. Collaborators must combineeffectiveness with legitimacy. Thisis particularly important if thecollaboration cannot deliver changesby itself and relies on the combinedeffort of others.• Keep up the momentum and securemeaningful involvement from mostpartners. Collaboration builders mustmanage complexity, uncertainty andambiguity, and invest time in thehuman side of common endeavours.At the same time, they must accepttrade-offs to achieve a common end.• Experiment, evolve and improve.Collaborators must adapt. Thecollaborative world is not aboutwinning an argument but workingtogether to do what is right.We are not seeking a recipe forperfection, but can be better at playingour role in a collaborative endeavour.We can achieve more by being firm onsome points and flexible on others. Inthis section, I identify 15 steps neededto implement any collaborative strategy,and provide a model for developingeffective relationships. In part 3 of thischapter, I discuss the main challenges ofcollaboration: leadership, trust, risk andcomplexity.1. Clarify the purposeWhat purpose does the collaborationserve? The FCO faced two hostagecrises in 2007: five British diplomatswent missing in Ethiopia and 15 RoyalNavy personnel were captured by Iran.In managing these challenges, thegovernment was helped by having asimple strategic aim: to ensure the safeand early return of those held. Thiswas understood and communicatedinternally and externally — both at theemergency committee, COBRA, andin all the supporting operations acrossgovernment. The single-mindedpursuit of an agreed strategic aim setsthe conditions for working effectivelywith a high level of media interest. Itwas understood that no informationwould be disclosed that mightundermine that ultimate goal.Focus on a strategic aim helps thecollaboration builder to draw oncommitment by establishing the limitsof the potential collaboration. ChrisHuxham’s work shows how goals canbe explicit, assumed or hidden — andstill produce results.Why have a collaboration? Whetherto set up a partnership in the first placeis often the most difficult question ofall. Collaborations run risks that aresimilar to those of organizations. Oneconsultant who advises charities toldan organization assessing its purposeand role: “Remember that theCompanies Act requires you to dosome good for others, not to pursueyour own good. You don’t have anautomatic right to exist.”What has to be decided is whetherthe collaboration will add value and,even if it does, whether it is worth theinvestment. Collaborations andpartnerships can set back a causeif expectations are set too high and failto materialise.2. Aim highValue-focused collaboration does notcompromise on achieving a win-winoutcome. Even more ambitiously, itmay aim for the highest commondenominator. That might include theintangible value of any collaborationas well as more tangible elements.One needs to work out the dividend —political, economic, social — thatcollaborative activity will bring.Pioneers of sustainable developmentspeak of a triple bottom-line: economic,environment and social. We can seesomething akin to this when businessesseek ever-higher aims in the field ofcorporate social responsibility (CSR).This is about business performance aswell as public relations. If there is a gapbetween rhetoric and reality there isspin. And spin is counter-productive.Negotiations need not be about price.Nor have they always been. Savingmoney is always a driver in the publicsector. Saving and making money aredrivers in the private sector. But moneyneed not be the only driver. It is possibleto look at higher costs in terms of othercosts or missed opportunities.This is very pertinent to businesses thatare seeking to move from to a lowcarboneconomy. Companies that candrive growth, increase revenues andreduce costs — while becoming moresustainable — will become moreattractive to other business partnersand the wider public. The tougheconomic climate gives companies anopportunity to reap the political andeconomic advantages of a longer-termcommitment to reducing carbonemissions.68 69

Aiming high in collaboration meansraising one’s sights. Collaborations aresimilar to negotiations in establishinginterests and creating value. Simplenegotiations will make assumptionsof interest and potential value,concentrating on what it takes foreach party to settle. More complexnegotiations will go beneath thesurface of stated interests or assumedvalue in trying to discover the realinterests at stake or the other intereststhat could be taken into account toallow a deal to take shape. In this sense,collaborations are no different. Moretime spent on establishing real interestsgives the collaboration better insight.3. Strive for commonality of interestExperienced negotiators see thatnegotiations can scrape through withneither side going below its bottom lineor cutting across red lines. Sometimesthe most that can be achieved is notlosing rather than winning. But all thebest negotiations aspire to whateconomists call the Pareto optimum —the point of agreement that favourseach side equally, maximising gains andminimising losses.Identifying the Pareto optimum is thefirst step. The second is to expand thesize of the cake so that there is evenmore benefit for each side. Exploringthe full potential of the deal at theoutset has strategic advantages: itensures continued interest andcommitment to a deal that lasts. OlgaEdridge, who led the BBC’s successfuljoint venture with Discovery from 1998and 2004, refers to this as making surethat there is always plenty of meat onthe bone. “Never cut to the bone,”she says. “Give yourself and partnersenough to chew on as the partnershipprogresses.”The third step is to see whether thereis any value or interest, not alreadyon the table, that can yield a latentdividend and enhance the originalproposal. Economists call thisaddressing the externalities.Increased participation by those whocontribute ideas and resources will drivethe value of collaboration. Ensuring thatpartners contribute as equals, whatevertheir specific assets, helps both achievethe best deal and to secure a longertermcommitment. The advantage ofdominating any partnership carries thedrawback of losing what the othermight want to contribute if treated onmore equal terms. This requires bothparties to give up some power in returnfor an increased contribution and beingcreative about how contributions can beenhanced.Most commercial mergers andacquisitions, strategic alliances andjoint ventures — all examples ofcollaborations — either end upbeing more difficult and costlythan was foreseen or simply fail.Throughout the BBC-Discoveryventure, Olga Edridge was acutelyaware that as many as 70% ofcommercial joint ventures failwithin two to three years. Eachparty needs to work at what itmight gain through associationwith the other. This requiresthorough preparation, andcommitment from the top.Edridge acknowledges that thestakes for both BBC and Discoverywere so high that, right from thestart, they were anxious to avoidthe mistakes that are so commonlymade. “We had to ensure that thatit was a relationship of equals andtherefore had to work at what eachside might bring to the table,” shesays. “Discovery would provide theinvestment; the BBC would providethe brand, give Discovery first refusalon buying its programmes and offerco-production opportunities.”Learning point:• Successful business deals involvelonger-term thinking, being creativeabout tapping the potential of a dealand putting value on relationships.4. Evaluate successThe FCO, in its public diplomacy work,has attached importance to developingways of evaluating success. Academicresearch done on evaluating successin collaboration is in its infancy butprovides some useful pointers. Huxhamand Hibbert (2007) suggest that fiveelements can be broadly established:• Substantive:achieving some level of output andshowing one has done so. Socialgoals can be big or small. Successcan be relative, either to thatcollaboration or to doing somethingelse.• Process:it is often said that process does notmatter. But on some key aspects —for example, ensuring enough of theright kind of involvement — it iscritical.• Emerging milestones:whatever normal milestonesare established for programmemanagement purposes, practitionersacknowledge milestones that arisealong the way. These can make alasting impression: for example:“That report was a real milestone.Because we produced it, we canmove on.”70 71

• Recognition:whatever is achieved, success isamplified by others givingrecognition. Examples includeinvitations to follow up work, awardsand enquiries by others who want toknow something was achieved.• Pride:when collaboration has beensuccessful, individuals claim success,feel confident talking about it andeven shout about it.Interestingly, Huxham and Hibbertstudied examples of “anti-success”.Even though it is possible to identifysuccess, some of those involved raise allsorts of caveats. In my view, exploringwhat success involves can motivate andserve as a reality-check. If others are notseeing the same reality, issues can bedealt with.5. Create value - and demonstratevaluesThere is a link between creatingvalue and having values. Business isunder increasing pressure to actresponsibly in the eyes of its ownemployees, shareholders, customersand the wider public. So part of anydecision is aligning business strategywith values and reputation. Alan Murray,co-author of Corporate Responsibility:A Critical Introduction, says thatbusness on the whole has yet toprove that what it commits to doingin its corporate social responsibilityprogrammes is matched by the coreof the business. The banking andfinance sector in particular, he says,has failed to show that all its businessplans are costed and implemented withcorporate social responsibility in mind.Stanley Fink, one of Britain’s privateequityleaders, used his time leadingthe Man Group to show how businesscan be innovative about reducingcarbon emissions. Fink says thatwhen he started reading about tacklingclimate change, he quickly saw thatbusiness could encourage investmentin clean technologies rather than riskbeing taxed. Collaboration on drawingup policies for the business sector canoften come about as means to pre-emptundesirable government decisions andreassure the public. Fink recalls: “Whenleaders in the private equity sector metto agree ways to be more transparentand regulate themselves better, thiswas the best way to give politiciansand the public greater confidence inthe management of the sector anddemonstrate through our actions thatthe sector adds value.”In July 2008, BAE Systems decided toact comprehensively on Lord Woolf’sreport into the ethical practicesunderlying the company’s businessby implementing a far-reachingprogramme that will make demandsall its staff — up to 100,000 in number.Anything less would risk further criticismof the company and the defencesector in which it plays a leading role.BAE Systems says that by adoptingall 23 of Woolf’s recommendations itwants to show that it can be recognisedboth as a high-performing company andas a global leader in standards ofbusiness conduct. It will bring in anexternal auditor to review progress inthe implementation ofa three-year programme.6. Understand the different contextsin which collaboration operatesCollaborations require their own blendof leadership and team skills, both totake advantage of an opportunity forcollaboration and to make it work.General Sir Rupert Smith, who has ledmajor collaborations throughout hiscareer, says that leadership can chooseto focus either on the external challengeto an organization or the internal one.The organization provides somethingfrom which to operate. But there is acontext outside. The challenge is notonly the leadership that one gives one’sorganization but also how one supportsother leaders who have to operate incontexts outside the collaboration.7. Use political intelligenceA grasp of politics is essential forleading or supporting collaboration.Collaborators understand the widerpolitics and political imperatives as wellas the organizational politics. Theyappreciate others both as members ofa group and as individuals with theirown agendas. What are the politicalobjectives of the players? What are thepower relations between them? Whatare the alignments or deals that couldbring them together?An enterprise called e3g has donesome pioneering work on difficultcollaborative endeavours, such asclimate change. It uses an approachthat requires investing time in aligninginterests before focusing on thepolitical choice that is needed to bringabout any possible agreement.As one diplomat says, “all attemptsto bring about difficult outcomes needto start with politics”. This takes usto the importance of framing andlanguage. Political parties understandthis but, on the whole, governmentsdo not. It needs to be understood ifcollaborative strategies are to work.The debate on climate change tooka positive turn, from the point of viewof those wanting to galvanise a widerspectrum of American opinion, whenthe evangelical right was seen as apotential ally by environmentalists.Solitaire Townsend, chief executive ofFuterra Sustainability Communications,says that framing the challenge oftackling climate change as a matter72 73

of “custodianship of the planet”established the right common ground.The split between political leadershipand civil servants should not preventeach side from understanding of theother’s drivers, barriers and levers. Whenthe relationship works well, there is acreative dynamic between ministers andcivil servants. One former permanentsecretary says: “Civil servants havegone from being shock-absorbers ofministerial aspiration to gear-boxes. Atour best, we offer strategic options, andthink ahead about how we can deliverbetter or more innovatively.”Thinking should happen within the box— as well as outside it — to keep thedelivery of objectives relevant andsalient for our changing society.Britain’s ambassador in Bucharest,Robin Barnett, says that in countries likeRomania, where civil society is relativelyweak, the benefits of partnerships areless self-evident than one might assume.“Transparency has not been a part ofthe central and local governmenttradition,” he reminds us. “NGOs havebeen circumspect about engaging tooclosely with officials for fear ofsomehow compromising theirindependence.”Barnett says that there have also beenconcerns about aspects of private-sectorinvolvement, given the possibleperception of influence-peddling,“Even where partnerships have beenformed, open sharing of ideas andinformation can take a long time to getoff the ground.”Working in Romania has involvedovercoming suspicion. Thingsare slowly changing and Britainhas been involved in some effectivepartnerships. Two catalysts forsuccess are sponsorship at apolitical level in partnershipsinvolving central or localgovernment and externalinvolvement. If ministers or mayorsare seen to back a particularpartnership actively — rather thanmerely to accept it — then officialsare immediately more open andfrank. Similarly, the involvementof embassies and other externalpartners also gives an addedimpulse in the initial stages.A good example is the LocalTransparency Councils project, apartnership between the Romaniangovernment, local authorities,NGOs, civil society and the Britishembassy. The embassy was able toact as a catalyst for introducinggreater transparency in theworkings of local governmentby using the power of positiveUK examples and stressing theapolitical nature of such activities.It pointed out that voters tendedto reward best-performing councilsand that NGOs and civil societycould only gain from a positivedialogue with local authorities.There is more work to be done butthese councils are on the right trackin many municipalities.Learning points:• Political sponsorship acts as a catalyst.External scrutiny concentrates minds.• Patience and persistence are politicalskills. Both recognize the body politicfor what it is, whatever changes needto be brought about.8. Show long-term commitmentThe more difficult and complexcollaborations need to be approachedlike a marathon, with all the focus,preparation and perseverance that thisentails. The European Union summitof October 2008 failed to achieve abreakthrough on dealing with climatechange, but Britain is standing by plansagreed in 2007. The Foreign Secretary,David Miliband, insists that Europe hitsits 20% target for reduction in carbonemissions.On corporate social responsibility, SirMark Moody-Stuart, Chairman ofAnglo-American, says: “Companies thatdo not transparently communicate theirsustainability performance are runningout of excuses.” (PR Week, 17 October,2008).Worsening economic conditions arenot a reason for companies to putCSR on the back burner. Accordingto the Ethical Corporation Institute(2007), despite a 10,000% increasein companies reporting their CSRperformance over the past decade,many are not reporting in an engagingway.The German presidency of the EUwas successful in establishing along-term framework for tacklingclimate change. Since then,progress has been fraught withpolitical and economic challenges.The work now involving thecoordination of eight directoratesgeneralat the Commission inrussels shows that internationalinstitutions are beginning to closethe democratic deficit by a moreambitious involvement of non-stateactors and citizens in the delivery ofsocial goals. Claus Sorensen, DGCommunication, says that EU plansfor dealing with climate changeinvolve making closer connectionswith energy security andenvironment. “It’s not just a wider,74 75

ut a deeper, collaboration,” heexplains. “Unless we work morecollaboratively, we won’t achievethe impact the EU needs to have tobe globally effective.”Any deal on reducing carbon emissionswhich is sustainable — in both theconventional and the green sense —has to be an intricate web of mutuallysupporting agreements at global, regional,national and local levels. Governmentsneed to be seen to deliver forbusiness and civil society backhome,no matter how dextrous negotiatorsare at summits. Private engagement ofstate and non-state actors needs to beinterwoven with public diplomacy.The vast majority of issueswere resolved at the WTO talks.But two of the 20 were unresolvedand led to their collapse in 2008,showing that any collaboration ornegotiation is only as strong as itsweakest link. India’s role is critical todetermining the outcome of bothsets of issues.The WTO’s Pascal Lamy visitedIndia shortly after the collapse ofthe talks. The quality of coveragein India’s media, one of the mostestablished and fastest growing inthe world, gives us an insight intothe collaborative challenge ofachieving resolution on bothclimate change, and world trade.The talks were very widely coveredand there was much factualreporting about which countrywas taking which position. TheIndian Government’s position wasreported to have been tough —particularly against the USA — butwithout ruling anything out. TheIndian media took the view thattheir government was standing upfor developing nations.India’s Ministry for Foreign Affairshas consciously integrated itspublic diplomacy activities tosupport the negotiating strategyof the government with domesticcommunication campaigns. Unlesswe all take into account thedomestic dimension of anyinternational negotiation, we missnot only vital information but alsothe opportunity to work moreeffectively with the very peoplewhom we need to persuade.Learning points:• The pressure on negotiators willfocus them on what they can achievetogether — a difficult enoughchallenge. But they also operate ona bigger stage. In complexnegotiations, what’s agreed atsummits and ministerial meetingswill also be determined by whatnegotiators can get agreed with theirpolitical overseers. All will in turn, benegotiating with — and influencingthe opinions of — their own public.• Climate change negotiations willshape how each society collaboratesto achieve economic growth andreduce carbon emissions. So anyinvestment in negotiation will behave to matched by an investmentin strategic communication, usinglocal, national or global channels toshape the political climate in whichbusinesses and citizens changebehaviour and expectations.9. Use all four types of knowledgeLorraine Dodd and Gillian Stamp drewmy attention to the work of LarryPrusak, who explores the four kindsof knowledge differentiated by theclassical Greeks (Prusak, 2000):• Episteme:technical/practical skills. Epistemecovers abstract generalisations, basisand essence of sciences; scientificlaws and principles. It is developed bypractice and repetition.• Techne:teachable knowledge. Techne istechnical know-how, being ableto get things done, manuals,communities of practice. It isdeveloped by being taught incompany of those who already know.• Phronesis:experiential knowledge. Phronesis ispractical wisdom, drawn from socialpractice. It can be learnt only bydirect “felt” personal experience.• Metis:conjectural knowledge. Metis coversthe learnt capacity for handlingcomplexity that combines flair,wisdom, forethought, subtlety ofmind, deception, resourcefulness,vigilance and opportunism. It canprovide the ability to anticipate,modify and influence the shape ofevents — which can be interpretedas canny.We tend to be more familiar withhow to impart the first two types ofknowledge. Techne and episteme canmore readily be taught and examined inorder to appraise the degree and levelof attainment. It is also relatively easyto assume measured links through tooperational outcomes when operationalsettings are carefully controlled andbounded. Phronesis and metis are moredeeply seated in terms of the learningeffects and relate more to emotionalintelligence than IQ. Metis is “whatthe flair, the knack and the bent of thesuccessful politician is made of: a formof knowledge which is at the oppositeend of metaphysics, with no quest of76 77

ideal but a search for a practical end; anembodied, incarnate, substantial formof knowledge.” (Baumard, 1994, p.2).10. Establish common principlesFour questions keep collaborationfocused:1. What is the outcome that we wantto achieve?2. What is the deal for all parties?3. What is the agreed strategy?4. What do we all need to do/not todo/to stop doing to achieve success?Aligned to these questions are threeprinciples proposed by General SirRupert Smith:1. Common end2. Equity of risk and reward3. GoodwillIn Smith’s view, collaboration must havea common end. What united the Alliesduring the Second World War was theiragreed aim: the defeat of the enemyand itsunconditional surrender. Anyother combination of objectives couldnot deliver the allied coalition.Relationships during the course ofthe war were strained and one roleof national leaders such as Churchilland Roosevelt was to keep their ownpeople focused on the common end.Any collaboration carries risk: if one ofthe parties to the collaboration takeson disproportionately more risk thanthe others, it follows that their rewardshould be greater. Finally, collaborationsneed to draw on the goodwill of all theparties — not just to get started butalso to keep going. Any leader mustpromote good will.As General Smith observes, we love ourdifferences. “When these differencestake away from what the collaborationas a whole needs to achieve, theybecome corrosive, and run down thecracks,” he says. “And in anycollaboration, the cracks are alwaysthere.”11. Decide the timingA collaboration builder needs tounderstand the timing of thecollaboration, knowing when best tointervene and to put key strategicdecisions. Key moments in strategicdecision-taking are:• whether or not to form acollaboration• when and how best to start it• choice of partners• when and how to assess its progressand to continue to support it orchange it• whether it should continue in itspresent form when it seems to haveachieved what it has set out to do.When starting up, partners must besatisfied that there is enough of anopportunity to be exploited and thatthere is the right dividend for allinvolved. They will then make a choiceon the basis of:• confidence that a collaboration canmake a difference;• calculation that the complexity of thechallenge and the means to overcome it can be sufficiently managedto deliver a good enough solution;and• commitment that the collaborationwill be made to work.In their article “Ambiguity, complexityand dynamics in the membership ofcollaboration”, Huxham and Vangen(2000) observe a cyclical relationshipbetween the nature of the participatingorganizations and the focus of thecollaboration, with the participantsdefining the focus and the focusdefining new participants. Each timea new participant is involved, the focusalters slightly and other organizationsbecome relevant.The oil and gas industry has producedguidance on designing and buildingpartnerships. IPIECA, the InternationalPetroleum Industry EnvironmentalConservation Association, was foundedin 1974 following the establishmentof the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme. Since then, it has designedpractical tips for effective partnerships,including mapping the different stagesof partnership.I have identified seven of these stages,drawing on IPIECA’s emphasis on takingtime to identify the right organizationsto work with and its suggestion that asystematic selection process can be usedto help clarify what is required fromeach partner. IPIECA also recommendsthat there should be some early andconcrete “win-wins” for the partnersto maintain motivation and momentumwithin the partnership. There shouldalso be time to renegotiate the terms ofpartner engagement if required.When considering the cycle ofcollaboration, partners will want tobalance the need to press ahead withthe need to ensure that each step hasbeen considered by all involved.My cycle of collaboration has sevensteps:1. Identify, assess, and act on theopportunity to gain political,economic and social dividends.78 79

2. Design collaboration, attract andselect partners.3. Convene: gather information andbuild relationships.4. Frame challenge and opportunity;explore options and solutions.5. Align interests, focus the choice.6. Establish and require personal andorganizational commitment.7. Decide, implement, review and learn.12. Manage the dynamicsWhatever specific goals a venture hasset itself, effective leadership will meanmanaging three underlying dynamics:• To create value and distribute enoughreward to all parties contributing tothe collaboration.• To harness productively all the assets,tangible and intangible, that thecollaboration has its disposal andobtain the right degree ofcooperation from each of the parties.• To deliver on the common end andadapt to any significant changes tothe environment in which thecollaboration operates.For the collaboration to keep its focusand direction and adapt appropriately,all parties will want to keep underreview these questions:1. What does the collaboration achieveoverall? What is in it for each party?How much does each have to contribute? And why does it matter forall of us that the collaboration ismade to work?2. How do we have impact as a singleentity and work constructivelythrough our differences?3. How is one to keep focus andmomentum and yet respond tochange?I have drawn on two insights from Doddand Favaro (2007). According to theirresearch into the 20-year performanceof more than a thousand companies,the central challenge for businessleaders is how to achieve manyobjectives at the same time.Of all the competing objectives,three pairs stand out: profitability ascompared with growth; short-termas against long-term; and wholecontrasted with the parts.Central to Dodd and Favaro’s case isthe concept of a batting average —a measure of how often a companyis able to achieve two performanceobjectives at the same time in a givenyear. A key finding is that a companywith years of booms and busts inprofitability and growth — even manybig boom years — is less likely to havehigh a share performance than a firmthat reliably meets both objectives ofpositive profitability and real growthmost of the time.The relevance to managingcollaboration is the emphasis that thisputs on tapping the potential value itbrings and driving performance whilebuilding participation. Leadership isrequired to achieve both. Greatperformance rises above compromise.It is not just the product of making thebest choices, but avoiding the need tomake unnecessary choices in the firstplace. The task is not to arbitratebetween competing objectives but toreconcile them into great performanceon many fronts at the same time. Sportsteams stand a greater chance ofwinning the championship if playersfocus as much on improving their skillsas they do on winning today’s game.The case Dodd and Favaro make fordriving business performance can beapplied to collaboration: “Organizationsstand a greater chance of meeting theirmany performance objectives, withoutcompromise, if they concentrate onstrengthening the capabilities that helpknit them all together.” (Dodd andFavaro, 2007, p.vii).13. Exploit creative potentialThe emphasis in Chapter 1 was an“instrumental” view of collaboration.Looking at what collaboration wasfor, I adopted the perspective ofcollaboration as a means to an end,albeit conditioned by relationships.But, to make it work in practice,understanding what collaboration isabout requires a wider and deeperperspective: seeing collaboration asinstrumental, yet also as expressive andreflective.Collaboration can bring out what wasnot obvious in the confines of a singleorganization because it is a new andtransitional space. It can help peoplefind a space to step back from theirown organization and see what it coulddo differently or better. The aspirationsand fears of participants can beexpressed with more or less restraintand with greater or less formality,depending on how the collaborationchooses to work. Threats andopportunities that were dormant orjust under the surface can be revealed,depending on the degree of opennessand candour. Because collaboration cantake people out of their normal roles orallow them to test the boundaries, thereis the potential to reflect and learn.The outbreak of foot-and-mouthdisease in 2001 was devastating forthe farming community. But howeverdifficult it was for the UK agriculture80 81

ministry staff to manage the crisis, oneorganizational benefit was the scopethat it gave junior staff to step intomore senior roles. The scale of the workto be done to get on top of the diseasemeant that government had to makeeven more use of the skills at its disposaland give people more responsibility.14. Tap the undercurrentsCollaboration has to work at a humanlevel to give of its best. “Stuff emerges”and needs to be worked through in realtime, outside the comfort zone of eachof the players. These problems cannotbe resolved by offloading them on tosome of the parties or by going outsidethe collaboration. Normal copingstrategies — fight or flight, waiting tobe rescued — invariably do not addressthe issues.When trust is high, the challenge shouldbe manageable. Every party understandsone another’s contribution and thereis a sense of making progress towardsachieving the goal. Everything flows.Collaborations feel creative andmeaningful, with real business beingdone. Leaders in the group rise to thechallenge, as do their teams. Initiativesare taken at every level, supported andreinforced by the collaboration as awhole.Collaborations are invariably more thanthe interests that the parties purportto represent. As well as the business inhand, they can be exercises in thedisplay and negotiation of power. Thisis often in the background, rather thanin the spotlight. Collaboration buildersgo beyond set positions, focus oninterests and find out what real issuesare beneath the surface. They areattuned to the agendas and motivesof others. Unless this tapping ofundercurrents is done carefully, issuescan fester and collaborations may stallor become derailed. When challengesof complexity, uncertainty, ambiguityand difference are ignored, they cangnaw away at the effectiveness of thegroup.Success turns on probing beneaththe formal organization to discover theinformal structures beneath, as wellas the informal networks and loosegroupings that coalesce aroundestablished loyalties and mutualconcerns.Much activity in groups is performative:it is a form of performance acted outfor the benefit of participants and thosethought to be observing them. Whenwe talk about a “show of force”,a “punishment beating” or “tokencompliance”, we are acknowledgingthat these are all performative activities.Gillian Stamp uses the word “felt” toqualify other terms: felt accountability,felt leadership, felt strategy. In herexperience, people are readier tocommit resources of attention, time,finance and so on once something isfelt. She adds: “Perhaps it is that theleader must feel it for him or herselfbefore investing the resources of theorganization.”So what would make leaders feel thevalue of effective collaboration? Stampsays that what this involves is:• Clarity:See the world as it is and not as onewants it to be;• Humility:Acknowledge that one does notknow what to do; and• Openness:Be receptive to possibilities and toinvolving others.One of the smallest units ofcollaboration at work is the teammeeting. If it is approachedconsciously as a collaboration, allthose taking part can think aboutwhat the meeting is designed toachieve, what business it needsto discuss and how each person’scontribution is a good use ofeverybody’s time. That can take thecollaboration forward.A one-dimensional approach willtreat team meanings either asa production line or as a falseexercise in working with thepersonalities involved — playingup to their egos or giving the groupan unjustified sense of security byproducing an artificial consensus.A two-dimensional approach worksboth on the task and on theindividual contribution ofparticipants. A three-dimensionalapproach — used by teams whoare more comfortable workingtogether and by convenors keen tochallenge the quality of a group’sdeliberations — is to take a stepback during the course of themeetings and ask searchingquestions of the group. How muchprogress are we making here? Arewe getting the main issues onto thetable and working at them? Whomhaven’t we heard from? Whathaven’t we heard?Groups in full flow, made up ofindividuals who are self-aware, willknow this instinctively. But a morestructured approach, albeit with alight touch, may be needed.Learning point:• How much thought, preparationand follow-up go into the conductof meetings at any level? As well as“getting through the agenda”, and“ensuring that we hear from A, B,and C”, how much is made of the82 83

occasion to bring about the sharingof insight and to work with anyemerging thinking produced by themeeting?Counter-intuitive as it might seem,collaborations produce better resultsif confrontation is encouraged andconsensus is genuine rather thanpassive. According to Hause (1999),confrontations actually prevent conflict.The skill is in making the confrontationhappen constructively and letting partiesfeel that they will not be disadvantagedby voicing different and sometimescontrarian perspectives, especiallyunder the pressure to make a decisionor to work within constraints. The teamas a whole — and not just the personwho is convening the group — hasa leadership role in shaping andmaintaining the conditions forensuring an effective collaboration.A sense of unfairness and resentmentbreeds when a collaboration does notappreciate the contribution of eachparty. Equity of risk and reward isimportant, but only if a sense of “fairenough” prevails. What also breedsresentment is a collaboration thatdisproportionately benefits some andnot others.The FCO is ahead of the game ingetting out and talking tocommunities in Britain. It has twoprogrammes that promote face-tofacedialogue about foreign policy:“Bringing Foreign Policy Home”and an outreach programmeinvolving visits to 20 cities. Theformat tends to be open and fluidso that FCO ministers and officialscan hear what matters to peopleand be held to account for policiesin areas where there are bigdifferences of opinion. A teamfrom the FCO took part in a “LivingIslam” event in 2008.Learning points:• If the FCO is to counterradicalisation, it must work incontexts that are difficult. It mustlisten; it must be ready to bechallenged and it must put thechallenge back. Open disagreementis healthy, particularly if all sides canconfront the issues and understandwhere others are coming from andwhy something is important. Longoverdue, these are genuine attemptsto engage on the issues that matterto communities, particularly youngpeople.• The group I saw in Manchesterwanted to know whether this wasthe start of effective engagement andwhether we would build on what wehad learned and involve others.15. Tap the talentOrganizations tend to work with oneor more of three theories of managingpeople. Though quite sharplydifferentiated, these can co-exist todifferent degrees. I shall call thesetheories x, y and z, grounding themloosely ground them in the templatesestablished in Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’swritings and more recently inpostmodernist writers such GillesDeleuze (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004).Theory x takes a broadly static view ofthe talent at its disposal, organises itaccording to skills and experience andfilters the talent so that it puts the rightpegs into the right holes. Where thereare more pegs than holes, it createscompetition by developing the rightpeople for the right jobs and byproducing a human-resource equivalentof Darwin’s survival of the fittest. It talksabout “managing” people. It isattractive because it gives shape tomanaging talent. It plans and organises;it has winners and losers, but at leastpeople know where they stand.Theory takes a more dynamic view:everybody has potential, and anorganization’s role is to draw it out anddevelop it. With Theory x, one has toprove that one has potential. Theoryy assumes it and tries to bring it out.It talks about “developing” people. Inprinciple it is very attractive: in practice,it has to show the value of itsinvestment in people and must manageexpectations if it is not to disappoint.Theory z doesn’t make anypresumptions: it believes everymoment creates new challenges andnew opportunities and that peoplereinvent themselves in the moment. LikeTheory y, it sees talent as dynamic. But itdoesn’t focus on any person’s particularpotential. It creates opportunities forpeople to show what they are capableof. It talks about getting people out oftheir “comfort zones”. It’s exciting andinnovative but high risk — and thereforeof mixed appeal. Most hierarchiesare comfortable with a bigger mix ofx and, depending on how much theywant to experiment or to compete fornew talent, a smaller mix of y and z.Collaboration, by its nature, might workwith organizations that are themselveshierarchies. But to go forward it shouldhave a broader appreciation ofmanaging and developing talent,particularly if it needs to empowerpeople at different levels to takemore initiative and responsibility.The themes of alignment andengagement developed by MacLeodand Barrie in The Extra Mile — whichI mentioned in Chapter 1 — confrontcollaboration builders with a challengethat is even more pressing for themthan it is for leaders of individualorganizations: how to draw on the84 85

extra commitment and engagementof employees working for both thecollaboration and their ownorganization. In an organization,there are explicit contracts, systemsand processes to reward andencourage some behaviours andpenalise or discourage others. Multilevelcollaborations rely on participantsgiving the right kind of added value inthe absence of explicit contracts.“Tapping the talent” is an essentialingredient in the model of publicdiplomacy explored in Chapter 5.Governments will not achieve what theywant if they rely on too narrow a viewof skills and behaviours, either in theirown employees or in the organizationswhose support they need in deliveringsocial change. Watching FuterraSustainability Communications at work,I saw how the organization had tobecome even more business-like anddisciplined to cope with its rapidexpansion. But it was also clear thatthis was a company that had achievedwhat many other organizations longfor: tapping the creativity of every singlemember of the team. Its people arehighly motivated, creative and mutuallysupportive. The team is a good mix ofvery experienced communicationsprofessionals and less experiencedinterns integrally involved in thebusiness. The team mingles in thecourse of the day in common areas,over lunch or some other social activity,and regularly refreshes its ideas bycontact with external speakers.If greater collaborative working isexpected between governments,business and NGOs, we all have tounderstand better how we each preferto work and how performance is vaued.The understanding has to be in bothdirections. NGOs won’t be able to buildpolitically or commercially on theincreasing trend by both governmentsand business to draw on their credibilityand insight if they don’t match theimprovements in skill-set in governmentand business: for example, programmeand project management.Both business and NGOs need tounderstand that working in the publicsector carries ever-increasing publicaccountability and visibility, not just byinstitutions, but their employees. Soworking to rules and procedures isnot necessarily the dead hand ofbureaucracy but part of giving thepublic confidence that standards arebeing consistently applied. Somecountries can take for granted howmuch standards in public life areexpected and presumed. Others knowthat this is still a real struggle and thatalready now, and in years to come,ethical principles and performance willdifferentiate a country not just in theeyes of foreign investors and touristsbut in the eyes of a younger, moreskilled and mobile generation who willwant to be rewarded on merit ratherthan on other grounds.The original work on Theories X and Ywas developed in 1960 by DouglasMcGregor, in “The Human Side ofEnterprise”. McGregor differentiatedbetween two management approaches,one directive (Theory X), the otherempowering (Theory Y). The differencebetween the two approaches was forMcGregor stark. I have adapted hismodel, so that it is more neutraltowards Theory X, while retaining theessence. I have also adapted Theory Zwhich was originally developed byWilliam Ouchi, in his 1981 book“Theory Z: How American managementcan meet the Japanese challenge”.A model for developing effectiverelationshipsThe drivers for success involve a numberof steps to enable collaborativerelationships to operate more effectively.These relationships the shape the natureof, and response to, the challenges ofleadership, trust, risk and complexity.Ways of analysing relationships,identifying key areas of strength andweakness, as well as the factors thatinfluence them, are therefore a vitalelement in improving collaboration.Assessing relationshipsMichael Schluter and John Ashcroftof the Relationships Foundation haveprovided a practical way of assessing,developing and managing relationshipsby acknowledging the preconditions foreffective relationships. Their frameworkthat does not presuppose a particularmodel of a ‘good’ relationship – this willvary according to the context, purposeand preferences of the participants. Theframework allows both parties to therelationship to consider whether theyare creating an environment whichmakes it easier and more likely for aneffective relationship to develop and besustained or whether they are creatingan inhospitable climate for effectiverelationships. These preconditions donot, of course, guarantee an effectiverelationship. They are necessary, but notsufficient, conditions.86 87

Figure 2.1: Relationships Foundation relational proximity model(Source: Taken from ‘Influencing, Assessing and Developing Relationships’ Handout for Cabinet OfficeStrategy Unit seminar on 3 March 2009. See www.relationshipsfoundation.org)Domain ofRelationshipCommunicationTimeInformation/KnowledgePowerPurposethat areimportantrequire thepreconditionsofRelationalProximityDirectness:reducing theextent to whichpresence ismediated orfilteredContinuity:Managing thegap betweeninteractionsMultiplexity:improving thebreadth andquality ofinformationParity:the fair use ofpowerCommonality:Building sharedpurposein order to bridgethe gaps so wecan achieve andexperience thebenefits of theseRelationalGoalsConnectionessMeaning andbelongingBeing knownand mutualunderstandingMutualRespectUnityandOutcomesClarity andcompleteness ofcommunicationMomentum andgrowthReadingsituations andresponding toneedsParticipating andinvestmentMotivation andsynergyFive domainsCommunicationWhen we say that relationships area series of interactions we mean thatthere is some contact between theparties. How people communicate,the media they use, and the skills theyemploy are fundamental processesby which one party to a relationshipinfluences another. Intentions, hopes,desires, fears, needs, and informationall need to be communicated in orderto co-ordinate actions and generatedesired responses. Without at least thepotential for communication (evenif only the potentially one waycommunication of relative to comatosepatient) there is no relationship asthe two parties become whollydisconnected. Wars can be won orlost, businesses thrive or go under, andmarriages flourish or break up as resultof successful or poor communication.Communication is shaped by externalfactors (for example the geography ofthe relationship including size anddesign of offices) as well as internalfactors including both openness andcommunication skills.TimeDefining relationships as a series ofinteractions introduces the timedimension to a relationship. Thisincludes both the overall duration of arelationship and the way in which somethings continue from one interactionto another, so enabling us to say thatthese interactions are part of the samerelationship.Time is the currency of relationships.We save, invest, and spend time. It isoften our scarcest resource. It is timethat allows relationships to grow,understanding to deepen, and trust tobe built. Conversely the lack of time andmomentum through interactions is amajor limiting factor. The time dynamicof relationships is shaped by externalfactors such as the demands of otherrelationships as well as by such internalfactors as commitment and loyalty thatinfluence time allocation.InformationWe narrowed our definition ofrelationship to exclude purelycontingent connections withunknowable entities. Part of whatcontinues from one interaction toanother is information. The conductof a relationship is informed by whatwe know, and the accuracy andcompleteness of that knowledge.Misunderstandings and missedopportunities result when too little isknown, or when knowledge is false.The nature, extent and quality ofinformation about each party to therelationship is shaped by external factorssuch as whether there is the opportunityto meet in different contexts as well asthe openness of disclosure anddiscernment.88 89

PowerThe capacity to influence other partiesin a relationship raises the issue ofpower and the consequences of theway in which power is used. This hasparticular influence on the levels ofparticipation and investment in a relationshipeither because of the rationalcalculation of fairness of return, or themore emotive response to feelings ofbeing used, imposed upon or treatedunfairly. There are many forms of power,each of which may be distributed andused differently by the various parties toa relationship.PurposePurpose is often the reason for being inthe relationship and informs the desiredoutcomes of the relationship. Purposemay be influenced by demands of andobligations to others, as well as beingthe more internally defined product ofthe things that motivate us. People havedifferent objectives and priorities in arelationship: what matters is the degreeof alignment of purpose and the extentto which different purposes can beaccommodated.Integrating the internal and externalinfluencesIn order to see how both internal andexternal influences on relationshipscome together within these five themesand start to create different outcomes,the Relationship Foundation introducesanother set of concepts.Present and directWhy does face to face communicationmatter? Why are emails sometimesgreat – but sometimes not? The extentto which either party to a relationship isphysically, intellectually or emotionallypresent effects what is communicated,how it is experienced and what isachieved. The nature and extent ofpresence is influenced by such factorsas time, place and the medium ofcommunication used as well as thecommunication skills employed andthe degree of openness. It is thisthat enables both the sense ofconnectedness as well as theeffectiveness of the communicationprocess.Continuity of the storyTeams break down if turnover is toohigh, but without change there is littlegrowth. Most people prefer to see thesame doctor, have the same personcut their hair, or repeat business withpeople who have served them well. Itreduces risks and saves time, while theexplicit or implied promise of continuityconveys security and belonging. It’scertainly preferable to have confidencethat your bank will continue to exist andthat agreements made yesterday willstill be valid tomorrow.The way in which interactions stringtogether to create a relationship thathas meaning and momentum canbe understood in terms of story ornarrative. A key element of successfulrelationships is that they can build onprevious interactions (though buildingon negative experiences can serve onlyto deepen the bitterness of a feud).Trust, understanding and information iscarried through from one interaction tothe next enabling more to be achieved.Time is not wasted, or the scope ofwhat can be achieved limited, byhaving to start over again. The story of arelationship is adopted into the narrativeof our life. It becomes part of the processof how we give meaning to eventsand see our place in the world and inother people or organization’s lives.Multiplex knowledgeThe conduct of any relationship isinformed by what we believe we knowabout the party. We use this knowledgeto invite their contributions, assesstheir needs and interests, judge theircharacter or interpret their responses.The completeness and authenticity ofthis knowledge is influenced by variedsources of information, or contexts forgaining it, as well as the degrees ofinquiry and disclosure that describe therelationship. Although there are timeswhen privacy is valued and important,or when knowledge can be used againstus, the sense of being known is animportant affirmation of our worth aswell as bringing practical benefits.Parity and fairnessOur sense of self is shaped, in part, byhow others treat us. Our actions areinfluenced by our beliefs about howthey will treat us. The distribution ofthe various forms of power, and thestructures and processes that give riseto it, combine with the way in whichpeople use power and respond to it,to influence the willingness to invest inand contribute to a relationship. Fear ofbeing hurt or treated unfairly is a majordisincentive. Confidence that there willbe a positive return (whether in termsof finance, reputation, opportunity,pleasure, or in any other currency)encourages participation. The instinctfor fairness is deeply hard wired into ourmake-up and a powerful influence onrelational behaviour.Alignment for commonalityPeople are different. Differentpurposes, identities, preferences oraccountabilities all need to be managedin a relationship. Difference has manybenefits: the variety is both interestingand also more creative. But differencethat is poorly managed with very littlealignment of purpose – in the senseof person to task, between persons,or between organizations – leads toconflict and friction. In a complexsystem this process of alignment canbe both unstable and challenging,with actions in one relationship havingknock-on consequences for others.Yet without successful managementof difference any co-operative activitybecomes fraught with risks. Andwithout the contribution of otherpeople, the scope of what we canachieve is severely reduced.90 91

