Collective commitment and collective efficacy: A theoretical model for understanding the motivational dynamics of dilemma resolution in interprofessional work
Abstract
This paper presents a new theoretical model which conceptualizes interprofessional and multi-agency collaborative working, at the level of the individual within a group. This arises from a review of the literature around joint working, and is based on social psychological theories which refer to shared goals. The model assumes that collective commitment, collective efficacy, and process and outcome beliefs interact and feed into the development and maintenance of collaborative processes and outcomes. This is situated within an ecological framework that summarises the context of inter-professional and multi-agency collaboration. The model illustrates working resolutions of specific inter-professional dilemmas around identity, role and control. This paper extends the literature around theoretical approaches to collaborative work in a multiagency or inter-professional context, with its specific social-psychological focus on the motivations of the individual within the group.
Keywords: inter-professional work, professional collaboration; joint work

Collective commitment and collective efficacy: A theoretical model for understanding the motivational dynamics of dilemma resolution in interprofessional work
Authors: Jo Rose* a
and Brahm Norwich b
*Corresponding Author a
Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square,
Bristol BS8 1JA UK. jo.rose@bristol.ac.uk
b
Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter
EX1 2LU UK.
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out at the Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU. It was funded by a British
Academy Small Grant, award number SG-46750.
Thank you to Professor Jo-Anne Baird, and anonymous referees, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Introduction
This paper presents a new theoretical model conceptualising interprofessional collaboration, and shows how this model links with the resolution of dilemmas in inter-professional working. Inter-professional and multi-agency teams, by nature, are likely to experience problems (e.g. Sloper 2004; Watson,
2006), particularly around developing and coordinating collective goals.
Widely-used theoretical perspectives in this field include activity theory
(Engeström, 1999) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), which are generally framed in terms of social theory, and as such do not address in detail interaction between individuals and the groups in which they work (Edwards,
2007). Work on relational agency (Edwards, 2006, 2007; Edwards, Lunt &
Stamau, 2010) begins to address this, focusing on collaborative processes, specifically the capacity of individuals to develop shared understandings in joint work. However, there is a need for greater understanding about ways in which individuals develop commitment to the processes of joint work, and how such motivation can resolve inter-professional dilemmas. The model presented in this paper addresses this need with a specific analysis of the socialpsychological processes involved in inter-professional collaboration and motivation.
With the introduction of Every Child Matters (Department for
Education and Skills [DfES], 2004) followed by
The Children’s Plan
(Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF], 2007), interprofessional and multi-agency collaboration became increasingly important to

policy-makers and practitioners in children’s services. The restructuring of government departments in 2007 created the Department for Children, Schools and Families, illustrating the Labour government’s policy thrust towards childcentred provision. The 2010 Coalition government returned to a separate
Department for Education, and subsequent changes to Local Authority funding resulted in expectations that services will develop efficient ways of working together around child-centred provision. There is an increasing requirement, therefore, for professionals from different agencies and backgrounds to work together. In education for example, Behaviour Support Teams might bring together professionals such as advisory teachers, clinical and educational psychologists, mental health workers, speech and language therapists, social workers, and school nurses. Such mixes of professionals work across children’s services in Youth Offending Teams, Teams Around the Child, Child and
Adolescent Mental Health Services, and many other groups and teams. Despite this, guidance about the practicalities of joint working is lacking (Dalzell,
Nelson, Haigh, Williams & Monti§
, 2007). Unique problems arise when professionals from different backgrounds and agencies work together, in addition to issues arising from collaboration in a single profession or discipline.
These difficulties stem partially from differing ideologies, working practices and priorities that are encountered when practitioners from education, social services, health and elsewhere work collaboratively to further children’s interests. Such difficulties are common to inter-professional working in many

