The Six Dilemmas of
Collaboration
Jim Bryant
Sheffield Hallam University
Your every day
involves countless
collaborations
but collaborations fail
In corporate relationships:
• Only 60% of alliances last for more than 4
years; less than 20% survive a decade
(Doorley, 1993)
• Alliances have a median lifespan of 7 years;
80% of joint ventures end in a sale by one of
the partners (Bleeke & Ernst, 1995)
What goes
wrong?
• Internal tensions: divergent aspirations,
free-riding, ‘grab it and run’; hidden
agendas; history; language and
procedures; leadership
• External pressures: irresistible
temptations, specific demands
The key
Better management
of relationships
…. and every
relationship involves
two things at once
• a physical
interaction
• a psychological
interaction
Twin aspects of engagement
‘Physical’
Marketing
Military
Public
service
customer
sales
war-fighting
Psychological
competitor
action
peace
operations
service levels public
confidence
Every interaction has
a physical
and a psychological side
Shall I let
her cross?
Shall I
step out?
Possibilities
stop
continue
step out
wait
HI
HI
PREFERENCE
PREFERENCE
LO
Let’s assume...
LO
Thinks…
I’ll stop
if I think she’s going to step out
[as
is better than
],
but I’ll drive on otherwise
[as
is better than
]
He looks rational.
He’ll stop if I step out.
But I must show him
I’m going to step out
but maybe…
I’m not stopping
for any
****** pedestrians!
He looks mad!
I’ll wait for him to pass
People take advantage of you
if you are predictably rational
Perhaps...
It’s a fine day as Arthur
tootles along Paragon
Road on his rounds, listening to a playful Irish
voice on his radio.
Beryl
, strolling through
the dappled sunlight, reaches the crossing.
If the characters’ continue in their present intentions, most
likely Arthur will stop, Beryl will hesitate, both will smile
awkwardly ...
After you. No, after you, I insist!
They’re so polite they could be there for ever!
Positions
My position is what I would have
you believe that I want to happen
How fortunate! Arthur and Beryl’s
positions are compatible
Confrontation
Oh dear!
Arthur and Beryl’s positions are
not compatible
Each will try to press the other to abandon their position and
accept its own. It does this by declaring an action it intends
(which may be seen by the other as a threat or a promise)
The Fallback is what will happen if all characters
press their case in this way
If both Arthur
and Beryl are
intransigent...
then sadly this
is the Fallback
Facing dilemmas
Arthur and Beryl both prefer the other’s Position to
the Fallback
They therefore find it impossible convincingly to reject
the other’s Position. They’re both under pressure to
accept the other’s Position rather than cause the Fallback.
Arthur would rather stop than knock Beryl
over (he’d lose his licence) and Beryl would
rather wait than be injured (she’d hate it
in hospital)
Both face what is termed a Rejection Dilemma.
This is one of the Six Dilemmas of Collaboration
Handling dilemmas
Dilemmas make you feel uncomfortable!
Arthur or Beryl could eliminate their Rejection Dilemmas by:
•accepting the other’s position (but they’ll need to do this in a conciliatory
way if they’re to be believed)
•strengthening their belief in their own threats (but they’ll show reluctance,
suggesting that the other has driven them to aggression)
•seek to develop a shared position based on common interests
As we now leave Beryl to cross the road (in an appropriate
emotional state) , we should note that Rejection Dilemmas are
common in faltering merger talks, in unhappy supply chains, in
R&D cooperation and many other collaborative situations.
Generic Dilemmas
These dilemmas of collaboration are
generic
Other examples:
• Keeping a cease fire
• Maintaining a trade agreement (e.g.
Russians adhering to he OPEC line)
• Sharing trade secrets
How do you help
others to trust you?
• Make a unilateral commitment
e.g. destroy your own ability to renege
• Come to prefer the commitment to the
temptation
but accompany this with positive emotion
else they will not believe your incredible
promise
reassure them that you are not being
deceitful by using rational arguments in
the common interest
• I benefit by reneging from my solution
- so why should you think I would implement it?
• You benefit by reneging from our mutual solution
- so why should I trust you?
• I’d rather not carry out my threat
- so how can I use it to pressure you?
• You’d rather carry out your threat than take my solution
- so how can I deter you?
• I’d rather adopt your solution than carry out my threat
- so how can I persuade you to my view?