Part 3: Common challenges – leadership, trust, risk andcomplexityLeadership, trust, risk and complexityare the four challenges most frequentlymentioned by the people I have spokento. In particular:• How best to lead• To develop trust• To manage risk• To tackle issues involving complexity,uncertainty, ambiguity and differenceThese strands interconnect, of course,and can be woven together into asingle tapestry. What helps connect thestrands are two guiding considerations:first, decide whether a fixed or flexibleapproach is needed; and second, tryto understand others involved in thecollaboration. In the discussion oncomplexity, I suggest a technique thathelps inform this approach.When I visited Manchester in October2008 as part of a FCO engagementprogramme with the Muslimcommunities, I said that one of themain tests of collaboration and widerengagement was a genuine willingnessto work with diversity. In ascendingorder, I set out the different degrees ofinterest and commitment: tolerance,acceptance and appreciation. One theleading city councillors added: “Andcelebration!” Dealing effectively withdiversity has much in common withmanaging complexity in collaboration.1. LeadershipThe good leader is the one that thepeople adore; the wicked leader isthe one that people despise; thegreat leader is the one people say,“We did it ourselves”.Lao Tsu (1996) p.9If you want to raise a man frommud and filth, do not think it isenough to stay on top and reacha helping hand down to him. Youmust go all the way down yourself,down into mud and filth. Then takehold of him with strong hands andpull him and yourself out intothe light.Martin Buber (2002) p. 31Leadership takes many forms. Butwhatever is right for a particularorganization will need to be adapted fora group that is working together on amore equal, participative basis. Leaderswill be working with other leaders; andtheir teams might work not only withother teams but with people at differentlevels of another organization.If the collaboration extends to involvingother networks — or citizens who areagents in their own right — the term“leadership” will have to be qualifiedeven more heavily. It might make senseto speak of enabling or empoweringleadership, rather than the moreconventional command-and-controltype of leadership.What then is the leadership role of thecollaboration itself? Is it there to driveothers or to support them? Does it callthe shots or influence? Is it to kick-startchange or implement it? Is it drivenfrom the centre or is it working from theedge of organisations? Is it altogethera more dispersed leadership? Thesequestions are explored by Boxer (2008),among others.Push or pull?Even where collaborations are driventop-down, leadership can become moredispersed if everybody is working to acommon end and with a shared strategywhose objectives and roles are all clearlyunderstood. Some coordination isneeded to ensure that efforts areintegrated. Fiona Hammond, acontracts lawyer, believes that the formleadership takes in collaboration ismore of the push-pull variety than, forexample, leading a regiment whosetroops march to the orders they aregiven. Depending on the work to bedone, the heavy lifting might be doneby a leader. This would be an exampleof “push”. Alternatively, the work mightbe done by teams, with the leaderintervening to support their efforts asneeded. We would describe this as“pull”.Where collaborations are bottom-up,leadership is given to the front-line, oredge, of the organization. The role ofthe centre is not to lead from the front(leading the charge) or from behind(moving the pieces on the board) butto keep an overview of what is beingachieved, spotting where more or lessinvestment or intervention may beneeded and supporting the flow of thecollaboration. Leadership is more abouttimely and proportionate intervention.Three other models of leadership mightalso be applied to top-down or bottomupcollaboration. In British broadcasting,programme production has beenseparated for more than 10 years fromcommissioning, scheduling andmarketing. The channel commissionerspecifies what would make a channelattractive to its audiences. Programmemakers,who compete to put up ideas,are then commissioned to make theprogrammes. The commissionerexercises artistic and businessleadership; yet the programme-makercreates and produces the awardwinningprogramme. So both areleaders. Commissioner and programmemakernegotiate or collaborate toensure that the programme fits thechannel remit and earns its place inthe schedule. The programme teamis responsible for delivering the rightproduct.Another model — very close to thebroadcasting model — is procurement92 93

of products and services. Theorganization that is responsible forprocurement can become more or lessinvolved in the generation of productor services. A contract specifies therequirement and, depending on thevariables, account or relationshipmanagement tracks the delivery.Modelling collaboration on a militaryor marketing campaign captures boththe focus required to organise a resultand the improvisation needed to exploitopportunities. Not surprisingly, many ofthe best marketing campaigns require aleadership that knows when tobe directive and prescriptive — forexample, applying the core brand consistently— and when to give scope to“letting a thousand flowers bloom” —for example, encouraging differentparticipating organisations to applythe core brand to connect with theiraudiences.Leadership and teamworkMost of my respondents see the needfor effective leadership, particularlyin initiating collaboration and takingresponsibility for its direction, progressand delivery. Leadership can takedifferent forms and that it can behanded on to different participants atdifferent points. One metaphor ofleadership in collaboration thatrespondents found appealing wasrunning a marathon, a sprint and arelay — with the baton being handedat different points to differentcollaborating partners. Equally, theycan see that everybody needs to showsome leadership — to do the thinkingand reflection as well as the heavylifting — while being supported orsupporting others depending on thework required in that cycle of thecollaboration.We need to look as much to teamworkas leadership to inspire social changeand to encourage citizens toresponsibility for achieving policy goals.The prospect of working in a teamthat includes not only one’s immediatecolleagues or neighbours but a wholetown or community is the inspirationfor campaigns and crisis response. Weknow how well this can work whensmall groups of people pull togetherand their effort is replicated andmultiplied. But this is a model ofdistributed, dispersed leadership, witheach cell knowing the goal and takingresponsibility for achieving it — bothfor its own ends and to contribute toa wider effort. Networked-basedorganisations or collaborationsdriven by a multiplicity of differentcontributions — all focused on thesame end — make a formal splitbetween leaders and followers almostredundant. The “spark” of leadershiphas to be there at every level.Leadership and valueOne test is who decides on the value ofwhat is created and where this leavesleadership, particularly in the publicsector and in public-privatecollaboration.Many collaborative enterprises arejudged by those who have a need for it,by those who set it up and run it andby those who gain or lose from it. InCreating Public Value, Mark H. Mooresays the modern public manager isbalancing his or her own convictionof what constitutes public value withreflection and feedback from overseers,clients and citizens.The more that accountability andlegitimacy matter, the more that successor failure in leadership is determined bya combination of what gets done andthe support generated and received.Leaders of collaboration are in aparticularly exposed position when thecollaboration that they lead addressesdifficult social issues. In LeadershipWithout Easy Answers, Ronald A.Heifetz poignantly captures this tension.“Leadership is a razor’s edge,” hesays, “because one has to oversee asustained period of social disequilibriumduring which people confront thecontradictions in their lives andcommunities and adjust their valuesand behaviour to accommodate newrealities.” (Heifetz,1994, pp-126-128).Value is a mix of satisfying what isactually wanted and producingsomething that could be wanted overtime. Moore says: “It is all very well forentrepreneurs to have a hunch aboutwhat customers want; it is far better toknow from the customers themselveswhat they desire. It is also important torecognize that consumers could changetheir minds about what they considervaluable not only through the provisionof abstract information about productsbut also through experience.” (Moore2003, p66).Gambling carries negative connotations.But if leadership is about the minglingof reality and possibility, it must beabout risk-taking.The broadcast and procurement modelsin commercial terms seem to give thecommissioner or procurer Caesar-likepowers to determine whether a productmeets its specification. Failure to doso either requires changes or carriespenalties. But the commissioner orprocurer can argue that theirs is adelegated or proxy power: they areultimately accountable to viewers andlisteners — or shareholders andcustomers — for the decisions thatthey take on value.Leadership and shared principlesLeadership is not just a matter of havingprinciples, of taking them up and livingthem out; it is about making them workfor all involved. This means creatingan environment in which honesty anddirectness can be expressed freely. Itmeans making space for creativity,assertion and even aggression, knowinghow important it is for some people to94 95

exercise that aggression as a prelude, orcondition, for being understood. Bothassertion and generosity of spirit needto be encouraged.How does one get the best from peoplein an environment where commitmenthas to be earned rather than assumed?Persuasion is only part of the answer.One wants others to see the benefitsand to make sacrifices for themselves.The end-game is not succeeding ingetting them to change their minds —though this might be a means to an end— but for them to conclude: “This isright for me, because I think it, I see it,I hear it, sense it, want it.”If real leadership ultimately comesfrom the people whom collaboration isdesigned to serve, shouldn’t questionsabout leadership be framed in terms ofhow we enable others to articulate andact on what they want? This is less todo with influencing them than inspiringthem.Where possible, commitment needs tobe as symmetrical as possible betweenthe parties — though one can live withlesser commitment from some partnersif all that is needed is limited support orthe delivery of some particular serviceor benefit. The level of commitment isproportionate to what that person canreasonably give. We don’t oftenappreciate how a small commitmentfrom one person or organization canactually be more stretching for themthan a bigger commitment from anotherperson. This is very pertinent to howgovernments and business get the bestfrom smaller NGOs. But if one personhas committed more than the other inrelative terms and taken on more risk,that person’s rewards should, on thewhole, be proportionately greater.Leadership: Gillian Stamp’sperspectiveLeaders have a crucial responsibilityto develop meaningful conversations.Paddy Coyne, who is responsible forleadership development at Shell, saysthat what leaders do is to “converse”.In a collaborative context, this is of thehighest priority.Drawing on Geoffrey Vickers’s work(Vickers, 1965), Gillian Stamp saysthat the hallmark of an “appreciativeconversation” is that people listenwithout passing judgment and withoutseeking consensus or compromise, thesole purpose being to continue theconversation to sustain relationshipsof mutual respect. Appreciativeconversations are of the essence wheredifferent value systems meet. Theparties know they have to maintain theirmutual relationship, even when theirvalues appear to contradict each other.If the relationship loses mutuality,diversity is jeopardized and ideologytakes over.Stamp adds: “Appreciative conversationdepends on listening with an attitudeto the other that begins with attentionand communicates attentiveness. It isdemanding because each of us knowswhat it is to be ourselves in a way inwhich we know nothing else; and ournatural inclination is to talk rather thanto listen.“People and things are seen accordingto whether or not they serve particularpurposes and not for their own sake.Attentive listening depends on ‘wideattention’ that wants nothing otherthan understanding and has no agendato change, judge or control the other.”Appreciative conversation requiresgenerosity of spirit and discipline toshape the hard work of listening and toremain serene whilst hearing views andideas that could disturb or even distress.That kind of listening is possible onlywhen people do all that they can tosuspend their desire to judge, to controland to change the other person. This“appreciative conversation” of listeningwith openness and mutual respect isespecially important at the momentwhen many world influences andevents predispose to fragmentation,polarisation and stalemate.In Chapter 1, we highlighted Stamp’stripod of work as a way of thinkingabout leadership. This model is particularlyuseful for collaboration-building,as it helps manage team dynamics overtime to ensure high levels ofperformance and participation.Tasking ensures that each level of workadds value by defining the limits forjudgment. It• shares intention;• agrees objectives; and• agrees a completion time and criteriafor review.Trusting ensures robust decision-makingat each level by• entrusting people with the purposeand the ethos of the organization;• trusting them to use their judgmentin forwarding the work for whichthey are accountable;• evaluating and developing individualcapabilities; and• making sure that no one is eitheroverwhelmed or insufficientlystretched by the challenges of theirwork.Tending is the work that keeps thingsworking; the continual mindfulness ofpurpose, people and process to keepthem aligned. Tending ensures that:• the work assigned is still relevant tothe organization — especiallyimportant in rapidly changingcircumstances and when culture ischanging;96 97

• processes and systems are monitoredto ensure that resources are beingused appropriately according to thecurrent priorities;• a sense of purpose and relevance forthe work is communicated so thatindividuals have a context for theirwork, their initiatives and theirjudgment; and• procedures are agreed beforehandthat will be used if there areunresolved differences of view.When tasking, trusting and tendingare held in balance, there are threeoutcomes:Tasking and trusting allow judgmentto be exercised; tasking sets the limits,trusting encourages each person to usetheir judgment and makes sure eachis “in flow” — neither insufficientlychallenged nor overwhelmed by theirresponsibilities.Tasking and tending ensure review:tasking prepares for review byestablishing completion times, tendingprepares for review by keeping systems,practices and people heading in theright direction at the right pace.Trusting and tending ensure thecoherence that people need to sustaintheir belief that the work is important.Trusting entrusts people with purposes,tending keeps that understanding alivethrough communication. The outcomeis a shared, coherent understanding ofpurpose, so that every detail anddecision is an expression of it.Developing future leadersIn Chapter 5, I set out the ends to whichwe could use effective collaboration,making the case that, just ascollaboration needs leadership,collaboration produces a new typeof leadership. I offer here threeperspectives on developing the leadersof the future. Christopher Lomas is anenterprising chief executive who lefta major bank in the City to set up acompany focused on advising topbusiness leaders on how better to workwith young generations. Derek Woodhas been coaching leaders for thepast 25 years. With their colleagues,Mark Schofield, partner atPricewaterhouseCoopers and Julia Fellof Common Purpose have worked inpartnership to bring on future leaders.Perspectives: Christopher Lomas“Paul Edwards, Professor ofCommunication at Stanford Universitycommented in an IBM case studythat nearly 50% of managers withexperience in multiplayer online gamessaid that being a game leader hadimproved their real-world leadershipcapabilities. Edwards said, “If I have theability to lead a group online in SecondLife or Grand Theft Auto; to discover,conquer and grow virtual economies;o get products designed and made;and to achieve goals faster than mycompetitors, then I may just have theright skills needed to pursue a career inany industry offline too – searching forrare resources, getting to places fasterand smarter than my competitors, usingthe skills of making rapid decisions withimperfect information, convincingothers and ultimately winning!”Perspectives: Derek Wood“There has been an increasedunderstanding of how changes in leaderbehaviour can impact performance.”The age of leaders as “hero” iswaning and there is an increased focuson complementarity and working witha diverse team.Senior leaders need to learn tocollaborate with others who may bedispersed geographically and fromdifferent cultures. Often they havelimited time to make an impact andneed a greater understanding of whatcounts in influencing others — forexample, the importance of generatingwarmth and support in creating apositive image in the minds of others.There is a growing distinction betweenposition and person. Merely beingdesignated as a leader does notguarantee great leadership. In someways this is a very old agenda, bringinginto sharp focus the character of theleader.In times of change, uncertainty andcomplexity, people need confidence intheir leaders. Such confidence is builton their belief in the person’s integrity(see Zenger & Folkman, 2002). Othersjudge this by how consistent the leaderis in their day-to-day behaviour, howstraight and direct the leader is ingiving difficult messages, how muchthe leader follows through on declaredcommitments and how much theymodel the behaviours that demonstratetheir stated values. Courage,determination and judgment alsoplay their part. (Rath, 2007).When working collaboratively, character— honesty and integrity — is theuniversal building block, enhanced byskills and flexible responses to others.When coaching leaders, a number ofthemes continually recur:• loneliness of leadership, and need togain different perspectives• importance of influence requiring agreat understanding of individualdifferences• need to maintain personal confidencein times of difficulty• value of honest feedback in helpingnavigate the difficult path ofleadership.98 99

Leadership coaching has advancedsubstantially by linking organizationalperformance to leader behaviours andorganisations are increasingly lookingat the outcomes and shifts in behaviourachieved by coaching.Perspectives: Mark Schofield,PricewaterhouseCoopers“PwC’s leaders work in complexenvironments where they often relyon their ability to influence as wellto direct. The Responsible LeadershipProgramme (RLP) gets to the heart ofthe challenge of what it means to leadbeyond authority. RLP puts participantsinto third-sector organisations, intosituations where they have no formalauthority or mandate, and helps themto refine their skills — influencingbeyond their formal authority andprofessional expertise with a view toachieving sustainable benefits for thehost organization and a broad groupof stakeholders across organizationalboundaries.“We do this in part because we believethat business has a key role to play inhelping address the big, and not so big,interconnected challenges of the 21stcentury and partly to develop theleadership skills within our firm. Thetype of collaborative leadershipdevelopment experience that ourpartners get on the RLP will enablethem to work and succeed acrossboundaries and, in so doing, makeour organization a better, and moresustainable, corporate citizen.”Perspectives: Julia Fell,Common Purpose“All Common Purpose programmesare designed to create a collaborativeenvironment, to provide the rightconditions for authentic dialogueto be created. One example is acustomised programme to developa diverse group of professionals fromall sectors involved in regeneration —ranging from developers, architectsand planners to community leaders —for the North West Centre of Excellence,RENEW Northwest. The participantswere a group of stakeholders seeking ashared outcome, coming together fromorganisations with different purposes,agendas and different ways of operating;and often in strong organisationalcultures.“We do this by both using a set ofCommon Purpose conventions and byencouraging different opinions to beexpressed, understood and discussedin an environment that is challengingwhilst also safe. The outcome is a moreeffective, inclusive and mutually agreedprocess for the way forward, whereconflict is already explored. There is alsoa significantly improved understandingof the different roles people will play inbringing about the shared objective.As one of the leading internationalaccountancy firms, PwC already hada strong reputation for developing itspeople and being both forward-lookingand having an external focus. When wefirst started to discuss the developmentof a leadership programme for UK partnersbased on PwC’s Global Ulysses —a global leadership developmentprogramme including partners fromaround the world working in mixedteams on projects in developingcountries —we knew that therewas a good “fit” between the twoorganisations. It took over 18 monthsto reach the point that both partiesagreed that we would developsomething together.The condition that has made this workso well and that has helped us throughthe inevitable tense times is that thereis genuine confidence in one another’sexpertise and an appetite to learn fromone another as we each have differentskills, competencies and knowledge. Ithas always been clear that PwC “owns”the Responsible Leadership Programmeand has the final call in the event ofdisagreement. However, CommonPurpose had established credibility inthe field of experiential learning anda unique database of leaders in everyaspect of the way society works that islocal, national and international. Theshared goal that guides the team ofCommon Purpose and PwC designersand facilitators is the desire for theparticipants to have a powerful andtransformational experience.”2. Building trustContrary to what most peoplebelieve, trust is not some soft, illusivequality that you either have or youdon’t; rather, trust is a pragmatic,tangible, actionable asset that you cancreate – much faster than you probablythink possible.Stephen M.R. Covey (2006) p.2Few dispute the value of trust increating the possibility of workingtogether and providing the basis forconsolidating and growing relationships.Establishing trust is the cornerstoneof effective engagement. The issuesabout trust are: how best to exerciseit, what relationship it has with securingand advancing interest and whatconsequences result from demonstratingtrust or a lack of trust. Francis Fukuyamais much better known for The End ofHistory and the Last Man, published in1992, than for Trust, a book publishedthree years later. This made the simpleyet essential point that free marketsdepend on a level of trust in order tofunction effectively. The crisis in thefinancial system also highlights a crisisin confidence in what, and whom, wetrust in operating our financial markets.Collaborations depend on trust andgoodwill. However intangible it is, onecan instinctively notice its presence orabsence. The challenge is to engender itand keep developing it when the100 101

primary task of the collaboration,or the goals of an organization orindividual, are at risk. Trust obeys thelaw of reciprocity: over time, what goesround comes around. It is high-riskbehaviour to breach a level of trust; andloss of trust is very difficult to restore.This cuts across all ages, all backgrounds.Whether the relationship operates ata personal or working level, trust isexpressive of the attitude that oneperson takes towards the other anda form of negotiation. It immediatelysends signals as to whether one canwork with others and in what respects;and how one is going to work withthem.Different perspectives on trust haveemerged in doing this research. Therange of views is well captured byreactions to Jonathan Powell’s analysisof the government’s negotiations onNorthern Ireland (Powell, 2008). In areview of Powell’s book, Lord Trimblesaid: “He was mistaken in his belief thatthe objective is to build trust, which isoverrated and frequently misplaced. Theissue in politics is, rather, can you dobusiness with the other side?”I put this to a former British Cabinetminister, an experienced negotiator,who said, “What’s the difference? Trustand ability to do business go hand inhand.”Ipsos-MORI, Gallup and other publicopinion research organisationshave given us deep and long-termperspectives on the relative importancethat citizens in different countries assignto trust. I draw from that research andmy own experience this understandingof what trust involves:• Accepting the accuracy, andimportance, of what one is told• Having the confidence in others todeliver what they say that they will• Believing that others, even if theymight not completely agree with you,are on the same side or on the samewavelength.Effective public engagement turnson citizens feeling that all threelevels of trust apply in working withgovernments, business and NGOs.On this model, one can see that manyNGOs might be more trusted thangovernments as being on the samewavelength, not just in relation to theirown supporters but to the wider public— either because government is seen assecretive and remote or because it hasto balance so many different interests,it is not seen as promoting any oneinterest enough. The test for the moreadvocacy-driven NGOs is whether,having raised expectations about theissues that they champion, they can betrusted to deliver any change.Collaboration between governments,business and NGOs opens up thispossibility: together the collaborationcan draw on the different levels of trustthat each party brings to the table interms of support and cooperation fromtheir networks.As part of leadership development, ShellInternational uses David Maister’s trustequation (Maister, Galford & Green,2000, pp-69-84):Trust = C (credibility) + R (reliability) + I(intimacy, defined as the ability to relateto people one to one) all divided by S(self-orientation: the degree to whichpeople put themselves first).Credibility, reliability and intimacy can allincrease trust, whereas self-orientationreduces trust. These four dimensionsare a useful way to assess our ownbehaviour and that of partners. Are weinstilling trust? Do we have integrity inour words, actions, emotions andmotives?To develop trust, Maister identifiesfive stages; engage, listen, frame,envision and commit (Maister, Galfordand Green, 2000, p85). The process,described in the table below, usefullystarts on engagement: are there issuesto talk about and are these peopleworth talking to? But it goes beyondengagement and shows that, havinglistened properly, one earns the right tobe with the other to frame the issues.Having defined the problem one canmake concrete a specific vision orchoice. Only then, once the otherunderstands in all the complexity whatit takes to achieve the vision, can onedetermine to do what is necessary.Maister’s focus is what it takes fora “trusted advisor” to build the rightkind of relationship over time with aclient. But his insights can be applied topartners in any relationship where trustneeds to be nurtured over time to yieldgreater dividends.At the heart of this process is thenotion of a meaningful conversation,which Maister, Stamp and others allhighlight as essential in determining thequality of dialogue and the building oftrust. Simon Anholt, who advises topleaders on how better to promote thedistinctive identity of their country, usesa process that he calls a “conversazioni”to take leaders away from the hurlyburlyof their jobs and talk throughoptions. Anholt’s work is discussedfurther in Chapter 5, when we explorethe implications for public diplomacy.Shell deliberately distinguishes twosteps in a process — convening andframing. Framing explores the problemand possible solutions. But this can bestarted only after a successful conveningstage where partners have got to knowmore about one another’s interests andconcerns. The term I have seen usedelsewhere is NICE: Needs, Interests,102 103

Concerns and Expectations. Experiencednegotiators simultaneously gatherinformation as they build relationships.A relationship of trust makes thisprocess light-touch, transparent andrespectful of boundaries.tendency to focus on ourselves; thebelief that we’re selling only content;the desire for tangibility; and the searchfor validation. Part of being effective inbuilding trust is managing one’s ownemotions.Table 2.1: Trust process(Adapted from: Maister, Green & Galford (2000) p86).Trust ProcessStepAction takenWhat the client feelsWhat the advisor gainsGillian Stamp combines the tripod(trusting, tasking and tending) withappreciative conversation to workthrough what needs to be done, whatdiscretion and scope is given to theother and to attend to the issues thatneed to be dealt with. In their paper“Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics inthe membership of collaboration”(Huxham and Vangen, 2000), ChrisHuxham and Siv Vaugen argue that theimplication for practitioners and policymakers is “nurture, nurture, nurture”.“Achieving collaborative advantage forall but the simplest of collaborative tasksrequires major resource investment,together with significant managerial skilland patience from each of the individualparticipants” (Webb, 1991).Maister warns that one mistake morecommonly made than all the otherscombined is jumping ahead in thetrust process to drive action beforecompleting the other steps (Maister,Green & Galford, 2000, pp139-148).The interesting point for Maister is notthe fact that we jump too soon tocommitment and action but why wedo so. The reasons include: the human3. Managing riskChi gioca solo non perde mai — Ifone plays alone, one never loses.Sicilian proverb. (Quoted in Maister,Green & Galford (2000) p147).If leadership is about the mingling ofreality and possibility, it must be aboutrisk taking. Not just calculated risks,but taking risks in the absence ofinformation; or despite, rather thanbecause of, the information available.Unless this barrier is crossed, risk isdomesticated rather than seen for whatit is: wild and uncertain. The risks thatcollaborations run cannot be mitigatedby a tick-box exercise in judging risk onthe basis of past experience alone orby the risks being made somebodyelse’s problem. Contingency planningexercises are useful — but not if theygive false comfort.One of the most importantdevelopments of British civil servicereform in recent years was the initiativeled by Sir David Omand in chairing thegovernment’s Risk Group drawn from1. Engage2. Listen3. Frame4. Envision5. CommitAttention becomesfocusedEars bigger than mouth;acknowledge and affirmThe root issue is statedclearly and openlyA vision of an alternativereality is sketched outSteps are agreed upon;sense of commitment isrenewedpermanent secretaries of Whitehalldepartments. This group deepenedthe understanding of risk across alldepartments to show that it was to bemanaged rather than avoided. It alsomade the links between risk and responsibility, internally and externally.“It may be worthtalking to this personabout…”“I am being bothheard andunderstood…”“Yes, that is exactlythe problem here…”“Could we reallyaccomplish that? Thatcould be a reallyinteresting outcome”“I agree, I understandwhat needs to bedone. I’m with you,let’s do it.”Earns the right to telland hear truths.Earns the right tosuggest a problemstatement ordefinition.Coalesces issues tomove forward.Makes the visionconcrete; generatesclarity of objectives.Allows problemresolution to begin.Communicating risk to the publicinvolved raising awareness of risk andbeing clear that, though governmentshave a pivotal role, respondingeffectively to risk is a sharedresponsibility.104 105

Transparency and engagement wereessential well before a crisis broke outto make the public “alert, but notalarmed”. In effect, this approach torisk management in public policy termsassumes that systemic crises have tobe dealt by systematic and methodicalplanning and coordinated action —collaboration on a massive scale.The vital element is to continueacknowledging that there is a limitto what planning can achieve and tokeep alive and channel a constructiveanxiety in organisations and in widersociety.The media are strategic partners inhelping the authorities build a moreresilient society. The Media EmergencyForum, founded by Mike Granatt thenchaired by myself and Howell James,brings together all the main newsorganisations in British media. Amongother things, it produced a report intothe implications for communicationafter 9/11, drawing on the collectiveeffort of media organisations,government and emergency services.The media must keep their editorialindependence in holding those inpower to account; yet they need tosee that they shape the conditions inwhich information flows and isinterpreted.All organisations have to manage risk;and the more strategic ones build riskmanagement early on into their plans.A situation or decision carries both adownside (threat) and an upside(opportunity). Risk may be individuallyshouldered, shared, passed to others ordisengaged from. Collaborations bringtheir own risk – not merely aggregatingthe risks which each party brings to thetable but producing new risks of theirown.As research done by Roger Miles andothers shows (see Appendix: Risk andRegulation), collaboration adds a newdimension. For example, there willusually be some form of externalorative enterprise and the motive eachmember has for joining in. Externalobservers are naturally curious aboutthe extent to which each collaboratormay be — or at least may seem to be —motivated by the common good or byself-interest. What individual trade-offsmay be expected for each participantwho takes a seat at the collaborativetable? Clearly, participants will alsobring their own understanding of, andmanagement approach to, risk; and onemight expect this to be a subject forearly discussion by all partners.Risk management, in its modern forms,is a popular structure for balancingenterprise with pragmatism in publicand private sectors. However, theelaborate structures devised to reportand manage risk have tended toallow concealment of a perverseconsequence. Strict risk-metricscrutiny of leaders’ decisions cansuppress creativity in leadership.Unfortunately, risk-aversion can be themost tempting default option in anera when public scrutiny of officials’decisions has never been greater.Citizens of the modern “risk society”take their own counsel on riskacceptability and regard it as theirdemocratic right to demand that leadersjustify a risk decision. Leaders are nowchallenged, to an unprecedentedextent, to justify their decisions beforea sceptical public and news media,whose perspective of hindsight oftenlabels any less-than-perfect outcomeas failure.It is well documented that modernmedia amplify public perception of risk.Small wonder, then, that acommon pragmatic response is riskaversion.This results in an arguablygreater failure – that of impoverishedambition.There are at least two good reasonswhy collaborators should resist thecall of risk-aversion. First, truly strategicleadership should already have thevision and confidence to challengesocially-amplified risk perceptions,presenting relevant facts clearly tosupport decisions based on a balancedview of relevant risks. This strategydoes not mean that public“misunderstandings” should beignored; in the complex virtuallandscape of reputation risks, some ofthe largest and most volatile objectsare affective — various public anxietieswhich may have no obvious rationalorigin. As already noted, the policylegacy of the command-and-controlera is a tendency to patronise; or, inEric Berne’s famous Games People Playanalysis, to address the electorate in thetone of an adult upbraiding a child.When confronting reputationobstacles erected by affect, thecollaborative partners should consciouslywork to maintain everyone’s capacityfor empathy with the values and beliefsof those “outside the tent”. This isessential to protect against the onsetof group-think – the tendency of expertgroups to delude themselves that theirviews and decisions are invariably right,without pausing to consider that a layoutsider might find them irrelevant,misguided, alarming or merelyridiculous. Some social enterprisesfail in this way – as we see when awell-intentioned plan collapses undera weight of public ridicule.Secondly, a leader seeking toengage participants in the publicand private sectors should know aboutanticipating and overcoming biases inthe cultures of risk inherent in eachside. However neutral the frameworkfor decision-taking, one must avoidinadvertently prompting colleagues toplay to their latent biases by invoking106 107

it. According to some observers, publicservants tend to interpret the conceptof risk as “hazards to be avoided”,inferring support for a precautionaryapproach. By contrast, it’s argued thatthe commercial sector regards risk asprimarily as a source of potential profit.Collaborations are, then, unusuallyvulnerable to competitive and reflexiveresponses to risk. Their endeavours maybe perceived, perhaps irrationally, asfailing by disregarding public anxieties,by delivering insufficient perceivedvalue or by apparently having preferredthe interests of one partner overanother. The terms of any contractto collaborate, whether formally orinformally expressed, are therefore ofcore importance. Any understandingshould explicitly support collectiveproblem-solving if things do go wrong.But it should also encourage all thepartners in the collaboration to thriveon the creative energy that disruptivechallenges so often release. Above all,the collaborative enterprise should seekto anticipate and overcome the risk thatits efforts will be rejected by a scepticalpublic.In relation to this area of risk, Milesapplies the pithy phrase currentin Hollywood: it’s the “What justhappened?” factor, referring to the feltexperience of participants perplexed bywhat exactly went on at the meetingthat they have just attended. Aneffective meeting taps any concernswhen all are present, and finds a wayof addressing those concerns withoutleaving anybody exposed or vulnerable.Better to understand and manage therisk collectively than to ignore it. Thechances are that what is risk for oneperson may well be a risk to another,particularly if it’s not made explicit. Thechallenge for the chair of the meetingand the whole team is to hold theanxiety that discussing risk produces,so that the anxiety can be usedconstructively to focus the group’sefforts, and in so doing, build thegroup as a mutually supporting team.4. Managing complexity and otherchallengesThe final quarter of challenges,complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity anddifference can produce a cacophonywhen not understood or appreciated.How then to turn the noise into music?The default is to live with them orignore them. The better way is to workwith them, and get the best from them.Einstein once said, “Keep it simple —but not simpler”. Making a collaborationwork is about getting the mixright between planning and adapting;controlling and giving discretion; givingdirection (pushing) as well as helpingout as others take the lead (pulling);orchestrating and maintainingalignment of interests and efforts;yet “letting a thousand flowers bloom.”It is like navigating a ship, workingwith both external changes (steadyor turbulent waters) and internal ones(if rebuilding a ship at sea, one aimsto replace the planks without losingdirection or sinking).One insight taken from physics is theworking of entropy. A state of order ordisorder is said to be stable if the overallappearance is intact. So a very tidy deskhas low entropy because any slightadjustment — moving a pen or pieceof paper — is immediately noticed.A messy desk with piles of papers andbooks can tolerate more adjustmentsand additions without the overallappearance seeming to change: it hashigh entropy.The key disruptive moment is whenmicroscopic disorder affects themacroscopic order; that is, it changesthe overall appearance.A similar test can apply to collaboration.Are there not some issues where oneneeds low entropy and others whereone can tolerate high entropy?Here are some examples of where onemight expect low entropy:• a commercial collaboration has todeliver a certain financial return, anincrease in revenues, a reduction incost or increase in market share;• a political collaboration has to haveall its partners committed to thesame goals and sending the samemessages;• a new brand identity for anorganization needs a consistentapplication of its logo.And here are some examples of whereone might expect high entropy:• a commercial collaboration cantolerate its different partners usingtheir resources in their own way aslong as they make an effectivecontribution to the overall result andsupport one another;• a political collaboration can allow itspartners to achieve internal buy-inin the way that works best, providedany internal issues don’t underminethe overall integrity of thecollaboration;• a brand campaign can have a corevisual identity and key commonmessages yet allow partners theflexibility to tailor the brand to reachtheir own audiences, as long as anyvariation enhances the overallcampaign.The collaboration-builder will thereforewant to achieve enough sharedunderstanding and purpose from thegroup of what makes for a mutually108 109

acceptable, informed, stable entropy;how much variation can be tolerated;and, if there is disruption that risksthreatening the integrity of thecollaboration either in relation to thetask or to the functioning of the group,how parties may best intervene toensure overall stability.One reason why an equally-weightedtough argument between two or moreparties is healthier than one partydominating the argument — or a groupavoiding any argument at all — is thatthe apparent disorder drives up theoverall performance of the group andgets it to better manage what isunstable. Confrontation on the rightissues at the right times is the grit inthe oyster that produces the pearl.This approach therefore puts apremium on capturing and assessingsignals and exercising judgment at theappropriate level on what reinforcesthe focus and momentum of acollaboration and what detracts fromit. It puts responsibility on every levelto use its discretion to relate the localpicture to the big picture and to feelempowered and supported to give andexpect feedback.Any collaboration is only as strong asits weakest link. Chronic difficultiescan fast turn into acute ones becausecollaborations rely on interdependenceand information being exchanged andused to inform ongoing decisions.To quote The Hitchhiker’s Guide to theGalaxy, “only one thing travels fasterthan the speed of light — and that’sbad news” (p.11). Crucial to anycollaboration is agreement on the flowof relevant information and howpartners support its retrieval anddissemination for the benefit of thegroup as a whole. In Gillian Stamp’stripod of tasking, trusting and tending,part of effective tending is being givenrelevant information and knowledge.5. Collaboration builder: the personIn summary, the collaboration-builderneeds to be strategic about ends andpragmatic about means:• Assertive about the strategic aim andthe interests that need to be securedand advanced: creative at exploringthe range of options for possiblecollaboration and resourceful infinding common potential value:commercial negotiators can makefor very effective collaborationbuilders because of their ability todiscern what’s really important fordifferent parties and to re-packagedifferent combinations of interest.• Attuned to the cultural,organizational and humandimensions of any interaction:respond appropriately to whatemerges in and throughcollaboration, and• Action-oriented: shape or at least tryto influence the conditions in whichcollaborations have to operate, lead“outside the comfort zone” andknow how to improvise.Collaborator’s choices –including the Collaborator’s GambitFinally, the need to make choicesgives the collaboration-builder theopportunity to shape the conditions anddirection of any endeavour. What at firstseems like a choice might on reflectionnot necessarily have to be one. Theinsight of Dodd and Favaro on achievinga batting average over time reminds usnot to get trapped in unnecessarytrade-offs but to make progress onseemingly competing objectives.A good example is the choice betweencentralisation and decentralisation.Dodd and Favaro quote Lord Browneof Madingley when he was running BP:“When there’s a performance crisis,centralising is the immediate response;and when things are going very well,uncontrolled decentralisation is theresponse. You have to be in themiddle... If you can pick the things youare tight on and what to be loose on,and stick with it, that’s the answer.”(Dodd and Favaro, 2007, p149).The authors say that BP goes to greatlengths to define what the company willbe tight on and what it will be loose on.It delegates “powers and limitations”to its business units. BP is tight oncorporate reputation, the brand,financial targets and standards ofbehaviour — but loose on much else.Most successful centralisation will beone with much concurrentdecentralisation.At the root of managing competingobjectives is the idea that managersshould manage the relationshipbetween objectives, not the objectivesthemselves. Dodd and Favaro take therelationship between spouse or partner,child or parent, friend or colleague,“To make compatible the two objectivesin tension, each objective must ‘lookthrough the eyes of the other’ andeach must ‘act in the interest of both’”(p170). Applied to a business context,this could mean that growth ismanaged for profitability andprofitability for growth; today’sperformance is managed to increasetomorrow’s performance and viceversa. “If objectives are managedas relationships, they can often beavoided as choices or things tobe balanced.” (p170)The advice is neither to balance norto prioritise between objectives but toprioritise between tensions. Leadershipteams should debate and carefully pickthe right lead tension.I explored with some of my respondentsthe idea of a “collaborator’s gambit” —what it takes to give collaboration an110 111

advantage in achieving its common aim.Sometimes a bold or original move canbreak the deadlock, put the enterpriseback on track or restore moreproductive working relationships. Keyto an effective intervention is workingwith the leadership group to breakpatterns of behaviour that take thecollaboration away from its intendedgoal and to take a calculated risk thataction is required. Any intervention islikely to arise from tensions in one ofthese four areas:• Ambition or Realism: set andmaintain the benchmark for whatwill constitute success; yet respondto emerging, unforeseen setback orsuccess. There might be good reasonswhy targets are not met; but this isnot a reason to lose them or to revisethem if over time they help thecollaboration achieve the best resultspossible. The next chapterexplores the relationship betweencollaboration and the context inwhich it operates. Whether anenvironment is steady or turbulentwill determine the shape of thecollaboration.• Strategy or Tactics: raise the strategicceiling early, in terms of what can beraised and discussed at all levels;decide on some key strategicpartnerships, work to plans, yetadapt them because collaborationsare dynamic; tackle issues head-on,knowing that collaborations caninvariably lose focus and momentum;turn tensions into opportunities forstrengthening the collaboration; earnand engender trust, taking actionon what erodes it; push theboundaries of people’s roles, yetremember what the collaboration isfor, and who wants what from it.• Direction or Empowering: bettera lead than no lead: no enterprisesucceeds without the right degree ofinitiative and risk-taking. But, overtime, it is better that initiative andrisk-taking are shared, provided it isrewarded and supported.• Give or Take: collaborative behaviouris harder to maintain thancompetitiveor defensive behaviour. If thecollaboration begins to show signs ofpeople turning inward, suspicious oropportunistic, this is a challenge to betackled constructively at the right time,in the right way. Part of the gambit is to“give to get” if we want to ensure thatthe collaboration taps its potential.Chapter summary• Collaboration is the technology for the knowledge economy. It gathersinformation to produce fresh choices, by creating fission — drawing outdifferent perspectives and interests; yet also producing fusion — drawing inthe parties first to agree on the problem, then to agree and act on thesolution.• Collaboration, by its very nature, means that traditional means of control —market and hierarchy — cannot be used to manage relations amongparticipating organizations.• Key to success is strategic pragmatism. When tensions are transformed intoopportunities, what makes collaboration difficult is made easier and thereforemore possible. This involves being firm about some things (ends, for example)yet flexible about others (such as means).• Because collaboration is so much about managing something dynamic andevolving, planning and control need be matched with the ability to be presentand to respond to fresh challenges and opportunities.• Leaders have a crucial responsibility to develop meaningful conversations.The hallmark of an “appreciative conversation” is that people listen withoutjudgment, not seeking consensus or compromise but sharing the sole purposeof continuing the conversation in order to sustain relationships of mutualrespect.112 113

Chapter 3:Collaboration and itsimpact on organizationsIn this chapter:• Crisis: applying thecollaborative partnershipsmodel• Organizational culture• Organizational design• Group relationsEvery institution is vulnerable, no matter how great. No matter how much you’veachieved, no matter how far you’ve gone, no matter how much power you’ve garnered,you are vulnerable to decline. There is no law of nature that the most powerfulwill inevitably remain at the top. Anyone can fall and most eventually do.Jim Collins, How the Mighty Fall – And Why Some Companies Never Give In (2009) p8.Collaborations and partnerships are like the Romans in Monty Python’s Life of Brianasking what did the Romans ever did for us — apart from building aqueducts, givingus roads, producing wine, and the rest. If they do anything good, the organizationsthat set them up claim all the credit. If they fail, or don’t deliver what you wantthem to, they are blamed for everybody’s ills.Official in a Geneva-based international organization.• Chapter summaryAnybody who has ever coordinateda complex collaboration of differentstakeholders will instantly know thefeeling. It seems that the collaborationis at the crossroads of all the problemsand unmet demands. Far from being asolution, collaboration becomes part ofthe problem. The very challenge thatthe enterprise was meant to addressseems more distant and even moreintractable. The collaboration buildergoes from having a sense of freedomand empowerment to feeling trappedand subject to competing interests.Sometimes collaboration provides somuch freedom that participants feeloutside their comfort zone and long fortheir old set ways. This chapter pointsa way through this existential crisis. Itfocuses on both the external challenge(the extent to which the environmentin which collaboration takes place ischanging) and the internal challenge(the extent to which a group isself-aware).Collaborations change the way thatpeople relate to one another, and tothe environment in which theyoperate. The collaboration shapes theparticipants and the participants shapethe collaboration. If a collaborationgets stuck, this is because it is notadapting to the challenges of the widerenvironment, not dealing with its owninternal tensions or not demonstratingthat its response is the best way totackle the problem.In chapters 1 and 2, I demonstratedthat collaboration is increasingly partof how business is done betweenorganizations and within organizations;and that thinking strategically can help114 114115

organizations to become more effectiveat spotting and exploiting opportunitiesfor collaboration. This chapter takes theargument a step further, examiningthe context and environment in whichcollaboration could become the mainway in which we shape our efforts.Formal organizations do not disappear— they may become even moreimportant as they deliver their partof the bargain in any collaborativeenterprise. But they may need to adapt,becoming more fit-for-purpose as partof a wider collaboration.This has implications not just for whatwork gets done, but how it gets done. Ifwe want organizations with a strongersense of their own needs and priorities— organizations that are better able toengage with other stakeholders, withyounger people and with those fromdifferent cultures — then we needto look at how our organizations areequipped to respond and adapt.I want to examine three areas wherecollaboration can make an impact onorganizations: crisis, culture andorganization design.1. Collaboration and crisisCrisis provides a way of rethinking thepurpose and design of an organization.I am defining “crisis” for this purposeas a situation that is likely to get muchworse unless immediate and decisiveaction is taken.We think normally of crisis in its acuteform: but it is also useful to think ofcrisis in its chronic form. Chroniccrisis can easily turn into acute crisisif the underlying challenges are notaddressed. According to Jean-FrancoisBureau, an Assistant Secretary-Generalat NATO, an organization that is fit-forpurposeshould not have to reorganiseitself when it is hit by a crisis. Today’sorganizations are expected to haveenough agility and resilience to respondto shocks.The extent to which an organizationcollaborates with others depends partlyon whether the environment in whichit operates is steady or turbulent.Steady environments are based on solidfoundations. Turbulent environmentsare ones in which the ground keepsshifting.I shall demonstrate that collaborationgives organizations an advantage indealing with emerging or actualcrises over organizations that do notcollaborate. That advantage dependson the extent to which those responsiblefor contingency planning and businesscontinuity have taken the involvementof multiple stakeholders into account.I shall also show that, in listening towhat its stakeholders tell it, anorganization can learn and change.Applying the collaborativepartnerships modelPresident John F. Kennedy oncefamously remarked that the word“crisis” in Mandarin is made up of twoparts: “danger” and “opportunity”.Working with the QinetiQ team atMalvern and others, I have designeda way in which collaboration can beused as a way of adapting to changingenvironments — and, in particular, to anemerging crisis.We can see the value of collaborationif we draw a graph of a growing crisisplotted against time. It looks somethinglike the letter N — rising first, thenstarting to dip, falling and finallyresuming its climb (see Appendix:Collaborative Partnerships Model v0.3).The graph shows the differentenvironments in which collaborationcan occur, moving from steady orturbulent and, ideally, back to steadyagain. Zone 1 shows a steady rise. Afterapproaching a ceiling (zone 2), thegraph falls in zone 3 before recoveringin zone 4.As the crisis becomes greater,collaboration becomes ever morenecessary. By understanding whatstage an organization has reached, itsleadership teams are better able to planand time their responses.At present, some organizations are notchoosing to follow this collaborativemodel. Those that do collaborate havea better chance of riding out the storm.Those that don’t are at the greatest riskfrom future turbulence.Working through the four zonesZone 1 shows steady and predictablegrowth; zone 2 still shows growth, butit is more uncertain; zone 3 is the crisispoint at which a trend must be arrested;and zone 4 shows an organizationemerging from a crisis — which mayreturn if the necessary action is nottaken.A topical example might be the riseof house prices in Britain and US thatended in 2008. There is a ceiling abovewhich the economy will not tolerate anyfurther rises — because no economywants to spend all its money onhousing. But this model works forany other indicator of value. Earlyintervention can shift the trend fromits default position.In steady times, organisations managetheir environments. When times areturbulent, the best they can do is torespond to changes in the environment.They must adapt — or fail.Let’s begin with zones 1 and 3, wherethe contrast is clearer.116 117