fields: the way in which this paper addresses these problems can be generalized across different occupational roles in different services and industry.
The main theoretical perspectives used in this field include activity theory (Engeström, 1999) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). The alternative presented by this paper starts with an ecological framework of processes and factors at national, local, group, and individual levels, based on
Easen, Atkins and Dyson (2000). We then propose a model drawing on theoretical developments in the fields of team reasoning and collective preferences (Gilbert, 2001; Sugden, 2005), joint commitment (Gilbert, 2005), and collective efficacy and process/outcome beliefs (Bandura, 1997). These perspectives are integrated into a model that sits within the context of the ecological framework, representing the collaborative processes played out at the interface between group and individual levels of analysis. This model shows how dilemmas and tensions arising in inter-professional work may be resolved, and addresses the need for a comprehensive model of processes and factors that could be relevant to the success of multi-agency collaboration (Salmon, 2004).
The model extends existing perspectives of activity theory and community of practice frameworks, providing greater clarity and detail of analysis around collaborative motivation than previous conceptualizations of collaboration.
As will be argued in this paper, collaboration across professional boundaries highlights issues at policy, social and individual levels. This means that an integrated conceptualization will be at various levels of analysis and

need to be inter-disciplinary. We argue that this is necessary to understanding the complexity of the issues.
The Contextual Perspective
Easen et al. (2000) take an ecological approach to help them describe multi-agency collaboration. Their framework uses nested contexts to model relationships between factors that affect multi-agency working. They see the over-arching context as being the nature of the political economy and the current government’s policies: in short, the general historical and prevailing political ethos of the government. Easen et al. describe the streams of policies that compete and interact within a government system. They then focus in more to consider the specific instance of collaboration: what is a piece of collaborative work for, and what is it supposed to do? Finally, situated in the local context, are issues affecting how collaborative working is played out: the people involved, how they conceptualise their practice, what their conditions of work are, what resources are available to them to support the collaborative work, and specifics of the locality in which they work. Easen et al.’s model presents a comprehensive overview of the layers of context within which collaboration works, although they did not expand on the interactions between the different levels of context, and they do not go beyond the contextual analysis to consider the micro-processes of collaborative working in detail.
Social Theory Perspectives
Of more pertinence to the specifics of collaborative working, is the use of cultural historical activity theory (Engeström, 1999, 2001). The relevance of

activity theory lies in its focus on knowledge creation and exchange in the workplace and how tasks come to be redistributed in changing organisations and teams. Conflict is seen to be generated as different communities or activity systems come together to pursue common goals, as in children’s services. A cycle of ‘expansive learning’ is described in this coming together that eventuates in finding solutions and agreeing shared models of working. For example, Engeström (2001) describes how children’s health care practitioners were discussing a case where information sharing processes had broken down.
Individual practitioners made different claims about what had happened to the notes on the case. The disagreements led to a suggestion of exploring the systems of information sharing – an illustration of expansive learning. Activity theory is presented in general terms and so it would be expected that its influence would be most useful in framing issues. This is what Robinson,
Anning and Frost (2005) found in their study of multi-agency teams, where the process of expansive learning helped them understand how dilemmas might be resolved. However, these authors identify a gap in activity theory; the lack of focus on the role of professional relationships and rituals to sustain emergent shared models. This focus, according to these authors, is important in facilitating the take-up of shared values.
Other work which uses activity theory to explore inter-professional collaboration focuses on some process issues. In another study of multi-agency working, Leadbetter et al. (2007) and Edwards, Daniels, Gallagher, Leadbetter and Warmington (2009) use activity theory to illustrate the construction of a

shared common goal. They discuss the work that takes place at boundaries of existing systems and organisations with established procedures and protocols.
Edwards et al. (2009) describe how practitioners
‘needed to become attuned to how other professions might primarily interpret a child, for example, as a victim of family disruption rather than primarily as a participant in crime. They also need to learn how other practitioners would respond to those interpretations and to become aware of resources they could bring to bear to support a child and how they might use them’ (p.91)
Neutral spaces for discussion, with an emphasis on professional respect, meant that practitioners could learn from each other in order to develop their repertoire of preventative practice when working with children. It is these boundary spaces, Edwards et al. suggest, that provide the flexibility and opportunities to develop new shared ways of working, although the extent to which boundaries are defended and adhered to can affect the capability of professionals to successfully collaborate. Leadbetter et al acknowledge tensions that arise from the division of labour, sharing and distributing professional expertise, and evaluations of professional knowledge. They suggest that there is a need to work with more shared understanding while maintaining specialisms, and activity theory has enabled them to identify contradictions between systems, and where tensions may arise. However, this use of activity theory focuses mainly on the social aspects of collaborative work, rather than individual characteristics. It does not provide a complete analysis of collaborative dilemmas, so only partially explores ways in which individuals