• I’d rather adopt your solution that implement my own
- so how can I attract you to my solution?
Why Six Dilemmas?
Co-operation
Trust
Our Position
Positioning
My
Position
Your
Position
Rejection
Persuasion
Fallback
Threat
Drama Theory
• Drama theory is a theory of human interaction, upon which
the technique of confrontation analysis is based
• DT is a generalisation of game theory, in which the game
changes under internal pressures
• Drama theory shows how, through these changes, the
frame and characters
stances may be
transformed until
they arrive at a totally
satisfactory solution.
Dramatic
Resolution
• The resolution of differences is a key aim of
human interaction
• Drama theory offers a model for the
rational/emotional process of difference
resolution
• The model is both normative (showing the
‘normal’, natural pathway) and descriptive,
revealing common pathologies
Seeing collaboration
as drama
• Those involved (individuals,
groups, organisations, alliances) are
the characters in the drama
• Characters interact and confront
each other. Episodes unfold where
they negotiate a way forward
training
simulations
preparation
Using
Drama
Theory
brief
act
plan
theory of
conflict and
collaboration
frame
debate
confrontation
management
system
situation
reflect
observe
Relationship Management
Model shows full
agreement.
Changes are made
Model contains
dilemmas.
Confrontation
strategies are
explored
An Approach to
Partnership
Development
How an I.D. is set up
• The situation is scoped and key stakeholders are
identified
• Stakeholders are interviewed (often in focus groups)
to capture their views, using the drama theory
framework as a guide to questions
• A broad model of stakeholder interaction over issues
is produced, and an appropriate sub-set of these is
chosen for the I.D.
• Analyses of each interaction are completed following
a principle of requisite modelling
• A fictionalised version of the real-world situation is
constructed and shaped into briefings for role-players
Enactment
Typically, teams role-play key actors in
the situation.
Each team works from its own drama
briefing, which is its character’s mental
model of what is happening
Negotiation between ‘actors’ then occurs,
actions are chosen and the case
updated as appropriate.
An I.D. Briefing
tells you:
Your character’s background, values and
aspirations
How your character sees other characters’
backgrounds, values, aspirations, etc.
What ‘bones of contention’ currently exercise you
and: who else is concerned; what they can do
about it; what solution they propose and what
fallback they wield
What happens in an I.D.?
• Characters size up their
predicament and decide in what
interactions they must participate
• Interactions (e.g. meetings,
announcements) take place;
these alter character’s stances,
often in unexpected ways
• Issues are resolved, but others
may thereby be created
How is an I.D. organised?
• Participants assimilate their
Briefings
• ‘Characters’ have their own
workspaces
• They arrange to meet in a
booked room
Meeting
Room
• Each meeting moves the
process along
• The process ends at a predetermined time or when Meeting
Room
certain issues have been
resolved
Noticeboard
Character
Workspace
Meeting
Room
Meeting
Room
Presentation
Room
ID Debrief
In Role
• Were you happy with the agreements reached?
• Were you confident that any agreements would be
kept? Why?
• What feelings did you have towards others as the
process unfolded?
• How do you see the future for your character?
Out of Role
• Did the process suggest any general principles or
questions about collaboration?
• What comments do you have about the process?
Immersive Drama
the experience of confrontation
• Captures participants’ attention, thoughts and
efforts and involves their feelings
• Gives participants the experience of functioning in
a bona fide role and encountering the
consequences of their actions
• Other role players provide the complexity and
realism that cannot be provided in static case
study materials
• Provides direct and immediate feedback and
learning to the individual as well as feeding back
implications for the organisation
Successful
Collaboration
Managing relationships is about:
• addressing the dramatic interaction in which
one is immersed
• developing an effective relationship
management strategy
• recognising the knock-on effects of
resolutions upon linked confrontations
Drama theory: sources
Look at these websites:
• http://www.thestrategystudio.com
• http://www.dramatec.com
Read these:
• The Six Dilemmas of Collaboration: interorganisational
relationships as drama by Jim Bryant (Wiley, 2003)
• Confrontation Analysis by Nigel Howard (from
http://www.dodccrp.org, 1999)
• chapters on DT in Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited
edited by Jonathan Rosenhead & John Mingers (Wiley, 2001)
Keep in touch with me:
• J.W.Bryant@shu.ac.uk