Zone 1: a steady environmentIn zone 1, the environment is steady.The organization may need to competein order to increase its market shareand generate revenue. But it can alsocollaborate to become more efficientor to cope better with demand fromthe market. In making their strategicchoices, organizations must decide howmuch they wish to invest in innovationand collaboration. The greatest successwill result from taking the longer view.In this steady environment,collaborations are generallycomplementary to the main focus ofan organization. They become morenecessary as the scale of the challengeincreases.A good example is the aerospace anddefence sector. Here, collaboration isessential in financing, designing andimplementing a programme. The sectoris innovative because this is the onlyway to provide governments long-termwith the capability that they mightneed. The sector’s immediateenvironment is steady because it relieson long-term investment and hightechnologydevelopment.But, in a steady environment, long-terminvestment and significant innovationare sometimes seen optional for thesector as a whole. There is innovationand growth, but only at product leveland in particular companies. Theprevailing mood should be: “Thingsare going well but we can always dobetter.”Zone 3: a turbulent environmentIn zone 3, the environment is turbulent.No matter how efficient or effectivethe organization was in zone 1, it nowfaces challenges from the area in whichit operates. There is a limit to what canbe done by improving productivity orcutting costs. The very nature of theorganization is vulnerable to furtherdisruption. The dominant sense is:“Things are going wrong, and unlessdecisive action is taken they will getworse.”This, typically, is an organization in crisis.The crisis may be acute, demandingimmediate attention. Or it may bechronic — less obvious, although all thesigns of deterioration are present. In myexperience, a vigilant, agile and resilientorganization is one that is attentiveto the signals — assessing them andtaking timely and proportionate action,either on its own or working with othersin related areas. If the environment iscontributing significantly to this malaise,the chances are other organizations arealso vulnerable.With this increased and wideningvulnerability, organizations can becomeeven more competitive, gainingmarginal, yet crucial, advantage overothers. But the scale and complexityof challenge from this changingenvironment should make eachorganization realise that it cannotmanage on its own.At this point, collaboration becomesessential — whether it is driven byvisionary leadership or by sheernecessity. It maximises the prospect ofdifferent actors using their combinedstrength to respond positively tochanges in the environment, even ifthey cannot manage them directly.Looking back on my own experience,I cannot think of a crisis in which anorganization or group of organizationshad not benefited from creating andcultivating a broader network ofstakeholders in advance. Theeffectiveness of an organization islargely determined by the quality ofthe relationships that it maintains anddevelops over time.Crisis and the opportunity ofcollaborationA turbulent environment also providesopportunity. To survive, an organizationmust adapt. But if it can become moreeffective than it has been, it may alsothrive. Collaboration gives it a way ofachieving what would not otherwise bepossible.In that way, collaboration can becomesan engine of change. Innovationbecomes a greater priority. By investingnow, organizations can increase theiroptions in the future. Once theimmediate challenge of a crisis has beengrasped, there are usually opportunities— not just to reflect on what wentwrong and how it could have dealt withdifferently but also to look ahead andexplore ways of regaining an advantage.Organizations are faced with achoice between resuming old habitsand operating differently. If theycollaborated to survive, it is likelythat the relationships they developedduring the crisis will be the basis forfuture activity.Zones 2 and 4: not so steady?Zones 2 and 4 are both apparentlysteady environments. But there arecrucial differences. In zone 2, thedominant sense is: “Things look good,but it doesn’t feel good.” In zone 4, thesense is: “It looks as if everything is backto normal, but can we count on that?”We see a sense of uncertainty in bothzones that can increase awareness ofboth threat and opportunity, makingcollaboration an even more importantoption than it was in zone 1. The graphprovides for a range of options fororganizations emerging from zone 3,depending on the choices they tookalong the path from zone 2.For policy-makers and managers, thechallenge is to respond early enough tosigns that things are deteriorating,118 119

mitigating the crisis by taking jointaction with others. By collaborating,their joint action will have greaterimpact. Taking the right decisions aheadof a trend will give organizations anadvantage over those that do not act.Foot-and-Mouth Disease, 2001The foot-and-mouth epidemic of2001 was Britain’s biggest singlecivil-contingency crisis since theSecond World War. Looking back,one can see how the changingenvironment presentedorganizations with opportunitiesfor collaboration. The crisis engulfednot just the former Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food(MAFF), but most of thegovernment; not only farmers, butthe rest of the rural community. Themore these bodies were caught upin the crisis, the more theirstakeholders needed to act inconcert (see zone 3). Theconsequences for so many differentparts of the rural economy meantthat a more coordinated andcollaborative approach becamenecessary.After the initial crisis broke, MAFFbegan to widen its range of internaland external stakeholders — notjust when handling the crisis, butalso in developing options forrecovery.Defra, the new departmentcreated in June 2001, adopted anambitious programme to widenits stakeholder base, based ona commitment to values ofopenness, engagement andcustomer focus. All this happenedbefore the inquiries into the crisisreported in 2002. On the graph,this takes us further into zone 3.Success in eradicating the diseasegave increased momentum torecoery work that had startedduring the crisis. In the spring of2002, Defra and the Departmentfor Culture, Media and Sport led70 organizations in a campaign topersuade people to visit thecountryside. The aim of thecampaign was to boost tourismand business. But its collaborativenature meant that governmentand a wide range of NGOs thatwere committed to opening up thecountryside could rebuildrelationships that would supportother initiatives. By this point, wehad reached zone 4.Such was the severity of the crisisand its damage to thegovernment’s reputation that wecan still learn lessons fromdecisions taken at the time. In2004, a major contingencyplanningexercise was carried outover two days to check that therecommendations of the inquirieshad been implemented. A furtheroutbreak of the disease in 2007 wasquickly contained, demonstratinghow far Defra — and the networkof organizations it worked with —had come.Crisis, Collaboration and Decision-MakingWhen a crisis involves a number oforganizations and networks, it may leadto wider turbulence in the system. Thatposes particular problems for individualorganizations.Analytic Red is a specialist consultancywith a distinctive approach tocollaboration. The founding partners– Jasvinder Mahrra and Dr Mils Hills —were previously the government’s onlydedicated business-continuity testingunit in the Cabinet OfficeThey use highly participative exercises,either to explore what would happenif an event occurred or to learn lessonsfrom a real incident. Exercises like theserequire much preparation and carefulmanagement on the day.The consultancy immerses participantsin exercises that require them to makemajor decisions. Those who canperform well are more likely to beresilient in a crisis. What’s required isan ethos of collaboration, acrossboundaries and up through a hierarchy.To succeed, participants must rise abovenormal ways of operating and embracemethods that are different or radical.Analytic Red has built its approacharound the concept of networks.Although networks are often highlyeffective at providing the commoditiesand infrastructure that companies need,they are inherently prone to problemsthat spread with great speed. Stabilitymay be illusory and undermined byminuscule change.In building the resilience of public andprivate sector organizations, Mahrraand Hills develop what others describeas mere “business continuity” byexamining risk across an enterprise.They highlight the need for both staffand structures to be collaborative.Individuals must work in a way thatdoes not expose others to unnecessaryrisk; the strategic machine must senseand respond to unanticipated risks,both from within and without theorganization.Research by Analytic Red hascharacterised the characteristics of crisisconditions.120 121

Figure 3.1: Characteristics of crisis conditionsNormal BusinessMost eventsscheduled andprepared forwith access toappropriate powerCrisis ConditionsAn event that hasn’tbeen scheduled orprepared for occurs,or the event preparedfor has actuallyhappened. A feelingof powerlessness inthe face of events andactions of othersConsequencesShock and surpriseof expected riskoccurring oremergence ofunexpected eventSolutionAgile organizationsstrive to seamlesslymove into alternativestate of operatingManaging thetransfer from thetempo of normalbusiness life to thatof handlingdisruption: need toknow what aspectsof normal businesslife are disposable /and for how longCollaborative processes are essential,both in anticipating consequences —which require the re-focusing oforganizational strategies — andresponding to events. Not allorganizations are prepared to invest inpropagating, rehearsing and embeddingthe collaborative ethos in advance of acrisis. However, collaboration is neithera commodity that can be acquirednor a resource that can be activatedonly when needed. Commitments areneeded to ensure that collaborativeFigure 3.2: Five fundamentals decision-making process(Source: Analytic Red)working is effective, both in day-to-daybusiness challenges and, in particular,when problems arise.Collaboration across the decisioncycleUnder crisis conditions, priority decisionsmust be taken quickly. To ensure thatthe right decisions are taken in the rightorder, structural (“hard”) systems andstaff (“soft”) systems must be capableof sustainability and extension.Majority of actionsallow some timefor considerationof response evenunder pressureGenerallypredictableand manageablevolume and velocityof decisionsStrategicdecision-makerskeep strategic focusClear wheredistinction betweenstrategic,operational andtactical levels liesImmediateresponse required orit will be too late tomake a differenceHigh volume andvelocity of decisionsrequiredStrategic level risksbeing caught in detailof operationalresponseBreadth and depthof crisis means thatdistinction betweenlevels can be blurredIf start conditions areimperfect, this maydegrade subsequentresponseA blizzard of decisionsrequiring attention candisorientate or defeatthe organization’sstrategic responseDistraction from thebig issues; flight toengagement withcomforting detail.Levels of authority andresponsibility can becompromised. Legalliabilities may accrueto those un-involved inthe actual decisionEnsure immediateresponse capabilityfully briefed on firstactionsIntercept and directdecisions to theappropriate level ofexercisedorganizationalresponseClear thresholdsbetween Strategic-Operational andTactical roles andresponsibilityExceptionreporting to strategiclevel of issues forresolution.Principleof subsidiarity andmission commandto resolve issues atthe lowest possiblelevel.Information-GatheringCommon NeedsAcquisition andprocessing ofinformationAssessment ofthe situationDevelopment ofa comprehensiveSitRepDecision-MakingTimely,proportionateand sustainabledecisionsEach of the five elements of thedecision-making cycle is enabled andsupported by hard and soft systems andtechnologies.Key questions asked are:Can people and information-gatheringsystems rise to the challenge of a crisis?Action andMonitoringExecution andtracking ofdecisions andtheir effectsCommunicationKey informationto internal andexternalstakeholdersCan the strategic, operational andtactical levels of administrationcollaborate at and between their levels?Do the organization’s structure andworking practices ensure that decisionswhich need senior management’sconsideration/sign-off escalate?122 123

Can the senior level effectively act andcommunicate its intentions?Are there barely-acknowledgeddependencies on vulnerable key staffand technologies and are planningassumptions flaky?Collaboration and decision-qualityHigh-quality decisions can come aboutonly from collaborative practices, thatare valued, that have been in place forsome time and that run horizontally andvertically through an organization.For example, an organization thatwanted to service its key client underthe most demanding circumstances —from an underground car-parkimmediately following an attack onits HQ building — knew that its seniormanagement team was already atightly-knit and effective decisionmakingbody; that it had the experienceto function under these circumstances;and that it would have access to keyinformation from dedicated staffsupported by a combination of bothnew and resilient technology — in thiscase digital communications andtraditional flip-charts.Finance, complexity andcollaborationThe recent turmoil in world financialmarkets illustrates how a successfuloutcome to a crisis often depends on anorganization’s ability to maintainconfidence in its reputation, integrityand powers of command and control.These events have reinforced the viewthat “understanding the dynamics ofthe control points within [...] networkswill be increasingly important forcompanies that wish to anticipate,if not influence, external change”(PFC, 2007, p.3).According to Mahrra and Hills, thedisruption to world financial marketsunderscored the fact that institutionsand others had collaborated in theexchange and investment of productswhose risk had not been rigorouslyassessed. The liabilities resulting fromthese products were re-bundled andsold on by brokers who marketedthem as reliable risks. An analogy isthe freelance journalist, or “stringer”,who places a good but unreliable storyin the local press. National mediaorganizations want to believe storieslike these are true and so give themmuch wider coverage without sufficientfact-checking.Networks enable information to spreadwith great speed. The challenge forgovernments and organizations is toensure that this information is reliable.Collaboration and opennessFor collaboration to add maximum valueto an organization, it must becomeintegral to the way in which all businessfunctions operate. For example, theorganization must be alert to earlywarnings both of threats andopportunities, actively probing forundesirable behaviour or uncontrolledrisks. Similarly, those responsible forpolicy and strategy should learn fromthe people with whom they collaborate.We can sum up the qualities required ofan organization in this context:• Personal mastery. The disciplinewhich continually clarifies ourpersonal vision and allows thecapacity to grow and see realityobjectively.• Mental models. They represent ourview of the world, the way we seeour organization, our market and ourcompetitors.• Shared vision. The building ofcommitment of all stakeholders.• Team-learning. The ability to engagein dialogue with other members anddevelop a collective intelligencewhich is greater than the sum ofindividual members.• Systems thinking. This is the disciplinethat links all the others. It is the abilityto look beyond personalities andevents and understand the underlyingpatterns and structures that shapethe organization as a whole.(Adapted from Senge, 1990).Enabling decision-taking throughcollaborative explorationScenario-planning techniques can beused to explore options for dealing withpotentially uncontrollable risks. Figure3.3 shows a model which, if usedcorrectly, can prepare an organizationfor disruptive events and offer optionsto address them:This model shows how support forcollaborative decision-taking canbe enhanced and losses limited byexploring the courses of actionavailable. These options are generatedthrough the use of scenario thinking.Some are taken forward whentriggered. Others may be piloted tosee whether they deserve additionalinvestment.Taking into account the “fiveundamentals” model (Figure 3.2),decision-makers must absorb newinformation and decide whether theirexisting options need to be halted,modified or swapped. Since informationis always incomplete and inconsistent,the challenge to management is toensure that the “least worst” optionsare in play at any one time. Scenarioplanning can be used to improve theconfidence of decision-takers so thatthey can anticipate consequences andknow when and where to turn forhelp. The ability to plan ahead andsustain effort is crucial to maintainingcollaborative or competitive advantage.124 125

Figure 3.3: Decision-taking through collaborative exploration model(Source: Analytic Red)2. Collaboration and organization cultureScenario-planning• inherent and new options• desired and undesirable consequencesPossible Option Portfolio1 2 3 4 4Selected Option PortfolioPilot Activities• KnownEarly I&WPositives / Negatives6ImplementAAny known trigger/Decision PointsMaintain, ExtendPotentialOption Portfoliopro-active flexibility andswitching optionsNewInformationB• UnknownBolStopModifyCommitA G I L E M A N A G E M E N T A C T I V I T YTo “manage change” is wishful thinking, implying as it does that one notonly knows where to go and how to get there, but can persuade everyone elseto travel there. To “cultivate change” is something different, suggesting anattitude of growth, of channelling rather than controlling, of learning notinstruction. A changing organization is one that uses differences to grow better,that treats politics as a bonus and people as individuals who are rightly differentand usefully different.Charles Handy (1999) p.292Two of the strongest arguments thatI have read in favour of greatercollaboration are the impact that ithas on knowledge creation, transfer orsharing in organizations (Huxham andHibbert, 2008) and on creativity inmulticultural environments (Lung etal, 2008).Knowledge creation and transferLearning among partners contributesto the stability or otherwise ofcollaborations, and also allowspartners to use that learning in theirown organizations. If the collaborationinvolves organizations mingling theirpeople and processes, then learningcomes about as partners get to knowhow each other works; as theynegotiate the ways in which theywork together; and as they adapt.conflict with common-sensepresumptions of competitive orcollaborative behaviour in any sector —private, public or non-profit.Huxham and Hibbert (2008) identify aspectrum of attitudes:• Selfish acquisition of knowledgefrom a partner, exclusively for anorganization’s own use, thusexploiting the partner.• Sharing knowledge with specificpartners, in a relatively controlledway, thus exchanging with them.• Sharing knowledge in an open waywith a range of partners, andexploring innovative solutions toproblems collaboratively.Attitudes to learning in collaboration areunlikely to be entirely selfish, sharing orsidelined. These motivations sometimes• Sidelining any consideration oflearning, formally excluding it fromthe collaborative agenda.126 127

Table 3.4: Basic attitudes – generic characterisations(Source: Huxham and Hibbert (2008) p. 511)Basic attitudesSideliningSelfishSharing —exchangingSharing —exploringHuxham and Hibbert argue that givingis far from simple if collaboration isgoing to work for all involved.Knowledge outflow and acquisition are passively not considered.Learning from or with partners is not something we think about.Unidirectional knowledge outflow from a partner and acquisition onlyby the attitude-holder are actively preferred.We take from you without giving to you.A starving stance that restrictsknowledge is not untypical, forinstance, if a business is understandablyconcerned about giving away itsintellectual property, or if a governmentBi-or multi-directional knowledge outflow and acquisition are activelyappreciated as sources of value in their own right.We take from you and we give to you; you take from us and give to us.Bi-or multi-directional knowledge outflow and acquisition are activelypreferred as necessary vectors in supporting the possible creation of newvaluable knowledge.We take from you and we give to you; you take from us and give to us –and we learn together to create knowledgedepartment wants to hold someknowledge back, uncertain whatadvantage is gained from putting it inthe collaborative domain. But there arealso instrumental and unilateral sharingstances. The instrumental stance canoften carry a degree of selfishness:“we give to you to get back for us”.And it can be manipulative: “When ithelps us to manipulate a third party,we give to you”. The unilateral sharingstance can sound, in theory, like giving.But without careful thought, it mightreveal that the value of what is given isimprecise.Creativity and multiculturalexperienceRelevant to collaborative workingbetween organizations drawn fromdifferent cultures is recent scholarshipon how multicultural experienceenhances creativity. In April 2008,Angela Ka-yee Leung of SingaporeManagement University and herco-authors produced the first article todemonstrate empirically that exposureto multiple cultures can itself enhancecreativity (Leung et al, 2008). Theyfound that the range of multiculturalexperiences is related to both creativeperformance (insight learning, remoteassociation, and idea generation) andcreativity-supporting cognitive processes(retrieval of unconventional knowledge,recruitment of ideas from unfamiliarcultures to expand on ideas). Theirconcept of culture includes ethnicdiversity, but they also define cultureas a set of loosely organised ideas andpractices generated by a network ofinterconnected individuals. Whatmakes the biggest difference is deepimmersion in another culture, ratherthan travel.Opening one’s mind to foreign culturesand actively thinking about differencesbetween home culture and foreignculture can boost the creative benefitsof multicultural experience. But thosebenefits are weakened by timepressures, the need for firm answersand a preference for order overambiguity.In chapter 5, I develop my argumentabout effective engagement. Diplomatshave long understood that whatis foreign can be exotic or an object ofanalysis; but nothing is more powerfulin building a relationship than treatingthe other person with respect. Thisapproach sustains any engagement,whether or not one has much incommon with the other side.Collaboration as a temporaryorganization and transitional spaceCollaborative partnerships are not, bythemselves, a solution to organizationalchallenges. But, if thought aboutstrategically, they can be used to throwlight on an organization’s potential forgrowth and change. Collaboration canbe seen as a temporary organization,with the limits that this entails. If itbecomes too fixed, it challenges theorganizations that have given it scopeto operate or perpetuates its ownexistence at the expense of the purposefor which it was set up. If it is notdesigned as an organization, it loses128 129

direction, authority and accountability.The challenge is to be aware of bothrisks and to navigate between theextremes.A collaborative partnership alsooccupies a transitional space in whichbusiness is done between parties whodelegate their powers to others. It canprovide a space in which experimentcan take place if expectations aremanaged and risk-taking is supported.As Samuel Beckett wrote, “Try again.Fail again. Fail better.” In theseconditions, effective collaborationswill drive internal performance as wellimprove external partnerships.The work of the psychoanalyst DonaldWinnicott is particularly instructivefor collaborative effort in a climate ofcreativity and experiment. For Winnicott(1992), play is the opposite of coercion,not of work. Play is crucial to a child’sdevelopment. He argues that thedevelopment of independence dependsnot on the continuation of the infant’sexperience of omnipotence but on acontinuation of the capacity forcreativity. This involves an individual inspontaneous action, in play, which takesplace in what he calls the “potentialspace” between the individual self andthe environment. In these conditions,playing leads to a mature capacity forparticipation in and contribution to theworld.Planning and control need thereforeto be carefully balanced againstadaptation, improvising andspontaneity. Project-managementskills can be usefully applied, givingcollaborations a beginning, middleand end. The benefits of effectivecollaboration are produced as muchby what emerges as by what is agreedat the outset. When we look atestablishing value, it is important totake into account the intangible assetsthat collaborations bring.Collaboration builders will be moresuccessful if they treat collaboration asif it were a technology to be investedin and managed. The corporate worldalready well understands that muchof the value of a company lies in itsintangible assets, its brand andreputation. We now know that most ofthe cost of a mobile phone goes to payfor intellectual property and softwareapplications, not for manufacturing thephone itself. Collaboration with partnersand suppliers lies at the heart of thedeals that make a commercialproposition viable.Collaboration can hasten thetransformation of an organization intoa learning organization by making itmore attuned to feedback and moreprepared to reflect on how it can dothings differently or better. Whether ata one-to-one level, or as a group, anorganization can ask another, “You’veseen us at work. How we compare withother organizations? What do we dowell? What could we do differently?How can we be even more effectiveworking together?”Change programmes have theopportunity to achieve even greaterimpact if they address issues oforganizational design and the balancebetween hierarchy, team-based andnetwork-based collaboration. Whichof these models best suits what theorganization needs to be? Effectivecollaboration can provide a way ofasking these more difficult questionsby focusing on the insights thatcollaborative activity produces forindividuals and organizations. Withoutdirectly challenging the status quo,it has in its gift to change howorganizations engage.Anthony Alston draws a distinctionbetween single loop and double looplearning. For single loop learning, themetrics used to control the processare fixed and are not affected by theenvironment in which the process sits.In the current financial crisis, this couldbe seen as the traders and bankersbeing allowed to regulate themselves —setting controls that suit the way theywant to work without any considerationof their impact on the global economy.The second loop in the double-looplearning concept monitors the controlsof the inner (single) loop and changesthem if either they have an adverseimpact on the environment or if theyare not reacting appropriately tochanges in that environment. In thefinancial example, the second loopwould be a regulatory body that hasthe power to change the controls ofthe inner loop, based upon itsperception of the global economy.Pumping money into the inner loopto stabilise the situation withoutchanging the regulatory mechanismsis not double-loop learning: there isno outer (double) loop.In this example both single anddouble loops are collaborative in nature.The outer, regulatory loop requiresthe world governments and nationalfinancial institutions to agree onappropriate controls. The inner looprequires the traders and bankers tocollaborate, both to work within thecontrols applied to them and to selfgenerateagreed controls - the moreautonomy that traders and bankers aregiven, the greater the emphasis onthe second of these inner-loopcollaborations.3. Collaboration and organizationdesignIn The Necessary Revolution, PeterSenge and his co-authors argue thatcurrent organizational structures haveevolved in response to the imperatives130 131

of the past and will need to changeto support new visions, strategies andgoals. When strategy and design arealigned with the current businessenvironment, performance can beexceptional. When the external businessenvironment changes, strategy andorganization design no longer fit.Often a new strategy is formulatedbut the organization design has notchanged and the company lacks thecore capacity to implement the newstrategy. The main question for leadersis: what new organisational design isrequired and how is it to be achieved?An organization’s agility and resiliencecan be improved if it thinks morestrategically about collaboration. Ingeneral, recent advances in what isknown as complexity science tell usthat organizations that are too leanand too well organised for oneenvironment will fail under another.Professor Peter Allen, of the ComplexSystems Research Centre at CranfieldSchool of Management, says: “Thedifficulty then is to build organizationsand capabilities that are sufficientlyeffective in the short term, but whichstill retain the capacity to adapt andtransform themselves in the longerterm.”A good example of this tension is oneI heard discussed at the internationalsymposium for influenza pandemicpreparedness held in Portugal inSeptember 2008. An issue formanufacturers of syringes — andtherefore one for governments andpublic health authorities — is thepressure on manufacturers to operatemore efficiently, producing on a“just-in-time” basis rather than on thebasis of what crisis planning mightrequire (a “just–in-case” basis). Thecollaborative nature of effectivecontingency planning across differentorganizations and sectors allows theseissues to be addressed, but only ifstrategic decisions are taken to investin this process.The National Health Service andBritain’s growing health sector providea strong example of the challenge -and opportunity - collaborationpresents. “Evolution, not revolution”is how Steve Wells, a consultant whospecialises in the health sector,describes the current situation withregard to collaboration between thepharmaceutical industry and NHS.“My research has suggested that whilethere is increasing rhetoric aboutprivate and public sector collaborationin health, there is still a long way to gobefore both sides fully embrace a trulycollaborative business model,” he says.There are a number of factorsconverging to establish a positiveenvironment supportive of collaborationin the health sector.The tension within the healthcaresystem between the cost of deliveringcare, the quality of care delivered topatients and the engagement ofpatients, carers and the public is onesuch factor. There is a growingrealisation that no one organization hasthe skills, knowledge or resources todevelop a solution alone. The economicsof the healthcare sector points clearlytoo increasing scarcity of resources forboth public and private sector players.At the same time, there is activegovernmental encouragement for NHSorganizations to collaborate.Most major pharmaceutical companieshave adopted account managementas a conduit to develop longer termrelationships with NHS customers. Itis often through these roles that thecompanies offer and provide skills,capabilities, expertise and funding tocomplement those available to localNHS organization in order to implementhealth initiatives designed to bringbetter, more effective and efficientoutcomes to patients. An increasinglyimportant element to the discussionsthrough the initial contracting processis the system wide benefit of drugintervention; e.g. effective drug therapynow to prevent acute admission tohospital later.Despite apparent investment bypharmaceutical companies in neworganizational structures and customerfacingroles, some scepticism remainsabout the pace and scale of transitionto a more collaborative business model.Companies make pronouncements ofstrategic intent to become, “partner ofchoice with NHS customers” and yetchallenge their customer-facing teamsto meet traditional operational salesor market share targets. A moreinnovative approach might be toalign account managers’ incentiveprogrammes with the NHS customers’;for example in diabetes care, theaverage HbA1c (blood sugar) levelsacross a local population.At the local level, and often under theradar, companies and Primary CareTrusts (PCTs) – or more accuratelyindividuals within both organizations –form a relationship on the backof which they work together ofteninformally at first, to jointly identifyan issue and design a solution.These partnerships work becauseof the motivation of the individualsconcerned and not necessarily becauseof an institutionalised perspective oncollaboration; effective internal supportand performance management.Conducting some work with membersof the Futures Analysts Network –a network of futures practitionersfacilitated by the Foresight directorate’sHorizon Scanning Centre – Steve Wellsconcludes: “Leadership, organisationalattitude to collaboration remainsignificant hurdles to partnering infutures work to support policydevelopment.”132 133

Futures work in the context ofgovernment policy development issubject to significant consultation andco-ordination, but limited partnership.The difference here concerns howinformation is sourced, addressed andused. There are numerous examplesof where one team will seek technicalinformation from another, as asource of valuable content. But theengagement does not tend to includejoint “sense-making” of the informationin the context of the current exercise.Not only that, true partnership wouldhave the stakeholders working togetherto determine the questions that theyboth want answers to.Operational collaboration seems muchmore common; “I couldn’t do my jobwithout collaborating with colleaguesin other departments because of myown resource levels,” is not uncommonfeedback. Of course, here again thedirection of travel is set beforecollaboration is sought.Participants in the inquiry confirmedtheir belief of a need to collaboratemore; citing the increasinginterconnectivity, complexity anduncertainties in the externalenvironment. But they also suggestthat attitudes within their ownorganizations and those of potentialpartners need to change to makeincreasing collaboration a reality.A number of challenges to effectivecollaboration were identified. Thecontrol of the collaboration and futurescontent and process was discussed, inpart reflecting a reluctance to willingly“give something up” in order to workcollaboratively, or a lack of trust inthe partner’s ability to maintainresources either in terms of technicalcompetence or people and funding.Revised operational priorities are seenas a major risk here. When surveyedabout good collaborative workingpractice, collaboration process andcollaboration behaviours received thelowest scores, perhaps suggesting acapability gap. Feedback about theprocess suggests that formal co-creationof a collaborative initiative; the reviewand where necessary revision of apreviously agreed contract duringcollaboration and a review of thecollaboration’s performance againstmutually agreed objectives is notcommon practice. In terms ofbehaviours, responses suggested thatsharing assumptions about partnerswith partners is not common practiceand that there could be more clarityabout the facts known and assumptionsheld about partners.Collaboration is a major component ofleadership thinking and was recentlyidentified as a key element of 17 publicsector leadership challenges. And yetwhen a number of futures practitionerswith an interest in collaboration joinedSteve Wells in a seminar, theparticipants collectively failed to takethe opportunity to lead in exploring thecollaborative working material available.4. Collaboration and group relationstheoryDevelopment of ideas in the early yearsof the Tavistock Institute of HumanRelations ranged from the micro tothe macro: the primary group; thefamily; organizations; the larger society.Different system levels were integratedvia over-arching theoretical approaches.The source concepts which gave rise tothe socio-psychological perspective arepsychoanalytic object relations theoryof Klein, Fairbairn, Bion and Winnicott;Lewinian field theory; Von Bertalanffy’sgeneral systems theory and thepersonality-culture approach of Millerand Rice.At the time, Object Relations Theoryrepresented the most advanced body ofpsychological knowledge then available.Miller (1993) and Rice (1965) describehow our understanding of groups andorganizations, resting, in part, on opensystems and psychoanalytic conceptions,when taken together, allows a constructof a very useful model. The inner worldof the individual includes experiences,emotions, attitudes and skills of whichhe is largely conscious and which,through the ego function, can beappropriately mobilised or suppressedin the service of whatever goal he ispursuing and role he is taking. Theinner world can also be conceived asbeing populated, as it were, by a set of‘objects’ and ‘part-objects’ which arethe residual representations of earlier– including infantile – experiences ofrelations with others (Klein, 1959).Mannie Sher is Principal Consultant,Organizational Development andChange, at the Tavistock Institute ofHuman Relations. According to Sher,the subject of collaboration shouldpay attention to object relationstheory, because of its connection toBion’s theory of the disruptive power ofgroup forces. Collaboration necessarilyinvolves a number of irreducibledilemmas. Organizations cannotcollaborate without entering a processthat overthrows, if only temporarily,vital achievements of maturity. The verynature of the task of joining togetherin a mutually agreed task demands aregressive immersion in primitive levelsof experience that sets aside our highlydeveloped capacities for discriminatingobject relationships as well as threatensour differentiated identities. Tocollaborate is to regress. This raisesa second point. Collaboration requiresa form of leadership that is capableof stemming regressive processesand defending against anxiety. Incollaboration, leadership is a creatureof the collaborating organizations.It survives only because it serves thecollective’s purpose and only as long asit does. This is very much the oppositeof conventional wisdom, not to mention134 135

our own often cherished beliefs in thepower of our or others charismaticleadership ability. We foster the valueof leadership; we neglect the role offollower.Object Relations theory centres on thepresence in every subject (individual,couple, family, group, organization,society) of “internal objects” that seekrelationships with “external objects”.To put it another way, if the ‘internalobject’ of an individual or anorganization, is of a rescuer, otherswill be perceived as and related to asneeding rescuing. This is commonlythought of as the source of motivationof people in human serviceorganizations. In other words, the“internal object” of rescuer seeksrelationships with “external” objectsneeding rescuing, and usually, if othersrefuse to take up that role, they areeither coerced into that role or the‘rescuer’ withdraws. There is a similarbasis in the dynamic relationshipsoccurring between groups andorganizations. The implications for“collaboration” between organizationsshould be clear, except that regressivetendencies that occur in groups mayturn the ideal of collaboration intofault-finding, blame and conflict.Isabel Menzies (1959, 1961, 1970,1988), a researcher consultant at theTavistock Institute of Human Relationsduring the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s discoveredthat the way work was organised inhospitals and nursing structures, raisedrather than lowered the levels of anxietyamong nurses. Her study revealed thatthe nature of the nurse’s task, in spiteof its obvious difficulties, was notenough to account for the highlevels of anxiety and stress. Menziesattempted to understand and illustratethe nature of the methods the nursingservice provided for the alleviation ofanxiety – its social defence system – andconsidered in what aspects it failed tofunction adequately. She concluded thatthe social defence system representedthe institutionalisation of very primitivepsychic defense mechanisms, the maincharacteristic of which is that theyfacilitate the evasion of anxiety, butcontribute little to its true modificationand reduction.The defense system (the way work isorganised) affects the efficiency of taskperformance,in turn leading to theinefficiency of the nursing service asa whole, for example, retaining highstaff-patient ratios, significant amountof bad nursing practice, excessive staffturnover and failure to train studentsadequately for their future roles. Thehigh levels of anxiety in nurses adds tothe stress of illness and hospitalizationfor patients and has adverse effectsof recovery rates. Recovery rates aredirectly connected with the morale ofnursing staff. Thus the social structureof the nursing service was found to bedefective not only as a means ofhandling anxiety, but also as a methodof organising its tasks. Menziesconcluded that these two aspectscould not be regarded as separate. Theinefficiency is an inevitable consequenceof the chosen defense system. This isthe significant proposition put forwardby Tavistock social scientists – thatthe success and viability of a socialinstitution are intimately connectedwith the techniques it uses to containanxiety. An understanding of thisaspect of the functioning of a socialinstitution is an important diagnostictool in facilitating social change.Attempts at achieving organizationaland social change must understandand work with social anxieties ifsocial defenses are to be restructured.Recommendations and plans for changethat seem highly appropriate froma rational point of view are ignoredand fail in practice because they donot sufficiently take into account thecommon anxieties and the socialdefenses in the organizations concerned,nor provide for the therapeutic handlingof the situation as change takes place.According to Mannie Sher, the nursingand policing services present thesedifficulties to a high degree, since theanxieties are already very acute and thedefense system is both primitive andineffectual. Efforts to initiate changeare often met with acute anxiety andhostility which conveys that people feelvery threatened, the threat being ofnothing less than social chaos andpersonal dislocation and breakdown.To give up known ways of behaving -and embarking on the unknown- is feltto be intolerable.In terms of Object Relations Theory,nurses’ ‘external objects’ are actualdamaged, cut open, bleeding, festeringbodies of their charges. These ‘externalobjects’ “meet up” with their ‘internalobjects’ i.e. the pictures-in-their-mindsof damaged, ill, disintegrating anddying parents. Nurses’ attraction tothe profession of nursing, Menziesclaimed, was based on their hope thatby attending to external objects in theform of patients, nurses psychologicallyhoped to “repair” their ‘internal objects,i.e. their ill and dying parents. Menziesconcludes that the obsessivefunctionality of nursing proceduresin hospitals, the impersonalisation ofthe nurse-patient relationship, i.e. thechosen social defense structure, failsyoung nurses in their attempts to copewith their damaged “internal” objects,and ultimately leads large numbers ofyoung nurses abandoning their training.Similarly, in policing, young men andwomen seek to deal with their “internalobjects” of violent, mentally ill, abusingor chaotic parents by externalising thosedynamics onto society, crime, disorderand mental illness, and rely onpolicing institutions to do so safelyand in a civilized manner.136 137

Appendix :Collaborative partnerships model(Source: Hudson, Dodd, Marsay, Stamp & QinetiQ, 2008)Chapter Summary• Depending on context and environment, collaboration can become evenmore important, and the main way in which organizations shape their efforts.• Collaboration provides a way of achieving what is not immediatelyachievable, particularly in a turbulent environment. It can become the enginefor change and renewed growth.• Collaboration can be seen as a temporary organization and transitional spacein which to foster innovation and learning, essential for long-term survival.Indicator valueSTEADYcollaborationcomplementaryto main focusof organizationUNCERTAINcollaborationeven more ofan optionCRISIScollaborationessentialNEWSTEADYSTATE?collaborationan optionUpperlimitNatural‘floor’Zone 1:Zone 2:Zone 3:Zone 4:Time“Thingsare goingwell,and wecan alwaysdo better”“Things lookgood but itdoesn’t feelgood”“Things aregoing wrong,and unlessdecisiveaction is takenthey will getworse”“Thingsare better,everythingfeels back tonormal butwe count onthat”138139

Chapter 4:Social collaboration:how can it workIn this chapter:• Role of government• Role of business• Role of NGOsMy model for talking to the students about the power of coalitions [of state andnon-state actors] is to use that “stone soup” fable in which the traveller comes toa village and proclaims his ability to make soup from stones. He boils a cauldronof water with a few stones in the bottom, and remarks to various curious villagersthat stone soup is even better if you drop in a few herbs... some vegetables... a fewpotatoes... a little meat — and at each suggestion a villager donates the ingredient.Eventually a collaborative soup is produced which all share.Dr Nicholas Cull, Professor of Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California.• Better engagementbetween governments,business and NGOs• Chapter summaryCull’s story shows it is the vision (orwhat he calls the “cheek”) of thefacilitator that achieves the result, nothis own resources. The fable is prettywidespread in Europe, with the inertingredient sometimes given as an axeor nails, but it seems apposite to thechallenge addressed by this chapter.Who casts, in this sense, the first stone?Who contributes other ingredients? Cancollaborations between governments,business and wider civil society actuallywork? Governments need to be clearerabout their own role, as I explain in part1. They must understand better theperspectives of business (see part 2) andNGOs (part 3) before deciding how bestto engage with business and NGOs (part4). The next chapter picks up on the“cheek” that we need leaders to showif they are to get the cauldron boiling.1. The role of GovernmentQuite apart from the political leadershipthat governments can give, effectivesocial collaboration turns on inspiringleadership across society.In the broad context of achievingsocial goals, governments should thinkas much about their role as architectsand builders (that is, shaping theconditions in which collaborationhappens and delivering their part init) as about their role as leaders (thatis, taking the primary responsibility forachieving results and taking the creditor blame for failure to deliver). As myanalysis of “tame, wicked and criticalproblems” in the next chapter willdemonstrate, there are clear reasonswhy government should provideleadership and why that leadershipstyle will depend on how the problem isconstructed. But it is counter-productiveto presume that all that matters isleadership, especially a narrow viewof it.Combined teamwork makes thedifference. Other roles exist for allactors, including the citizen, and wemiss opportunities to exploit thepotential of collaboration if wedo not go in with what Kant calledthis “enlarged mentality”, achieved by140 140141

looking at problems from the point ofview of all concerned before reachinga judgment.Although he is best known for TheWealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrotein The Theory of Moral Sentiments:“Though our brother is upon the rack,as long as we ourselves are at our ease,our senses will never inform us of whathe suffers. They never did, they nevercan, carry us beyond our own person,and it is by the imagination only that wecan form any conception of what are hissensations.” (pp 3-4).An enlarged mentality, based on realismand imagination, provides a usefulperspective for both strategic andtactical reasons: governments cannot,or don’t want to, deal with socialproblems on their own. The way toaddress some problems is not to assumeleadership but to see the bigger pictureand understand others.Three questions need to be addressedfirst:1. What is the nature of the problem oropportunity?2. What is the range of solutions?3. What could be done by whom,and with what degree of risk,commitment, skills, resources andsuccess?Only then can we answer the fourthquestion:4. Who has to do what to get the taskdone?For society as a whole, there is yetanother question to consider. Quiteapart from what needs to be done andwho is best placed to do it, who shouldtake the lead?This approach helps ensure that thedesigning a policy and communicatingit are two sides of the same coin. Onlywhen these four questions have beenanswered does it make sense to askwhat the strategic communicationsor public diplomacy strategy shouldbe. The reason for bringing incommunications at the outset isnot just to present the policy betterbut to establish what the policy is anappropriate response to.Others — businesses, civil society,ordinary citizens — are deliveringsocial change with little or nogovernment help. The same is truein some developing countries, wheregovernments could usefully play agreater role; instead, NGOs and localcommunities are finding their own wayof addressing social problems, oftenwith assistance from internationaldonors. Even in these cases, everybodyrealises that local initiative is critical ifcontributions are to be significant andsustainable. So the third-party role is anenabling one: it might start off as“taking the lead” but over timeit becomes “what help do you need,and how can we provide it?”That sort of language is increasingused by governments. But is theirstrategic aim to provide support? Oris it to control, regulate or influence?Governments will always have interests,but their actions vary according towhether those interests need to bepromoted, protected or merely takeninto account. It may sometimes be inour own interests to put the interestsof others first.Interested enablersThis does not mean that the onlyintervention possible is that of anhonest broker. There may be anexplicit or implicit interest present thatis neither aggressive nor self-promoting.This strategy comes some way betweenthat of a disinterested facilitator and anevangelical advocate. It is one that weshould be more open about.Many multinational companies indeveloping countries are aware of therisks of giving host governments theimpression that they have a blueprintfor commercial exploitation of thatcountry’s resources. Whether they takea strategic or tactical stance, thosecompanies achieve their ends byadopting the approach of an interestedenabler. For example, sharing expertiseand knowledge is not just offering agift but also part of building a rapport.Without being heavy-handed, thesecompanies want to show that theyare willing ready to do business. Ininvesting time and interest in anothergovernment, they need to show areturn.Talking about roles is important; bothin terms of defining the task to beachieved but also in making clear whatis expected of whom. Many issues arenot properly addressed because ofpresumptions about the role anindividual is taking and that person’spower to change its scope.The “interested enabler” role is onetaken by governments acting throughtheir embassies abroad. With thepublication of its four policy goals,Britain is explicit about what it sees asthe main challenges facing the world.It believes tackling those challengestogether will benefit us all.I had a useful discussion at our missionin Geneva about the range of roles thatBritain plays in securing its objectives.In some cases, it is as an honest broker.Usually, though, the aim of hosting anopen discussion with third parties is tofocus on the issues and ways in whichthey may be resolved. “Open” does notmean “open-ended”. The facilitationis part of a more directed strategy.Participants need to know where theircontribution fits, what’s expected of142 143

them, what they expect of their hostsand how the group as whole can takeany discussion forward. Many of ourambassadors — and, increasingly, ourpolitical and commercial counsellors —chair such discussions with a light touchcombined with focus and momentum.Interested enablers will invariably belooking for common ground. But it isoften difficult to reach that point untilthey have created the conditions forparticipants to establish a commonalityof interest — rather than merelycommon interest.The FCO’s strength will clearly bein delivering a strategy, using itsknowledge, know-how and networks.It will be this rather than a specificagenda that will engage others,according to businesses, NGOs, thinktanksand others I have spoken to. Ideascapture people’s imagination, but canalso distance them. It is the quality ofthe relationship keeps the dialoguegoing.This is why I asked Christopher Lomasof Naked Generations what he thinks“Generation Y” wants and howgovernments and business couldengage better with younger people (seeAppendix: Naked Generations). Many ofthe points Lomas makes are essential tounderstanding why those in authoritydon’t connect as well as they couldwith the rest of society. In Chapter 5, Iexplore his arguments for engagement.Relationships with host governmentsand multiple stakeholders are needednot just to keep bilateral relationshipsin good repair but also to provide anopportunity to explore differentperspectives. As one diplomat put it,“The policies might be the fuel in thetank. But knowledge, know-how andnetworks are the oil in the engine.”Speaking the local language is regularlymentioned as one of the skills thatgive our diplomats an advantage.Ambassadors of foreign governmentstold me that their diplomatic servicescould do more to encourage envoysto learn about a country beforeworking there. Those who return toa post after having served there earlierin their careers have an advantage overothers, even if much has changed in themeantime — because they realise howthey have yet to adaptExample: Hungarian NationalClimate StrategyThe British Embassy inBudapest sponsored a series ofinterdisciplinary workshops whichcontributed to the drafting of theHungarian national climate changestrategy. These workshops, whichwere chaired by Hungary’senvironment ministry, discussedbackground studies, collectedmissing information and formulateda consensus.Our ambassador was not drivingHungary’s policy. He was simplymaking sure that these workshopswere operating transparently andwith the widest possible crosssectionof stakeholders. Butthe project also provided anopportunity for our owngovernment to put its viewsdirect to the Hungarian drafters.This shows what can be achieved ifone player facilitates meaningfulconsultation and acts on directfeedback. Somebody needed totake the lead and ensure that theprocess got under way. But theinitiating party was not seen todominate the scene.Experience from posts abroadOne reason why partnerships betweengovernment, business and NGOs oftenfail is that government does not seethe need to seek input and consultstakeholders. Another problem is thatgovernment often fails to acknowledgefeedback or tell those who makecomments how their suggestions weretaken into account.One diplomat said: “Simply postingworking documents on ministrywebsites for comment is not enough.The lack of any feedback on how thesewere considered is de-motivating andeven annoying for the other party. Thisconfirms the impression that the wholepublic consultation process was a futileexercise. It alienates those who havespent time, energy and resourcesworking up a study or analysis.”If governments were more proactive,there would be two main advantages:• It would broaden the scopeof respondents beyond theself-appointed and regularcommentators, leading to morebalanced sampling.• It would build up in-house expertisein assessing how a proposal wouldbe received by those affected. Asa diplomat said, it would benefitpolicy-making and could dispel theadministration’s image of being outof touch with real life.2. The role of businessWhat is the evidence that outsiderswant to work with government or withinternational institutions such as theUnited Nations?Two major reports demonstrateincreasing collaboration as a sourceof business success. The first, in 2005,was a UN report on partnerships. Thework of the Global Fund provides astrong example of what a non-profitinternational foundation can achieve.144 145