can come to terms with problems that emerge from collaborative working. It has been suggested that activity theory needs to work harder to incorporate the individual and the collective (e.g. Edwards, 2005), which has led to the development of the idea of relational agency (Edwards, 2005, 2007; Edwards et al., 2010). Relational agency is the ‘capacity to align one’s thoughts and actions with those of others to interpret aspects of one’s world and to act on and respond to those interpretations’ (Edwards, 2007, p.4). In other words, Edwards suggests that through interaction with others, individuals develop and change how they think about concepts, problems and contexts. These interactions, and resultant shifts in perspectives, inform how individuals interpret contexts and others’ actions, and guide future experiences with others in joint work. As an example, Edwards (2005) describes how
‘a teacher and a social worker might jointly expand their understandings of a child’s trajectory using the conceptual and material tools of their own specialisms. Following that interpretation their different professional expertise is brought into play in response to the expanded problem and their work is aligned in the knowledge of the expertise of the other.’ (p. 178).
This linking of the individual and the social contributes to an understanding of processes involved in joint work, particularly regarding how individuals integrate their versions of knowledge and develop new, shared understandings to take work forward.
Nonetheless, activity theory still has limitations in its applicability to multi-agency and inter-professional working. The components of the theory are,

in general terms, applicable to many situations and instances of collaborative work. While some may see this as a theoretical strength, we consider that overgeneralisability does, in fact, highlight a limitation to the usefulness of activity theory: there is a need to develop more subtlety and detail to facilitate the detailed analysis of individual motivations within collaborative working. The individual as part of the group is a key feature of collaborative working.
Relational agency contributes to an understanding of certain aspects of this, in terms of how individuals develop shared interpretations, but there is still a need to consider in detail how individuals commit to ideas of working together in the first place.
Wenger’s (1998) work on communities of practice is also used as a lens through which to consider inter-professional work (e.g. Frost & Robinson,
2007; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009). Wenger suggests that through participation in group activities, and formalization of group procedures, individuals come to see themselves as team members. Wenger considers the role of the individual within the group, and describes how identities change as individuals begin to see themselves as part of a multi-professional team. Wenger acknowledges that multiple identities held by individuals may conflict and create tension, needing some kind of reconciliation, and suggests that individuals renegotiate and reshape their identities through developing roles and redistributing knowledge.
As Robinson et al. (2005) found, changes in professional identities are an important aspect of developing effective multi-agency teamwork. In a similar vein to activity theory, however, the communities of practice framework is

essentially a social theory deploying generalised concepts with a broad scope.
As with activity theory, the communities of practice framework is useful in enabling framing of key issues, but the core concepts need more detail to examine specifics of individual motivations and processes. This is particularly applicable when considering specific tensions over identity, which are identified in the wider literature in this field and were prominent in Robinson et al’s study.
In summary, Easen et al.’s ecological framework, and those of
Engeström (1999) and of Wenger (1998), which have their origins in social theory, are able to frame collaboration in general terms. Edwards’ (2005, 2007) work on relational agency also sheds some light on some aspects of the interface between groups and individuals. However, more work is needed to understand processes that arise at this interface, particularly around collaborative motivation. Concepts relating to motivational processes at this interface will enable a fuller analysis of difficulties encountered in multi-agency and inter- professional collaboration, and also help us to understand ways of resolving such difficulties.
An Inter-Disciplinary Framework of Collaborative Working
Social level of analysis
The framework of collaborative working proposed here situates collaborative practices in the context of a specific field of provision (‘local context of collaboration’), set within and interacting with a national policy field