The 11th Annual Global CEO Survey,conducted by PwC in 2008, was basedon contacts with more than 1150company leaders and governmentofficials from 50 countries. It showscollaboration at work in everything fromthe pursuit of talent and technologicalinnovation to organizational dynamicsand regulatory harmonisation.Tackling climate change is identified bythe survey as a global concern needinga collaborative approach. A growingnumber of CEOs support governmentledaction. 82% of CEOs “agree” or“agree strongly” that governmentsshould lead the effort to address theenvironment. 90% of Asian CEOs areconvinced that governments shouldtake the initiative. 73% “agree” or“agree strongly” that there needs to begreater collaboration among businessesin mitigating climate change.Though the survey was conductedbefore the financial turbulence of2008/09, economic downturn wasalready the global risk that CEOsregarded as their greatest concern.Despite potential risks from competitors,they still valued increased collaboration.The key to getting the most outof collaboration is deciding how tobalance it with competition and howto infuse collaboration with traditionalmanagement discipline.“More than ever”, according to PwC’sCEO Samuel DiPiazza, “executives arebeing challenged to evaluate whethertheir companies are fully exploiting thepower of their global networks.”(PwC, 2008, p.i).More than half of all CEOs (57%)believe that collaborative networkswill play a major role in the way thatcompanies will operate in the future.Only 17% “agree” or “agree strongly”that the costs and risks of networkscurrently outweighs the benefits. AsiaPacific CEOs are particularly convincedabout their value: 83% of IndianCEOs are open to the idea that“collaborative networks will be adefining organizational principle ofbusiness”. Chinese CEOs are lessconvinced but are close to the globalaverage, indicating that a history ofcentral planning does not precludea willingness to collaborate.Stone soup: more than stones?The survey evidence highlightschallenges. Networks are used mainlyto achieve “soft” goals — such asadvancing learning and sharing bestpractice — rather than enhancingproducts and services. 37% still regardthe establishment of networks as asecondary activity, suggesting that theyhave yet to exploit the full potential ofcollaboration. Although many CEOsrecognise the value of collaboration,they have not embraced the conceptin practice, particularly when it directlyaffects the bottom line. Most companiesare still using collaborative networks onan opportunistic basis. Although CEOsreport that it is relatively easy to recruitpeople who can collaborate, they regardlack of collaboration across functions asa major organizational barrier tomanaging change.“Public-private collaborative venturescan founder on a lack of understandingof each other’s respective objectives,Richard Wakeford, Director Generalof Environment at the ScottishGovernment told PwC researchers.“They depend on respect by the privatesector of legitimate public goods, andsensitivity by regulators to the needsof business.”But the PwC survey concludes that amore strategic approach will emerge,and that tomorrow’s networks willincreasingly be initiated at a senior levelrather than developed to take care ofa company’s immediate needs. CEOsare more enthusiastic about “soft”networks. Networks for creating andsharing knowledge are seen as a “quiteeffective” or “very effective” by 75%of CEOs; and networks for sharingbest practice are seen in the samelight (70%). Even though most CEOssee development of networks as asecondary activity, the researchalso shows that companies in thetechnology and media sectors arealready collaborating with multiplestakeholders to develop or refinebusiness models. As experience withnetworks grows, their use in allindustries is likely to increase.Public-private partnerships: UNexperienceThe UN Report on Partnerships (2005)shows how much the MillenniumDevelopment Goals and the WorldSummit on Sustainable Developmentin 2002 have been catalysts for publicprivateinitiatives. More than 200partnerships were agreed at the WorldSummit.The early evidence shows that all sidesneed to learn to exploit the potentialof partnership. Partnerships are seen tocontribute significantly to outward focusand impact. But many partnerships arenot “mainstreamed” in the rest of theorganization. There is a lack ofincentives and capabilities and notenough evaluation. The UN Reportnotes that most partnerships are drivenglobally, not locally driven or owned.On the other hand, three-quarters ofbusinesses say that partnerships willbecome more and more important.81% see brand value as the mostimportant asset that partnership bringswhile 73% see it as legitimacy. Nineout of 10 say that the incentive todemonstrate good corporatecitizenship is the main driver.146 147

On the negative side, these are sometypical comments from businesses:• Lack of coordination• Difficult to build partnerships• Bureaucratic structures and thinking• Lack of speed in delivering oncommitments• Suspicion of business• Take-it-or-leave-it approach tobusinessBoth reports suggest that collaborationand partnership are a growing trend.But there are still many hurdles to moreeffective joint working.Rise of Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR)One way of understanding howbusiness can become more involvedin partnerships with a social goal is totrack the importance they give toCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Ina 2005 poll, 81% of executives said thatcorporate responsibility was essentialto their business. They disagree aboutwhat the term means but the majoritybelieve that business should serve as asteward in society and that it has a dutyto investors, employees, consumers,communities, and the environment.Increasing numbers of companiespublish their social and environmentalperformance.Alan Murray, lecturer in accountingat Sheffield University ManagementSchool, says that individual companiesfind themselves under social andcompetitive pressures. They are subjectto new levels of transparency, whetherin response to changes in corporategovernance, to public concerns onenvironment or to consumer rights.Adverse disclosure threatensshareholder confidence, brandreputation, production stability,employee trust and other corporateassets.Challenges are being also seen asopportunities. In Corporate SocialResponsibility: A Critical Introduction(2008), Alan Murray and MichaelBlowfield describe the twin spheresthat CSR has to embrace. It must dealwith “capitalism’s Achilles heel” (Baker,2005), within which are intertwinedcapital, poverty and inequality. And itmust promote capitalism as a solutionto the key social and environmentalissues of the age. Definitions of CSRinclude Starbucks’ approach thatresponsibility is gauged by howcompanies respond to stakeholders’concerns and the Pricewaterhouse-Coopers view that responsibility involvesbalancing profit maximisation andstakeholder needs. For PwC,stakeholders include employees,customers, demographic groups andeven the regions that companies serve.Studies of CSR going back to the 1960sand 1970s show that different societieshave specific and complex expectationsof the role of business, which go beyondpaying taxes and following the law.Carrol’s framework is the benchmarkfor understanding CSR, and identifiesfour types of responsibility: economic,legal, ethical and discretionary (Carrol,1979). Ethical responsibility goesbeyond legal compliance, anddiscretionary responsibility refers tovoluntary responsibilities, such asphilanthropy, which companies cantake on even if there is no clear-cutexpectation from society.Just as some brand attributes can gofrom being seen as differentiators fora company to being seen as somethingthat everybody does, expectations ofresponsibility can also evolve. Safety hasalways been a differentiator for Volvo,but which automobile manufacturerdoes not now want to be seenproducing safe cars? What has beenachieved on safety is what governmentsand the vehicle industry will have toachieve on carbon emissions. Theopportunity now exists for carmanufactures to be distinctive bybeing innovative about tacklingclimate change.One result of involving a wider array ofstakeholders in thinking about the roleof business in society is that attentionis drawn to long-term corporateperformance. “The test of a businessand-society-basedmodel is whetherit leads companies to use their powerand resources for the long-term benefitof society, even if there are short-termcosts to the company.” (Blowfieldand Murray, 2008, p22). If businessessee tensions as opportunities (seeChapter 2, Part 2), they will wantto get performance right as a wayto maintain public confidence.Companies that don’t work in thisway will eventually find themselvesin the minority.MotivationsBusinesses have three main motivationsfor pursuing partnerships. They provideanother way of implementing traditionalcompany-led community relations anddevelopment programmes; a compellingbusiness rationale – for example, accessto new markets, avoidance of litigationor an opportunity to improve image;and a response to the trend towardscivil regulation, the requirementsimposed by civil society.The corporate failures that started inthe 1980s show the continued need forvigilance to ensure that business usesits resources for proper purposes. Theremust also be an expectation that thosewho run companies act honestly. This isnot only to enhance shareholder valueand to ensure the financial viability of148 149

companies but also to take account ofthe impact on other stakeholders —including employees, customers,suppliers and communities. Thisprinciple was accepted by the TorontoStock Exchange in 1994.But just as strategy cannot be divorcedfrom implementation, rules andregulations are not enough on theirown. Laws need to be matched byeffective collaborative frameworks toensure a shared understanding andcommitment to implement the spiritof corporate responsibility and, inparticular, sustainable development.What is required to complement andreinforce agreed mechanisms is theeffective joining-up of traditional andnon-traditional actors, a “suture”, orsewing together of the fabric, thatmakes a society, an industry sector ora specific company function with agility,resilience and integrity.Following Enron’s collapse, SamuelDiPiazza of PwC developed a revisedmodel of corporate disclosure, stressingnot just transparency but alsoaccountability and integrity. In theUK, the Institute of Directors haspioneered the qualification of charteredcompany director, developing a keensense among business leaders thattaking the wider strategic view is aboardroom requirement. DiPiazza’swork clearly identifies the need towork on three tiers: global, generallyaccepted accounting principles;industry-based standards; and companyspecificstandards.The significance of the current bankingand financial turmoil still needs to bemore fully assessed. But if the learningin this report holds, especially inbeing more strategic about risk andopportunity, business leaders needto develop partnerships as a way ofbetter connecting their organizationsto society’s concerns and aspirations.The insights developed in Chapter 2provide a way of making thatimplementation come alive, particularlyin managing risk, building trust andembracing complexity.Tri-sector partnershipsPartnership in a corporate-responsibilitysense is different from the type ofpublic-private partnerships thatgovernments promote to deliver publicservices. But one can also see emergingelements of both in what are called“tri-sector” partnerships betweengovernment, business and civil society.Warner and Sullivan describe this kindof partnership in the context of themining, oil and gas industry: “Tri-sectorpartners are, in essence, a new formof strategic alliance… [a] voluntarycollaboration to promote sustainabledevelopment based on the mostefficient allocation of complementaryresources across business, civil societyand government.” (Warner and Sullivan,2003, p17).Leveraging partnerships forenlightened self-interestJames Thompson, Regional Director atthe US State Department, provides thesimplest rationale for the increasingimportance of partnerships betweenbusinesses and others. It is enlightenedself-interest.There are global challenges socomplex that no government, noprivate enterprise, no single teamof experts can effectively tacklealone. Public-private partnershipsare not new. There have beennumerous examples of joint projectswhere government agencies andindividual companies team up tosupport educational initiatives,deliver healthcare or increaseenvironmental conservation.Why would The Coca-ColaCompany, the largest beveragecompany with the most extensivedistribution system in the world,invest millions in an alliancebetween the US Agency forInternational Development (USAID)and local bottling facilities in Africa,Asia and South America to conservewater resources?And why is Starbucks Corporationworking with Verde Ventures,Calvert Foundation, EcoLogicFinance, Conservation Internationaland USAID to finance more than$12 million in loans for ruralentrepreneurs in Latin and CentralAmerica?How does MTV justify itscommitment to providetechnological resources to a$13 million alliance betweenUSAID and the MTV EuropeFoundation to increase awarenessabout and prevent the traffickingof women and children for forcedlabour and sexual abuse?The reasons behind theseinvestments are straightforward:self-interest. Companies that rely onthe natural resources and humancapital of emerging markets areinvesting and instituting sustainabledevelopment practices andeducation initiatives in partnershipwith the US government becauseboth government foreignassistance programs and companiesalike are dependent on the globaleconomy. Because of this reliance,both the public and private sectorare motivated to act.James Thompson, Business for SocialResponsibility Weekly (2007)Thompson and I have been in regularcorrespondence in connection with150 151

this report. I asked him what was mostneeded to get partnerships withbusiness to work the way he wanted.“You need to have some detailedplanning prior to the implementationof the partnership,” he said. “Goalsneed to be set, performance indicatorsidentified and agreed upon, and adocumented detail of what eachpartner is going to contribute to thepartnership. There also needs to besome flexibility as the conditions onthe ground can rapidly change.”And how do governments andinternational institutions need tochange?“Both governments and internationalinstitutions need to plan forpartnerships and build in flexibilityin their procurement processes forpartnerships,” he said. “There is stilla tremendous amount of institutionalculture-change that needs to take place,so that staff now plan activities andthink about new approaches that bringin private-sector knowledge, technologyand creativity.”The following tables show how onecan map contributions (Figure 4.1)and outcomes (Figure 4.2) fromdifferent stakeholders. Good practicein managing partnerships (Figure 4.3) isbased on the importance of partnershipexploration, building and maintaining.Figure 4.2: Partnership outcomes for different stakeholders – examples from miningSource: Blowfield and Murray (2008). Adapted from Warner and Sullivan (2003).Outcomes for businessEnhanced licence to operate becausecommunities affected by operationswill be satisfied that the business unitis responsive to their concernsReduced community dependency onthe business unit (e.g. owing toempowerment of communities tomanage their own development)Basis for resolving local disputes thatmight delay financial approval oroperationsOutcomes for local communitiesAvailability of new social capital for thebusinessBecoming ‘company of choice’ in the yes ofgovernmental authorizing agencies andremoving political objections to future venturesReduced risk to marketing, sales, and shareprice associated with negative image of socialand environmental performanceFigure 4.1: Stakeholders’ complementary contributions to partnershipsSource: Blowfield and Murray (2008). Adapted from Warner and Sullivan (2003); UNEP et al. (2005).Additional resources for communitydevelopmentEnsuring that those affected byoperations have an equal or greater level ofwelfare, income, subsistence and securityGovernment contributionStrategic co-ordinationthrough local developmentplansBusiness contributionJob creationCivil society contributionLocal knowledgeFairer settlement/compensation forcommunity assetsImproved infrastructure and capacityto manage itAccess to the technology, finance and marketsneeded for new assets; and skill sets that canbe transformed into sustainable livelihoodsAccess to budgets in publicsectorRegulatory provisionsKnowledge of procurementand supply chain managementBuilding local infrastructureMobilisation of communityparticipationIndependent monitoringOutcomes for the public sectorAgreed revenue distribution mechanismsbefore commencing operationsIncreased legitimacy with local populationsBrokering of capacitybuildingrolesCapital equipment, technicalskills and logisticsPerformance-led work ethicand access to internationalbest practicesLocal and internationalcredibilityMore equitable distribution of revenues acrossgovernment, and between government andcommunitiesEnhanced tax and skills baseExposure to new ways of working andinternational good practiceEmpowerment of local communities152 153

Figure 4.3: Principles for managing partnershipsSource: Blowfield and Murray (2008). Adapted from Warner and Sullivan (2003); CCC (2005c).Partnership exploration stageFind the most practicable strategyBe purpose-drivenBe willing to negotiateConsultPartnership building stageAppreciate the importance of perceptionsIntegrate cultural values and prioritiesBuild trust, confidence and respectBe willing to negotiatePartnership maintenance stageRecognise reciprocal obligationsHave clear work plansMaintain internal and externalcommunicationsBe willing to negotiate3. The role of NGOsIn Chapter 1, we began to examinethe wider range of NGO functions andhow the potential of civil society couldbe better exploited. Many ingovernment limit their perspectiveof NGOs, seeing them either asadvocates — and therefore as potentialInvolve stakeholders in designSet realistic expectationsBe prepared to say ‘No’Accept that differences of interest will ariseEncourage joint problem-solvingIdentify the important voices, rather than theloudestAdapt to internal and external eventsMeasure added valueDo not be a slave to business valueInstigate continual learningadversaries, allies or targets — or asdeliverers of services, complementingor replacing government functions.NGOs have advantages thatgovernments and business do notnecessarily enjoy: credibility with certainnetworks and often with the widerpublic, as well as specific expertise andcontacts. This credibility is oftenbuttressed by single-mindednessin commitment, knowledge of thesubject and first-hand experience. InLatin America, according to one DFIDcontact, NGOs understand the problemsof social inclusion far better than theoverseas government and are oftenbetter placed to tackle the challenges.But there are inherent problems. Onecivil servant working with some smallerNGOs expressed both her delight intapping the skills and knowledge ofthe NGO and her utter frustration atimplementing a project with their help.“They don’t seem to understandthat we just want to see a briefimplemented,” she said. “Not everyproject is a reason for opening up apolicy debate. There’s a time and aplace for that, and NGOs need to getmuch more business-like.”Many NGOs, particularly those thathave longer-term relationships withgovernment and business, understandthe scope and limits of otherorganizations. They know whomto lobby and when to push theirarguments. But there is a challengefor governments, business and NGOs.Each member of this trio mustappreciate each other’s perspectiveand find common ground on whichto collaborate more effectively.Baroness Neuberger, who advises thePrime Minister on the third sector, saysthat government needs to put greatervalue on the independence andperspective that NGOs bring.A broader perspective of the NGOroleHowever, seeing NGOs only in termsof advocacy and delivery is limiting —both for them and for wider socialcollaboration. The role of NGOs ischanging, not just for their benefitbut for that of government andbusiness. The most effective NGOs arevery adept at picking up on emergingissues, championing them and puttingpressure on governments and businessto change their policies. But they alsoadd value by helping to inform andframe the public debate. New ideasand perspectives can emerge that NGOsdid not think of when they first startedlobbying.One contact gives as an example a USgovernment-initiated project to provideschoolchildren with multi-vitamintablets. The cost amounted to$5 million.“The students threw out the pills andrefused to take them. The governmentthen spoke to some of the civil societyto better understand the problem.The reasoning was easy: there wasno awareness about what the tabletswere for and rumours spread across thecountry that the tablets were designedfor birth control.”154 155

My contact suggests that a simple wayof dealing with the problem would havebeen greater advance consultation withthe civil society, as well as direct contactwith people in the communities.Another contact highlights the rolethat NGOs play as a bridge betweenthe community and the authorities interms of communication and conflictresolution. As President Sarkozyimmediately saw when he took office,issues raised with NGOs, particularlythose interested in the environment anddevelopment, can trigger wider publicengagement and shape new legislation.The very process of engaging with 330stakeholder representatives and 17,000people in 19 regional meetings resultedin agreement on a five-year plan with268 recommendations.For NGOs, a key challenge is how theycan best use their assets with partnersor potential partners, enhancing thequality of relationships with other NGOsas well as governments and business.None of this detracts from their needto pursue wider goals or maintain theirindependence. One colleague in theFrench government said that manyNGOs needed to be clearer about whatan ideal relationship with governmentmight be; what a possible relationshipcould be if everybody found madecompromises; and what the actualrelationship might be if nobody madechanges.The Carbon Markets and InvestorsAssociation (CMIA) is a trade associationrepresenting service providers to theglobal carbon market. It was formedto represent businesses in the servicessector, working to reduce carbonemissions through the marketmechanisms of the UNFCCC. The CMIArepresents an estimated three-quartersof the transaction value in the globalcarbon market, which is expected togrow to $1 trillion by 2020. “If thestrategic aims of government arepredominantly aligned with that of anNGO then collaboration will more thanlikely bear fruit. This has frequently beenthe case with the Carbon Markets &Investors Association and the UKGovernment, as both seek to encouragethe development of carbon emissionstrading and low-carbon technologyfinancing in new regions and topromote the City as a leading providerto this market.This role positively encompassesthe strategic remit of at least fourgovernment departments, theClimate and Energy departmentDECC, Treasury (HMT), Business (BIS)and Environment (Defra) – makingthe collaboration more deep-rootedin UK government policy and theproviding more chance of success;inter-departmental policy wranglescan limit scope for fruitfulcollaboration with single issueNGOs. However, even whensuccessful, the operating limitsof such relationships need to beunderstood.In my experience one importantfactor for smooth running is thatthe NGO must expect, and besatisfied, to take a junior role to thegovernment agency or departmentfor the relationship to be effective —even if this means bureaucraticdelays to a collaboration which canbe frustrating for fast-runningprivate sector NGOs. There is nodoubt that governments are gettingbetter at dealing with private sectorNGOs and are seeing them asuseful adjuncts to their policystrategies and roll-outs, acting as abridge between government policyand the “real world”.Adam Nathan, Director, Public Affairs,Carbon Markets and Investors AssociationFeedback from the CheveningNetworkOne of the networks that I drew onwas the FCO’s network of Cheveningcontacts, which identifies and supportsfuture leaders. They reflect acontemporary perspective on therelationship between governments,business and NGOs in emergingeconomies. Their detailed insights,drawn mostly from personal experienceof working with NGOs, show whateffective collaboration can achieve on aparticipatory basis while demonstratingthe need to be realistic about thechallenges of bridging differentperspectives.A contact who works with anIndonesian-based NGO says: “NGOshave used an ‘ideal’ perspective tocreate their policy and campaigns.But government and business use a‘business-as-usual’ perspective. Bothsides need to bridge their perspectives,and that requires compromise.”Much of the feedback stresses thatcollaboration must be based on theequality of all parties, on “mutualbenefits”, “a win-win” or on“symmetry”. Government might have“administrative power” but “shouldnever be superior to its partner incooperation”. Another contact saysthat governments must show flexibilityin how they deal with NGOs: “Theapproach can be top-down or muchmore participative.”A further contact says: “Governmentshould see NGOs as partners rather thanrivals or opponents; and must be moreopen and prepared to show empathy.”Another says: “NGOs that cooperatewith governments must maintain their156 157

independence, particularly ofoperation.”A contact who is not in a NGO, but whounderstands the sector, explains whyindependence is intrinsically valuable:“My bank is not a NGO, but wecooperate closely with governmentsin financing the development ofinfrastructure, investing in educationand medical care facilities, and insupporting the government’s upgradingof industry policies. In my bank’scooperation with local governments,we can make independent lendingdecisions. The governments canrecommend projects to us, but wemake an independent project-appraisal,conduct due diligence, and make ourown lending decisions… Independenceis important and makes thecollaboration sustainable in thelong run.”One NGO contact from Cambodiawho specialises in improvingenvironmental awareness and themanagement of natural resources saysthat it is important to understand thedominant culture, particularly amonggovernment officials: “NGOs alwaysuse a participatory approach, whilegovernment uses a top-down andoutput-orientated approach. Wetherefore have to consider how thetwo approached can be balanced.”As well as getting right the rules ofengagement with NGOs, it also helps toagree the right processes and outcomes.A contact from Jordan says NGOs couldbe even more effective if: governmentinvolved them earlier and gave themmore time to implement projects; if theprivate sector took a wider view of theirrole; and if NGOs had more of a sayin donors’ discussions about funding.Another suggests a more business-likeapproach: clarity of roles; agreementon timeframe for implementation;agreement on performance indicators;and financial accountabilities.A Malaysian contact says that what isneeded are: “NGOs which are sensitiveto social change and demonstrate intheir long-term goals that they possessthe quality of good “business” partnersfor companies. They need to createvalue and strategic benefit for corporatesocial responsibility.” One Guyanancontact, mindful of the gap betweenrhetoric and delivery, says: “Do the duediligence, maintain sceptical oversight,and don’t be swept by the hype!”Top tips for government andbusiness working with NGOsFollowing a suggestion by BlakeLee-Harwood, a former Greenpeacecampaigns director and, more recently,a strategic communication adviser forthe FCO, I asked my Chevening contactsto suggest “top tips” for effectiveworking with the NGOs. There wasa range of responses, which I haveorganised under two categories.Design tipsSelectionChoose the right NGOs, not your friendsor the ones who have a soft opinion inwhat you want to avoid doing. Choosethe strong-minded NGOs that workseriously in the sector and can adviseyou on long-term solutions — eventhough you may disagree with theiradvice. Strong NGOs will get theiropinion across to the public and soyou are better off working with themto improve your policies rather thandisregarding them and having to facethem in the media.EngagementEngage NGOs throughout the process:design, planning and implementation.Have the NGOs write a business plan/strategy – even a short one. You andthey need to be clear how they intendto achieve their goals, no matter howcelebrated the cause. Have the NGOsstate their terms of reference andmanagement structure. Ensure activitiesare monitored, and commission reportsand minutes.AccountabilitySecure agreement on key deliverables,timeframes and financial managementaccountabilities. Have clear ownershipand accountability for the project.Spend enough time consulting NGOsand ensure NGOs have enough timeto consult local communities. Ensureparticipation of local communities togive establish ownership.SustainabilityAssess that objectives have a lasteffect. Make sure that collaboration isorganised as a serious sustainableconsultative process and is not justfor show.Implementation tipsIntegrationIntegrate plans and processes withgovernment plans.EvaluationEnsure activities are monitored, andcommission reports and minutes. Haveclear key performance indicators.CommunicationConsult through workshops and regularmeetings to ensure that there is sharedunderstanding as well as the buildingof relationships. Ensure effectivecommunication, both vertical andhorizontal.NGOs: new ways forwardNGOs are growing in importance andimpact. In the course of my research, Isaw two very different examples of thecontribution that NGOs can make. Eachshows that, whether the initiative istop-down or bottom-up; whether it isthe result of global or local leadership;the many problems to which social158 159

collaboration is a solution are, in fact,glocal — a mingling of the global andlocal. By the time a campaign or anoperation takes off, it’s the interactionof global, national, regional, and localinitiative that delivers an overall result.NGOs are still evolving, but theseexamples show their potential.Global Fund: building partnershipsto tackle AIDS, tuberculosis andmalariaFounded with a strong mission toaddress directly three pandemics, theGlobal Fund provides a strong exampleof a strategic focus on partnership,performance-based funding and countryownership. A not-for-profit internationalorganization based in Geneva, theGlobal Fund has become the largestmultilateral funder tackling AIDS,tuberculosis and malaria since it wasset up in 2002.The Global Fund was set up as apartnership between governments, civilsociety, the private sector and affectedcommunities in response to calls fromKofi Annan, UN Secretary General atthe time, and the G8 group. On thefund’s international board, donor andbeneficiary countries have equal votingrights with members of civil society,people suffering from the diseases, theprivate sector and private foundations.As a public-private foundation, the fundis must “attract, manage and disperseresources” to make a sustainable andsignificant contribution to the reductionof infection, illness and death. In sodoing, it must also contribute to thereduction of poverty. The Global Fundhas tried to establish a new model fordevelopment financing, combiningcountry-level ownership of programmeswith institutional efficiency andeffectiveness. And it has advancedthe concept of public-privatepartnership, in both its foundingprinciples and its governance structures.This model of multi-stakeholderparticipation is reflected in a publicprivatepartnership at country levelto design proposals, implement andmaximise the impact of grants.Multilateral and bilateral agenciesare important partners, assistingwith development proposals andimplementing of grants.When the Global Fund was created, itfaced enormous public pressure to actfast. The lives of millions of people wereat stake and there was considerablescrutiny by civil society activists and themedia. This has resulted in a sometimeschaoticprocess, with ng resources beingmade available before the necessarystructures were in place.One can also question some of theassumptions on the fund was created.It was assumed that countries couldimplement successful programmesprovided they received additionalfinancial resources. This was wrong.Governments and their partners in civilsociety needed significant capacitybuildingand technical assistance. Forthis, the Global Fund depended onpartner organizations that were notready yet to step in. The fund wasupsetting a system of developmentassistance and it took a few yearsto adapt.But it is now shifting the model ofdevelopment assistance: from definedby donor requirements to one that isdemand-driven and country-led. Wenow see participation by sectors nottraditionally involved in makingdecisions on disease control at nationallevels — such as civil society, thoseaffected by the diseases and theprivate sector.An evaluation commissioned by thefund found that it had made significantcontributions towards its original aimsover a six-year period. It has attractednearly $18 billion from a variety ofsources both government and private,achieving an exceptionally rapid start-upand making available $10.7 billion to136 countries by June 2008.This achievement represents a majoradvance in the partnership approachto development aid, providing a newmodel for a global public-private healthpartnership. The Global Fund has playeda major role in moving the world froma situation of severe resource scarcityin fighting the three diseases to one ofmuch greater resource availability.But the evaluation also sets some toughchallenges for the fund. These include“mission creep” — an occupationalhazard for collaborations andpartnerships, not least in theinternational development arena.The fund needs to be clearer abouthow it combines its financingresponsibilities with a growing policyand development role.Where there is ambiguity in theorganizational role or the financingintent of the Global Fund, the reportsays, this compromises the ability ofinternational partners to mobiliseresources. The main elements of thepartnership model do not yet have awell-functioning system for the deliveryof global public aims.This lack of clarity about partner roleshas resulted in varying expectationsabout the support countries need;about which partners are to meet them;and about financing this support. Theevaluation warns the Global Fund thatits partnership model requires a dynamicapproach to developing, nurturing, andsustaining partnerships; and one thatrecognises that the different stages ofpartnership.160 161

Global Fund/(RED) partnership:using brand innovation to achievesocial goalsA good example of innovativepartnership between an independent,non-profit foundation and business isthe partnership between the GlobalFund and the enterprise known as(RED). This was created in 2006 by therock star and activist Bono to generateadditional funding for the fight againstAIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as wellas raising public awareness of HIV andAIDS in Africa.In exchange for permission to use the(RED) trade mark on their products,companies contribute a portion oftheir profits from these products toprogrammes financed by the GlobalFund in Africa. Current partners includeAmerican Express, Apple, Converse,Dell, Armani, Gap, Hallmark andMicrosoft. It’s the first time thatleading companies have made a jointcommitment to direct a percentage oftheir profits to assist in the fight againstthe AIDS pandemic. And it is verysuccessful: between 2006 and the endof September 2008, (RED) raised morethan $112 million which the GlobalFund used for grants to fight HIV andAIDS in Ghana, Lesotho, Rwanda andSwaziland.This success is based on the strengthsof the partners and what each brings tothe partnership. The (RED) organizationis about marketing, branding andadvocacy; the Global Fund — anunknown brand to many consumers— is about achieving results andmonitoring the effective use offunds. The partners have synergy,complementarity and converginginterests. And consumers can see aclear connection between what theycontribute and the benefits producedby the partnership. In a relativelyshort time, the Global Fund/(RED)collaboration has established itself asa highly effective business model forharnessing resources from the privatesector, becoming one of the largestconsumer-based income-generatinginitiatives by the private sector for aninternational humanitarian cause.Fairtrade movement: harnessingmarkets globally and locallyThe Fairtrade movement started whenMexican coffee farmers asked NGOsto find a new way of promotingcoffee produced by small farmers onfair terms, following the collapse of theinternational coffee agreement in 1989.The only way the NGOs could achievethis was by taking a business approachto building up consumer demand forproducts and delivering a better dealto producers. They mobilised their ownnetworks, encouraging them to visitlocal shops or write to retailers.An example was Christian Aid’ssupermarket campaign. Consumers senttill receipts to their favourite retailersas evidence that they wanted fair-tradeproducts. As support forthe campaignincreased, companies began to respond.Today, Fairtrade remains a partnershipbetween producers, traders and NGOs.Producers from Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica sit on the Fairtrade board,alongside people from Oxfam,Solidaridad, trade unions andcompany traders.In the UK, the Fairtrade Townsmovement now has 385 supporters,with an estimated further 200 localcampaigns. It began in Garstang whenthe local Oxfam group and the managerof the local Co-op store were tryingto get more businesses involved withtheir campaign. They came up with theidea of Garstang working to becomethe world’s first designated “Fairtradetown”.Barbara Crowther of the FairtradeFoundation says her colleagues neededsome persuasion, as the Fairtrade trademark is primarily a product certificationrather than a town endorsement. Butthe foundation worked with Garstangand other towns to develop the keyprinciples of the Fairtrade Towninitiative. These have since beenextended to other non-profit campaignsinvolving religious bodies, universitiesand schools.Collaboration at a local level is thelynchpin of these campaigns. A multistakeholdercampaign steering groupmust involve representatives of thelocal council as well as communitygroups — for example, churches, socialgroups, local businesses, educationalinstitutions, the local branch of Oxfamand other NGOs such as Friends of theEarth and WDM. The very strength ofthis movement is in its diversity, witheach member playing to its ownstrengths. The Co-operative Grouphas proved to be a particularly strongcompany partner, promoting thecampaign to its own local membershipand sponsoring local initiatives.These partnerships are invaluable inhelping to exploit local knowledge andexpertise in, for example, global tradepolicies, local business knowledge orthe ability to speak to a class of six-yearolds.Many of the companies licensedto use the Fairtrade trade mark areinvolved in local campaigns, whileothers build partnerships around keyevents such as Fairtrade Fortnight byproviding product samples, venues andstaff support. A local campaign mightpublish a directory of locally availableFairtrade products, distributed free andsupported by Fairtrade advertisers.During Fairtrade Fortnight, companiesoften invite their producer partners tothe UK. By combining visits to tradeclients with participation in localcommunity events, the Fairtrade162 163

Foundation ensures that the maximumadvantage is gained.As Crowther says, “The important thingfor any of these partnerships is to bevery clear on the objectives you have asan organization, to find the commonground in what you want to achieveand to know where your ownboundaries lie.”4. Towards a better engagement ofgovernment, businessand NGOsHow would we all need to change tomake social collaboration work evenbetter? James Thompson of US StateDepartment says of government’s role:“Both governments and internationalinstitutions need to plan for partnershipsand build in flexibility in theirprocurement processes for partnerships.There is still a tremendous amount ofinstitutional culture change that needsto take place, so that staff now planactivities and think about newapproaches that bring in private sectorknowledge, technology and creativity.”This report has tracked three areas oflearning on social collaboration: specificinitiatives, sector-led work, and workdone by countries over time.Initiative: Hungary promotessocial enterprisesThe Hungarian TelehouseAssociation provides various servicesof public benefit under contractfrom government departments.This outsourcing provides thenecessary financial stability for theNGO and provides for a moreefficient service delivery. This hashelped the Telehouse Associationto become the driving force behindthe European — and now theworld-wide — telehouse movement(www.euta.hu). The networkprovides a platform for many newgovernment, business and civilsocietyinitiatives. The key was toestablish a constant income forthe telehouses through a carefullyselected service portfolio.Telehouses have now become selfsustainable.They function likesocial enterprises, serving the localcommunity but charging for someservices to avoid being overdependenton state funding.Learning point:• This shows the growing importanceof collaborations betweengovernments, business and NGOsin generating their own funding.Initiative: Lloyds TSB and NHSshare commercial practicesRecently the government sponsoreda scheme that encouragedpartnerships between NHSFoundation Trusts and FTSE 100companies. One company thattook part in the scheme was LloydsBanking Group. The aim of thisinitiative was to share commercialpractices with NHS trusts while alsoallowing managers in companiessuch as Lloyds to understand adifferent working environment.One person involved in the schemewas Stuart Cheetham, nowManaging Director of the LloydsBanking Group in Tokyo. He workedclosely with one foundation trustand believes that both organizationsachieved some success. For example,they shared experience in areassuch as operational efficiencies,performance management andexecutive decision making.What was learned from thisinitiative? “Getting people involvedwas never a problem,” saysCheetham. “There was a real desirefrom both organizations. For Lloydsstaff, being involved in a project thatfocused on benefits for a noncommercialorganization was a clearmotivator. For the NHS trust, theyhad the opportunity to meet anddiscuss issues with senior leaders andfunctional specialists in one ofthe UK’s largest banks.“In an increasingly competitive andchanging world, the ability to thinkout of ‘organizational silos’ andchallenge the norm helps people todeliver better-informed and balanceddecisions. This, in turn, will lead togreater effectiveness and ultimatelyimproved results”, Cheetham says.“All organizations work in silos: it’shuman nature. The understanding ofdifferent industries and practices willhelp break down these mental andcultural barriers. This type of initiativefacilitates this learning to happen.”“The experience demonstrated that,when building new relationships,it’s important that both partiesunderstand the mutual benefits toworking together. Some benefitsmaybe intrinsic and difficult tomeasure but that doesn’t mean theyare not powerful. For example, in thiscase Lloyds managers benefited fromimproving their understanding in adifferent industry and in a non-PLCorganization. It also takes time tobuild trust and understanding, andthis can be increasingly different as allparties still have day jobs to manage.However, investing this time will leadto a stronger relationship and a greaterchance for success”.164 165

Learning point:• One crucial lesson for StuartCheetham is that people need totake a step back and invest time tounderstand how they can work withdifferent organizations.Initiative: Vodafone providesbanking services to Kenya’spopulationM-PESA is a mobile phone-basedpayment service which enablescustomers in Kenya who don’thave bank accounts to makesimple financial transactions. Itwas developed by Vodafone andits network operator in Kenya,Safaricom, with seed-fundingfrom DFID’s Financial DeepeningChallenge Fund (FDCF).The DFID funding was criticalbecause it enabled the companiesto go ahead with what was seenat the time as a potentially riskyproject, allowing them to spendmore time on assessment in thedevelopment phase so that theproduct would fully meet userneeds. Through FDCF, the projectwas also able to take advantage ofexpertise in the financial deepeningsector and to gain the support ofstakeholders such as the WorldBank, the Kenyan government,Microsave Kenya as well as specialistorganisations such as Coffey andFrontier Economics.Their support was vital in assistingwith regulatory conditions as wellas with the risks and benefits of theproject.The regulator, the Central Bank ofKenya, was also involved from theearliest stages. M-PESA waslaunched in October 2005 and hasseen massive customer up-take,indicating pent-up demand forsimple financial transaction services.The M-PESA collaboration was alsoa pathfinder for developingfinancial services in other countrieslacking a developed infrastructurefor telephony and banking.Learning points:• A combination of DFID money andVodafone and local partner enterpriseproduced this result.• Effective participation ensured thatthe right regulation was in place andsupported.DFID’s funding of civil society organizationsDFID provides more than £329m ayear to international civil societyorganizations. The principal centrallymanagedschemes are the PartnershipProgramme Agreements (PPA), theGovernance and Transparency Fund(GTF) and the Civil Society ChallengeFund (CSCF).Partnership Programme Agreementswere established in 2000 to provideunrestricted funding to civil societyorganizations with which DFID hasa significant working relationship, acommon ethos and a strong match inpriority areas.Currently DFID has 26 PPAs runningwith UK and non-UK organizations. ThePPA budget is around £100 million perannum.How do PPAs work?Partnership Programme Agreementslast from three to six years. The fundingis core and not tied to any particularproject or programme. Monitoringis based, as far as possible, on theagencies’ existing processes. All PPAshave monitoring frameworks withindicators for internal review andexternal evaluation.Entry to the PPA scheme is based on arange of criteria including:• sufficient consistency between civilsociety and DFID priorities• high standards of corporategovernance• extensive reach to build publicsupport for development; and• significant engagement in DFID policyformulation.Corporate governance checks arecarried out before funding to ensurethat the organization is corporatelysound.How PPAs are monitoredUnrestricted funding is provided basedon a range of strategic objectives andSMART indicators, agreed with DFID,against which the organizations are heldaccountable.DFID and the 26 PPA organizationshave recently agreed strong individualperformance frameworks, consistingof strategic objectives and SMARTindicators. This allows DFID to gaugeimpact of the PPA funding scheme.A “synoptic logframe” is currently beingdrafted to map PPA partner objectivesagainst key DFID priorities and provide166 167

at-a-glance information on all countriesand themes covered by the PPA fundingmechanism. This overarching logframewill be useful for many areas of DFIDand, equally importantly, it will allowall PPA partners to be more aware ofpossible linking and synergies betweenthem.What are the advantages of PPAs?The PPA provides flexible funding toa range of organizations, allowingthem the ability to provide fundingand resources when required. PPAsare analogous to budget support forgovernment.Feedback from NGOsDFID compiled these responses frompartners on the benefits of flexiblefunding:• Flexible funding allows us to reorientwork to a fast-changing externalenvironment, for example inallowing us to address climatechangeissues. WWF.• Greater continuity of funding,thereby facilitating greater continuityin development programming. Oxfam• In general, the PPA helps to enableactivities across the organization.The PPA has certainly contributed toChristian Aid’s impact through itscore funding to the organization,supporting grants to partners andwork on development awareness.Christian Aid• The PPA makes a significantcontribution towardsstrengthening impact andaccountability, encouraging andenabling us to develop newapproaches to assess the impactof our work and to use theseassessments to improve the quality,effectiveness and value-for-money ofour programmes. Save the Children• For many organizations, the strategicnature of the funding is vital to itssuccess. This provides flexibility andallows creativity and responsivenessfrom NGOs at a time when suchfunding is difficult to attain.Progressio• The primary benefit of thepartnership is poverty-reduction,based upon shared values indevelopment and developmentawareness, collaboration overseasand in the UK, capacity-developmentof government and civil society toachieve pro-poor change, sharedpriorities in pro-poor basic servicesand geographical alignment. Thesecond benefit to VSO is the longtermnature of the PPA fundingmechanism that enables VSO tocontinue to develop as a highlyeffective development agency.The flexible and long-term natureof funding allows for successfulinnovation. VSO• One of the most valuable aspectsof the PPA is its flexibility, allowingus to use it wherever it is needed inthe organization. We have supporteda wide range of discrete activitieswithin country programmes, inregional management units and headoffices. At field level, the PPA hassupported some stand-alone projectsbut is more generally used to buildextra dimensions onto existing workand ongoing processes; for example,a deeper learning and reflectionprocess around a large project oranalysis to inform strategic plans andorganizational change processes.Care International UK.• Through the PPA we have been ableto have the ability to take risks tosupport innovative, emergingorganizations. One World Action• High-value, flexible funding providedthrough the PPA is of immense valueto Wateraid, enabling it to plan forand respond to real needs in a timelyand strategic way and to undertakeimportant and significant work thatmight otherwise not attract projectspecificfunding. WaterAidSector-led work: Oil and gasindustry promoting sustainabledevelopment through partnershipThe oil and gas sector recognises thatindividual companies can better achievesustainable development goals byworking with others. Companies areincreasingly collaborating with a widerrange of stakeholders — includingother companies, government agencies,NGOs, community-based organizationsand academic research institutes.IPIECA, the International PetroleumIndustry Environmental ConservationAssociation, provided a case studies of32 companies and six industry-widepartnerships, highlighting work in theareas of biodiversity production, climatechange, air quality, oil-spill response,health care, education and communitycapacity building.Guy Sebban, secretary general of theInternational Chamber of Commerce,says that business, governments andNGOs must cooperate. “NGOs andgovernments are often the onlyorganizations on the ground in leastdeveloped countries which havecredibility and in-depth localunderstanding. Business is often theonly source of technological andmanagerial know-how, with financialmeans and access to a supply chain.Rebuilding after the 2004 Asian tsunamiis a case in point.”168 169

As a contribution to IPIECA’s review,Ros Tennyson of the Prince of WalesInternational Business Leaders Forumsays that the extractive industries areleaders in the field of partnershipinnovation. “It is rarely easy for partnersto work with non-traditional partners,”she says. It requires some radicalre-thinking on all sides, considerableinvestment of time, some changes inbehaviour and a willingness to take riskswhen meeting old challenges in newways.The first few years of partnerships inthe oil and gas sector show that thereis scope to streamline and thereforespeed up the setting up of partnershiparrangements. IPEICA has produceduseful guidance on evaluating thesuccess of partnerships, agreementsand exit strategies. Few partnershipsseem to measure their actual impacts,at least not very precisely. Partnerscould benefit from agreeing a set ofperformance indicators in the earlystages of the relationship and fromassessing the lessons to be learnedfrom the partnering process.The oil and gas sector distinguishesbetween partnering agreements andcontracts. A partnering agreement isvoluntary, sharing shares risks andimplementation on terms that arejointly decided and renegotiable. Bycontrast, a contract is legally binding.Collaborative projects in this sectorhave room for both a contractualand a partnership approach. But tomove from a contract to a partnershiprequires a significant cultural shift. ShellInternational believes that it is makingthat shift by choosing to have somestrategic partnerships with NGOs.Whether the approach is contractual orrelationship-driven, partnerships needclear accountability for the delivery ofspecific pieces of work. In my view, itis also worth making it an explicitrequirement for partnerships to haveintegrity. Partnerships need to do theright thing and be seen to be doing it.The IPEICA study notes that many of thepartnerships it examined were launchedwithout a clear understanding of howthe experiment would end. One dangerit highlights is that, because closure isnot planned at the beginning, movingon is often interpreted as failure. Inreality, the disbanding of a partnershipafter a task has been completed can bea significant indicator of success.Country-led efforts to build civilsocietyMy visits to Mexico and to countriesin the new Europe including Poland,Hungary, Romania and Bulgariahighlighted the extent to which buildingcivil society is both difficult andpotentially very valuable. The meetingshosted by British Ambassadors withbusiness and civil society were some ofthe most illuminating that I took part in.The theme of collaboration provided away of opening up a dialogue on howbest to accelerate the process of reformand modernisation while appreciatingthe history and politics of each country.This allowed different interests to beraised while we tried to construct ashared picture of the challenges andpossible solutions. A collaborativemindset also provided a way of makingsense of past, present and future, aswell as allowing us to think practicallyabout what was needed to tip thebalance in favour of reform.MexicoThe relationship between civil societyand the Mexican government prior tothis century was driven by one-partyrule. With the growth of democracy,civil society organizations have soughtto transform their relationship with thestate. They looked for the explicitrecognition of their rights andresponsibilities within a new legalframework.Drafting of a Federal Law for thePromotion of the Activities Undertakenby Civil Society Organizations(FLPACSO), began in 1990. In December1989, the Cámara de Diputados (Houseof Representatives) imposed the sameincome tax on civil society organizationsas on business corporations. This actionprompted several organizations tocoordinate a group in order to changetheir relationship with government.Because of a combination of politicalleadership and continued pressure fromNGOs, the federal law was finallybrought into force. It was a majorbreakthrough in reinforcing therelationship between civil society andgovernment and represents staterecognition of civil society’s work inpromoting the social interest. Among itsachievements is defining the activities ofcivil society organizations that should bepromoted. It also reduces arbitrariness inthe relationship between organizationsand the Federal Public Administrationthrough the establishment of reciprocalrights and responsibilities.The adoption of the law is itself anexperience of collaboration. It is anexample of the capacity of bodies withdifferent interests to cooperate in sucha way that everyone benefits. Hence,the “enacting coalition” in this processwas solid and large. According to theMexican government, the subject ofthe legislation — the civil societyorganizations themselves — were themain promoters. But, critically, otherpublic actors agreed to assume theirresponsibilities to legislate, regulateand apply the legislation.170 171

HungaryCivil society in Hungary is lessprominent than it was immediately afterthe transition. Although the Ministry forForeign Affairs told me that there are40,000 active NGOs (and 60,000registered in all), only a tiny minorityare geared up to get involved withpublic policy at the highest levels.Membership of interest groups hasincreased, as these figures show, butthe focus has moved away from cuttingedgeissues. NGOs and business remainkeen to engage with government butdo not see their contributions translateddirectly into policy and fear beingassociated with initiatives with whichthey do not agree.For the British Embassy, the anticorruptionissue is a good exampleof how collaboration with non-stateparties can work in practice. Embassiesrepresenting the big foreign investorshave worked with chambers ofcommerce and individual businesses— together with TransparencyInternational, the media and theHungarian government — to get thisissue onto the agenda. There is someway to go in terms of creating a betterbusiness environment. But the habits ofworking together on contentious issueshave evolved in the process and providea model for future collaboration.Social collaboration: futurechallenges and opportunitiesAccenture Development Partnershipsis a separate business unit withinAccenture that provides consultingservices to non-profit organizations,NGOs, foundations and donororganizations on a non-profit basis.This has the potential for radicallychanging how governments, businessand NGOs work together. Developmentcollaboration depends on private, publicand civil society organizations becomingincreasingly aligned towards addressingthe complex challenges of poverty,education, health and climate change.Gib Bulloch, director of AccentureDevelopment Partnerships, believes thatNGOs must play a crucial role in thefuture of the development landscape,although he says that many are illequippedfor the challenges ahead.Their weaknesses include organizationand governance; systems andtechnology; knowledge managementand human capital; and often, basicbusiness acumen. This leads him andothers to call for major transformationalchange within the majority of nongovernmentalorganizations.His analysis is that change comes in“waves of evolution”. Many NGOs aremoving from an earlier, foundationwave — in which they rethink theirstrategy and become increasingly awareof how investments in technologycan contribute to the success of theorganization — to a transformationwave, where organizations and thewhole non-government sector addresstheir entire approach. This will requireorganizations to significant investmentsin human capital and training. Thethird wave, which Bulloch calls thecollaboration wave, looks to a newera where governments, business andNGOs work together seamlessly. In thiswave, there is greater collaborationwithin the NGOs as a sector and in newstructures within the NGOs themselves.Developing world: opportunities forgreater collaboration at all levelsDeveloping countries and emergingeconomies are not just catching up withthe developed world. They are possiblecatalysts for a new way of looking atthe partnership between what isglobal and what is local; and betweengovernments, business, NGOs and localcommunities. Some of Britain’s toughestchallenges in Afghanistan and Iraqprovide an opportunity for a sharedcollaboration within governments; andbetween governments, business, NGOsand the local population.The security challenge, whencombined with those of developmentand reconstruction. gives us practicalopportunities for a better understandingof the risks and responsibilities indelivering an integrated social strategy.The theme of effective engagementof local communities keeps recurringin feedback — not only from those onthe ground but also those who work ininternational institutions such as NATOand the UN.Afghanistan’s internationalengagement, in which 40 countries areinvolved, is a positive achievement thatprovides lessons to help us tackle otherchallenges. So are the European Union’ssuccessful enlargement and NATO’s defacto partnerships with a third of theUnited Nations. We now need toaddress issues of effectiveness andlegitimacy in the relationship betweenstate and non-state actors as well ashow to ensure that governments andlocal communities to take greaterresponsibility for their own affairs. Theproposal in the next chapter sets outhow a more collaborative approachcan bring together policy design andimplementation and engagement. Butthis will mean taking a broader andlonger view of leadership.172 173

Chapter 5:Collaboration: and itsimplementationChapter summary• In the context of achieving social goals, governments can think as muchabout their role as architects and builders (shaping the conditions in whichcollaboration happens and delivering their part in it) as about their role asleaders (taking the primary responsibility for securing results).• Despite evidence of increasing collaboration as a source of business success,the full potential of collaboration has yet to be reached.• Companies find themselves under social, as well as competitive, pressure.They are subject to new levels of transparency, whether in response tochanges in corporate governance or to public concerns on environment orconsumer rights.• Corporate social responsibility is a means for companies to connect betterwith their stakeholders and customers as well as their own employees.• NGOs can play a crucial role in delivering on social goals, particularly indevelopment — but they need to build capability for the challenges that lieahead. NGOs are an essential social investment.In this chapter:• Leadership: a broader andlonger view• Strategy: problem types,and leadership response• Engagement: publicdiplomacy andcollaboration• Delivery: collaborativeapproach toimplementation• Chapter summary174175

Leadership exists when people are no longer victims of circumstances but participatein creating new circumstances.Peter Senge.It is far easier to massage ideological erogenous zones than it is to cultivate a newsense of possibility. But the leaders who end up being remembered generations laterare the ones who have glimpsed, and served, a possibility rather than the statusquo.Geoff Mulgan, Good and Bad Power (2006) p223.Wonder also means being able to see one’s own position, assumptions,perspectives as strange, because it has been put in relation to others. Respectivelistening thus involves attentive and interested questioning. But answers are alwaysgifts. The transcendence of the other person always means that she can remainsilent, or tell only part of her story, for her own reasons.Iris Maria Young, “Asymmetric Reciprocity” (taken from Ronald Beiner and Jennifer Nedelsky,Judgment, Imagination and Politics: Themes from Kant and Arendt (2001) p223).In drawing together the strands of thisreport, my final chapter opens uppossibilities for how collaboration andpartnerships could be used to improvethe design and implementation ofpolicy. It takes forward the FCO’s workon public diplomacy and suggest howorganizations could make even betteruse of the talent they have availableboth within and outside. My first fourchapters were about how best tooperate in collaboration. This chapteris about exploring what collaborationcould be better used for.At the heart is a proposal based on fourobjectives:1. Leadership:take a broader and longer view ofleadership and teamwork;2. Strategy:use collaborative thinking beforedecisions are taken on problems,solutions and responses;3. Engagement:connect more strategically, whether itis with one stakeholder, with a groupor directly with citizens; an4. Delivery:apply collaborative processes toimprove policy implementation.None of this precludes limiting orqualifying the type of collaboration thatone chooses to set up or to join. Nordoes it preclude deciding not tocollaborate or collaborating to compete.But it suggests that a collaborativeapproach should inform our choicesrather than merely emerging from acourse of action.Most of the social policy challengesthat we face are systemic in origin andrequire a collaborative solution. Thismay apply to one’s own immediatesphere of operation or more widely. Thecollaborative challenge works as muchat a personal level as collectively. Themeans are there. Technologically, wehave never been so able to connect.What holds us back is not thetechnology but the culture andbehaviour that go with collaboration.One way of fostering such behaviourand addressing the factors thatundermine it is to identify a rangeof preconditions for collaborativerelationships. The RelationshipsFoundation has assessed and supportedthe development of inter-agency andinter-professional relationships in bothcriminal justice and health sectors inthe UK, as well as assessing commercialrelationships. Their model of “relationalproximity”, discussed at the end ofChapter 2, part 2, offers one wayof exploring how policymakers,organisational leaders and those directlyinvolved in service provision can thinkmore analytically about developingcollaborative relationships and evaluatethe impact of their decisions.We can change the way we interactby being as explicit about the valueof collaboration as we are aboutcompetition. Collaborative working onthe web is indicative of how we mightwork more generally. This report couldhave been produced by using onlythe contributions of others to test aparticular line of argument. Instead, Ihad a series of wider discussions thatdeveloped a number of perspectives.It is the interaction — rather than theassertion of any one point of view —that produced the result.I focused on organizations,governments, business and NGOsbecause they provide the structureand direction for achieving social goals.But just as important is to look at whatpeople in any organization can dotogether, whether or not organizationssupport them or hold them back.1. Leadership: a broader and longerviewPart 3 of chapter 3 showed howleadership can take different forms.Collaborations can be more effectivewith changes in the leader and inthe type of leadership. In lookingfor examples showing varieties ofleadership and teamwork, I was asinterested in the person as in the176 177

organization. In these cases, it’s personalcommitment that produces the sparkof leadership or the first stone in Cull’sfable of the stone soup. Organizationsempower; but what makes thedifference is individual initiativeand enterprise.Example: Philip Parham, leadingpartnerships to support TanzaniaPhilip Parham, Britain’s Ambassadorin Dar es Salaam, has played a pivotalrole in supporting collaboration onGeneral Budget Support (GBS) forthe government of Tanzania. Thecollaboration group was traditionallyrun by Heads of Co-operation andtheir technical staff; ambassadors didnot tend to get involved. Because ofthe challenges that had to be met, thischanged. Supported closely his DFIDcolleagues, Parham took up the chairhimself. In the spirit of actingcollaboratively, he led the effort fromMay 2007 to May 2008 and thenpassed leadership of the group tothe Danes.Fourteen partner organizationsprovide GBS funding to support thegovernment’s poverty reductionstrategy — the World Bank, the AfricanDevelopment Bank, the EC and elevennational governments including the UK.In common with many such large-scalefunding schemes, the GBS partnersfaced the challenge of showing thatdevelopment money had been wellspent.Since January 2008, the GBS group hasimproved its effectiveness in severalways:• through closer collaboration betweenHeads of Mission and Heads ofCo-operation;• by engagement of Heads of Missionat strategic policy level;• with stronger leadership from thelead partner in each area;• by developing the personal relationship between lead andrelevant minister(s);• with less focus on process, more onoutcomes.Better engagement with thegovernment of Tanzania and othershas delivered progress and a confirmedGBS commitment for 2008-9. TheGBS example is seem within thewider Development Partners Groupas offering clear lessons for enhancingthe development dialogue with theTanzanian government in other areas.Example: Alex Plant, working inpartnership to provide more housingAlex Plant is Chief Executive,Cambridgeshire Horizons — a notfor-profitcompany set up by the localauthorities, English Partnerships and theEast of England Development Agencyto develop new communities andinfrastructure in the Cambridgesub-region. Cambridgeshire Horizons isa partnership organization, which canonly achieve its vision by working withand though others.Plant describes the challenge: “We aretrying to deliver many new homes. Weare one of the highest-stressed housingareas in the UK: demand far outstripssupply. We have big problems onaffordability. This has consequencesfor labour market flexibility and fortransport, schools, hospitals, communityfacilities to match.”“Get it right and we can enhancequality of life for people already hereand those who may move to the area,show how we can deliver housing andpopulation growth whilst also dealingwith climate change mitigation anddevelop vibrant new communities withhigh levels of social cohesion. Get itwrong and we’ll deliver gridlock,unsustainable new developments,increased social tension and ruin whatis currently a beautiful city and apleasant county.”Cambridgeshire Horizons was set upbecause no agency or authority actingon its own could expect to achieve thekind of outcome that the governmentand local authorities wanted. Creatinga body able to work with agencies, localauthorities and central government —as well the private sector and voluntarysector — was seen as making the mostthe most of the chances of deliveringgrowth to the highest possiblestandards.Plant says that the solution to hischallenge is greater partnership working.“How does one do that when you onlyhave a small team? The company isabout 20 people. Though we controlthe Housing Growth Fund for thecounty — we got about £14m for thisyear — we need to get a whole groupof people to align their actions andinvestment decisions in the right way.That’s all about effective partnershipand using shared goals as a means ofdriving behaviours in that wide teamof people.”Example: Debbie Gupta,rethinking policy on pensionsDebbie Gupta works for theDepartment for Work and Pensions(DWP) as Director of BenefitsPerformance, making the best useof taxpayers’ money in deliveringhigh quality services to customers.The department has around 100,000staff paying over 17 million customersaround £126 billion of benefits eachyear.Gupta’s appointment reflects a greaterwillingness to deploy stakeholdermanagement and communication skillsacross the full range of governmentbusiness. In recent years, government178 179

departments have brought in trailblazersfrom the NGO and charity sectors tohelp them connect better with socialchange and to draw up policies toreflect citizens’ needs. Gupta’sachievement is in focusing both onwhat a policy is designed to achieve,and how it is implemented.Building on her achievements in thenon-profit sector as Director of PublicAffairs for Stonewall, Debbie Gupta wasbrought into the Government’s equalityunit to broaden the equality agenda toencompass discrimination, equality andhuman rights in the round. The settingup of a new Commission for Equalityand Human Rights and a new antidiscriminationlegislative framework aresome of the legacies of those efforts.This experience proved useful insupporting the Government’s rethinkon pensions policy. Informing itsstrategy was the realisation thatgovernment alone cannot solve thelong-term challenge of a populationthat lives longer and saves less. Policieshad to be developed that anticipatedemographic changes and helpindividuals plan for their retirementsrequired attitudinal, behavioural andlegislative change.In 2006, DWP had organised a NationalPensions Day across England, Scotlandand Wales — an exercise in deliberativeconsultation involving over 1000 membersof the public. Delivering events onwhat many would view a relatively“unsexy” subject was a consciousstrategy to collaborate with citizens.The process helped Government testpolicy options but also to build personalawareness amongst participants of therisks and choices they would need tomake if they were to plan effectivelyfor their retirement. Individuals wereasked to consider the trade-offsbetween raising taxation, “permitting”pensioner poverty and taking personalresponsibility. Polling at the start andend of the event enabled governmentto track how information andunderstanding affect the trade-offsthat individuals are prepared to make.Governments in Britain have hadpublic consultation on policy initiativesfor some time. Gupta is keen to takethis principle a step further. She wantsto explore opportunities to developconsultation activity as part of thepolicy development process. She hopesthis would allow government to nurturepublic understanding and build an“engaged and involved” audience. Suchan audience could make the traditionalconsultation processes more meaningfulfor government and the public.Example: Jane Cordell,Polish disability rights reformOver the last two years, under CharlesCrawford and now Ric Todd, the BritishEmbassy in Poland has been supportingthe Polish government’s reform ofdisability rights legislation alongsidePolish NGOs. At the centre of Britain’seffort has been Jane Cordell, firstsecretary. Cordell manages a large policyportfolio. This issue is also personallyimportant to her as she herself is deaf.Early on, the embassy and UK providedmuch of the input. But then the Polishside developed its own ideas and startedto determine what it needed — forexample, a speaker for a conferenceor a study visit in London for MPs. TheUK’s role became more strategic —suggesting, for example, e-votingtechnology as a way of quickly gauginglevels of support for reforms. This wasbased on electronic techniques usedrecently at the FCO’s leadershipconference and in the formerDepartment for Constitutional Affairsin 2005.It has been important for embassyofficials to monitor responses from thePolish government and NGOs. Beingrealistic about the challenges in gettinga fair deal for disabled people in theUK and avoiding any impression of“preaching” have also been important.The British also incorporated work onimplementing the UN Convention onDisability rights and provided a disabilityexpert to discuss access issues inPoland’s preparations for Euro2012.Progress since the first joint conferencein 2006 has been impressive:• A coalition of 20 Polish NGOsdealing with disability was formedin 2008 to liaise with Poland’sgovernment. It includesrepresentatives from NGOs dealingwith physical and mental healthproblems as well as the Church andan employers’ organisation. To avoidany disadvantage to smaller NGOsand to promote diversity, each NGOhas one vote.• The coalition has produced a draftlaw on disability rights with theblessing of the country’s parliament.It is based on UK legislation.• Poland’s prime minister has declaredhis support for enabling disabledpeople to play a full role in society,• The Polish minister responsible fordisability issues, Jaroslaw Duda,promised to put a draft law to thegovernment by the start of 2009 andto get it passed into law by 2010. Healso wants to increase the percentageof disabled people in employmentfrom 17% to 24% by that time.It took the UK over 30 years todevelop its disability legislation. Poland,benefiting from the UK experience, islikely to achieve the same work in lessthan five. If the Polish governmentachieves this, it will help around twomillion people with disabilities to liveindependently and develop theirpotential. Britain’s co-operation has180 181

their way to understand the communitythey serve and the challenges faced bythose serving them.“These examples highlight thatcollaboration generates moreleadership, distributed betweendifferent people and not limited toa single person. It also produces betterleaders who encourage others to beleaders themselves. They are betterable to work with uncertainty andcomplexity because they can improviseand adapt to changing circumstances.They are ready to take risks and makemistakes, and learn from thosemistakes. If organizations want todevelop strong, collaborative leaders,rather than just strong leaders, theymust be supportive of a more diversegroup of people taking initiative andresponsibility. Where collaboration isneeded, a focus on efficiency andeffectiveness must go hand in glovewith the ability to engage with others.2. Strategy: problem types, andleadership responseWe miss opportunities by not exploringhow collaboration could be used beforewe draw up our strategies and defineour response. Acting collaboratively willoften be neither possible nor desirable.But thinking about how collaborationcould work pays dividends.Thinking collaborationUnless there is an acute emergencyand no time other than to think and actfast, there are few problems that don’tbenefit from taking this broaderapproach.Sometimes problems are so stubbornthat they don’t go away. But they arenot necessarily what they first seem.It’s easy to confuse the stimulus that aproblem provides with how we mightrespond. Many problems look familiarand demand familiar responses. But,consciously or not, we are alsointerpreting the problem, its relevanceand its importance. Is it indeed aproblem in its own right or a signalfor something else?Leadership, especially in collaborationor partnership, involves more than justreacting. At each stage, we can ask:is there only one perspective, orpossibly more? If there is more thanone perspective, do we connect withothers? If so, with whom and to whatextent? Is it to acquire information,to involve others or to integrate theirthinking into ours? In thinking aboutthe problem, are we making it our own,somebody else’s or one that is shared?This approach makes explicit thatproblems and how to tackle themcan be linked to decisions about who toengage, on what basis and to what end.Defining problems and appropriateleadership responsesFor Keith Grint, problems can be viewedin one of three ways: is the problemtame, wicked or critical? (Grint 2005,Rittell and Webber, 1973)A tame problem may be complicatedbut can be solved through unilinearacts. It is likely to have occurred before.There is only a limited degree ofuncertainty and it is thereforeassociated with management ratherthan leadership. The manager’s role isto provide the appropriate processes tosolve the problem.Examples include: timetabling therailways, building a nuclear plant,training the army, planned heart surgeryand enacting a tried and trusted policyfor eliminating global terrorism.A wicked problem is complex, ratherthan just complicated. It is oftenintractable with no unilinear solution.There is no stopping-point. It is novel,any apparent solution often generatesother problems and there is no right orwrong answer, merely better or worsealternatives. There is a huge degree ofuncertainty involved and it is associatedwith leadership. The leader’s role witha wicked problem is to ask the rightquestions rather than provide the rightanswers because the answers may notbe self-evident and will require acollaborative process to make anykind of progress.Examples that Grint gives include:developing strategies on transport,energy or defence, devising a nationalhealth system or an industrial relationsstrategy and developing a strategy fordealing with global terrorism.Grint also identifies a critical problem.In a crisis, the problem is presented asself-evident in nature, providing verylittle time for decision-making andaction. It is often associated withcommand (Howieson and Kahn, 2002;cf.Watters, 2004). There is virtually nouncertainty about what needs to bedone to provide the answer – at leastin the behaviour of the commander,whose role is to take the requireddecisive action.Grint’s article explores how leaders canframe problems along the lines of whatthey want to be seen to responding to.I think that there is a limit to how muchwe can construct reality; but it is aninteresting perspective. An attractivepart of his argument is that what countsas legitimate authority depends upon“a persuasive rendition of the contextand a display of the appropriateauthority style” (Grint, 2005).Success is anchored in persuadingfollowers that the problematicsituation is either one of a critical,184 185

tame or wicked nature and thereforethat the appropriate authority-form iscommand, management or leadership,with the role of the decision-makerbeing, respectively, to provide theanswer, to organise the process or toask the question.Does leadership determine context orcontext determine leadership? Withoutexploring that debate, the point aboutcollaboration as a form of leadershipis not to underestimate the extentto which the situation is activelyconstructed by leaders or decisionmakers.Grint argues that leadershipinvolves the social construction of thecontext that both legitimates aparticular form of action and constitutesthe world in the process. If thatrendering of the contextis successful– for there are usually contending andcompeting renditions – the newlyconstituted context then limits thealternatives available such that thoseinvolved begin to act differently.Types of problem, and uses ofpowerKeith Grint links insights into typesof problems with the ongoing debateabout hard and soft power. In his bookSoft Power: The Means to Successin World Politics, Joseph Nye hassuggested that we should distinguishbetween power as “soft” and “hard”(Nye, 2004). Soft does not imply weakor fragile but rather the degree ofinfluence derived from legitimacy andthe positive attraction of values. Hardimplies traditional concepts of powersuch as coercion, physical strength;or domination achieved throughasymmetric resources rather than ideas.An oversimplification would be that themilitary tend to operate through ‘hard’power, while political authorities tend tooperate through ideological attraction –soft power. But the military has towin hearts and minds and this can beonly through soft power. Politiciansmay need to authorize coercion – hardpower.Grint argues that the limits of using ananalysis based on hard and soft powermight be transcended by consideringEtzioni’s alternative typology. Etzioni(1964) distinguishes between coercive,calculative and normative compliance.Coercive or physical power is relatedto total institutions, such as prisons orarmies. Calculative compliance isrelated to rational institutions, suchas companies. Normative complianceis related to institutions or organizationsbased on shared values, such as clubsand professional societies. More thanforty years on, one can see the extent towhich normative compliance has grownin importance as means to changebehaviour.This compliance typology fits with thethree types of problems and makes thelink to collaborative resolution. Criticalproblems are often associated withcoercive compliance, tame problems areassociated with calculative complianceand wicked problems are associatedwith normative compliance. Grintproduces a table (see figure 5.1) whichshows the relationship betweenincreasing uncertainty about solutionsto problems and the increasingrequirement for collaborative resolution.As Grint notes, not all wicked problemsare rooted in complex issues that alsoFigure 5.1: A typology of problems, power and authority.(Source: Grint, K. (2005) p.1477)Increasing uncertainty aboutsolution to problemWICKEDTAMECRITICALCOMMAND:ProvideanswerCOERCIONHard powerMANAGEMENT:OrganizeCALCULATIVEembody the opportunity to delaydecisions. For example, PresidentKennedy’s actions during the Cubanmissile crisis were often based on askingquestions of his civilian assistants thatrequired some time for reflection –despite the pressure from his militaryadvisers to provide instant answers(Grint, 2005, p1473). If we accept that,even in crisis, we need time to think,collaboration can emerge as a preferredpolicy or even as an insurance policy.LEADERSHIP:AskNORMATIVESoft powerIncreasingrequirementforcollaborativeresolution186 187

In principle, we can ask whom else wewant to engage and whether we arelooking for information, support oractive involvement from others.Engagement: public diplomacy andcollaborationBuilding on Grint’s insight, collaborationprovides a broader-based leadership theopportunity not only to respond moreeffectively to what might appear as agiven context but to frame the problemand the solutions to it, thereby helpingto shape the context.This also means that, in makingcollaborations work, we have to setand manage expectations about whatproblems that they are designed totackle and what form of leadership istherefore expected. This perspectiveeffectively allows us to show thatcommunications and public diplomacyhave to be seen as a strategic tool andnot only as part of the implementation.Thanks to a growing body of study andpractice, we are now better placed tosee the scope and limits of publicdiplomacy activity (Welsh and Fearn,2008). There is much that we can nowgo out and do rather than agoniseabout. But we need to adopt a strategicperspective and not assume that ourperspective is the same as others oris just about louder and more pervasivecommunication of messages andnarratives, however important theseare as part of a delivery process.If we want our public diplomacy towork, we need to grasp the strategicchallenge as organizations andinstitutions of those we includeand exclude in our engagementon policy and to be clear about therules for involving others. Not all ourengagement needs be public. Butthinking about engagement shouldnot start when there is a decision tobring in the cameras.Thinking strategically aboutengagementAt the core of this approach is to askon what basis we are connecting withothers.There are three levels of connection:• Inform: acquire and exchangeinformation• Involve: encourage participation,where contributions inform but don’tdictate our own decisions• Integrate: take another’scontribution properly into accountand build it into our own thinking sothat decisions, though our own, fullyreflect others’ perspectivesIn thinking about how we connect, wecan ask strategic questions:What is the point of engagement overtime, where might it lead and what arethe consequences? Are we genuinelyopen to ideas and feedback and willwe take the needs and interests ofothers properly into account andrespond realistically to them or just usean engagement process to show we aremore outward-facing? In which spheresof our decision-making are wereceptive to the perspectives of others:on the frontline, in our planning, orin our strategic intent and corporatevalues? When we hold a conversation,what are we each expecting of it? Hownarrowly or broadly defined are itsparameters? Are we just influencing orare we ready to be influenced? Is it toaddress a short-term problem or longerone? What impact does engagementin one area have on engagementelsewhere? What signals are wesending about a decision to engageor not engage? When we give othersresponsibility to engage with others,what authority do we also give them?Principles of engagementThe novelty of engagement wears offunless it is back up by a commitment tobuild relationships in greater depth overtime. It is to this extent better not toengage — or to engage only onnarrowly defined business — than it isto set expectations that one cannotmeet.If we were asked to specify theprinciples that govern our engagement,what might these be? This reportsuggests four:• clarity with any interlocutor aboutwhat, in principle, we can and cannotdiscuss and how any contributionmight be developed;• curiosity about other perspectives,ideas and possibilities;• commitment to make a process ofengagement work; and• courage to take the risk of reachingsolutions, including taking personalresponsibility for one’s part inbuilding the relationship.None of this cuts across a policy orbusiness decision to say yes, no, maybeor not now. But it’s taking the courtesiesof private conduct between peoplewho know and trust one anotherand turning them in principles ofengagement between state and nonstateactors, between organizationsand the communities they serve.In part 2 of chapter 3, we saw thatattitudes to learning in collaborationwere unlikely to be either purely selfishor sharing (Huxham and Hibbert, 2008).188 189

The sharing/exploring attitude is: “Wetake from you and we give to you; youtake from us and give to us – and welearn together to create knowledge.”As Huxham and Hibbert say, “while wewould not question the presumptionthat partners’ relative levels ofknowledge affects their mutualbargaining power, [this also] presumesthat partners’ perceptions of eachother’s attitudes to mutual learningaffect the process of interactionbetween them”. (Huxham and Hibbert,2008, p523).Taking public diplomacy forwardLooking ahead, we need to weighup the relative advantages anddisadvantages of pure advocacy onthe one hand and facilitative dialogueon the other, shaping our publicdiplomacy strategies appropriately.In the last chapter, I described theincreasing role of “interested enablers”,enablers with a stake in the outcomeor the process and therefore havingthe power to make a difference. In thelight of Grint’s distinction between thetypes of leadership response producedby different kinds of problems, this roleallows practitioners to work with anyleadership.Public diplomacy is at a turning pointin its effectiveness at supportingdiplomacy. It needs to be flexibleenough to support different leadershipresponses. If it is an instrument of policy,it must be able to change shape andadapt to what is required of it atdifferent times and different contexts.The work of Nicholas Cull, SimonAnholt, Alex Evans, David Steven andAli Fisher provides a timely focus forthe debate is on public diplomacyand where, in the light of this report,one could take it. The Wilton Parkconference helped confirm that thecollaborative approach supportsboth the strategic and operationalrequirement to make public diplomacyan integral part of a government’s work.It does this by working through how weget the best from others, privately andpublicly.One lesson that Cull draws from thehistory of public diplomacy is that“public diplomacy is not always aboutyou: once liberated from a narrowobsession with national image, the newpublic diplomacy holds the potential toaddress a wide range of global issues.It is one of the few tools available tothe state or any other internationalactor wishing to establish an interfacewith the international public — whohold the fate of the earth in their handsas never before.” Welsh and Fearn eds,(2008) p26.Anholt’s four types of publicdiplomacyIn working with diplomatic posts andother governments, I have drawn onSimon Anholt’s four types, or stages, ofpublic diplomacy.1. Promotion – Information provision onforeign policies2. Persuasion – Influencing foreignpolicy attitudes3. Image management – Influencingnational image overseas throughsome engagement with foreignpublics4. Instrument of policy – Bringing abouta change in view and behaviourthrough engagement on social issuesAnholt points out that although onecould trace an evolution over time oftypes or stages of public diplomacy,these aren’t really chronological andthere are good reasons why somecountries might want to be practisingseveral variants simultaneously. Anholtand I also use the phrase “collaborativepublic diplomacy” to mean differentthings. My focus is on collaborationbetween public, private and othersectors. What Anholt means is“multilateral public diplomacy” i.e.countries working together on jointpublic diplomacy aims.Anholt’s sensitivity to the differentuses of public diplomacy demonstratesthat the “new” public diplomacy willhave both innovative and conventionalfeatures. My last section, on applyingcollaboration, supports the view thatpart of being effective is managing thedualities of continuity and change.Public diplomacy is no exception.Borrowing an approach fromMcDonalds, operating globally andlocally — “glocally” as one might callit — means “freedom with a framework”.Any strategy must be adaptedto a specific immediate context as wellas a wider one.Example: Nicholas Colloff andVitaliy Kartamyshev — Health CareAccess in RussiaWhen the Global Call to Action againstPoverty (GCAP) was launched at theWorld Social Forum in 2005, no onequite expected the impressive impactthat the coalition would have. In lessthan twelve months, GCAP had growninto the world’s largest anti-povertyalliance, whose organizationsrepresented more than 150 millionpeople and ran national campaigns inover 80 countries.One of these was Russia. Oxfam’slaunching of GCAP Russia could havebeen seen as a quixotic venture in acontext where civil society organizationsare underdeveloped and collaboration190 191

etween organizations is rare. Thoughmany Russian NGOs provide goodqualityservices to their constituencies,their experience of effective andsustained advocacy and campaigningis limited — especially when the topicat hand is as broad as poverty at homeand abroad.Despite these difficulties a small groupof organizations — of diverse outlooks,areas of work and means of support— did come together to try and builda coalition. Some of the early meetingswere long and exasperating, more akinto “herding cats” than coalescing tocommon purpose. At one moment ofhigh frustration, participants at atraining session on advocacy andcampaigning were challenged to saywhy they were there. To this, oneparticipant replied: “Because Vitaliy[Oxfam’s policy officer] is very persuasiveand Nicholas [Oxfam’s Country Director]has a charming smile.”Two catalysts transformed this situation.The first was the need to host commonevents ahead of the G8 St PetersburgSummit in 2006. St. Petersburg coalitionmembers devised a series of popularmobilisation events to draw people’sattention to the summit and itsimportance in addressing povertyglobally. The practical focus of actualevents gave people the experienceof working together for simple,measurable outcomes. Confidencewas reinforced by their success.The second catalyst was modestfinancing from the British Embassy fora series of workshops to enhance theability of GCAP members to interactwith their clients, to understand theirneeds and build from these evidencebasedadvocacy campaigns.Rather than make this an exercisein theoretical education, participantsworked on a selected theme: access tohealth care for disadvantaged groupssuch as homeless people, people livingwith disabilities and women in prison.They conducted qualitative andquantitative research in the regionsand across sector groups to producecompelling evidence on access issues.With national experts, they shapedthis into a compelling national reportwith key recommendations that wassubmitted to the state duma committeeon health reform, to relevant Ministryof Health officials and the Minister ofHealth herself.Backed by media coverage and asubsequent open letter to the minister,one of the key recommendations —abolishing the need for people withpermanent disabilities to register theirstatus every year — was immediatelyadopted, announced and enacted. Thisremoves them from a time-consuming,costly and often humiliating process.Its early success has immeasurablystrengthened the coalition’s selfconfidenceand sense of mission.Finally, there have been two criticalfactors in the coalition’s success. Firstwas the coalition’s relative lack offinancial resources. This has focuseddecision-making on what is critical andmeant that members of GCAP arevalue-driven, not simply fulfillingactivities of an external donor. Thesecond was maintaining an informalnetwork with no organizationaloverheads. This meant eachorganization offering the “sweatequity” they could. Critically,organizations were not immersed intime-consuming conversations aboutwho ought to occupy which “officialrole” in the organization.Engagement, what type ofengagement?What kind of engagement do we want?This report highlights some choices.Engagement strategy wrestles withthe same issues as collaborations andpartnerships. Involving others might benecessary or desirable but it is neithereasy nor without consequences. Theperspectives of Alex Evans, David Stevenand Ali Fisher throw light on someof the tensions that any new publicdiplomacy has to manage. Evans andSteven demonstrate that policy goalscan be pursued through distinct publicdiplomacy strategies that sit on acontinuum that runs from consensualand open at one end to covert andcontrolling at the other (Welsh andFearn eds (2008) p56).Engagement on this model is oneof four strategies, the others beingshaping, disruptive and destructive.Evans and Steven say that a shapingstrategy can take a conversation andgive it resolution, allowing publicdiplomacy to take on a campaigningguise.The difficulty for engagement strategy,in my view, is that for it to havecredibility —particularly traction withthose whose engagement we seek —it needs to be clear about the signalsbeing sent if government is pursuingother public diplomacy strategies. Inthe example of the UK GM publicdebate given in Chapter 2, for thepublic debate and the governmentreviews to be taken seriously thegovernment genuinely had to be ofthe view that it is was neither for, noragainst, commercial exploitation of GMcrops. So a commitment to engagementas facilitation of dialogue is notnecessarily neutral nor without broaderimplications. It is a sign of intent toacknowledge the other on his or herterms.Ali Fisher of Mappa Mundi consultants,who was director of Counterpoint,the cultural relations think-tank ofthe British Council, argues that thedevelopment of new technology hasspawned different ideas and newapproaches to engaging withpeople around the world. One suchdevelopment is the ability to approach192 193

public diplomacy based on themethodology employed in theproduction of open-source software.This approach provides the means toengage with communities of otherconcerned actors, communicatethrough human voices, place emphasison understanding lessons from previousinitiatives and engage on the basis ofthe interests of those communities.Ideas can no longer be seen as ownedby a country; mass communicationprovides the means to see beyondnational claims of unity. Recognisingthis and embracing the means toengage with communities that aredefined by ideology rather than physicalborders provides the potential to makepublic diplomacy initiatives morerelevant to the target audience andultimately more influential.For Fisher, this goes beyond creatingcommunities of chosen hierarchies toengaging on a genuinely symmetrical,peer-to-peer engagement aimed atengaging in collective effort withgroups that were previously largelyonly considered as part of the targetaudience. In the contemporary context,these collective efforts would bethought of in terms of decentralisedor peer-to-peer networks. However, themethods required to create successfulcollaborations in this environment havea long history amongst diplomats. Theyare known as “facilitative” or “niche”diplomacy.Fisher makes the point that this type ofdiplomacy stresses is not merely aboutpersuading people to adopt one’s owngoals. Facilitative or niche diplomacyis about achieving your goals throughhelping others to achieve theirs.According to Fisher, successfulcollaboration — whether as part offacilitative diplomacy or contemporarydecentralised networks — can best beapproached by asking what others aretrying to achieve and how one cancontribute. In centralised networks,the central hub has the authority todecide who is in and how is out,whether through acting as gatekeeperto a negotiation process or throughissuing the invitations to an event.Decentralised or facilitative approachesdo not give that level of control; theywork on the basis of engaging throughthe interest of others.Whether we adopt one of the Evans/Steven public diplomacy strategies orsee in the new public diplomacy anopportunity to develop decentralizedor facilitative approaches, thinkingstrategically about collaboration requiresus to be clear about the basis on whichothers are involved.Losada’s model of high-performingteamsOne of the strongest arguments foroptimising collaboration is that the morea group connects, the better it performs.Marcial Losada is the founder andexecutive director of Meta Learning, aconsulting organization that has workedin developing high-performing teamsat several major corporations in theUnited States as well as Europe andLatin America. As director of the Centerfor Advanced Research in Ann Arbor,Michigan, he developed aninnovative approach to studyingworking teams. This allowed him todevelop the meta-learning model, whichshows the dynamic patterns achievedby high-, medium- and low-performingteams. The variables in themeta-learning model are positivity/negativity, inquiry/advocacy and internal/external orientation. The controlparameter of the model is connectivity.Losada’s findings can be summarisedas follows: If a team is highly connected,it will tend to maintain equilibriumbetween internal and externalorientation as well as between inquiryand advocacy. It will also keep apositivity/negativity ratio above 2.9 (seeLosada line) but not higher than 11.If connectivity is low, the team will bemore internally focused, it will advocatestrongly and its positivity/negativity ratiowill be below 2.9. Losada found thathigh levels of connectivity lead to highperformance in business teams (Losada,1999; Losada & Heaphy, 2004).Performance is defined by three criteria:profitability, customer satisfaction and360-degree evaluations.External/internal relates to theorientation to team itself, and to thecontext. Positivity/negativity relates tothe tone of interactions.Inquiry/advocacy is worth expanding.Research indicates that inquiry tendsto produce decisions of higher quality.Inquiry generates multiple alternatives,fosters the exchange of ideas andconsiders a variety of options andpeople who then work together todiscover the best solution. People havetheir own interests but the goal is notto persuade the group to adopt a givenpoint of view but to come to agreementon the best course of action. Inquiryencourages critical thinking and conflict.It may be intense but is seldom personal.The implicit assumption is that asolution will emerge from a test ofstrength among competing ideas ratherthan from duelling positions.In the advocacy approach individuals orgroups with special interests advocateparticular positions and see decisionmaking as a contest. Their goal is tomake a compelling case, not to conveyan even handed or balanced view.Participants are passionate about theirpreferred solutions and therefore standfirm in the face of disagreement. Theyoften find it very difficult to remainobjective, limiting the capacity of theteam to give attention to opposingarguments. Advocacy is often aboutgaining resources.194 195