(‘policy context’) (see Figure 1 for a contextualised framework of collaboration). Interacting at the heart of the model are group and individual processes. This framework used Easen et al’s (2000) explanatory model of inter-professional collaboration as a starting point, and developed it according to the literature review. The literature search used the British Education Index,
Education Resources Information Center, and PsychInfo databases: search terms included “inter agency”, “inter professional”, “multi agency”, “multi professional”, “professional collaboration”, and “professional cooperation”.
Studies that focused on professionals from different organizations working together to support children and young people were considered. In view of its levels of analysis, the framework presented here assumes that interactions between professionals (inter-professional collaboration, e.g. social workers and psychologists) are distinct from interactions between agencies (inter-agency collaboration e.g. schools and mental health service).
Insert Figure 1 about here
In the policy context the key factors identified by research are:
 national and local Government policies and structures (O’Brien et al., 2006);
 interactions and tensions between different policies (Bagley,
Ackerley, & Rattray, 2004; Harris, 2003); and

 the regulations and codes of practice of different services and professions (Hartas, 2004).
The policy context establishes general frameworks and approaches that need to be worked out in the local context . These approaches pose problems and challenges which have to be worked out within the real, ‘messier’ contexts of practice. A two-way interaction between the local and policy contexts is assumed, because of the impact of national policy on local contexts and the way local contexts ultimately feed back into future policy development. The key factors and processes in the local context of collaboration as identified by research involve:
 the purpose of collaborative action (Bachmann et al., 2009;
Easen et al., 2000; Glenny, 2005; Skinner & Bell, 2007);
 roles and responsibilities of specific professions (Abbo, Watson
& Townsley , 2005; Bell & Allain, 2011; Frost & Robinson, 2007; Moran,
Jacobs, Bunn & Bifulco, 2007);
 leadership and management structures (Bagley et al., 2004;
Watson, 2006);

 lines of accountability (Frost & Robinson, 2007); resourcing (Easen et al., 2000; O’Brien et al.
, 2006; Sloper,
2004; Tett, Crowther & O’Hara, 2003); and
 shared/differing concepts and knowledge (Frost & Robinson,
2007; Moran et al., 2007; Salmon, 2004).

The local context of collaboration sets the scene for and interacts with group collaboration. The key factors and processes in group functioning as identified in research involve:
 roles and responsibilities within collaborative groups and teams;
(Considine, 2002; Frost & Robinson, 2007; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009;
Sloper, 2004);
 kinds of joint activities (Frost & Robinson, 2007; Hartas, 2004;
Watson, 2006); and
 history, duration, continuity and kinds of collaborative relationships (Abbot et al.
, 2005; Easen et al., 2000; Skinner & Bell, 2007;
Sloper, 2004).
Finally, key factors and processes in individual factors identified by research are:
 individual professional expertise, perceived status, and professional experiences (Bell & Allain, 2011; Frost & Robinson, 2007);
 past experiences of collaboration (Cameron & Lart, 2003;
Sloper, 2004); and
 personal skills (Abbot et al.
, 2005; Cameron & Lart, 2003;
Skinner & Bell, 2007).
Social-Psychological Level of Analysis
The above parts of this new framework are based on Easen et al.’s
(2000) model of relationships between factors affecting inter-professional collaboration, and draw on relevant literature to exemplify key factors and

processes at these levels. What is new about the framework is the integration of a conceptualization of the interaction between the group and individuals into these social levels of analysis as a descriptive model of collaborative processes.
This paper introduces a social psychological level of conceptualization into this inter-disciplinary framework of collaborative working. By focusing on the interaction between the individual and the collective, we show how conclusions from literature about multi-agency and inter-professional collaboration can be conceptualised as social psychological processes and factors.
Shared purposes and common goals are themes running through the literature on inter-professional and partnership working. Shared goals need to be clear (e.g. Anning, Cottrell, Frost, Green & Robinson, 2006; Dhillon, 2007;
Sloper, 2004), and commitment to those goals and to the process of joint work is critical to effective collaboration, from managerial levels through to delivery levels (eg Atkinson, Wilkin, Stott. Doherty & Kinder, 2002; Dowling, Powell
& Glendinning , 2004; Sloper, 2004). Motivation to work in partnership across professional boundaries can be enhanced where a single profession on its own would struggle to meet the demands of a complex problem. In such cases as these all parties could benefit from collaboration (Hartas, 2004; Dhillon, 2007).
Trust and confidence that other professions are ready to come on board in cases such as these can contribute to a sense of shared responsibility for successful outcomes, but communication systems must support this (Glenny and Roaf,
2008).