Positivity/negativity has echoes of thework of the mathematician, JohnGottman. His work has been with lifepartners. He has developed an accuratemeans of predicting whether or not arelationship will last. The key indicatoris whether or not one partner showscontempt for the other. If that happens,the likelihood of the relationship lastingis considerably diminished. Gottman’sratio is 5:1, meaning that for everynegative interaction, five are neededto restore the balance.Losada’s 2.9 ratio for connectivityand high performanceIf we want groups to connect, togenerate and therefore to reach highperformance, we can look to Losada’sresearch a way of being more awareof our part in team inter-actions andthe overall balance of the team’scontribution. For Losada, the optimalratio of inquiry to advocacy is 2.9(likewise external/internal orientation,and positivity/negativity). This suggeststhat for every demonstration ofadvocacy we need to see almost threedemonstrations of inquiry for that groupto connect and generate.The difference in the ratios offered byGottman and Losada may be to do withthe fact Gottman looks at relationshipsbetween two people whilst Losadastudies groups at work.Barbara Frederickson has used thesefindings to take Losada’s research in thedirection of what constitutes “flow”.She uses the terms “flourishing” and“languishing” to describe groups.Gillian Stamp, Lorraine Dodd, MarkRound and QinetiQ are building onthis work. Whatever further empiricalstudies are needed, these insights canbe used by practitioners to encouragegreater collaboration and makecollaboration work.Emerging challenge for socialcollaboration between governmentsand other organizations andbetween organizations and citizensIf we want engagement to be the startof a longer term relationship, we canuse that engagement to lead to framingof problems, exploring of options,a measure of agreement and acommitment to act. It doesn’t meanwe forego our own interest.Pressing for an outcome reveals aninterest and therefore the approachdiscussed in Chapter 2, part 1, aboutsuspending assumptions whileexplaining them, can be used.One issue that this highlights isconveying government’s multiplicity ofroles, making this more transparentso that others know how best to workwith government, to give it what itneeds, to get what they need from itand make constructive use of anycontact. But, for others to interact,government needs to be more selfaware,more honest about its reasonsfor wanting others’ involvement andmore patient in working out the basisfor a more productive relationship. Thegovernment’s interlocutors need todo the same and to manage theirexpectations of their relationship withgovernment.One lesson is not to presume the spacethat one works in, or wants to work in,is the same as others’ space, whateverthey volunteer or not. If we are strivingto find common ground, we need tobalance this with working our waybackwards and get into others’ framesof reference, building up a picture thatwe and they both recognise. Stamp’sphrase is worth recalling: “Beforegetting into the shoes of others, it helpsto take one’s own off first.”Understanding others and keeping up aregard for them has to balanced againstthe pursuit of one’s own interest. Whatis important in building up relationshipsis not just the space you let yourself andothers occupy but the regard in whicheach is held by the other.Governments have to be particularlyattuned to ensure that, consciously orinadvertently, they do not give signalssuch as “we are the parent, you arethe child” or “we’re in this together, sohow can we all help one another andeach take responsibility for effort andrisk involved?”Advocacy and engagement workingin combinationEffective engagement can complementadvocacy by anchoring it in theappropriate context. Regina Saffa, aPhD student at Reading University’sgraduate institute of politics andinternational studies, worked with DFIDin Sierra Leone, Uganda and Tanzania.Saffa says that advocacy involvesengagement at state and grassrootslevels using different approaches.“Partners often are often so statefocused that they risk poorly developedlinks between advocacy and grassrootsactivities and fail to build strongalliances. International NGOs haveaccess to funding information andstrong connections with donor agencieswhich gives them the competitiveadvantage but not the expertise.”Saffa adds, “There is nothing wrongwith choosing partners that share one’scommon interests — but it is worthselecting those with practical experiencein the area of intervention. Local NGOsneed to be taken seriously and theiranalyses must not be ignored. Theircompetitive advantage must beenhanced building their capacity toengage in policy dialogue and advocacy.”196 197

3. Delivery: collaborative approachto implementationThere are two critical political issues forcollaborations dealing with social issues:establishing enough agreement on thekind of problem to which collaborativeleadership is a solution and being awarethat problems such as climate change,terrorism, and conflict requiregovernments not only to ask questionsbut to be seen to do something.Leadership is both about asking theright questions, and ensuring that weget somewhere. It does not mean thatthe leader has the answers but thateverybody, including the leader, doesenough to make a difference. Becausesocial problems are multi-faceted,leadership needs to balance thehighlighting and framing of a problem,the exploring of solutions and thedriving of agreement, commitment andimplementation — which is the basisof effective collaborative practice.Hybrid problemsIs dealing with climate change a wickedor critical problem? Or is it a tame one?It is a wicked problem in some respectsand a critical one in others, with somescope to make many of its problemstame. Unless leaders demonstrate that itis possible to take effective action, theywill not build up enough momentumfor people at all levels of society to takeresponsibility for the changes neededto reverse the trends. Small steps areneeded — like recycling waste — aswell as big steps such as decisions onenergy policy.In taking the debate forward, it is notjust a matter of understanding thecontext but producing a convincingexplanation of the problem and thesolution to it. So a global financial crisisor economic slowdown does notautomatically mean that tackling climatechange is a lesser, or competing, priority— provided the links are made betweenshort and long term economic stability.The framework set out above hasimplications for the domestic sphereas much as it does for issues at theinternational level. Involving people inconstructing their own account of theproblem is a highly effective way ofensuring that they identify theopportunities and threats, listen toalternative perspectives and thinkthrough their role in helping to meet thechallenge. By opening up a discussionon policy options for the future, Britain’sDepartment for Work and Pensionsprovided an opportunity for membersof the public to work out choices forgovernment and for themselves.Example: Mark Napier, Centre forPublic Innovation, and tacklingalcohol abuseA domestic issue that represents aparticularly wicked problem is alcoholabuse and its related disorders.According to Mark Napier, “Theresponse to the issues presented byexcessive alcohol consumption hastended to reflect the concerns ofindividual agencies or organizations,each taking a partial view of a muchbroader picture. Police seek to tackleanti-social behaviour and violent crime,primary care trusts have promotedissues around public health, hospitalshave dealt with the most apparenteffects of ill health and treatmentproviders have focused on detoxification,abstinence or controlled drinking.”Oneof the main challenges is that eachparty’s efforts have been frustrated bythe framing of the problem within toonarrow a context rather than in a moreholistic one.Napier’s view is that the problem isseen in terms of what any givenorganization can offer. By exploringissues around alcohol through the lensof a collaborative approach, it may bepossible to begin to unravel what hasto date often been seen as anintractable problem. A collaborativeapproach may help to explore theproblem from the perspective of allrelevant partners, thereby reframingthe terms within which the issue shouldbe tackled. Given the ongoing debatesin society about acceptable levelsof drinking and the role of the statein advising on drinking levels, acollaborative approach may also fosterdialogue that would help frame theproblem as well as shape the contextwithin which new solutions could befound – taking the public with changesrather than being seen to work in acontrary direction.Example: Beverley Ashton, KentPolice, and collaboration betweenforcesBeverley Ashton is Head ofDevelopment for Kent Police andhas been leading the programmemanagement for the Kent/Essexcollaboration for the last year. She seesthe challenges collaborative workingcan bring.Ashton says, “Unless the engagementstrategy enables leaders to usecollaboration in the most effective wayto solve their problems, you will mostlikely develop resistance to change.Working with others requiresnegotiation, compromise and effortthat will always seem to outweigh theanticipated benefits of collaborationunless the objective behind doing it isclearly understood.”This understanding is critical toimplementing short-term change andsustaining it in the longer term becausethe effort to maintain the relationshipis a continual process, not a one-offengagement. Where collaboration isthe obvious solution to a performance/service problem, it is much easier togain commitment than when the driver198 199

is related to cost reduction and theoutcome is for the benefit of theorganisation as a whole while beingto the perceived detriment of thedepartment concerned.Kent and Essex police forces initiateda collaboration in 2007 that hasdeveloped into a significantly productiveworking relationship during 2008/09.By working collaboratively across abroad range of initiatives and projects,the two forces have delivered financialsavings, increased resilience in high riskareas of business and opened channelsof communication, while spreading bestpractice to improve service delivery.The strength of the first full year ofcollaboration has led to the commitmentto a three-year business plan, placingthe thought process of choosingcollaboration options in decision-makingclearly at the fore of leaders’ minds.Police forces are used to workingtogether with other agencies foremergency planning/scenario testing.Now, though, a new form oforganizational collaboration isdeveloping. This is intended to meetthe challenge of difficult financialsettlements and increased publicexpectations of service delivery in anenvironment where public services haveto become more business-focused andprovide the most effective and efficientuse of public funds. This is a relativelynew concept in policing and the termcollaboration is largely linked to mergerfollowing the national police-forcemerger debate of 2006.The collaboration between Kent andEssex enables a much broader outcomethan merely merging departments.Declaring a “preferred partner” statusallows collaboration to be usedinnovatively as the solution to a rangeof issues, from simply sharing bestpractice to radically re-engineeringhow a service is provided.The benefits do need to includecash and efficiency savings. But bycollaborating the forces have alsodemonstrated reduced risk, increasedresilience/capacity and capability andimproved performance in servicedelivery. The forces maintain a strongindependence and stay competitive. Butthey also see that service delivery canbe improved by working collaboratively.Success factors include leadership andgovernance. There needs to be a mixof day-to-day champions to providethe short-term impetus and sharedownership through more formaloversight arrangements to ensurelonger-term continuity and sustainabilitywhen key individuals move on. Thisgovernance, provided by a JointStatutory Committee of ChiefConstables and Police Authorities,has provided the bedrock of successfor the Kent/Essex collaboration.The collaboration needed a frameworkto benchmark services that enabled selfinterestto be overcome and traditionaldelivery methods to be challenged.The programme manager built on amodel devised by the National Collegefor School Leadership that evolved intoa process combining empirical data,bottom-up staff engagementfor developing options and challengethrough the use of a “provocateur”.The Organizational/OperationalSupport Review process identified over£3m of savings during 08/09 and hasbeen expanded to cover areas of coreoperational policing and performanceas well as productivity and efficiencyduring 09/10.Ashton stresses that trust is alsoimportant – but parties need notshare the same views and motivations.What is crucial is recognition that eachparty has their own agenda and this is“out in the open”. The Kent/Essexcollaboration is a partnership ofequals and the honest nature of therelationship allows for collaboration totake place where it is the right thingto do while permitting participants towork separately or with others if thebenefits are greater elsewhere.Integrated solutions: policy,implementation, and engagementStrategies need to be adapted to theoperational context while collaborativeprocesses ensure that that the concernsand aspirations of key players informthe implementation.Implementing a strategy needs to bematched with the right degree ofinvolvement and ownership at everylevel. Building on Losada’s research, thefocus and momentum of a project canbe enhanced by greater connectivity— with the group looking outside itself,being of an inquiring mind and drawingon other networks and citizensthemselves. Britain’s criminal justicesystem has already seen big advancesin better coordination between police,prosecution service, courts, prisons,probation, offender management andyouth justice services with the NationalCriminal Justice Board and local criminaljustice boards. Through an innovativeapproach to engagement with the localcommunity, community justice aims tomake courts more responsive to localpeople and to solve the causes of, andproblems caused by, offending in thelocal area.Greater collaboration is effective,whether the challenge is to act onbehalf of others or to move fromdoing things for people to workingwith them and supporting them totake responsibility. In either case, acollaborative approach to delivery isimportant. Alex Plant, Chief Executiveof Cambridgeshire Horizons, served ina number of policy posts in Whitehall,200 201

including the Treasury. “It is critical touse collaborative thinking beforedecisions are taken,” he says. “Butoften the problems I see in publicpolicy generally are a slip ’twixt cup andlip, between policy design and policyimplementation. What is essential is aneffective and open feedback loopbetween policy-makers and on-thegrounddeliverers — all part of anongoing collaborative process.”Practical solutions to challenges infragile or at risk statesIn fragile states, at risk economicallyor in terms of security, a collaborativeapproach is needed to stabilise andrebuild countries. Collaborative workingis very much part of the solution, notjust the funding.Our own mission at NATO, bringingtogether in the same office civilianand military staff and the Netherlandsmission, emphasised the value ofintegrated strategy on the ground.It drew on collaboration betweencivilian and military effort, betweeninternational governments and otherorganizations and between theinternational effort, the hostgovernment and the involvementof the local communities. Effectiveengagement of the local populationis part of a wider collaboration. SimonAnholt’s telling example in Chapter 1about local power generators inAfghanistan brings home the differencethat local ownership makes.We are already seeing how greatercollaboration is the catalyst for tacklingshared problems. What’s needed foreffective joint working is:• Use of the “fusion cell” approach onthe ground – a group in which allgovernment bodies, agencies andactors are represented; with clearstrategic direction, internal andexternal communications, and linesof command; open sharing ofinformation between all involved ona trust basis, even when governmentis still working on departmental lines.• Common IT problems – secure videoconferencing facilities and telephonyare a real advantage.• In-country co-ordination betweenall external actors, donors andinternational organizations. Ifpracticable, layers of co-ordinationwithin that group and between thatgroup and the host countryauthorities.• Maximum profile for the UN.To build confidence and encouragebusinesses and NGOs to operate inareas that are making a transition frombeing insecure to not yet completelysecure, one of my respondents stressed:• Realism: no over-selling ofopportunity or down-playing of risks.• Consistent messages from all parts ofgovernment.• Mechanisms to consult and informpartner organizations andrepresentative bodies both in UKand locally.• Consistent behaviour in support ofagreed strategy — for example, abroad cross-government agreementtowards developing the market inquestion.• Layered advice and help available forlarger and smaller companies andinvestors: the largest will only needstrategic guidance; the smaller willneed more practical help during firstvisits.Interventions to stabilise post-conflictsocieties no longer just interpose troopsbetween combatants and negotiate apeace agreement. Instead, they engagein far-reaching efforts of institutionaland society transformation to preventa relapse into war and to encouragea sustainable peace. As Domink Zaumand Christine Cheng argue, “althoughthe usefulness of corruption in ensuringshort-term peace remains contested,there is no doubt that corruption ha direeconomic and political consequences inthe long run.” (Cheng and Zaum (2008)“Introduction - Key Themes inPeacebuilding and Corruption”,International Peacekeeping, 15:3,pp301 -309).Early emphasis on transparency andthe rule of law is seen as crucial tomaking arrangements work. This is whywe need to continue to see the valueand challenge of the role that NGOsplay in better governance.But if we are to draw on NGOs more,governments need to recognise howimportant it is for many NGOs to be —and to be seen to be — independent.Some respondents think this is alreadytoo late. Others believe that we couldtry harder to preserve a space in whichNGOs operate and are not seen asadjuncts of governments. Effectivecollaboration is just as much aboutrespecting differences in roles as itis about respecting difference inperspectives.Collaboration and “war amongst thepeople”In his discussion about Iraq, Grintquotes W. Andrew Terrill, a professorat the US Army’s War College StrategicStudies Institute. He says: “I don’t thinkyou can kill the insurgency . . . The ideathere are x number of insurgents andthat when they’re all dead we can getout is wrong. The insurgency has shownan ability to regenerate itself because202 203

– or ‘characters in search of a play’. Thisis complex, but I also believe that thereare practical ways in which we can planfor such complexity.Professor Peter Allen and Dr. JeanBoulton at the Cranfield School ofManagement are leading efforts tobridge complexity science and planningin conditions of uncertainty. Complexityscience presents a different worldviewabout the way the world is andtherefore how we have to behave.The traditional ‘scientific, ‘professional’worldview is that the world ispredictable and controllable - andtherefore we are safe. Complexityscience presents a view of the worldas inter-connected, prone to shifts inregime, not entirely predictable, newthings can emerge. This requires a bigshift emotionally for people and takesaway a sort of safety and security.This report should fuel interest in howto engage with people to explore theideas of complexity. The journey is asmuch about inner fears as it is aboutintellectual ideas, and thereforenecessarily involves addressing thehuman side of collaboration.Complexity science gets to grips withissues of uncertainty and particularityin ways that other disciplines do not.Whilst the past is a reasonable predictorof the future when the context isrelatively stable, situations can changerapidly and radically, triggeredsometimes by events or shifts inissues regarded as ‘background’ andunimportant. These shifts in regime arealmost impossible to predict - both interms of when they will happen andwhat will emerge as a result.Many experienced leaders understandthis instinctively – the challenge is tomake such approach work at all levelsof an organization, and betweendifferent organizations, so that itbecomes part of the working culture.The related concept from complexitypoints to the fact that history tends notto repeat itself - that situations and theway they unfold are unique, triggeredby the interplay between the detail of aparticular situation and the relationshipsand patterns between factors currentlyestablished. This focus on particularityand the importance of detail is an evolutionaryperspective which complexitythinking embraces.This is consistent with the approach thatI developed at the beginning of Chapter2: strategic pragmatism. According toBoulton, these two factors then, changethe role of modellers and planners. Theadvice is:• Still plan, still model, but hold yourplans and models lightly. They maymiss key factors and subtle detailwhich tip the balance.• Review outcomes more regularly andlook for deviations from plans andmodels; consider what else hasbecome important, what otherfactors are starting to play a part,what unintended consequences therehave been (collaboration betweenstrategists and implementers, widersteering groups).• Cast your net more widely in lookingat context (collaborate in sharingknowledge, vision); use scenarioplanning, do futures work, noticewhat works better than expected,what blocks expected outcomes.• Pay more attention to cross-oversbetween policy areas (collaborate inpolicy development and policyimplementation) - where are thereconflicts, how can these beaddressed, allow room for localvariation - identify required outcomesand values and principles but allowmore space for local variation inimplementation and seek commonstandards by encouraging learningrather than dictating the ‘how’(collaboration between implementersto share learning and with policymakers to learn from practice).Leadership role for businessBusiness has a pivotal role to makecollaboration work in achieving socialgoals.In January 2008, a group of prominentWorld Economic Forum business leadersissued a call to their peers to joincollaborative efforts to strengthen publicgovernance frameworks and institutionsas a core element of their approach tocorporate citizenship. Fourteen globalCEOs and chairmen, representing arange of industries and regions, signeda statement calling on businesses toengage in public-private partnershipsto strengthen public policies andinstitutional capacity at the national,regional and global levels. This waspart of the Forum’s Global CorporateCitizenship Initiative in partnershipwith lead partner Business for SocialResponsibility (BSR), as well asAccountAbility, Harvard’s CorporateSocial Responsibility Initiative andthe International Business LeadersForum. Signatories of the leadershipstatement include the chairmen or CEOsof Ayala Corporation, Diageo, Merck& Co, Microsoft Corporation, PakistanState Oil Company, Tata Industries,The Coca-Cola Company and the bigfour accounting firms, Deloitte, Ernst& Young, KPMG and Pricewaterhouse-Coopers.The outcome of the project, called“Partnering to Strengthen PublicGovernance – The Leadership Challengefor CEOs and Boards” is a CEO-signedleadership statement and supportingreport. It provides a roadmap forbusiness leaders seeking to work withgovernments and other stakeholders206 207

to improve the enabling environmentfor sustainable economic growth anddevelopment. “Public governance is aglobal issue. No longer can businesses,governments or non-governmental organizationsafford to act independentlyof each other — the stakes are just toohigh,” said John Connolly, chairmanof the global board at Deloitte. “Onlythrough a combined effort can weachieve economic growth, sustainabilityand create an opportunity for a betterlife for people everywhere.”The paper acknowledges the key rolethat partnership plays in advancingthe global agenda and the need forbusiness to take on this agenda basedboth on its capacity and legitimacy.Business engagement in promotingeffective governance is most effective,and most credible, where it reflectskey principles including transparency,dialogue and respect for the unique roleof public institutions and puts value onworking with civil society organizations.Even before the recent financial turmoil,PricewaterhouseCoopers was arguingin its 11th Annual Global CEO Survey(discussed in Chapter 4) that businesscan play a much greater role in shapingregulation, “National governments haveto walk a fine line. They have to developand implement regulations to achievespecific policy aims, often involvingthe correction of market failures, whileavoiding unintended consequences.And they have to do so not justnationally, but within the contextof other national governments andsupranational entities, each with theirown agendas.” (11th Annual GlobalCEO survey, p60).Many of my respondents in the bankingand finance sector say that the sectorhas no option but to be more strategicif it is to maintain confidence andremain competitive. But this requireseven greater collaboration within thesector, as well as with the authorities,to ensure that regulation delivers.PwC argues that mutual self-interest isa powerful starting point for successfulcollaboration. The survey findings,and its own experience, suggest thatmany CEOs have still to appreciatethe influence they might have on theregulatory process (11th Annual GlobalCEO Survey, p61) PwC’s recipe foreffective collaboration betweenbusiness, governments and regulatorsincludes:• Taking a strategic, long-term view ofthe regulatory framework in whichbusiness operates;• Creating an effective dialoguebetween the regulator and thoseregulated;• Recognising that the languages ofbusiness and regulation can bedifferent and making the effort tounderstand those differences;• Allocating time and resources tocollaborating on the co-design ofregulations;• Investing in the development of thepersonal relationships and mutualtrust that are necessary to achievedshared objectives.The work done for this report byChristopher Lomas of NakedGenerations highlights the gap thatgovernments and business have to closein engaging with younger generations(see Appendix: Naked Generationsv0.2). Governments and businessesthat seek collaboration must providea focused context or subject matteraround which to base discussion. Theyshould operate in the spirit of “ask,don’t tell”.Heledd Straker from Naked Generationsbelieves trust to be the key prerequisitefor any form of collaboration,particularly within an organization.“In order for organizations to besuccessful in the long term, it is essentialthat they design and implement aneffective trust-based culture into whicha collaborative mindset is ingrained,”she argues.“To build such a culture, a solutioncan be found in Generation Y and itsrelationship with social media.Generation Y enhances its physicalworld with the virtual, using socialnetworking sites and online games tobuild strong bonds of trust in multipleand overlapping communities all overthe world.”Straker says that a social media platformlinking staff of a multi-nationalorganization would improvecommunications, breaking down crossculturaland cross-generational barriersand using such differences to producefast yet creative results. One exampleis the pharmaceutical company Pfizer,which has launched a networking siteenabling employees across the globe toshare ideas and collaborate.In Robert Hayes’s far-reaching paperfor the International Public RelationsInstitute, “Public Relations andCollaboration”, Robert Grupp, itspresident, says “CEOs today play aleadership role on the global stageand they expect public relations andits linked disciplines to play a key role.Do we have the skills, knowledge andmoral will to move into this position?Ultimately, successful businessdiplomacy depends on a veryspecial cadre of people who havethe experience, the communicationskills and political savvy to worksuccessfully in the space where thegoals of corporations, governmentsand civil society converge. This typeof collaborative diplomacy is not justgood public relations; it’s goodbusiness!” (Grupp, in Hayes (2008)).208 209

Business can see the reputationaladvantage of corporate socialresponsibility, but most of myrespondents remain unconvinced thatCSR is enough of a priority. For some,the term “social” both motivates andconfuses. One business contact says,“business needs to act responsibly. It’sas simple as that.”Philip Bobbitt’s recent book Terror andConsent is as much about re-forgingthe links in society between strategyand legitimacy as it is about dealingwith terror. Bobbitt acknowledges thatUN agencies are already beginning tooutsource operations and to cooperatewith NGOs on problems such as publichealth and rural development. If “thehealth of any society is only as secure asthe medical conditions of the worst-offsociety, whose infections can circle theglobe in hours,” he says, “there mustbe ample reason for GlaxoSmithKlineor Pfizer to join with the World HealthOrganization to improve preventivecare and early warning systems in thepoorest countries.” (Bobbitt (2008)p509).Bobbitt adds: “International NGOs donot have that basis in legitimacy thatis provided by democratic processes.What is needed is greater transparencyin the operations and funding of NGOs.Among the most important NGOs,although we don’t think of them thisway, are multinational corporations. Justas governments in the era of themarket state will have to learn thebusiness methods of wealth creation,so businessmen — however muchthey dislike it — will have to learn themethods of winning public consent,for they have truly global interests.”(Bobbitt (2008) p509)Running this through this report isthe emphasis that I have put oncreating value and delivering it. Unlesscollaboration is geared to achievingan end, it will not be an imaginativeand productive use of time. A businessfocus, particularly the entrepreneurialspirit, makes any collaboration moreefficient and effective because it obligesany venture to be outward- andforward-looking. It also stressesownership and responsibility.Sir Ronald Cohen’s book The SecondBounce of the Ball is not only the storyof a distinguished career building asuccessful global private equity businessbut an insight into leadership, especiallywhen it comes to embracing risk andopportunity. Partnerships can frustratea sense of ownership that everyentrepreneur finds fulfilling, “It is notuncommon for partnerships to benegative in their effect, especially ifthe partners have similar skills, similarroles and an equal voice,” Cohen says.“There can be too much consensus,too much hiding behind the collectiveauthority of the group. The partnershave interesting and well-informeddiscussions, and possibly even come tothe right conclusions more often thannot. But because none of them is actinglike an entrepreneur there is no one incharge, no leadership, and none ofthe decisions leads to decisive action.There is insufficient follow-through,insufficient execution.” (Cohen, withTerry Ilott (2007) p137)Collaboration builders can learn fromsuccessful entrepreneurs in spotting andexploiting opportunities, and seeingthat uncertainty has an upside, as wellas a downside. Entrepreneurs createand do not just find opportunities, andhave the courage to change the rulesof the game. They see how a disparateelements can be combined together toproduce a solution, focus on the mostimportant challenges, and persist inimplementing their vision of success.They are alert to emerging opportunityand threat, have the skill to focus onwhat is essential, and harness theirresources to make the greatest impact.What resources they do not have, theyfind. They build productive relationships,and are not afraid to confront issues.Britain has exercised leadership duringthe recent financial crisis. Crisis calls forleadership. But, as the United Nationsreminds us, many chronic problemsdo not go away with the economicdownturn. Any leadership incollaboration with partners will have torise to Cohen’s challenge. I believe thatit can be met if we encourage othersto take greater responsibility and givethem authority to act; and if we seecollaboration as a combination ofassertion and cooperation. If we wanttrust to work, this means that thehuman element of collaboration is avital part in an organization’s capability.We need to ensure that we treat itexplicitly as an important asset, invest init, develop and evaluate it; and expect areturn. Vigilance is having an eye on theopportunity, as well as the threat.Collaboration is becoming a newand important source of competitiveadvantage. We need to rethink theway we manage innovation. In theirHarvard Business School study ofbusiness innovation and competitiveadvantage called Innovation throughGlobal Collaboration, Alan MacCormackand his colleagues show that traditionalapproaches, based on the assumptionthat the creation and pursuit of newideas is best accomplished by acentralised and collocated researchand development team, are rapidlybecoming outdated. Instead,innovations are increasingly broughtto the market by networks of firms,selected for their unique capabilitiesand operating in a coordinated manner.MacCormack argues that firms developdifferent skills: in particular, the abilityto collaborate with partners to achieve210 211

superior innovation performance. Hefound that many firms mistakenlyapplied an “outsourcing” mindset tocollaboration efforts which, in turn,led to three critical errors. First, theyfocused solely on lower costs, failingto consider the broader strategic roleof collaboration. Second, they did notorganise effectively for collaboration,believing that innovation could bemanaged much like production andpartners treated like “suppliers.”Third, they did not invest in buildingcollaborative capabilities, assuming thattheir existing people and processes werealready equipped for the challenge.MacCormack’s paper quotes as a strongexample of these dynamics Boeing’sdevelopment of its 787 “Dreamliner”aircraft. Boeing builds the most complexcommercial products in the world. Thelevels of capital investment required andthe increasing breadth of technologiesthat must be harnessed – from digitalcockpit design to new lightweightmaterials – have led Boeing to look atnew forms of organization. The aimis to share risk with partners whileexploiting the unique technicalexpertise that each brings todevelopment. Boeing’s approachto the 787 was the epitome of globalcollaboration. The project included over50 partners from over 130 locationsworking together for more than fouryears. In the view of MacCormack andhis colleagues, Boeing’s source ofcompetitive advantage is shifting: it isless and less related to the possessionof deep individual technical skills inhundreds of diverse disciplines. Whilethe company still has such knowledge,this is no longer what differentiates itfrom competitors. Boeing’s uniqueassets and skills are increasingly tied tothe way the firm orchestrates, managesand coordinates its network ofhundreds of global partners.Example: Ghanem Nuseibeh, andcollaboration in the constructionsectorGhanem Nuseibeh, Director,Cornerstone Global Associates, is aproject manager in the constructionindustry. The sector is continuouslyevolving and is open to new ideason management. The project teaminvolved in the design and constructionof a building traditionally consistedonly of architects, structural engineersand building services engineers. Therole of project manager has changed.Once performed by architects, it is nowincreasingly done by specially-trainedproject managers. Project managersare now an integral part of theconstruction project teams. They havetrained as quantity surveyors, civilengineers or more recently graduatesof construction management courses.Nuseibeh anticipates another evolutionin project management. Conflictresolution on projects often involvesan adjudicator, arbitrator or mediator,depending on the size of project, natureof dispute and type of contract. Withmore emphasis being put on life-cyclecosting and sustainability, requiringever greater collaboration betweenthe designers, the developers, thecontractors and the end-users,the introduction of a new projectresponsibility, “collaborationmanagement”, will solve the problemof where responsibility for life-cyclecosting and hence sustainability falls.Such a step would require leadershipfrom within the construction industryas well as collaboration of the differentprofessional institutions that deal withthe industry.Sustainable buildings often involvehigher initial costs that are offsetby cheaper running expenses. Inotherwords, “life-cycle costing” isthe economic justification for makingbuildings more sustainable.As buildings are required to be moresustainable, the construction industry,and designers in particular, findthemselves required to be moreinnovative in terms of building systemsused as well as adopting new designstandards that are continuouslybeing updated. In many situations,practitioners in the construction industryfind themselves outpaced by the rapidevolution in sustainable building design(partly due to the faster disseminationof experiences and new techniques inother countries brought about by the“shortening of time”, resulting fromtechnological progress). Non-designerstakeholders are having more say in thedesign of buildings, particularly whenlife-cycle costing is used to assess aparticular project.The result is inevitablemisunderstandings and mistakesthat may not be adequately coveredin the traditional contractual frameworkthe construction industry is accustomedto. In Nuseibeh’s view, thosemisunderstandings can be resolvedbefore they occur by ensuringcollaboration between the differentstakeholders, some of whom do notcome from the construction industryand who are increasingly important,partly due to the increasing prominenceof life-cycle costing. This earlycollaboration should continuethroughout the design and constructionstages of a project. It needs to befacilitated by an “unbiased” newteam member, who can represent theinterests of the developers, financiers,designers and contractors. A traditional“project manager” will not be ableto undertake such task due to theinherent bias she or he may have. A“collaboration” manager will thereforebe able to ensure inter-disciplinaryinteraction helps avoid contractualproblems in the rapidly evolvingconstruction sector.212 213

Example: David Rowling, businessimprovement and building crossfunctionalteamsDavid Rowling advises companies onusing IT to improve their business.Business improvement projects are mostsuccessful when a cross-functional teamis engaged and the value of effectivecommunication is built into every stageof the process. The members of theteam should be made up of managerswho can expertly represent theirfunctional specialism yet who alsocan positively conceive of new waysof operating the business. The teamshould spend time understanding thecurrent operation and gain insight intothe current strengths and weaknesses.The team then will define a strategicvision that will deliver a set of goalsdefined by senior executives. It iscommon for the team to be facilitatedby an external consultant during thisphase. The external consultant bringsknowledge of alternative ways ofoperating businesses from a numberof different industry sectors. Throughfacilitation by the consultant and freethinking by the team the creative sparkis struck and fanned to form concepts.The formation of a cross-functionalteam working within the same physicalspace within facilitated workshopsencourages the discussion of innovativeways of working. At all times theenvironment has to be positive andencouraging of new ideas. Rowlingbelieves that the external consultant hasto create the conditions for effectivecollaboration: to guide the discussionand to inject ideas from other industrieswhen things flag a little. Once thestrategic vision has been agreed, thedetailed work of the design of newbusiness processes, ways of workingand new technologies can begin. Theteam needs to co-operate during thisphase to ensure that the needs of eachfunction are met through the newbusiness model.The cross-functional team and projectmanager have an additional vital role.All areas of the business relevant tothe improvement have to buy into theproject. Rowling’s building blocks forsuccess include: steering board withexecutive representation from eachfunction; cross-functional team withrepresentatives from each function;communications strategy so that allstakeholders are communicated withrelevant and timely information. It iscommon to use newsletters, forumsand ask for feedback during majorchange initiatives in order to take mostemployees along with the project.Broad support from senior executives,managers and employees is essential.4. ConclusionCollaboration is the right idea for ourtimes. Systemic problems need collectiveand concerted action by different actorsparticipating increasingly as equals andcommitted to working in long-termrelationships across organizational andother boundaries. Collaboration doesnot offer magic solutions, and is oftentough-going. But if done for the rightreasons and in the right way, it canopen up possibilities. It builds on acommitment to engage with othersby agreeing to work with them.Working to a common end which noone person or organization can achievealone, collaboration requires advancedleadership and team-working skills anda change of attitude. Many of thechallenges that we face as societiescannot be adequately addressed by atrial-and-error approach to buildingcollaboration. The growing global roleof the East only serves to remind manyin the West how much many Asiancultures are built on the importance ofrelationships and the value put on trustand reciprocity.Most of our most intractable problemsrequire greater collaboration. Wherecollaboration is most difficult, it is oftenmost necessary. There are real dividends— political, economic and social — thatwe are missing because we are nottapping our combined strength as asociety. But we won’t achieve thewider goals of collaboration withoutaddressing others’ needs first, andshowing our commitment to theirresolution.Research shows that the more teams areconnected and the more they generatebetween them, the higher theirperformance. Effective collaborationoperates in a space where traditionalmeans of control no longer work. It isabout driving both performance andparticipation, trusting others to takeinitiative and responsibility, appreciatingdifferent perspectives, and workingthrough complexity. It also involvesbeing more strategic about risk. If trustis a conscious regulation of one person’sdependence on the other, risk requiresleaders to rely on judgment — theirown, and others’. We have no optionbut to treat others more as leaders intheir own right, at every level.This report has been aboutcollaboration, and an exercise incollaboration. The learning that it hasproduced for me and others who gavecontributed is that in the very acts ofsoliciting, capturing and aggregatingothers’ responses, we cannot help butmake assumptions of our own andreveal preferences — such as whatto include and exclude, how best totranslate from concept to practice orfrom individual case to workinghypothesis.What makes collaboration sochallenging yet potentially so rewardingis that it can help redefine not onlyour interests, but also change ourperspective, and even our position.One of the more challenging lessons214 215

Notes, References and Bibliographyis that sometimes the best way toinfluence is to let oneself be influenced.If we want more of a dialogue, we haveto be prepared not just to listen but towant to listen and to accept the limitsof engagement. Just as we cannot giveway on an issue, others will not. Yet wecan still work on the relationship andeven deepen it, whether we agree ordisagree.1. Notes and ReferencesIntroductionMaddock, S. (2009), Change You Can Believe In: The Leadership of Innovation.National School of Government Sunningdale Institute, BIS.Senge, P. et al (2008), The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizationsare Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Chapter summary• The first four chapters were about how best to operate in collaboration.This chapter outlined what collaboration could be better used for.• Leadership: take a broader and longer view of leadership and teamwork;• Strategy: use collaborative thinking before decisions are taken on problems,solutions and types of leadership response required;• Engagement: connect more strategically, whether it is with one stakeholder,or a group of them, or directly with citizens; and• Delivery: apply collaborative processes to improve policy implementation.• Collaboration and innovation go hand in hand: we need to invest incollaborative capabilities to gain sustained advantage.Chapter 1: Understanding collaborationAnholt, S. (2007), Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations,Cities and Regions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Cropper, S. et al. (eds) (2008), The Oxford Handbook of Inter-OrganizationalRelations. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cropper, S. et al. (2008b), Introducing inter-organizational relations. In: Cropper,S. et al. (eds) op. cit. pp.3 - 21.Emery, F. & Trist, E.(1965), The causal texture of organizational environments.Human Relations. 18 (1), pp.21-32.Fox, A. (1974), Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations. London:Faber & Faber.Galinsky, A. et al. (2008), Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: Thedifferential effects of perspective taking an empathy in negotiations. PsychologicalScience. 19 (4), pp.378-384.Hudson, L. & Anstead, A. (2008), How government, business and non-governmentalorganisations can work together to address global challenges. In: Welsh, J. & Fearn,D. op. cit. pp.146 – 159.Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005), Managing to Collaborate. London: Routledge.216217

Ipsos-MORI. (2004), The Expert Perspective: View of Corporate Social Responsibilityamong NGOs and CSR Commentators (MORI White Papers). London: MORI.Available online from: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/publications.ashx[Accessed 17 September 2008].Ipsos-MORI. (2005) Company Relations with NGOs. Presentation by Jenny Dawkins,Head of Corporate Social Responsibility Research, Ipsos-MORI.Jaques, E. (1990), Creativity and Work. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.MacLeod, D. & Brady, C. (2007), The Extra Mile: How to Engage Your People to Win.London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.OECD/DAC statistics website. Available online from: [Accessed 26 September 2008].USAID (2008) US total resource flows to the developing world in 2005: The privaterevolution in financing development. Available online from:http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/gda/resources/pie_fact.pdf[Accessed 26 September 2008].Vangen, S. & Huxham, C. (2003), Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage.British Journal of Management.14 (1), pp.S61–S76.Chapter 2 – Part 1: Effective collaboration – approach to collaborationbuildingBeech, N. & Huxham, C. (2003), Cycles of identity formation in collaboration.International Studies of Management and Organization. 33 (3), pp. 28-52.Covey, S. (1989), The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons inPersonal Change. London: Simon & Schushter.De Becker, G. (1997), The Gift of Fear. Boston, Mass. : Little, Brown.de Callieres, F. (1983), On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes: On the Uses ofDiplomacy, the Choice of Ministers and Envoys, and the Personal Qualities Necessaryfor Success in Missions Abroad. Washington DC: University Press. Translated fromthe French by A. F. Whyte. Originally published: De la manière de négocier avec lessouverains. Paris. M. Brunet, 1716.Ekblom, P. (2004), Shared Responsibilities, Pooled Resources: a Partnership Approachto Crime Prevention, in P. Ekblom and A Wyvekens A Partnership Approach toCrime Prevention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produitaliasid=1782Farson, R. (1997), Management of the Absurd: Paradoxes of Leadership. London:Simon & Schuster.Fox, A. (1974), op. cit.Handy, C. (1994), The Age of Paradox. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.Hardy, C. & Grant, D. (2005), Discourse and collaboration: the role of conversationsand collective identity. Academy of Management Review. 30 (1) pp. 1-20.Huxham, C. & Hibbert, P. (2006), Give and Take: Understanding Attitudes toLearning in the Collaborative Process. London: AIM Research.Huxham, C. & Hibbert, P. (2008), Manifested attitudes: intricacies of inter-partnerlearning in collaboration. Journal of Management Studies. 45 (3), pp.502-529.Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision underrisk. Econometrica. 47, pp. 263-291.Kruger, T. (2008), Cquestrate: Developing an open source solution to climate change.Available online from: [Accessed 26 September 2008].Lotia, N. & Hardy, C. (2008), Critical perspectives on collaboration. In Cropper, S. etal. (eds) op. cit. pp. 366 – 389.Maister, D., Galford, R. & Green, C. (2000), The Trusted Advisor. New York: FreePress.218 219

Meads, G., & Ashcroft, J. (2005), The Case for Interprofessional Collaboration inHealth and Social Care, Blackwell.Miles, R. (Forthcoming), Coping strategies for regulatory risk in UK banking; thecreation of Chief Risk Officers. PhD thesis, Kings College London.PFC Energy Consulting (Unpublished, 2007), The Emergence of Coalitions ofInterest: California Climate Change Regulation Through the Lens of Complexity.Report prepared for Royal Dutch/Shell, London. Report dated 2007.Seligman, M. E. (1991), Learned Optimism. New York: Knopf.Wiseman, R. (2003), The Luck Factor. London: Century.Zeldin, T. (1998). Conversation. London: Harvill Press.Chapter 2 – Part 2: Effective collaboration – drivers for success, and stepsto takeBaumard, P. (1994), Oblique knowledge: the clandestine work of organisations.Cahier de Recherche DMSP No. 228. Paris: Universite de Paris-Dauphine.Available online from:http://www.iae-aix.com/fileadmin/files/cerog/cv/baumard/pages/oblique_knowledge.pdf [Accessed 12 September 2008].Blowfield, M. & Murray, A. (2008), Corporate Responsibility: A Critical Introduction.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cabinet Office Strategy Unit Seminar, (3 March 2009), ‘Influencing, Assessing andDeveloping Relationships’ Handout.http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/136494/relationships_handout.pdfThis was first set out by Schluter & Lee (1993) and applied in health care contexts inMeads et al., (1999). For current information on the availability of tools see:www.relationshipsfoundation.orgDeleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2004), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism andSchizophrenia. London: Continuum.Dodd, D. & Favaro, K. (2007), The Three Tensions: Winning the Struggle to PerformWithout Compromise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ethical Corporation Institute (2007), Corporate Responsibility Sector Initiatives Paper.London: Ethical Corporation Institute. Available online from:http://www.ethicalcorporationinstitute.com/research.asp[Accessed 28 October 2008].Hause, S. (1999) Western Civilization: A History of European Society. London:Wadsworth.Huxham, C. & Hibbert, P. (2007), Hit or myth? Stories of collaborative success.The Partner. May 2007, pp. 20-23.Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000), Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in themembership of collaboration. Human Relations. 53 (6), pp.771-806.Jaques, E. (1990), op.cit.Lomas, C. (2008), Naked Generations Mapping. [Internet]. Available online from:http://www.nakedgenerations.com [Accessed 19 September 2008].MacLeod, D. & Brady, C. (2007), op.cit.McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side Of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Moody-Stewart, M. ‘No excuse’ for poor CSR. PR Week. 17 October 2008. Availableonline from: http://www.prweek.com/uk/search/article/854589/No-excuse-poor-CSR/[Accessed 28 October 2008].Ouchi, W. (1981), Theory Z: How American management can meet the Japanesechallenge. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Prusak, L. (2000), Knowledge: can it be managed? Presented at the IBM Academyof Technology Conference on Knowledge Management; Fishkill, NY, June 2000.220 221

Provan, K. & Sydow, J. (2008), Evaluating inter-organizational relationships. In:Cropper, S., et al. (eds) op. cit., pp. 691 – 716.United Nations (Unpublished, 2005), Enhanced co-operation between the UnitedNations and all relevant partners, in particular the private sector. Report of theSecretary-General to the General Assembly. Report dated 21 May 2005.Chapter 2 – Part 3: Effective collaboration – common challenges – leadership,trust, risk and complexityAdams, D. (1979), The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. London: Pan Macmillan.Berne, E. (1973), Games People Play:The Psychology of Human Relationships.Harmondsworth: Penguin.Boxer, P. (2008), Asymmetric Design. [Internet]. Available online from:www.asymmetricdesign.com [Accessed 19 September 2008].Buber, M. (2002), Ten Rungs: Collected Hasidic Sayings. London: Routledge.Fredrickson, B. L. & Losada, M. (2005), Positive affect and the complex dynamicsof human flourishing. American Psychologist. 60 (7), pp.678-686. Available onlinefrom: http://losada.socialpsychology.org [Accessed 4 September 2008].Fukuyama, F. (1996), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. NewYork: Free Press.Gottman, J. (2007), Why Marriages Succeed or Fail. London: Bloomsbury.Heifetz, R. A. (1994), Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000), op. cit.Maister, D., Galford, R. & Green, C. (2000), op. cit.Moore, M. H. (1997), Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Nussbaum, M. C. (1986), The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in GreekTragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Powell, J. (2008), Great Hatred, Little Room: Making Peace in Northern Ireland.London: The Bodley Head.Rath, T. (2007), Strengthsfinder 2.0. Washington, D.C.: Gallup Press. Extractavailable from:http://gmj.gallup.com/content/26278/The-Fallacy-Behind-the-American-Dream.aspx[Accessed 29 October 2008].Stamp, G. (2002), And they returned by another route. In: Ipgrave, M. (ed) The RoadAhead: a Christian-Muslim Dialogue. London: Church House Publishing.Trimble, D. (2008), Agreeing to Differ. (Book Review of Great Hatred, Little Room byJonathan Powell). The Guardian Features & Reviews, 5 April 2008, p9.Tsu, Lao (1997), Thoughts for the Free Life. Durham, N.H.: Oyster River Press.Vickers, G. (1965), The Art of Judgement: A Study of Policy Making. London:Chapman & Hall.Webb, A. (1991), Coordination: A problem in public sector management. Policy &Politics. 19 (4), pp. 229-241.Zand, D. (2008), The Leadership Triad: Knowledge, Trust and Power. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Zenger, J. H. & Folkman, J. (2002), The Extraordinary Leader: Turning GoodManagers into Great Leaders. London: McGraw-Hill. See also Zenger Folkmanwebsite. [Internet] Available online from: http://www.zfco.com[Accessed 4 September 2008].Chapter 3: Collaboration and its impact on organizationsBeamish, P. W. et al.(1997), International Management: Text and Cases. (3rd ed.)Burr Ridge, Ill.: Irwin.222 223

Boin, A. & Lagadec, P. (2000), Preparing for the future: critical challenges in crisismanagement. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 8 (4), pp.185-191.Brauner, C. (2001), Preparedness: Basics of Business Continuity Management.Zurich: Swiss Re Insurance Company. Available online from:http://www.lanmic.org.uk/PDF/BCM/Preparedness_e.pdf[Accessed 26 September 2008].Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy,Society and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Collins, J. (2009), How the Mighty Fall – And Why Some Companies Never Give In.Random House Business Books.Covey, S.M.R. with Merrill, R.R. (2006), The Speed of Trust, Simon & Schuster.Handy, C. (1999), Understanding Organizations, Penguin.Huxham, C. & Hibbert, P. (2008), op. cit.Leung, A. K. et al. (2008), Multicultural experience enhances creativity: the whenand how. American Psychologist. 63 (3), pp.169–181.Menzies, I.E.P. (1970), The Functioning of Social Systems as a Defence AgainstAnxiety. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.McGregor, D. (1960), op. cit.Miller, E.J. (1993), From Dependency to Autonomy: Studies in Organisation andChange. Free Association Books.PFC Energy Consulting (Unpublished, 2007), op. cit.Rice, A. K. (1965), Learning for Leadership – Interpersonal and Inter-GroupRelations. Tavistock Publications. Reprinted by Karnac Books, 1999.Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The LearningOrganization. New York: Doubleday.Senge, P. et al. (2008), The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organisationsare Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. London: Nicholas Brealey.Winnicott, D.W. (1992), Psycho-analytic Explorations. London: Karnac.Winnicott, D.W. (2005), Playing and Reality, Routledge Classics, 2005.Chapter 4: Social collaboration: how it can workBaker, R. W. (2005), Capitalism’s Achilles Heel. Chichester: Wiley.Blowfield, M. & Murray, A. (2008), op. cit.Carrol, A. B. (1979), Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitionalconstruct. Business & Society. 38 (3) pp. 268-295.Dodd, D. & Favaro, K. (2007), op. cit.International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (2002),The Oil and Gas Industry: From Rio to Johannesburg and Beyond, Contributing toSustainable Development. London: IPIECA.Smith, A. (1853), The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London: H. G. Bohn.Available online from:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FbYCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=theory+of+moral+sentiments#PPA3,M1 [Accessed on 4 October 2008].PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008), Compete and Collaborate: The 11th AnnualGlobal CEO Survey. London: PWC.Thompson, J. (2007), Business for Social Responsibility Weekly.United Nations (Unpublished, 2005), op. cit.Warner, M. & Sullivan, R. (eds) (2004), Putting Partnership To Work: StrategicAlliances for Development Between Government, The Private Sector and CivilSociety. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publications.224 225

Chapter 5: Collaboration and its implementationBeiner, R. & Nedelsky, J. (eds) (2001), Judgement, Imagination and Politics: Themesfrom Kant and Arendt. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.Bobbitt, P. (2008), Terror and Consent. London: Allan Lane.Cheng, C. & Zaum, D. (2008), Introduction: key themes in peacebuilding and corruption.International Peacekeeping. 15 (3) pp. 301-309.Cohen, R. (2007), The Second Bounce of the Ball, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Cull N.J. (1995), Selling War, OUP.Etzioni, A. (1964), Modern Organizations. London: Prentice Hall.Fredrickson, B. L. & Losada, M. (2005), op. cit.Gottman. J. (2007), op. cit.Grint, K. (2005), Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of‘leadership’. Human Relations. 58 (11), pp.1467–1494.Hayes, R. (2008), Public Relations and Collaboration: The Role of Public Relationsand Communications Supporting Collaboration in a Complex, Converging World.(IPRA Gold Paper No. 17). London: International Public Relations Association.Howieson, B. & Kahn, H. (2002), Leadership, management and command: Theofficer’s trinity. In: Gray, P. & Cox, S. (eds) Air Power Leadership: Theory and Practice.Norwich: HMSO.Huxham, C. & Hibbert, P. (2008), op. cit.Losada, M. (1999), The complex dynamics of high performance teams.Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 30 (9-10), pp.179-192. Available from:http://losada.socialpsychology.org [Accessed 4 September 2008].Losada, M. & Heaphy, E. (2004), The role of positivity and connectivity in theperformance of business teams: A nonlinear dynamics model. American BehavioralScientist. 47 (6), pp.740-765. Available from: http://losada.socialpsychology.org[Accessed 4 September 2008].MacCormack, A., Forbath T., Brooks P., Kalaher P. (2007), Innovation through GlobalCollaboration: A New Source of Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business ReviewWorking Paper (August2007).Mulgan, G. (2006), Good and Bad Power: The Ideals and Betrayals of Government.London: Allen Lane.Nye, J. (2004), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.Pfanner, T. (2006), Interview with General Sir Rupert Smith. International Review ofthe Red Cross. December 2006, 88 (864), pp.719-727.Rittell, H. & Webber, M. (1973), Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. PolicySciences. 4, pp. 155-169.Senge, P. et al. (2008), op. cit.Watters, B. (2004) Mission command: Auftragstaki. Paper at the LeadershipSymposium, RAF Cranwell, 13 May 2004.Welsh, J. & Fearn, D. (eds) (2008) op. cit.Zaum, D. (Forthcoming), International non-governmental organizations and civilwars. Civil Wars. 11 (1) (March 2009) pp. 23-39.Appendix: Group RelationsBion, W. R. (1961), Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock Publications.226 227

Fraher, A. L. (Forthcoming), Team Learning in High-Risk Fields: Case studies in TeamResource Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swann, P. (2007), Mirror, mirror on the wall: using systems psychodynamics tounderstand the relationship between politics, fear and policy-making. Paperpresented to OPUS Conference, 2007. Available online from:http://www.tavinstitute.org/pdf/mirror_mirror_article.pdf[Accessed 26 October 2008].The Tavistock Institute (2008), Group Relations website. [Internet]. Available onlinefrom: [Accessed 26 October 2008].Turquet, P. M. (1974), Leadership: The individual and the group. In: Gibbard, G.S,Hartman, J.J. & Mann, R.D. (eds.) Analysis of Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Appendix: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode InstrumentCo-operative Conflict Resolution Study Guide. Study Guides & Strategies. Availablefrom: http://www.studygs.net [Accessed 26 October 2008].Buchs, C. et al. Conflict Elaboration and Cognitive Outcomes. Theory into Practice,4 (Winter 2004) pp.23-30.Hauss, C. (1996), Beyond Confrontation: Transforming the New World Order.London: Prager.2. BibliographyAbu Ghuddah, Shaykh Abd al-Fattah (2004), The Value of Time. Swansea:Awakening Publications.Alexander, C. (1977), A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Aristotle (1996), Poetics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Austin, J. (2000), Collaboration challenge: how nonprofits and businesses succeedthrough strategic alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Austin, J. (2002), Meeting the collaboration challenge: workbook. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Ball, P. (2004), Critical Mass. Arrow Books.Barber, M. (2007), Instruction to Deliver. Methuen.Bagehot, W. (2001), The English Constitution. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.Barrow, J.D. (1999), Impossibility. Vintage.Bebbington, A.J. et al (2008), Can NGOs Make a Difference: The Challenge ofDevelopment Alternatives. London: Zed Books.Beyerlein, M. (2003), The Ten Principles of Collaborative Organizations. Journal ofBusiness Excellence. 22 (2), pp.51-63.Bird, J. (2006), How to Change Your Life in 7 Steps. London: Vermilion.Brown, G. (1970), In My Way: The Political Memoirs of Lord George-Brown. BookClub Associates.Buchan, J. (2007), Adam Smith and the Pursuit of Perfect Liberty. London: ProfileBooks.Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D.O. (2001), Now, Discover Your Strengths: How toDevelop Your Talents and Those of The People You Manage. Pocket Books.Buderi, R. & Huang, G.T. (2006), Guanxi. Simon & Schuster.Calton, J. M. (2003), Coping with paradox: multistakeholder learning dialogue as apluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business and Society.42 (1), pp.7-42.Cialdini, R.B. (2007), Influence. Collins.228 229

Clayton, A. (1996), NGOs, civil society and the state: building democracies intransitional societies. (INTRAC NGO management and policy series, No. 5). INTRAC:London.Collins, J. (2009), How The Mighty Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In.Random House Business Books.Colvin, G. (2009), The Upside of the Downturn. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Covey, S. (1990), Principle Centred Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.Council for a Community of Democracies (2008). A Diplomat’s Handbook forDemocracy Development Support. Washington DC: Council for a Community ofDemocracies. Available online from: http://www.diplomatshandbook.org/[Accessed 3 September 2008].Damasio, A. (2003), Looking for Spinoza. William Heinemann.Dawkins, R. (1997), Climbing Mount Improbable. Penguin.Dawkins, R. (1999), The Extended Phenotype. OUP.DFID, FCO & Ministry of Defence (2001), Causes of Conflict in Sub Saharan Africa:Framework Document. London: DFID. Available online from:http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/conflictsubsaharanafrica.pdf[Accessed 3 September 2008].DFID (2006) Preventing violent conflict. London: DFID. Available online from:http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/preventing-conflict.pdf[Accessed 3 September 2008].Dupuy, J. (2004), Pour un catatrophisme éclair. Paris: Seuil.Edwards, M. & Gaventa, J. (2001) Global Citizen Action. Lynne Reinner Publishers.Earls, M. (2007), Herd. John Wiley and Sons.Elkington, J. & Hartigan P. (2008), The Power of Unreasonable People: How SocialEntrepreneurs Create Markets That Change The World. Harvard Business Press.Ellsberg, M. & Gerstein, M. (2008), Flirting with Disaster. New York: Union Square.Evans, R. (1994), The Kid Stays in The Picture. Faber and Faber.Etzioni, A. (1964), Modern Organizations, London: Prentice Hall.Gardner, H. (2007), Five Minds for the Future, Harvard Business School Press.Giddens, A. (2009), The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Goulding, M. (2003), Peacemonger. John Hopkins University Press.Gray, B. (1989), Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Greene, B. (1999), The Elegant Universe. Jonathan Cape.Hawken, P. (2007), Blessed Unrest. Penguin.Holti, R. (1997). Consulting to organisational implications of technical change. In:J.E. Newmann, K. Kellner, & A. Dawson-shepherd (eds.), Developing OrganisationalConsultancy. London: Routledge.Holti, R. et al. (2000), The Handbook of Supply Chain Management. London:Construction Industry Research & Information Association (CIRIA).Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2003), Nurturing collaborative relations: building trustin interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 39 (1),pp.5-31.Huxham, C. & Macdonald, D. (1992), Introducing Collaborative Advantage:Achieving Interorganizational Effectiveness Through Meta-Strategy. ManagementDecision. 30 (3), pp.50-69.Huxley, A. (1937), Ends and Means. Chatto & Windus.Huxley, A. (1943), The Art of Seeing. Chatto & Windus.International Public Relations Association. (2008) IPRA website. [Internet]. London,IPRA. Available from: http://www.ipra.org [Accessed 28 October 2008].230 231

Koch, R. (2007), The 80/20 Principle: The secret of achieving more with less(2nd ed). London: Nicolas Brealey.Koch, R. (2006), The Financial Times Guide to Strategy. (3rd ed). Harlow: FinancialTimes Prentice-Hall.Kohn, M. (2008), Trust. OUP.Kolakowski, L. (1972), The Presence of Myth. University of Chicago Press.Kotter, J.P. (2008), A Sense of Urgency. Harvard Business Press.Le Grand, J. (2003), Motivation, Agency and Public Policy. OUP.Markides, C.C. (2008), Game-Changing Strategies. Jossey-Bass.Mawson, A. (2008) The Social Entrepreneur. Atlantic Books.Mearns D. and Thorne B. (2003) Person-Centred Counselling in Action. SagePublications.Miller, E.J. and Rice, A. K., (1967), Systems of Organization: The control of task andsentient boundaries. Tavistock PublicationsMoss Kanter, R. (2004), Confidence. Random House.Neuberger, J. (2005), The Moral State We’re In: A Manifesto for a 21st CenturySociety. HarperCollins Publishers.Neumann, J. E., Holti, R. and Standing, H. (1995) Change Everything at Once!The Tavistock’s Guide to Developing Teamwork in Manufacturing. ManagementBooks 2000 Ltd.Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. and Dawson-Shepherd, A. (eds.) (1997). DevelopingOrganisational Consultancy. Routledge.Østergaard, L. & Nielsen, J. (2005), To Network or Not to Network? INTRAC.Available online from: http://www.intrac.org/resources_database.php?id=209[Accessed 11 September 2008].Pepys, S. (1985), The Shorter Pepys. Penguin.Porter, M. (2004), Competitive Strategy. Free Press.PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ course brochures (2008): Responsible LeadershipProgramme, and Ulysses: A Journey Towards Responsible Leadership. London: PWC.Putnam, H. (2008), Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life. Indiana University Press.Rice, A. K. (1963). The Enterprise and its Environment. Tavistock Publications.Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person. Constable.Sachs, J.D. (2008), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. Penguin.Sacks, J. (2009), Future Tense, A Vision for Jews and Judaism in the Global Culture.Hodder & Stoughton.Schluter, M. & Lee, D. (1993), The R Factor. Hodder and Stoughton.Senge, P. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the LearningOrganization (Revised edition). London: Random House.Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J., Flowers, B.S (2005), Presence. NicholasBrealey Publishing.Smith, R.(2005), The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. London:Allen Lane.Smith, S., Hadfield, A, Dunne, T. (2008), Foreign Policy Theories, Actors, Cases, OUP.Soros, G. (2008), The New Paradigm for Financial Markets, Public Affairs.Spicer, T. (2000), An Unorthodox Soldier: Peace and war and the Sandline affair.London: Mainstream Publishing.Stern, E. et al. (2002), Transitional crisis management: the Baltic experience.Government and Opposition. 37 (4), pp524-550.232 233

competitive players, without damaging their competitive positions. It also led tocreative thinking on rewriting Flight Management Systems.Green New Deal75 years after President Roosevelt launched a New Deal to rescue the US fromfinancial crisis, a new group of experts in finance, energy and the environment cametogether in 2008 to propose a ‘Green New Deal’ for the UK to confront thepotentially disastrous combination of climate change, high inflation and economicslowdown.As in past times of crises, disparate groups have come together to propose a newsolution to an epochal challenge. The Green New Deal Group, drawing inspirationfrom the tone of President Roosevelt’s comprehensive response to the GreatDepression, propose a modernised version, a ‘Green New Deal’ designed to powera renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs and rein in thedistorting power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital availablefor pressing priorities. International in outlook, the Green New Deal requires actionat local, national, regional and global levels. Focusing first on the specific needs ofthe UK, the Green New Deal outlines an interlocking programme of action that willrequire an ambitious legislative programme backed by a bold new alliance ofindustry, agriculture, labour and environmentalists.Fight against Dynamite FishingIn Tanzania, some fishermen use the damaging practice of throwing a stick ofdynamite into the sea in order to kill all fish in a 10-20 metre radius. This alsopermanently scars the coral reefs and undermines the local tourist industry.A number of organizations have an interest in stopping the use of dynamite infishing: investors in tourism facilities on the Tanzanian coast, environmental NGOs,Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources and police. However few of theseorganizations were in touch with each other. There was an email contact groupof NGOs and tourism investors to keep track of explosions. But no interface withthe Tanzanian Government.The British High Commission helped establish links to the Tanzanian governmentfisheries department and the national and marine police. They set up a task forcebetween all these organizations, which organized a national conference ondynamite fishing attended by senior Tanzanian politicians, and has supported policeenforcement actions and awareness raising in the local communities. It broughttogether various sectors in a way that hadn’t happened before in Tanzania.Bus Rapid TransitThe Centre for Sustainable Transport CTS-Mexico was established in 2002, withfinancial support from the Shell Foundation, to introduce and promote Mexico City’sfirst Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line as a means of reducing the city’s green house gasemissions. The Hewlett Foundation became a source of institutional support from2004, and Caterpillar Foundation in 2006. Project support has also been receivedfrom DEFRA.The BRT in Mexico City, Metrobus, was taken from concept to implementationbetween 2002 – 5, working in partnership with the institutional supporters, WorldResources Institute, EMBARQ - a global network of sustainable transport NGOs,Mexico City authorities and public transport providers. Metrobus - which functionslike an above-ground subway in which large buses travel in dedicated lanes and stopat special stations - already carries more than 260,000 passengers each day alongMexico City’s Insurgentes Avenue, one of the longest and busiest streets in theworld. It has resulted in a 50% saving in average commuting times for passengersand a 38,000 ton annual reduction in carbon dioxide. Mexico City’s Major Ebrardhas publicly committed to creating an additional nine Metrobus lines over the nextfive years, extending the network from 20 to 220 kilometers and creating one ofthe largest BRT systems in the world. Construction has already begun on anextension to the existing Metrobus line, as well as on a second route along the importantthoroughfare known as “Eje 4.” CTS-Mexico also carried out a diesel retrofitpilot project for Mexico City’s bus fleet in 2004-5 using ultra-low sulphur diesel andparticulate traps, which has resulted in particulate emissions being reduced by 90%.The next stage is to work with Mexico City (and three other cities in Mexico) toimplement an integrated transport system. Two major challenges are to betterintegrate the BRT system with other transport modes and fare prices, and toincorporate cleaner technologies into urban transport systems.Recycling in the EmiratesThe British Embassy in Dubai collaborated with the Emirates Environment Group(EEG) to improve recycling in the Emirates. This involved the funding of a “GreenTruck” to collect items for recycling from schools etc and targeted media work inDubai and Abu Dhabi to publicise this.236 237

The collaboration came out of an ongoing relationship with the EEG. HSBC bankco-sponsored. It helped that all three organizations shared the same objectivesand worked in similar ways (focused and well organized). Although this was a selfstanding initiative, it was part on an ongoing relationship with EEG and HSBC. Thekey to making this sort of relationship work was regular contact and having theinitiative led by people with energy, enthusiasm and time. The latter is a key pointas busy Posts are increasingly pulled in many different directions and just don’t havethe resources to do everything they (and sometimes FCO London) would like.Changing Public Debate and Policy on Climate ChangeChanging the nature of public debate and policy on Climate Change in Brazil (thesecond half shared only partially by the host Government participants!) was thechallenge of the collaboration. To do this the British Embassy sponsored a detailedreport on the Economics of Climate Change in Brazil (a ’mini’ Stern report), tostimulate and underpin public and policy debate. The strategy was for the Embassyto be the initiator, but for Brazilian institutions - some public sector, some private -and individuals, to own the work and to give it credibility. Also to involve so manymain actors that the Brazilian Government had to buy in, although they weresuspicious initially.The programme and partnership is still underway, but has already had a majorimpact on thinking, and been adopted as underpinning the National ClimateChange Plan that is being prepared. There is a need to move forward more quicklyto advance Brazilian Government thinking on climate change in the approach toCopenhagen (December 2009), bringing to bear the weight of scientific and popularopinion in Brazil. The British Ambassador stimulated the partnership throughpersonal contacts. The Embassy is the sponsor. The participants are governmentand private institutes and individuals, representatives of social organizations,Government officials etc, supported by the whole climate change community.The key was that the Ambassador and Embassy acted as a catalyst, in favour of acause many participants think important, but had not been able to co-operate onthemselves; bringing funding, good personal relationships, and leadership fromthose we asked to head the programme.The most significant challenges were getting the leaders to work with each otherharmoniously and bringing the Brazilian Government on board - the risk being thatthey would walk away. It took time, perseverance, personal leadership - and a bit ofluck - to set up this successful partnership.Keeping it going is much more time consuming than the Embassy had thought - aconstant task; managing people’s egos and people’s and institutions’ expectationswas hard work; choosing the right people to lead and co-ordinate was crucial - theyneeded good interpersonal skills as well as expertise. Personal networks with thosecentrally involved, their bosses, funders etc was very important to keep the showon the road. Constant contact and communication amongst all participants wascrucial.CEO Forum on Climate ChangeIn 2006, the British Consulate General in Los Angeles collaborated with theCalifornia State Government, the NGO - Climate Change Group, BP and other majorcompanies to create a CEO Forum on Climate Change at Long Beach, attendedby the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Governor of California, ArnoldSchwarzenegger.Tony Blair was to visit USA to sign an agreement between California and the UK tocollaborate on climate change issues. That agreement was proposed by the BritishConsulate General in Los Angeles and the idea was initially greeted with somescepticism by colleagues elsewhere in USA and by DEFRA. The key to overcomingthis was the commitment from the Prime Minister’s Office to make it happen.Constant personal involvement by the Head of Post was then necessary to deliverthe right event and the extraordinary publicity it achieved.Expectations were high and were more than achieved. The agreement, between astate and a country, was unusual if not unprecedented. That got attention. Follow-up has required a lot of work by the two British Missions in California and byothers such as DEFRA, the British Embassy in Washington and the Foreign Secretary’sadviser on climate change, John Ashton. It has ultimately worked very well.238 239

AccountabilityNational Taxpayers Association, KenyaThe National Taxpayers Association (NTA) is a national, independent organizationformed by civil society, private sector and faith-based organizations focused onsupporting good governance in Kenya through strengthening citizen to governmentaccountability, and citizen-to-citizen accountability. The focus of the NTA is onimproving the delivery of essential government services and the management offunds across Kenya. By demanding greater accountability from managers ofgovernment services and funds, the NTA aims to realize annual financial savingsfor the Government of Kenya (GOK) of 10 percent of the total money allocated todevolved funds. Based on the 2005/06 national budget the projected savings forthe GOK are KShs 3.43 billion (US$48.9 million) over three years. This compareswith the total cost of establishing the NTA in 60 districts, which is KShs 380 million(US$5.5 million).The NTA is an intervention that has a very high socio-economic value in terms ofthe return on investment for both the GOK and citizens. The NTA is developing atransparent and rigorous performance monitoring and impact evaluation system todemonstrate the annual savings for the GOK and citizens in the pilot phase districts.For the first three years of operations the NTA aims to secure financial support fromthe GOK and Development Partners. After three years the NTA aims to securesustainable funding through an Act of Parliament.General Budget Support in TanzaniaA group of 14 partners – World Bank, African Development Bank, EuropeanCommission and eleven national governments – provide 12.5% of the Tanzaniangovernment budget through General Budget Support (GBS). The UK and theWorld Bank are the two largest providers. The UK has been strongly convincedof the rationale for GBS, other partners are on varying points of the spectrum ofcommitment and confidence in it. The quality of engagement with the Tanzaniangovernment had not been great: annual reviews and progress against benchmarkshad not been rigorous.In addition a number of serious corruption allegations had been brewing, clearlyhaving a bearing on GBS, with the result that partners were unable to make newcommitments for 2008/9.Key challenges faced:• How to keep the GBS partners together• How to improve the group’s engagement with the Tanzanian government, toencourage the right conditions for the continuation of GBS.Approach agreed by the GBS collaboration:• Private contacts between the Chair of the GBS (UK High Commissioner) and theTanzanian Finance Minister, a partnership with the shared objective to maintainthe GBS• Swift reporting to and frequent meetings of the GBS• Monthly frank meetings of the GBS’ troika with the Minister of Finance andother relevant senior officials, with carefully prepared agreed lines to take, andcommunication with the Minister afterwards, and the maintenance ofconfidentiality within the group.The Tanzanian government moved forward on the corruption allegations, the GBS’engagement with the government, and insistence on progress before commitments,pushed the government forward when it might have slipped back. GBS partners collectivelyconfirmed commitments for 2008/9.Extractive Industries Transparency InitiativeSome 3.5 billion people live in countries rich in oil, gas and minerals. With goodgovernance the exploitation of these resources can generate large revenues to fostergrowth and reduce poverty. However when governance is weak, it may result inpoverty, corruption, and conflict. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative(EITI) aims to strengthen governance by improving transparency and accountabilityin the extractives sector. EITI supports improved governance in resource-richcountries through the verification and full publication of company paymentsand government revenues from oil, gas and mining. The EITI is a coalition ofgovernments, companies, civil society groups, investors and internationalorganizations.240 241

The initiative works by a government agreeing to implement EITI, working with civilsociety organizations and companies on implementing the transparency andaccountability measures, leading to published audited accounts of revenueinformation. EITI has support from international organisations (World Bank, IMF,OECD), companies (including Anglo American, BP, Shell), industry associations(including International Organisation of Oil and Gas Producers), 71 investors andNGOs (including Transparency International).The collaborative process leading to a country implementing EITI has seen manyresults. For example, the Government of Nigeria increased revenue collection by USD1 billion as a result of EITI. And some of the most corrupt countries in the world,including Azerbaijan (137th on Transparency Corruption Perception Index) andNigeria (152nd) have published audited reports of revenue collected from theextraction industries.Improved Multi-Stakeholder GovernanceTwo global health partnerships, the Global Fund for the fight against AIDS, TBand Malaria, and the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation, both employmulti-stakeholder governance to allow a wider band of actors to demonstrateresponsibility and to sustain commitments, necessary to restore public and politicalconfidence in major international institutions and to ensure a more effective deliveryof services. The Global Fund established an effective public-private-civil societypartnership, which includes seats on the Fund’s Board for NGOs representingcommunities affected by AIDS, TB and malaria; for technical partners involved in thedelivery of interventions, as well as the private sector and grant-making foundations.The Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation started as an informal alliance in1999 between WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank and the Gates Foundation. As a resultof its successes and rapid growth, the Global Alliance has grown into a partnershipinstitution in its own right, with donor constituencies on its Board serving alongsideprivate and technical partners.The two organizations have found that engaging non-state actors has led togenuinely innovative multi-stakeholder partnerships. The global public health sectorhas been a trailblazer among international organization reform.Transparency in the Business EnvironmentThe aim of the collaboration was to achieve more transparency and reducedcorruption in the business environment in Hungary. The strategy was to get theissue onto the agenda in that country, leading to better legislation, implementationand enforcement.Businesses operating in Hungary identified the problem. Embassies representingthe main Foreign Direct Investment providers then got together with Chambers ofCommerce and Transparency International to clarify the issues and produce andfinance reports that set out recommendations for action. These were launched atmedia events and were promoted in speeches, interviews, and meetings. Therelevant Embassies were targeting key players. The challenge was to get everyonespeaking from the same script and being blunt where necessary about the problems.Close coordination and regular meetings meant that the collaboration wassuccessful in raising the profile of the issue dramatically - communication wasthe key to success.A problem was that some stakeholders were more proactive than others. But it wasclear that where collaboration happened, the sum was much more powerful thanthe parts. However, not all Embassies/Chambers of Commerce saw the value ofspeaking to civil society organizations. The biggest challenge, of moving from wordsto action, still lies ahead.Health/Social Reform/Human Rights/DemocracyThe Mega communityA major challenge confronting governments, businesses and NGOs is complexity:the growing density of linkages among people, organizations and issues across theworld. Solutions require multi-organizational systems that are larger and moreoriented to multilateral action than conventional cross-sector approaches are. Insuch systems the winners are those who understand how to intervene and influenceothers in a larger system – a “mega community” - that they do not control. Themega community is a public sphere in which organizations and people deliberatelyjoin together around a compelling issue of mutual importance. An example of amega community was the 200 professionals that met in New Delhi, India in October2003 to establish a coordinated approach for combating HIV/AIDS in India.242 243

Businesses included PepsiCo, Lafarge and the Tata Group. Civil society leaders camefrom major global donor organizations, like the Gates Foundation, as well as theHeads of local NGOs, the groups that worked in the cities and villages in India. Fromthe Indian Government came health officials and military officers. Internationalplayers included the World Bank, USAID, United Nations and WHO. Communityworkers represented people living with HIV/AIDS. Through a strategic simulated HIV/AIDS crisis, organized by Booz & Co., in which each individual was assigned to astakeholder – community, government official, businessperson, donor, activist,journalist – the professionals started to understand the linkages and collaborationthat would be necessary to reverse the crisis. After the simulated work, realcollaboration started. Eight major companies expanded their workplace andcommunity activities to encourage HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programmes.An Indian pharmaceuticals company announced a HIV/AIDS drug attainable forless than US$1. These organizations formed a mega community whose enterpriseagainst the spread of HIV/AIDS continues today.Romanian OrphanagesThe plight of children in state care in orphanages has been an issue of internationalconcern following the overthrow of communism in Romania in 1989. Post 1989Romanian governments, aided by international organisations from the largest suchas the UN to small charities arranging the transport of clothes and toys, have beenaddressing this issue. The UK’s main bilateral assistance was delivered through DFIDin the form of a £1.8 million project to create a National Authority for ChildProtection and Adoption. All the large orphanages are now closed and there arefully functioning state institutions in this sector.All this happened without a formal collaborative partnership, not least because thedomestic NGO and business communities were in their infancy. That situation hasnow changed. A collaborative partnership led by the British and Romanian PrimeMinisters, endorsed by the novelist JK Rowling, and supported by NGOs andbusinesses, is now working to assist disabled children in Romania, with many signsof success.Implementation of EU Racial-Equality LawIn 2000 the EU passed a directive outlawing discrimination on the grounds of raceor ethnicity in employment, education, social benefits and advantages, housing andaccess to places and services available to the public. The 2003 (2004 for newMember States) deadline for transposition of the directive into national law, letalone effective implementation, was not met by many EU Member States.The European Commission and the FCO awarded project funding to an internationalNGO – the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) – to establish partnerships withparliamentarians, judges and lawyers, and NGOs in EU countries in order to helpthem implement the directive. This was achieved by arranging round-tablediscussions between EU law experts, parliamentarians and key officials (thesediscussions often brokered by the local British Embassy); training lawyers and judgesin the legal aspects of the law; and training NGOs to lobby, form partnerships andmonitor implementation of the race-equality legislation.The partnerships helped speed up the process of passing national equality laws, andtrained some 1,000 judges and lawyers. NGOs in the project countries were left withthe skills to form similar partnerships. As a result of this activity, ERRC was asked bya number of new EU Member State governments to carry out further training oftheir judges after implementation of the directive.De-mining in ColombiaThe aim of the collaboration was to organize de-mining training in Colombia, whichhas the worst record of civilian and military casualties from landmines in the world.The Government has signed the Ottawa Convention, but the guerrillas continue tosow mines extensively. Specifically the project was to set up a de-mining trainingcentre in Colombia along the lines of the one the British Government sponsored inKenyaThe strategy was to build commitment to de-mining within Colombian military andgovernment circles. After that to broaden this commitment to include other donors.The next stage, now starting, is to increase civilian involvement and buy-in to theproject, promoting trust, dialogue and cooperation between the donors, theColombian Government and civil society.The results so far: training was successful. The G24 has ownership of the project,under the current Japanese chairmanship, and a wide range of NGOs are involved.The biggest initial challenge was to educate public opinion (not least among anumber of NGOs who were initially suspicious) that humanitarian de-mining was244 245

different in kind and intention to military de-mining and that this was a processdesigned to benefit civilians rather than enable Government troops to prosecutetheir campaign against the guerrillas more effectively. De-mining techniquestraditionally employed were so rudimentary that many of those involved were killed.There is now widespread buy-in for de-mining as a national priority. But significantchallenges remain. Not the least of these is ensuring that those injured by minesreceive the treatment and help to which they are officially entitled. The mechanismstheoretically exist, but rights get lost in the bureaucratic jungle: continuing andsustained pressure by civil society will be essential in making a difference. This isan on-going project in which the focus has evolved significantly since its originalrelatively narrow base. The input of the Embassy was key to sustaining themomentum, especially in the initial stages. Over rigid bureaucracy by some otherpotential donors meant that building alliances took time and in some cases provedimpossible. The British Embassy’s good relationship with the Colombian Governmentwas critical in getting the project off the ground and ensuring that the necessaryresources were made available. The Embassy would have liked to involve civil societymore fully earlier on in the project, and with the benefit of hindsight this probablycould have happened; but first the Embassy concentrated on dealing with suspicionsabout the real intention of the programme. The Embassy also needed to secureaccess to more funding than the UK alone could provide to ensure sustainability, andthis has now been achieved through the G24 mechanism.BurmaThe British Embassy in Rangoon’s collaboration with the (repressive) Burmesegovernment is limited, but extensive with all other players. Sustained and personalengagement with lobby groups and NGOs in the UK and on the Thai /Burma borderhas resulted in a significant improvement in the dynamic of the UK government/lobby relationship and a wealth of pro-democracy collaboration in Burma.The Embassy engages with a range of players - the strong parliamentary caucus,the Burma Campaign and with a wide spectrum of human rights and humanitarianNGOs, the objective being to increase understanding, and to pull everyone behinda strategy that maximizes the chance of success. The key factors: sustained personalengagement from ministers and the ambassador on the ground, openness, beingclear about limitations and red lines, and personal credibility. The key challenge wasthe diversity of views. One can’t please all parties. Another was the active hostilityof the Burmese regime - the fine line that has to be tread on a daily basis: pushingthe limits of what the Embassy is doing in-country to meet humanitarian needs andfoster the conditions for democracy, yet not going so far that they shut the wholelot down.The experience raised a number of intangibles about successful collaboration:you can do the mechanics of engagement very easily, yet far more difficult isunderstanding what makes it work in some contexts and not in others, and the roleof personal chemistry and credibility. Outreach can often appear forced or insincere,and can actually damage one’s objective. The key in the Burmese case was creatinga balance, admitting mistakes, developing key relationships and not asking them tobelieve the unbelievable. And that’s much more difficult to define and capture, butyou know when it works and when it does not.Investigative Journalism in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and PalestineThe task was to improve the standards of investigative journalism in Jordan, Syria,Lebanon and Palestine.This was aimed at improving the quality of democraticdebate and accountability, as part of political development towards more responsiveand rights-based government. In turn, this served the objectives of conflictprevention and de-radicalisation.The context was very poor standards of journalism, in a media environmentemerging from a long tradition of state control and censorship, and held back byvery poor leadership from senior editors. The programme to improve this has thestrong support of the King of Jordan, and more generally of enlightened politicalmodernisers in all four countries. The sponsor was the British Embassy, the trainingwas delivered by the Thomson Foundation, the participants chosen by their editorsin the print. radio and TV media, and links made to a parallel local NGO with thesame goals.The partnership worked smoothly, and the quality of trainees and their output hasimproved year on year (over the past four years of the project’s existence). TheEmbassy extended it in 2008 to cover Iraq for the first time. Feedback from thetrainees was highly positive. They find it frustrating though that their editorscontinue not to give them real opportunities to exercise their skills, and pay inthe sector remains so low that the more talented leave journalism altogether. Theblogosphere however offers more scope. We are continuing the partnership, butwe recognise that there are wider solutions required, and that our limited resourceson their own will not make a decisive difference.246 247

DefenceArms Trade TreatyIrresponsible arms transfers foment violent conflicts, perpetuate poverty andunderdevelopment and contribute to countless violations of human rights andhumanitarian law. Yet there is no universally-agreed standard to guide the tradein arms. In 1995, Dr Oscar Arias started work with a group of fellow Nobel PeaceLaureates on an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. This evolved intothe Arms Trade Treaty initiative, headed by a coalition of NGOs (including AmnestyInternational, Oxfam and Arias Foundation) and legal experts (such as theLauterpacht Centre at Cambridge University). A Framework Convention onInternational Arms Transfers was drafted in 2000 that would be legally-binding onStates. It would require States to authorize arms transfers by issuing licenses. NGOsengaged governments, sometimes in separate public campaigns that had similargoals – such as Control Arms campaign and Million Faces, to gain support forinternational arms trade legislation.In December 2006, the UK, Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Kenya andJapan introduced a UN Resolution calling for work towards a global Arms TradeTreaty. 153 governments supported the proposal, 24 abstained and one votedagainst. Since then 100 States have submitted their views on the Treaty to the UN,a record number. The FCO is working with a broad coalition of other governments,NGOs and the UK defence industry to ensure that views are considered in the workleading up to an Arms Trade Treaty agreed and ratified by a great majority of the192 member states of the UN.Business Growth and Anti-Corruption Policies in the Defence SectorThe UK aerospace and defence industry is a worldwide leader with a reputationfor first-class quality and innovation. However, corruption poses the single biggestthreat to that reputation.In 2006 the Areospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe developed theCommon Industries Standard as a benchmark of anti-corruption measures. The (UK)Defence Manufacturers Association and the Society of British Aerospace Companiestook the initiative to promote the Standard to UK companies. In partnership withgovernment - UKTI, and a NGO - Transparency International, a ‘Tools to Grow YourBusiness in a Changing Ethical Environment’ booklet was designed. This cross-sectorpartnership worked together to plan and speak at a conference designed to helpcompanies introduce effective anti-corruption policies.Economic DevelopmentM-PESAThe growth in mobile telephony in developing countries created the potential todeliver new financial services through mobilephone networks. Vodafone andSafaricom, Kenya, with DFID funding, launched M-PESA, a mobile phone-basedpayment service that targeted customers in Kenya who didn’t have bank accounts.The lack of infrastructure in Kenya in fixed-line telephony and in banking, ensuredstrong growth of pre-pay mobile telephones and the possibility to use them as ameans to transfer money. DFID funding enabled the companies to spend more timeon a ‘needs assessment’ in the product development phase than would have beenpossible in a normal time-constrained Return on Investment process, brought inexpertise in the financial deepening sector and gave the project a high profile.Stakeholders (Kenyan government, NGOs, International Organisations and privatesector) have assisted with regulatory buy-in to the M-PESA service.Massive customer up-take in the project’s first year gave an indication of the pent updemand for simple financial transaction services in emerging markets.Tourism Industry Emergency ResponseThe 7 and 21 July 2005 terror attacks in London had the potential to deter visitorsfrom travelling to Britain and London, and severely impact the tourism industry.Britain’s visitor economy is worth £74 billion and employs 2.1 million people. In2001 the combined effects of the Foot and Mouth outbreak and the 9/11 terrorattack in USA cost the tourism industry more than £3 billion and highlighted thefragmented structure of the industry. To address this, VisitBritain, the nationaltourism agency, established the Tourism Industry Emergency Response (TIER) groupwith over 10 industry representatives.• Following the bombings of 7 July 2005, TIER went into action to:• Provide accurate, consistent information to reassure and inform visitors248 249

• Promote a clear ‘business as usual’ message in UK and international media• Ensure media worldwide and UK Government are given consistent messages fromBritain’s tourism industry• Limit speculation as to the possible financial impact of 7 July and provide theauthoritive impact assessment• Leverage opportunities to demonstrate consumer confidence and kickstartrecovery.The greatest measurement of success of this communications campaign was thelack of sensationalist headlines and stories on the impact of the bombings onBritain’s visitor economy, very different to the media reaction in 2001. Althoughthere was a downturn in visitors immediately following the bombings, this wasshort-lived and overall visitor figures for 2005 show a record year.The TIER campaign effectively brought together in a collaborative arrangementBritain’s vast and fragmented tourism industry to communicate with one voice.UK/China/DRC Collaboration on Social and Environmental ImpactManagementBoth the UK and China are helping to rebuild the transport infrastructure in theDemocratic Republic of Congo (DRC). China is bringing much needed investmentin infrastructure. The UK has been working with the Government of DRC and theWorld Bank to develop a national roads programme.The shared aim of the collaboration between the UK, China and DRC was to helpthe Chinese minimise the negative impact of the infrastructure work and maximisethe positive, ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable also benefit from thedevelopment process. The DRC Government agreed that:• UK would support DRC identify the environmental and social standards that theywant companies building roads to abide byThe project, still underway at the time of writing, represents a significantopportunity for collaboration between DRC, China and UK to reduce the potentiallynegative social and environmental impact that opening roads can bring, yetimproving the sustainability of economic growth from a better transportinfrastructure.JusticeCriminal justice: Simple, Speedy, SummaryThe aim of a collaboration between the judiciary, courts, police, Crown ProsecutionService, probation services and defence solicitors was to bring defendants inmagistrates’ courts to justice more quickly. By working together more effectively,the collaborators created a simpler system that balanced speed with fairness, whileeliminating unnecessary delays and adjournments to cases. An example is groupingtogether all cases where defendants are likely to plead guilty, so that large numbersof cases can be dealt with in a session.Figures show a 22% reduction in adjournments to court hearings since 2006/7 andthat, on average, cases are being dealt with more quickly.Community JusticeThrough a fresh approach to engagement with the local community, CommunityJustice aims to make the courts more responsive to local people, and to solve thecauses of and problems caused by offending in the local area by working with localagencies and services.Allowing the new courts the freedom to initiate local solutions to local problemshas led to a range of innovative practices. For example, in Middlesborough holding‘unpaid fines sessions’ in a community centre in partnership with providers ofbenefit, welfare and addiction advice to help offenders deal with the causesof their offending. Another court has worked in partnership with the children’scharity Barnardos to offer parents attending court support with parenting skills.• UK would provide expertise to work alongside Chinese engineers doing feasibilitystudies250 251