The principles and strategies for collaborative work also need to be agreed by those working together (Harris, 2003; Tett et al, 2003). Differences in values, concepts and knowledge bases, however, need not hinder collaborative work: shared goals can be general enough to allow for differences in particular values, and can still refer to group processes around how an issue can be addressed (Frost & Robinson, 2007).
This framework outlined in this paper draws on theoretical concepts of collective preferences (Gilbert, 2001), team reasoning (Sugden, 2005), and joint commitment (Gilbert 2005). These ideas about shared purposes, joint responsibility for and commitment to these purposes are brought together as the basis for finding strategies to progress these purposes. Experimental work on decision making demonstrated that collective preferences come into play where contributions are required from several people to achieve a stated goal, especially in situations involving public accountability for actions (Colman,
Pulford & Rose, 2008; Rose & Colman, 2007). Collective preferences are demonstrated when actions and resultant outcomes are considered in terms of
‘ what the group wants ’, rather than what each individual wants. The assumption behind this perspective, therefore, is that individuals in interaction are focused on the group’s goals and outcomes, and feel a sense of commitment and shared responsibility. Collective preferences, then, are illustrated by the following conditions: i. the group prefers and intends to achieve the best outcome for the group, and

ii. the individual acts as a part of the group to achieve this outcome iii. the individual is accountable to the rest of the group for their actions.
Collective preferences are useful for analysis of multi-agency and interprofessional collaboration, because they can elaborate on the key role of shared goals in informing ways that individuals work together to solve problems.
Considered in this way, collective preferences involve: i. the processes of generating shared goals, ii. shared perceptions of collective responsibility and iii. a willingness to act as part of a group. However, Gilbert (2005) has extended her discussion of collective preferences to describe the idea of joint commitment, which describes how group members can all be committed to a joint course of action, and be answerable to everyone else who is committed. In joint commitment there is an intention to coordinate action in order to achieve a joint goal, with some expectation that the goal cannot be achieved by individuals alone. This leads to an obligation to perform the planned actions, to achieve the goal.
These concepts integrate and highlight some of the underlying processes in inter-professional groups; they pull together the different stages of decisionmaking and action that are involved in joint work. Together they can be summarized as ‘collective commitment’: the key aspect of relevance is the assumption that individuals in interaction develop commitments to the group’s goals and outcomes. This concept of collective commitment to group goals has affinity with Considine’s (2002) notion of a ‘culture of responsibility’ in which professionals come to see themselves as responsible for ensuring positive

outcomes. As such, collective commitment is applicable to collaborative group work and can help to explain some of the underlying processes in interprofessional collaborative working. Collective commitment identifies the key role of shared goals in collaborative processes, with these goals guiding the way that individuals work together to solve problems.
However, there is more to the processes of collaborative working. This is where a further theoretical approach is relevant; the social cognitive theory of group motivation, commitment and performance (Bandura, 1997). Of particular relevance from this theory are the concepts of collective efficacy beliefs, on one hand, and collective process and outcome beliefs, on the other. This theoretical focus on collective beliefs fits neatly with and complements the focus of collective commitment on shared goals, as goals and beliefs are core parts of social cognitive theory’s explanatory concepts. Collective efficacy refers to a group’s beliefs about its capabilities to carry out a course of action. It is an extension of Bandura’s work on human agency; where he extended the idea of self efficacy to explain groups’ motivation, commitment and performance.
Perceived self efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs about her or his capability to successfully execute a certain course of action in a given context, with reference to ‘the control of action, regulation of thought processes, motivation, and affective and physiological states’ (Bandura, 1997, p.36). In collective efficacy, the group’s perception is taken as an aggregate of individuals’ perceptions. However, collective efficacy relates not only to a group’s perceptions of the ability of individuals to successfully carry out certain

courses of action, but also to the interactive aspects of group functioning; how the group operates as a whole. Group motivation and performance depend on both collective efficacy in social cognitive theory, and on collective process and outcome beliefs. To initiate and maintain collaborative actions, according to the theory, depends not only on shared goals and collective efficacy beliefs, but also on collective beliefs that undertaking collaborative actions leads to positive outcomes.
Figure 2 illustrates this integration of the shared group goal aspect of collective commitment with collective efficacy, and process and outcome beliefs from social cognitive theory. These three parts interact with each other in initiating and maintaining collaborative actions and outcomes. Collaborative action is likely to be initiated if there is collective commitment to group goals, and there are beliefs that collaborative action will lead to desired outcomes
(‘process and outcome beliefs’), as well as efficacy perceptions about the capabilities of the group to carry out collaborative actions (‘individual and collective efficacy’). Once collaborative actions begin, early actions and interim outcomes feed back to the motivational processes in a dynamic way, where there may be changes to collaborative actions. In this respect, the model presented in this paper illustrates an iterative process that can allow for the development, responsiveness and continuation of collaborative processes.
These collaborative processes represented in Figure 2 are seen as operating at the interface of individual and group levels of analysis in the overall contextual framework of collaborative working (as in Figure 1).

Insert Figure 2 about here
This model of collaborative team processes illustrates the social psychological processes that occur to differing extents in collaborative teams.
The extent to which collective commitment, individual and collective efficacy, and process and outcome beliefs occur will affect the nature, development and maintenance of collaborative processes. Therefore, this model provides a framework with which to analyse such processes with a particular focus that has not been used before. This paper will now illustrate the relevance of this model to collaborative practice, in particular, the resolution of interprofessional dilemmas.
Dilemmas in inter-professional teams
The way in which inter-professional teams operate means that there are certain types of problems that they are likely to encounter, particularly around defining and working towards a shared goal. This is demonstrated by the extensive literature on barriers to inter-professional and multi-agency working
(e.g. Sloper, 2004; Watson, 2006). Anning et al. (2006) outline a number of tensions in inter-professional work, but this paper, as in Rose (2011), recognizes the distinction between fairly straightforward problems and more complex dilemmas. Dilemmas are a particular type of hard-to-solve problem, where there is no clear solution because all possible courses of action have

disadvantages, This paper conceptualizes inter-professional dilemmas in three ways: dilemmas around role, identity and control.
Role dilemmas
Dilemmas around role happen when there is a mismatch or conflict between the level of expertise and the type of task. In a role dilemma, a specialist may be asked to take on a more generic role which does not use their expertise, or a professional may feel that their expertise is devalued when a less-specialized individual takes on specialist roles. In inter-professional work, there is often a need for both specialized expertise and more generic work, but some specialists may not be keen to carry out the necessary generic work: this can be problematic in a team of specialists. Undertaking generic roles can, however, be useful to help practitioners overcome professional boundaries
(Abbot et al.
, 2005; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009) and sharing working practices can help avoid compartmentalized views of the child (Leadbetter, 2008).
Although generic roles can be useful in terms of speed of delivery, professionals may feel anxieties around others carrying out “their” rles, and concerns around the quality of service provision (Frost & Robinson, 2007;
Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009; Webb & Vulliamy, 2001). In essence, then, role dilemmas concern the appropriateness of tasks undertaken by an individual.
Identity dilemmas
The conflict between deep, but bounded, specialist knowledge and wider knowledge which spans professional boundaries can result in an identity dilemma. Hybrid professionals, with experience, knowledge and approaches

that draw from a range of disciplines, are now becoming more commonplace
(e.g. Sloper, 2004). It can take time to develop a clear idea of what it means to be a hybrid or ‘multi-agency’ professional in practice, which can result in practitioners feeling insecure within such a role (Hymans, 2008; Leadbetter,
2006). The resulting change in status, as well as blurring of role boundaries, can also be threatening to professional identity (Abbot et al., 2005; Frost &
Robinson, 2007; Leadbetter, 2006; Robinson et al., 2005). Stepping outside ones area of specialist expertise into a more wide-ranging role can also reduce an individual’s sense of unique professional contribution (Frost & Robinson,
2007; Moran et al., 2007), and it can be hard to maintain deep specialist knowledge and hold onto specialist identities, while constructing new ‘multiagency identities’, particularly where knowledge bases and professional cultures conflict (Bell & Allain, 2011; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009; Robinson et al., 2005). In essence, then, identity dilemmas are about how an individual sees themselves and how others see them.
Control dilemmas
When professionals from different disciplines come together, they may bring with them contradictory models of practice and use of different causal models to analyse cases, and different versions of knowledge (Easen et al.,
2000; Frost & Robinson, 2007; O’Brien et al., 2006; Sloper, 2004). This can result in a control dilemma: where one perspective is given priority over another, some professionals may feel undervalued or ignored, and there may be resultant confusion for service users. Different agencies may have different