Community PaybackCommunity Payback is a collaboration between the Probation Service, localauthorities, mayors and community members to raise the profile of unpaidcommunity work projects carried out by offenders and to give local people thechance to decide what projects the offenders work on.Probation Service staff invited mayors in their area to sponsor a Community Paybackproject – one of their own choosing or one already planned which appealed to theircommunities. They were encouraged to engage local residents by seeking theirsuggestions through local media or town hall communication channels. Mostprojects had an environmental theme, bringing back derelict areas into public use.The scheme has been enthusiastically welcomed by participating mayors. Localcommunities have benefited from millions of pounds of unpaid work (£6 m in2007). People can see the projects completed and know that offenders have donesomething to pay back for their crimes. And unpaid work is seen as a crediblesentence for those who have committed public order, assault, theft or drivingoffences.Victim Support PlusFunded by Government, the national charity Victim Support contacts victims ofcrime by telephone and conducts a structured needs assessment, and then arrangesfor support services to be delivered to the victim, based on their particular need.Victim Support then provides continued one-to-one contact with the victim to helpthem through their experience and collate feedback on whether the victim wassatisfied with the approach taken and the service provided.Support can take the form of advice on personal safety, emotional support from avolunteer with specialist training, or practical support such as the installation of newlocks on the victim’s home.Building Democracy Innovation FundThe Building Democracy Innovation Fund is a collaboration between the Ministry ofJustice and community organisations to get more people participating in democracyand getting their voices heard.The Fund offers community organisations grants of up to £15,000 to supportinitiatives that seek to engage people with their local and wider communities, andinvolve them in addressing public issues and influencing government policy. TheFund is promoted through a weblog where ideas can be posted and debated,allowing groups to link up and pool ideas and resources.Winners have included Speakers’ Corner Trust, which established a speakers’ cornerand held a day of debate in Nottingham; and the FixMyStreet website, which allowspeople to tell their local authority and others about issues like grafitti or inadequatestreet lighting.Corporate Alliance for Reducing Re-offendingA national strategy in partnership with the Ministry of Justice, Prison and ProbationServices and businesses, to bring together companies which see the value ofemploying ex-crime offenders and believe that these ex-offenders can provide asolution to business needs. Programmes aim to develop the skills and employmentopportunities for ex-offenders and provide them with the possibility of a secure jobwith the company on successful completion of training and release from prison.For example Wessex Water have been running a training and employmentprogramme with prisons in the south west of England for three years. The trainingis run by Wessex Water staff over 12 weeks before the offender is released fromprison. The offender has to show commitment to complete the course. A mentoris appointed to help the offender during the course and through the transition intoworking life. Over three years, Wessex Water has interviewed 40 offenders andbased on business need accepted 16 people onto the training programme. All whocompleted the course were offered employment on release.Administration of Justice in MexicoThe project took the form of a collaboration between the British Embassy andMexican central government and state authorities (as well as British Council) toexplain how the oral, accusatory system of administration of justice works in theUK, as well as the alternative forms of justice that accompany it.There is a widespread lack of confidence in the Mexican legal system, resulting inhigh levels of unreported and unresolved crime and uncertainty for investor and252 253

usinesses. In collaborating with the British Council, the British Embassy workedwith the Mexican Federal Presidency, the Federal Academy of Penal Science,state governments and judicial authorities to deliver a series of visits, workshops,simulations and training events. The partnerships were particularly successful bothbecause of the high level of engagement by influential Mexican authorities andbecause the Embassy was able, through the use of multipliers, training the trainer,event and regional conferences to achieve an impact well beyond the immediateaudience. Media reporting of project activities was particularly important as, ofcourse was significant funding from FCO.Once established, the partnerships developed a momentum of their own and ledto a range of requests from other potential partners. It was important to keepa broad strategic vision of the project. This formed part of a wider effort to help theMexicans handle a dysfunctional justice system, reduce impunity and improve legalcertainty and security for businesses and investors, as well as to create a firmer basisfor Mexico’s transition to a fully fledged democracy and emerging economy. It isgenerally recognized that the Embassy’s input played an important role in theadoption by the Mexican congress of a major package of justice reforms in 2008.Other PartnershipsProgramme Partnership ArrangementsA key component in DFID’s support to international civil society organizations isProgramme Partnership Agreements (PPAs), some £100 million per annum from the£329 million DFID provides to civil society organizations.PPAs provide unrestricted funding to civil society organizations with which DFID hasa significant working relationship, and shares a common ethos/vision and a strongmatch between DFID and the organization’s priorities. The money is not tied to anyparticular project or programme and can be used to do much of the vital researchand capacity development work not provided for by short-term project-specificfunding. DFID has 26 PPAs running with both UK and non-UK organizations, asthree to six year agreements.PPAs are seen as more than just funding arrangements. They are viewed aspartnerships between the organizations and with DFID, facilitating a better policydialogue and exchange of ideas/ sharing of information.The concept has now been extended to Latin America, with DFID making additionalresources available to 12 existing PPA partners with programmes in Latin America todeepen and expand their work in that region.Common Purpose/PwC Leadership ProgrammePricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the international accountancy firm, and CommonPurpose, a not-for-profit leadership development organization, collaborated toevelop a leadership programme for the UK Partners of PwC.PwC already has a strong reputation for developing its people, in the same waythat Common Purpose has in the leadership development and experiential learningfields. However, despite the potential ‘good fit’ between the two organisations, ittook 18 months to agree to work together.The condition that made this work was the genuine confidence in one another’sexpertise and an appetite to learn from one another, as each organization haddifferent skills, competencies and knowledge to bring to the collaboration. Theyagreed joint responsibility, so that there was no blame for things that didn’t work,instead creating ground rules about truthful feedback and keeping informationflowing between the two organizations. With a shared goal guiding bothorganizations: participants on the programme should have a powerful andtransformational experience.The collaboration is now well developed, with continued learning a jointresponsibility.FCO/DFID Sudan UnitWhen it was set up in 2002, the FCO/DFID Sudan Unit was regarded as aninnovative Government structure. As well as the two lead Government departments,it secured good buy-in from MoD and agencies of government. The Unit increasedthe scope for and effectiveness of its outreach to parliamentarians, NGOs andchurches, almost all of whom started as hostile to the Government’s Sudan policybut wound up as supporters and partners. The Unit also drew on the expertise ofoutsiders for short-term assignments as well as less conventional contacts with keyforeign influencers on Sudan issues.254 255

Appendix: FCO Survey of Heads of Mission on collaborativepartnershipsLisbon Treaty RatificationThroughout ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the FCO worked closely with a numberof stakeholders to strengthen parliamentary support for the treaty. The aim was togenerate supportive information for Members of Parliament (MPs) and press articlesfrom trusted and credible organizations. In return, the FCO briefed organizations onthe Treaty and regularly updated them on the parliamentary process.Civil Society umbrella groups, aid/development NGOs, voluntary organizations, theGreen Alliance and children’s charities briefed MPs on how they would benefit fromthe Treaty. This was welcomed by MPs.FCO worked to secure public backing for the Treaty from business too. A GlobalEurope event in January 2008 attended by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary andleading business figures attracted positive media coverage. FCO also worked withBusiness for New Europe, a pro-EU business group who lobbied MPs and issuedsupportive press articles, and Think Tanks like the Centre for European Reform.Fourteen Heads of Mission, the sample having a global spread and covering large tosmall missions, completed a survey on their Post’s role in collaborative partnerships.The results show that all Posts are actively participating in networks of government,business and NGOs, publicly advocating for closer engagement and actuallythemselves engaging in partnership with these sectors. All were sponsoringpartnerships, although not quite as frequently as their engagement andparticipation. Fewer were entering into large-scale multi-year support topartnerships.All Heads of Mission were actively encouraging staff to work together with the hostgovernment, business and NGOs and themselves participating in the partnerships.Many were often or sometimes initiating the partnership, and they were being seenas a leader of local partnerships. Fewer recorded their involvement in partnershipsin internal reporting.Partnerships were most often entered into on the FCO goal of promoting a lowcarbon, high growth, global economy. The next most popular goal for partnershipswas preventing and resolving conflict. Third was the goal of countering terrorismand weapons proliferation, closely followed by developing effective internationalinstitutions. Nearly half of the respondents rarely or never entered into partnershipsto counter terrorism, closely followed by effective international institutions.The answers to the questions:How does your Post work together with combinations of the host government,business, NGOs or local communities?Actively participate in networks of such organisations - 5 said ‘always’, 8 said ‘often’1 said ‘sometimes’, nil ‘rarely’ or ‘never’.Publicly advocate for closer engagement between government, business, NGOs -5 said ‘always’ (and not the same five as the previous question), 8 said ‘often’,1 said ‘sometimes’, nil ‘rarely’ or ‘never’.Engage in partnership with government, business and/or NGOs on initiatives inthe host country - 4 said ‘always’, 9 said ‘often’, 1 said ‘sometimes’, nil ‘rarely’ or‘never’.256 257

Sponsor partnerships between government, business and/or NGOs on initiatives inthe host country - 2 said ‘always’, 7 said ‘often’, 5 said ‘sometimes’, nil ‘rarely’ or‘never’.Make large-scale multi-year commitments of support to initiatives in the hostcountry 2 said ‘always’, 3 said ‘often’, 3 said ‘sometimes’, 4 said ‘rarely’ and 2‘never’.What is the role of your Head of Mission when your Post works together with thehost government, business and/or NGOs?Head of Mission’s commitment to working with the host government, business andNGOs is recorded in internal reporting - 4 said ‘always’, 7 said ‘often’, 2 said‘sometimes’, 1 said ‘rarely’.For your Post, have you worked together in partnership with the host government,business and/or NGOs to support the FCO goal of promoting a low carbon, highgrowth, global economy?5 said ‘always’, 4 said ‘often’, 4 said ‘sometimes’, nil said ‘rarely’ and 1 ‘never’.For your Post, have you worked together in partnership with the host government,business and/or NGOs to support the FCO goal of developing effective internationalinstitutions, above all the UN and EU?Nil said ‘always’, 6 said ‘often’, 3 said ‘sometimes’, 4 said ‘rarely’, 1 ‘never’.Head of Mission encourages staff to work together with government, businessand/or NGOs - 12 said ‘always’, 2 said ‘often’, nil ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’ or ‘never’.Head of Mission participates in these partnership initiatives - 5 said ‘always’, 9 said‘often’, nil ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’ or ‘never’.Head of Mission initiates the partnership with the host government, business and/orNGO - 2 said ‘always’, 5 said ‘often’, 7 said ‘sometimes’, nil ‘rarely’ or ‘never’.Head of Mission is seen in the host country as a leader of local partnership workingto tackle a global issue - 3 said ‘always’, 7 said ‘often’, 4 said ‘sometimes’, nil ‘rarely’or ‘never’.For your Post, have you worked together in partnership with the host government,business and/or NGOs to support the FCO goal of counter terrorism, weaponsproliferation and their causes?2 said ‘always’, 4 said ‘often’, 2 said ‘sometimes’, 4 said ‘rarely’ and 2 said ‘never’.For your Post, have you worked together in partnership with the host government,business and/or NGOs to support the FCO goal of preventing and resolving conflict?1 said ‘always’, 6 said ‘often’, 4 said ‘sometimes’, 3 said ‘rarely’, nil ‘never’.258 259

Appendix: Risk and Regulation Reference MaterialIn the professional research world, science is continuing to broaden ourunderstanding of some related aspects of human co-operation and the regulationof behaviour. With this in mind, Roger Miles of the King’s Centre for RiskManagement has compiled a brief review of some topical positions and debatesamong academic analysts of risk management, behavioural and political science.We apologise to any citees mentioned who might object that the brief format ofthis precis traduces their work.Core proposition / findingsClosely co-operating groups, especially of seniorprofessionals, are prone to various delusional and deviantbehaviours, the most commonly noted being: group think,whereby members want to self-comfort by supportingother group members’ (possibly ill-conceived) efforts; andnormalisation of deviancy, where the group decides thatcertain external rules “needn’t apply to us”, typicallybecause “we know better”.Exponents7, 8ResearchfieldsD,ECore proposition / findingsPeople’s responses to rules (and to hazardous situations)can seem perverse. This may be because responses areinformed by risk perception, which incorporates simplecognition of facts as they appear but also more complexcognitions, notably including “heuristics” (the short-cutsour brains use to make sense of complex new data).Subsequent actions may flow from rational response (whatseems most logical) and/or from affect (what feels best todo at that moment).Exponents1, 2ResearchfieldsA, BIn the event of crisis, highly organised groups of people, inattempting to make sense of rules which offer no specifichelp, may respond in deviant and even self-destructiveways.Deviant behaviour is only defined as such by other people’sresponse to it. Communities tend to forgive “unethical”behaviour as long as some greater communal good isperceived (e.g. pop stars are “allowed” to take drugs;bankers are “allowed” to exceed their trading limits aslong as they make a profit).910D,E, JFWe now live in a “risk society” in which individualsassemble their own view of which risks are acceptable,based on private experience, perception and affect.Personal views may be held to be true whether or notobjective evidence supports their validity (i.e. “becauseI say so”). Adamantly held views based onmisapprehensions are a typical outcome whenpublic risk perception has amplified by, for example, luridmedia coverage.Organisational cultures: The way a structured group ofpeople behaves rather depends upon members’ variousmotives: Members joining the group from different pointsof origin will have different views of what worthwhile workactually is. Public-sector (“unitary”) types look for sharedinterests and objectives, harmony and loyalty; commercial(“plurealist”) types are more driven by local allegiances,creative conflict and the urge for change.3, 304, 5, 6A,CD,EThe creation of rule-books, and reporting compliance withthe rules, are expressive or performative activities(i.e. done for effect more than for outcome), in whichgovernment, regulatory agencies and regulatedcommunities knowingly adopt gaming strategies. All threesides have an interest in maintaining the regulated systemin an apparent equilibrium. To do so requires an absenceof embarrassing failures of control – which may sometimesencourage deliberate overlooking of suspected failings byany or all three parties. “Fantasy documents”: Manypublic reports, regulations, and crisis-response plans arethe “rhetorical” product of a need to demonstrate that“something is being done”. The function of these artifactsis more expressive than instrumental.Instrumental conditioning: Where a regulated workerbreaks a rule and is perceives neither punishment nor harmfollowing this behaviour, this experience encourages themto go on breaking rules in general.11, 12, 13,23, 2414E, G, I, JE, G260 261

Core proposition / findingsExponentsResearchfieldsCore proposition / findingsExponentsResearchfieldsObedience: Most ordinary people are content to carry outperverse instructions for as long as they are unwilling toquestion the authority of the person giving them – or as longas they perceive that that person has authority.Formal and informal organisations: When setting up anycollaboration or system of control, one should be aware thatthe formal (“organogram version”) of organisation is not areliable guide to “whose word really counts there”. A formal(published) guide to the organisation’s structure is of novalue as a predictor of how it will respond to any initativeyou might be about to impose there. Informal organisations(loose, self-organising groups of like-minded individuals)carry the true power to support or frustrate most initatives.Enforced self-regulation may be the most effectivestrategy for controlling complex industries, becauseregulators will always lack the audit resource to exert fulldirect control.15, 161718, 19, 20HEC,IDesigners of regulatory policy may cynically incorporate“air gaps” which enable deniability in the event of crisis. Byadopting this approach, agnotism (designing-in “ignorantspaces”), policymakers can insure against the reputationalfall-out following systemic failures. Prearranged structuralgaps in control allow for junior functionaries to be punishedand/or removed while insulating strategic managers fromblame. It could be argued (though I wouldn’t) that the FSA’snon-regulation of bank liquidity was just such a gap.Newtonian optimism: A long-term systemic weaknessof regulatory policy. Much regulation is prepared in anaïve spirit of optimism anticipating a high degree of“spontaneous compliance”. This relies upon the fallacythat regulation is like a lever acting directly to modify thebehaviour of the regulated group. In reality, compliance is amuch more complex, multi-headed beast; whilst the draftingof regulation rarely appears to reflects any knowledge of thescience of behavioural response25, 2627GD,E,JCompliance is – far more than is recognised – not a matterof simple obedience v. disobedience. Between the extremesof “highly conformist” and “deviant / fraudster” is a subtlerange of responses to attempts at control. Midrangeresponses include:- legitimate coping (e.g. auditors allow for a “materiality”factor which allows them to ignore minor errors)12, 21, 22,25E, G, JRegulatory capture: Where government, state agenciesand commerce co-operate to produce rules or guidanceon acceptable risk, there is a systemic hazard: Powerfulcommercial interests may form associations which dictatethe rules on terms preferential to themselves (invokingarguments about the importance of enterprise, employment,tax revenues, etc.) It is not hard to spot the relevance of thisto any commercially powerful interest.18, 19G,I- “situational morality” (“we ignored the rules becausewe were busy managing a crisis”)- opportunist gaming (“we can meet this performancetarget if we just change the definition of what it’smeasuring”)- strategic ignorance (see below)Inflexible regulation based on the setting of fixed numericaltargets is An unsound mechanism for driving behaviouralchange. Regulatory unreasonableness is likely toencourage perverse consequences such as gamingresponses, which render the original target measuremeaningless (and invite public ridicule). More generally,over-zealous and/or inflexibly applied regulation invariablyprovokes dissent. This may take various forms ranging fromoutright rebellion, through falsified reporting, to tacitsubversion.19,20,21E,G,J262 263

Core proposition / findingsPublic administrations which address regulated groups in a“Parent-to-child” manner merely encourage these groups toself-exclude from regulatory controls.Exponents28,29ResearchfieldF,J,K13 Clarke, Lee (1999) Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster University ofChicago Press14 Gonzalez, Jose J, and Agata Sawicka (2003) Modeling compliance as instrumental conditioning.Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM 2003), Bamberg,Germany.15 Milgram, Stanley (1974, 1983) Obedience to Authority Rutgers, Stanford16 Zimbardo, Philip (2007) Investigating Social Dynamics chapter in The Lucifer Effect Rider / RandomHouse, London1 Merton, R.K, (1936) The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action in AmericanSociological Review vol.1 no.6 pp.894-9042 Slovic, Paul (2006) Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason,Risk and Rationality in Risk Analysis vol.24 no.2 pp311-3113 Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society Polity Press (Cambridge)4 Horwitz, F.M. (1991) Human Resource Management: An Ideological Perspective in InternationalJournal of Management vol12 no6 pp4-95 Fox, A. (1966) Industrial Society and Industrial Relations HMSO6 Mintzberg, H. (1990) The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact in Harvard Business Review, March1990, pp163-1767 Janis, Irving L. (1972, revised edition 1982) Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisionsand Fiascoes Houghton Mifflin, New York8 Vaughan, Diane (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Devianceat NASA University of Chicago Press9 Weick, Karl E. (1993) The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster inAdministrative Science Quarterly vol.38 pp.628-65210 Becker, Howard S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance Simon & Schuster,New York11a Hutter, Bridget M. (2005) The attractions of risk-based regulation: Accounting for the emergenceof risk ideas in regulation Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation,London School ofEconomics, Discussion paper 3311b Hutter, Bridget M. (2005a) ‘Ways of seeing’: understandings of risk in organizational settings inOrganizational Encounters with Risk (Hutter and Power), Cambridge UP, pp67 -9112 Fairman, Robyn and Yapp, Charlotte (2005) Enforced Self-Regulation, Prescription, andConceptions of Compliance within Small Businesses: The Impact of Enforcement in Law & Policy,27: 4, October 2005, pp .491-51917 Gray J.L. and Starke F.A. (1998) Organizational Behavior: Concepts and Applications MacMillan(London), p.43218a Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John (1992) Responsive Regulation: Transcending the DeregulationDebate Oxford University Press (Oxford / New York)18b Braithwaite, John (1982) Enforced Self-Regulation: A new strategy for corporate crime control inMichigan Law Review vol80 pp 1466-150719 Baldwin, Robert and Cave, Martin (1999) Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and PracticeOxford University Press (Oxford / New York)20 Bardach, Eugene and Kagan, Robert A. (1982, revised edition 2006) Going by the Book: TheProblem of Regulatory Unreasonableness Temple University, Philadelphia / Transaction, NewBrunswick21 Bevan G. and Hood C. (2005) What’s Measured is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in theEnglish Public Healthcare System, The Public Services Programme, ESRC, December 200522 Arrow, Kenneth J. (1958) Utilities, Attitudes, Choices in Econometrica vol 26 no1 pp1-2323 Cox, Louis Anthony (Tony) (2008) What’s wrong with Risk Matrices? in Risk Analysis 28: 224 Hawkins, Keith (1983) Bargain and Bluff: Compliance Strategy and Deterrence in theEnforcement of Regulation in Law and Policy Quarterly 5: 1, pp.35 – 7325 McGoey, Linsey (2007) On the Will to Ignorance in Bureaucracy in Economy and Society 36: 2,May 2007, pp212-23526 Hutter, Bridget M. and Power, Michael (2005) Introduction in Organizational Encounters with Risk,Cambridge UP, pp1-3227 Miles, Roger (in press) Coping strategies in response to regulatory intervention in UK banking: Thecreation of Chief Risk Officers King’s Centre for Risk Management, King’s College, London28 Berne, Eric (1970) Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships Penguin264 265

Appendix: Naked GenerationsCollaborative Partnerships – Sourcing wisdom throughonline environments29 Cohen, Stanley (2001) States of Denial Polity Press, Cambridge30 Pidgeon, Nick; Kasperson, Roger E.; and Slovic, Paul (2003) The Social Amplification of RiskCambridgeKey: Research fieldsAudienceThis document has been written as a specific contributionto the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report exploringCollaboration between Business, Government and NGOs¹.It will be read by collaborating government departments andbusinesses.¹ NGOs – NonGovernmentalOrganizationsABCDEFGHRisk perceptionDecision scienceSocial scienceOrganisational behaviour, psychologyManagement scienceCriminal psychologyRegulatory theoryExperimental psychologyBriefThe British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (a part of theBritish Government) sent Naked Generations the followingbrief:• How can we best to engage with the younger generation• How should organizations adapt to better connect withtheir own employees and publics.• How can we use collaboration as a tool for moving fromhierarchy based to team, service and network basedorganizations• Use a combination of concept, and practical evidence.Key Terms definedIJLawPolitical scienceBaby Boomer – the generation born between 1946 and 1964Builders – the generation born between 1925 and 1945Generation X – the generation born between 1965 and 1978Generation Y – the generation born between 1979 and 1995KSocial psychologyStructureThe structure of the document is divided into three parts,addressing each of the three topic areas requested in logicalorder: (1) Engaging with the younger generation; (2) Howorganizations generally can adapt to better connect with their266 267

2 Pricewaterhouse-Coopers 11th AnnualGlobal CEO survey2008 – source:www.pwc.com3 ‘MMORPGs’ –Massively MultiplayerOnline Role-PlayingGames is a genre ofcomputer role-playinggames (CRPGs) inwhich a large numberof players interactwith one another ina virtual world.own employees and publics; (3) How collaboration can beemployed as a tool for moving from hierarchy to team, serviceand network-based organizations.The document concludes with a summary and five challengesto organisations and leaders of business and government.PrefaceWhy is collaboration important? In a recent study (PwCAnnual Global CEO survey 2007 2 ) of Global CEOs byPricewaterhouseCoopers, 87% of them responded that the‘Ability to Collaborate’ was top of their agenda – ‘Creativityand Innovativeness’ was a close second (85%). Byparticipating in a global report about collaboration, NakedGenerations shows its commitment to understanding theneed for collaboration in next-generation leadershipcompanies. The ability to create effective networks of humancapital that trust each other and are willing to co-create isa fundamental operating behaviour we see in MMORPGs 3and will be a defining core skill of next-generation leaders.Companies that know this have long since created Alumninetworks that will keep create networks of past and presentemployees (e.g. KPMG, Goldman Sachs, IBM).How best to engage with the Y(ounger) GenerationAsk, don’t tell. This might sound counterintuitive and tomost of the Baby Boomer generation it is. However, ifcompanies and Governments are seriously going to engagewith Generation Y (born 1979-1995) it is, initially at least,by seeking their opinion. Why has this necessity come about?Generation Y has been stimulated from birth with a parentingsystem that has sought to affirm them and tell them thatthey are valuable and loved. When they are ‘told’ they willthemselves be denying the very essence of their upbringingand parenting. Diametrically opposing this is the ‘traditional’command and control forms of authority and management– led by power, influence and force. Stephen Covey in the‘8th Habit’ says that we are moving to a ‘Knowledge WorkerEconomy’ and that this new economy is driven by‘Empowerment’ and ‘Release’ (Covey: 2004) 4 .Expect push-back. Generation Y are groomed by school anduniversity education to find fault or a better way to do whatyou told them to do. Generation Y has been brought up, inthe UK especially, under an education system that has shiftedfor late Generation X-ers and all of Generation Y. Since thepublication of the Plowden report (1967) 5 , in which emphasiswas placed on the elements of self-discovery and criticalanalysis, education has shifted from the teacher-centric(‘telling truths’) to pupil-centric models (‘discourse anddebate’), according to Nick Pollard (Pollard: 2006) 6 . Schoolessays are no longer, ‘tell me everything you know aboutx’, they are: ‘author X makes this contention, what do youthink?’ and the essay will be spent giving a critical analysis ofthe author’s view, backed up by sources. This is also a sign ofthe philosophical times in which Generations grow up. At thestart of the century ‘Builders’ (born 1925-1945) were guidedby Modernism – the aim: to use the collective body of peoplepresent or available, to find answers for the collective, in orderthat the greater good of a nation state or company might berealised. This philosophy has shaped much of the BabyBoomer (born 1946 – 1964) expectations and culturalenvironments of Government and Business today. Today welive in (arguably, a post-) post [sic] modernistic society. Thisphilosophy assumes that everyone has a truth and none isgreater than the other, or truer. This is intensely frustrating.Furthermore the commercial and political imperatives starecitizens and employees of nations and companies (respectively,or both,) in the face. We must find new truths. Realising thejoint challenge and opportunity that is before us, as leaders,we must actively be asking this Generation Y to find newanswers and concrete routes forward, and not just to criticise.This generation is growing up using ‘mash-up’ leadershipstructures (fast assimilation of teams, in order to achievea goal and then dissolving the structure and joining with4 Covey, S., (2004)The 8th Habit: FromEffectiveness toGreatness Free Press:New York5 Plowden, B., (1967)‘The Plowden Report’,London: HMStationary Office6 Pollard, N. (2006)Teenagers: Why dothey do that?, MiltonKeynes: DamarisBooks268 269

7Lomas, C.,(2008) ‘ShiftingEnvironments’ www.nakedgenerations.com/blogothers to form new teams). They are stimulated throughgoal-oriented objectives, where they receive ‘immediatecompensation for successful completion of a project’(Reeves, Malone and O’Driscoll: 2008). From our research,PricewaterhouseCoopers are particularly good at employingthese tactics in their approach to strategy project work. Theincrease in the uses for, and speed of, Technology hasinevitably been a major factor in driving a shift towardsa culture of immediacy and heightened expectations. Theseare the ‘Generation Y’-ers that are coming into globalbusinesses around the world that are being asked to operateunder old paradigms. In these situations there can be adistinct mismatch between expectations and reality (Lomas:2008) 7 .In order to meet the same objectives but with different means:provide the brief and set the challenge, within relatively tighttimescales, for the Generation Y to return to its leadershipteam with recommendations – this will give them aheightened sense of ownership. In itself this is not enough,however. If this information is never used the enthusiasm willwane and the Gen Y-er will lose interest and respect. This canbe extremely detrimental to an organisation or government.Especially since Generation Y are particularly skilled in the artof online communication – and we intuitively know that thecombined effect of ‘speed’ and ‘scale of influence’, providedthrough the medium of the internet, has given this generationan immensely powerful tool to collaborate informationresultant in the creation of virtual ‘opinion share-prices’.Generation Y are interested in the challenge of sifting andproducing the content, but also in understanding how theymake a contribution to the greater ‘whole’ (or Context).They need purpose. For clarity, this doesn’t always relate toproviding some greater good effect through CSR schemes,or trips to help ‘the disadvantaged’. In some cases thisdraws in the more socially conscious, but on the whole thisgeneration is as interested in capitalism, socialism, liberalismand the environment, as the ones before – it’s just thatorganisations that were previously seen as limited in financialresources (the charities, NGO’s and other relief workerorganisations) now also have access to the free mediumof publication – the web – allowing them to create greaterawareness.How do organisations need to adapt to connect betterwith employees and publics?Having said all of the above specifically about the differencesbetween the generation in management positions today andthe younger generation in business and government, whatare some of the opportunities that are presented by newtechnologies and environments present for collaborationbetween government, business and NGO’s? Specifically, howshould (or rather, could) organisations adapt to better connectwith their own employees and publics?It is worth prefacing all of the following with a simplestatement: Baby Boomer and Builder generations willnaturally be ‘Digital Immigrants’ (those that have adapted tomany of these new technologies during the course of theirlifetime) and X & Y Generations are ‘Digital Natives’ – that isto say, they have grown up with technology around them, andalready use many of these tools as a ‘given’.There is a trend for the most technologically advancedbusinesses and governments to employ collaborative andUser-Generated Content (UGC) mediums that encourage‘participation’ (e.g. Lego ID 8 , and Ask the PM 9 ) to raise andsolve topical issues.Technology and the WWW 10 together have offered anopportunity to create, share, and discuss vast reams of,previously only physically published, paper documents in aformat that Next Generation Producers, Leaders andCollaborators will understand and warm to.8http://messageboards.lego.com/en-US/showpostaspx?PostID=10006021479http://www.number10.gov.uk/communicate/ask-thepm10‘WWW’ – WorldWide Web270 271

11http://www.youtube.com12http://.wikipedia.org13EMarketer, “UserGenerated Content:Will Web 2.0 Pay itsWay?” June 2007There is much evidence to suggest that ‘Co-creation’ andUGC is vastly popular amongst Generation Y (evidenced inYouTube 11 ; MySpace; Facebook; and Wikipedia 12 ). These sitesare not only popular they are also creating a valuable revenuestream for themselves from advertisers: In 2006, UGC sitesattracted 69 million users in the United States alone, and in2007 generated $1 billion in advertising revenue. By 2011,UGC sites are projected to attract 101 million users in the U.S.and earn $4.3 billion in advertising revenues 13 .Going beyond the phenomenon of individuals being ableto create and discuss, and into the value to governmentand business, the conversation must turn to ‘usability’.Functionally, the vast creation of content has inevitably ledto scepticism about its value – if anyone can create.Collaboration should be differentiated from ‘Blogging’ or‘Casting’ per-se, although they may take these forms.Governments and Businesses that seek collaboration mustprovide a focused context or subject matter around which tobase the discussion. ‘Noise’ is an unwanted bi-product of anyform of unfocussed collaboration – which will not yield thedesired results if the outcome is more than pure thoughts oropinions. Secure environments in which to collaborate willfurther limit noise (but also breadth of contributions).Naturally, the quality of the people asked to contribute willdetermine the output too. Finally, in the ‘Long Tail’ of theorganisation of ideas through online means, there will stillbe a trade off between getting the majority of ideas downquickly, whilst perhaps missing the brilliance of ‘the one’ thatis muddled in the middle of the noise.Practically this can be achieved in three ways: ‘Peer-peer’collaboration assumes the form of smaller groups ofindividuals, which lead to defined answers or definitions ofissues and are where the process or outcome may be sharedthrough closed wiki’s (which may eventually be shared);‘Crowd Sourcing’ in which companies take a problem toa group of individuals and leave them to come up with theanswer through the combined wisdom – in this model there issufficient incentive in the kudos of solving the problem for theindividual to participate. Where the end result is displayedor used by the public the thirst is for the ‘identity’ of beingthe products creator. This takes the traditional role ofmembers of a product team in an organisation and outsourcesit to the general public; ‘Crowd Casting’ is the third waywhere collaboration assumes that the consumer is often thebest inventor. Say, Seely-Brown and Hagel: ‘Rather thantreating producers as passive consumers whose needs canbe anticipated and shaped by centralized decision makers,pull models treat people as networked creators even whenthey actually are customers purchasing goods and services.Pull platforms harness their participants’ passion,commitment, and desire to learn, thereby creatingcommunities that can improvise and innovate rapidly 14 ’.These audiences are often stimulated by prize money ora share of the revenue from the product.Companies such as Amazon and Google have also madesignificant head-way into the issue of mass UGC creationand have stated their ambition to ‘Organise the World’sinformation 15 ’. If this seems bold, you should know it goesway beyond the ‘online’. They are doing this using ‘rating’systems and filters. Amazon.com 16 is a particularly goodexample. Amazon.com will recommend books that are‘most read’ or ‘most purchased’ by others who also read orpurchased whatever you are reading or buying. This requirescollaboration through rating and recommendation. It alsoenhances the opportunity for ‘narrow-casting’ – the abilityto target a specific group of online viewers/ collaborators forproduct sales, or indeed for requesting insights, opinions orinnovations. It is immensely valuable information that mostwould expect to pay people for, but these organisations areable to get it for free. Put (too) simply: people enjoy givingtheir opinion.14Seely-Brown andHagel,. “From pushto pull: The nextfrontier ofinnovation”(McKinsey Quarterly)2005, #315Economist (2008):Google’s vision is to‘organise the world’sinformation’ http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_ id=12253015&fsrc=rss16http://www.amazon.com272 273

17http://www.pres.investorrelations.lloydstsb.com/seminars/announcement/webcast.asp18Moore, G., 2002.Crossing the Chasm.HarperCollins: London19Surowiecki, J.,(2004) ‘The Wisdomof Crowds: Why theMany Are SmarterThan the Few andHow CollectiveWisdom ShapesBusiness, Economies,Societies and Nations’.Anchor: Canada.What does all this mean for business, NGOs and government?They are able to get Collaboration in many cases for free (orcertainly less than FTE product teams)! Furthermore, in thistriangle of organisations, internal conversations can beestablished on wiki’s blogs and through video-and pod-castsin a way that will engage the y(ounger) demographic toparticipate – because it is intuitive to use these means to themanyway. Getting value from this content is dependent on bothfocussed objectives, and rating systems that will filter highlyrated products or conversations to the fore.Are people able to comment with as much insight as those at‘the centre’? Increasingly so. Board room conversations andpolitical announcements that were previously the reserve ofthe few, are now public. BBC parliament is streamed to theworld and is accessible through online mediums. Corporatetakeover conversations and strategies are publicised on videocasts (e.g. Lloyds TSB acquisition of HBOS 17 ). This all pointsto a more ‘transparent’ and ‘honest’ future, in whichorganisations do collaboration.networks of trust without a central organising systemcontrolling their behaviour or directly enforcing theircompliance, more and more organisations are followingthis trend and using freeware provided by Corporations suchas Google (Google Docs site 20 ) in order to achieve the endsdescribed above. Custom made applications can be costlyin start-up and ‘beta’ phases. Proving the principles ofcollaboration for free in the online can be a good motivatorfor change.To provide an example, in 2008 our own organisation (NakedGenerations) started up a Google Intranet online. Registeringwas very simple, and free. Within minutes we had uploadedour own logos and branding on to the site and created anumber of folders we could start to populate. Immediatelywe were moving folders and documents that were taking upspace on our hard drives on to the Google servers. Not onlywere we freeing up space, but by moving our documents into a collaborative, wiki-style, environment we ensured thateveryone had access to the latest versions of client files.20https://docs.google.comFor many this sharing of information and needs beyondthe walls of corporate offices will be a ‘disruptive anddiscontinuous behaviour’ (Moore: 2002) 18 , making itcounterintuitive to adopt. Therefore, by using those withinthe younger demographic to implement these strategies, notonly will it build a lasting culture within the business, but itwill also be owned. That is not to say that older generationscannot or should not strive to adopt these practices – rather,some ‘reverse’ mentoring up the traditional hierarchical chainmay need to occur, which will add confidence and trust aboutthese systems. This challenge will engage Generation Y.Moving from hierarchical to team based and networkorganisations.Following the ‘Wisdom of crowds’ (Surowiecki: 2004 19 ) inwhich Surowiekci describes how groups of people can formWe operate a ‘networked organisation’ (meaning we workremotely more often than we operate from a centralisedlocation) and everyone is able to contribute through theintranet to client work and in gathering intelligence. Partnersin the business all have their own blog and can publish andsearch content at any time, 24 hours a day.We were able to create permission and access levels for clientstoo, so they can see parts, but not all the information wepublish, keeping ‘Chinese walls’ for confidential or sensitiveinformation. This enforces the view that everyone has acontribution to make towards projects and we operate avery linear reporting structure to project work. Like in onlineworlds and video games, different leaders will take chargefor different challenges in the organisational challenges – the‘CEO’ isn’t always the one in charge! Projects are runaccording to expertise not titles.274 275

Conclusions: Five trends to watchWhat are the challenges and opportunities for Governments,Businesses and NGOs in online collaborative worlds?Knowledge Transfer is of paramount importance toorganisations today. We are on the edge of an unprecedentedmass ‘crew-change’ as Baby Boomers retire and GenerationX and Y are filling their shoes. There is a plethora of wisdomcontained in the retiring generations. Organisations at alllevels will be left embarrassed and ill-informed in the futureif they do not capture this intelligence over the months andyears to come. By creating cultural values that encourageonline collaboration, more data will be captured to ensurewisdom (defined as ‘Knowledge + Experience’) is shared andthat businesses see revenue succession.The future is more honest: Content sharing, access toinformation and a desire to collaborate will lead to blurredboundaries between public and private information, this hasimplications for businesses on two levels. First in reputation:‘virtual opinion share prices’ drive very real economic sharevalues (as we have seen evidenced in the BBC Business Editor,Robert Peston’s, announcement of the British Banks seekingfinancial support from the government in the downturn of2008); second in knowledge ownership – a currency foronline content is required. Seeing return on investmentfrom published content and tracking where information hascome from will increase the incentive for online collaboration.There is a risk that nothing gets done. By increasingcollaboration organisations involve more individuals thanwould most likely have been previously. Time scales must betight and clearly communicated – thus encouraging high levelsof activity in smaller spaces of time.Ultimately, collaboration reduces cost on three levels: First,by using individuals to collaborate internally it is possible tosee benefits in operating freeware systems that reduce thetime it takes to transfer information, and to which everyonehas the ability to contribute; Second, by collaborating withthose external to the organisation business and governmentcan encourage consumers/ citizens to have a real influence oninnovation of policy and product, that doesn’t require internalproduct teams; third, innovation and contributions to theseprojects are generally made outside of ‘9-5’ – that is to say,non-chargeable. A ‘24/7’ global workforce exists driven bykudos.Finally, a cultural issue. Business and government ought torecognise that as with all new behaviours, current leadersmay be resistant to change. ‘Big Business’, appropriately,recognises that mistakes are costly and virtual worlds arenot tools that come naturally to most senior leaders today.In virtual worlds (such as ‘Second Life’) and in MMOPRGs theNext Generation of leaders has adopted a different model ofgathering information and testing ideas. They are able toexperiment and create in a way not previously possible:virtually, and for free – thus they aren’t bound by the 9-5timescale, but when they feel creative (even in the middle ofthe night); and there is no cost, so it is very accessible. Theirappetite for experimentation is greater too. ‘Online’ users areable to create avatars to protect their real identity and in mostcases these environments are ‘non-critical’, as you can‘re-start’ a game. And yet, these skills and abilities they learnare valuable and useful in the real world too (if indeed thereis still a boundary). Harnessing an ability to use onlinenetworks to naturally crowdsource or crowdcast is invaluableto a government or business wanting to do market research,for example.Paul C. Edwards Professor of Communication at StanfordUniversity, Byron Reeves, commented in an IBM case study,that nearly 50% of ‘managers with experience in multiplayeronline games said that being a game leader had improvedtheir real-world leadership capabilities’, and Naked276 277

Appendix: Group relationsThe author of thisdocument isChristopher Lomas(Founder and CEOof Naked Generations,a London-basedconsultancy andThink Tank). For moreinformation log onto www.nakedgenerations.com oremail Christopherdirect at c.lomas@nakedgenerations.com.Copyright Notice2008: Thispublication isprotected bycopyright. No partof it may, in anyway whatsoever, bereproduced, stored ina retrieval system ortransmitted withoutprior writtenpermission.Generations has commented before, elsewhere: ‘If I havethe ability to lead a group Online, in ‘Second Life’ or GrandTheft Auto, to discover, conquer and grow virtual economies,to get products designed and made, and to achieve goalsfaster than my competitors, then I may just have the rightskills needed to pursue a career in any industry offline too– searching for rare resources, get places faster and smarterthan my competitors, using the skills of making rapiddecisions with imperfect information, convincing others,and ultimately winning!In closing, about implementation: these technologies inthemselves don’t call for a top-down approach. It is muchmore likely to work at grass-roots levels. Using digital nativesto implement and drive these strategies will be the differencebetween success and failure – it will create ownership, and insuccessful implementation situations ‘Identity’ too – which iswhat this Y(ounger) Generation is motivated by.Group relations is a method of study and training in the way people perform theirroles in the groups and systems to which they belong. Therefore an understandingof group relations theory can help us understand the dynamics that influence thebehaviour and performance of individuals and organizations, and the multipleparties to any collaboration. These insights can help us become more effectiveleaders and builders of collaborations, because they help us analyse factors thatcan have a big impact on success or failure.The basis of group relations theory is that groups move in and out of focusing ontheir task and a number of different defensive positions based on unarticulatedgroup phantasy.To summarise the main research very briefly, Bion (1961) found that groups operateon two levels - the work level where concern is for completing the task, and theunconscious level where group members act as if they had made assumptions aboutthe purpose of the group which may be different from its conscious level – the basicassumption group’s primary task is to ease members’ anxieties and avoid the painfulemotions that further work or the end of the group situation might bring. Bionidentified three types of basic assumption: dependency, pairing, and fight-flight.Turquet (1974) added oneness – where members of the group seek a feeling ofunity from their inclusion in the group, and/or the group commits itself to a causeoutside the group as a way of survival.Group relations training consists of experiential events, because the most powerfulway of learning about it is to experience it oneself. In his paper “Mirror, mirror onthe wall”, Phil Swann, until recently Director, Tavistock Institute, shares one example:“The consultant explained that the purpose of the exercise was to learn about intergroupdynamics. He said that five rooms were available for the event, four of whichhad a consultant present. He then left the room.We assumed that we had to split into five groups, one of which would not haveaccess to a consultant. We discussed how we could divide ourselves up for nearly 40minutes. A variety of suggestions were floated, discussed and either rejected or putto one side. Then one member, a tall male, said that he was bored and frustrated.He was going to go to room one and anyone who wanted to join him was welcometo do so. At that point there was literally a stampede out of the room. A numberof people were physically jostled as most of the participants rushed to get out. Theswitch from rational debate to an irrational rush for the door, the stampede, tookseconds.”278 279

In organizational life, and collaborations, the switch from the rational to theirrational, knee-jerk shifts to new positions, and ill-judged rushes to action, can beseen all too often. An understanding of group relations can help us to step back andmake better, more rational decisions, which help our collaborations achieve morethan may otherwise be the case.Lucian Hudson innovates and implements importantinitiatives. He is a senior communications and change directorwith experience of working in government, broadcastingand commercial sectors, and chairs a collaborative strategiesnetwork bringing together leaders and advisers in private,public and voluntary sectors.Lucian J. HudsonNow back at the Ministry of Justice providing strategicconsultancy, he is implementing the findings of thereport that he produced for the FCO on what makes foreffective partnership and collaboration, especially betweengovernments, business and non-government organisations(NGOs). He has worked closely with ambassadors in 25countries, and involved more than 120 organizations globally,including 20 governments, and 10 international institutions,including UN, EU, NATO and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,Tuberculosis and Malaria.From September 2006 until June 2008, Lucian was the FCODirector of Communication. He led for the first time in theFCO’s history a single communication directorate, and aglobal network of 200 communicators. This drew togetherstrategic communication, public diplomacy, media, internalcommunication and stakeholder engagement. He led thefirst change programme to mainstream communicationacross the FCO, overseeing a £20 million programme toupgrade FCO websites.Previously, Lucian led the UK government’s Media EmergencyForum, and co-chaired a Cabinet Office working groupinvolving government departments, emergency services andmedia representatives to agree and implement new rules ofengagement after 9/11. He was the chief communicationsadviser to the government’s Risk Group, and oversawimplementation of the Freedom of Information Actacross government communications.280 281

Between 2004 and 2006, he was Director ofCommunications, DCA (now Ministry of Justice), amember of the National Criminal Justice Board, chaired thedepartment’s crisis management team and led its sustainabledevelopment strategy. Between 2001 and 2004, he wasDirector of Communications and Chief Knowledge Officerat the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs(DEFRA). Lucian was seconded to the Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) to run media operations at theheight of the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 from his post asthe government’s first Director of e-Communications, alsoknown as “Webmaster-General”! He launched the UKgovernment’s first web portal, and established the firstUK online marketing strategy.Before joining the Civil Service, he was editorial director ofa dot.com following a 16-year career with the BBC and ITV,as a television executive, programme editor and producer.Lucian’s BBC career included: Head of Programming forInternational Channels, Chief Editorial Adviser at BBCWorldwide, and Editor of BBC World’s Newsdesk andNewshour programmes. He had responsibility for more than70 live events and breaking news programmes, includingproduction of the first six hours of coverage of the deathof Diana, Princess of Wales. Lucian was on the BBC’s NineO’Clock News for five years, first as producer, then as seniorproducer, specialising in economics, politics and social affairs.He planned and supervised 50 royal obituary and emergencyexercises.For seven years, Lucian led two not-for-profit organizations,the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, and the Rory PeckTrust. He is an Officer of Liberal Judaism, and facilitates for theInstitute of Directors and other professional bodies.282