specific agendas, priorities and approaches (O’Brien et al., 2006; Warin, 2007), as well as different structures and conditions of work (Easen et al., 2000). In essence, then, control dilemmas centre upon professional disagreements in collaborative decision-making processes.
Figure 3 applies the model of collaborative motivational processes
(collective commitment to group goals, collective efficacy, process and outcome beliefs, as in Figure 2) to kinds of tensions and dilemmas around role, identity and control and their resolution, discussed above. Figure 3 represents how the assumed motivational processes operate in the context of the working out of these tensions and the resolving of these dilemmas. This model therefore shows how the working out of the tensions and dilemmas influences collaborative actions and outcomes and are mediated by these motivational processes. In this way, collaborative outcomes represent the working resolution of these role, identity and control dilemmas. So, as professionals accept and work with the emergent tensions, we assume that resolutions are rooted in, and feed back into the development of collective commitment, process/outcome beliefs and efficacy beliefs that comprise the motivational processes.
Insert Figure 3 about here
To illustrate this, we can use examples of the three different dilemmas discussed in Rose (2011). In an example of a role dilemma, an educational psychologist was asked to contribute to a support programme for children with emotional and behaviour al difficulties, and she felt that this contribution would

not make use of her specialist skills. A portage worker identified tensions around goals (such as whether people’s agenda in being involved in collaborative work was about being seen to lead or take over, rather than working as part of a team), around efficacy (particularly around different skill sets being valued), and around process-outcome beliefs (such as perceptions of how different inputs will contribute to supporting a child). When discussing potential resolutions for this dilemma, the portage worker commented,
‘I suppose that they need to get together and just discuss what actually needs to be done and how that actually needs to be carried out or where it needs to be carried out. So you know it is that they are saying it needs to be carried out in the school throughout the day then it’s not possible for an EP to be there every day, carrying it out throughout the day, so then they have to look who is there throughout the day, who can be working with that child, and looking at that person’s skills and how they can use the skills that they’ve got to help implement the programme, and whether they need a bit more support or some extra training. Or it may be that they have already got those skills but no one has actually said well, actually you can do this because remember when you worked with this child you did this and you did that, well actually that’s what we want you to do for this one’
In the first sentence, the portage worker is discussing establishing joint goals, in terms of ‘what actually needs to be done’. She then goes on to discuss process-outcome beliefs – looking at how and where the work needs to be carried out, and who will be implementing it. Finally, she ends up discussing efficacy beliefs – around people believing that they have the skills to carry out a

piece of work. When role dilemmas were discussed, joint goals, processoutcome beliefs, and efficacy beliefs all featured in the suggested resolutions.
In identity dilemmas, however, efficacy beliefs and process-outcome beliefs were more prevalent in suggested resolutions. Process-outcome beliefs arose when people discussed ‘what is going to be most valuable in the long term?’ and considered how sharing ideas with other types of professionals can provide the means to work effectively with children. Efficacy beliefs arose in discussions around how confident people were in carrying out their role and maintaining their expertise in order to do their job effectively. When discussing an identity dilemma where a CAMHS nurse was facing a choice between being based with an education team, or with health colleagues, for example, a clinical psychologist reflected on how well-established people were in their roles:
‘Certainly at the beginning of someone’s career, I think if you’ve been working as a CAMHS nurse for 20 years and you are very well rooted in your professional identity and the kinds of things that you keep abreast of, and you are really closely linked to different networks, then it might not affect you as much as if you were, it was your first job for example and suddenly you are thinking hold on I am not sure what I would do in this situation as a
CAMHS nurse, and the educationalist is saying I should do this, and I am not seeing my supervisor for another two weeks so I don’t know really what I should do. So I think there’s a definite tension there and I think how it will play itself out depends on I think how experienced you are and how confident you are in your world.’

Discussions around control dilemmas focused mostly on group goals, and process-outcome beliefs. Suggested resolutions included thinking about
‘what you are actually trying to achieve’, and in an example where an educational psychologist and a SENCo were arguing about the best course of action, a primary mental health worker suggested ‘I would maybe want to ask her some questions about the sort of outcomes she was looking for and how she would know when she’d got them.’
Process-outcome beliefs were connected to issues around goals – participants considered goals, and then how those could best be achieved. The same primary mental health worker, for example, said
‘ If I was the ed psych and the SENCO was absolutely driven to do this then I would be really clear with her about where I thought the pitfalls were.’
In a similar vein, a learning mentor explained:
‘It’s difficult because the professions that do come into our school we know them and you can sit down and you can be reasonable and you can have child-centred conversations, really it’s not about what
I want and it’s not about you want, it’s about what do you think is going to work best.’
Conclusion
This paper presents an Inter-Disciplinary Framework of Collaborative
Working that integrates social with psychological levels of analysis. Its originality involves two broad aspects. First, it draws together the ideas of collective commitment, collective efficacy, and process and outcome beliefs, on one hand, with ideas about tensions and dilemmas in multi-agency group

functioning, on the other. Second, it locates these ideas about motivational processes within social processes and factors relevant to multi-agency and inter-professional collaboration. The potential usefulness of this model is that as it is situated within a set of social contexts it provides a way of gauging the extent to which such teams can work constructively. It does this by examining whether the possible tensions and dilemmas are resolved to an extent where the group achieves collective commitment, has collective efficacy about joint working and holds collective beliefs that joint working will eventuate in constructive outcomes.
The model also implies that there is a two way relationship between collaborative outcomes, motivational processes and group tensions and dilemmas. Motivational processes feed into collaborative outcomes, and in turn are responsive to such outcomes. These processes and outcomes also affect the ways in which professionals interpret and respond to inter-professional dilemmas, and this response will in turn feed back into how motivation and collaborative processes develop. To achieve a working level of collaborative processes, involving collective commitment, collective efficacy, and processoutcome beliefs, would suggest that individuals within a group had accepted such dilemmas and were prepared to resolve these tensions. As such, achieving a level of collaborative process as represented by this model can be seen as a working resolution of dilemmas.
This framework has drawn on and conceptualized existing literature about inter-professional and multi-agency working, with the detailed focus on

the social-psychological motivational processes that operate within the individual as a part of the group. It situates these processes within an ecological model of inter-professional working similar to that proposed by Easen et al.
(2000). While Wenger’s (1998) work on communities of practice acknowledges that individual identities play a role in group processes its main strength is as a middle level social theory. Its conceptual terms, therefore, are not best suited to addressing the specific issues of collaborative working at the interface between groups and individuals. The framework presented in this paper presents an analysis that is both specific, and situated within the wider local and national contexts – this distinction comes from Easen et al. (2000), but is not considered in detail in the communities of practice literature (Wenger, 1998). Work on relational agency (Edwards, 2006, 2007; Edwards et al., 2010) has brought the interaction between the group and the individual in activity theory into sharper focus. The main agenda of this work is to look at the actual processes of developing shared conceptualizations. The current paper, therefore, presents a new contextualized framework for considering the social-psychological motivational processes involved in collaborative working.
References
Abbot, D., Watson, D. & Townsley, R. (2005) The proof of the pudding: what difference does multi-agency working make to families with disabled children with complex health care needs?
Child and Family Social Work, 10, 229-238.

Anning, A., Cottrell, D.M., Frost, N., Green, J. & Robinson, M. (2006) Developing multiprofessional teamwork for integrated children's services.
Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Atkinson, M., Wilkin, A.., Stott, A., Doherty, P. & Kinder, K. (2002) Multi-agency working: A detailed study . Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Bachmann, M.O., O’Brien, M.O., Shreeve, C., Jones, A., Watson, N., Reading, J., Thoburn, R.,
Mugford, M. & the National Evaluation of Children’s Trusts Team. (2009) Integrating children’s services in England: national evaluation of children’s trusts. Child: Care, Health and
Development, 35 , 257-265.
Bagley, C., Ackerley, C.L. & Rattray, J. (2004) Social exclusion, Sure Start and organizational social capital: evaluating inter-disciplinary multi-agency working in an education and health work programme, Journal of Education Policy, 19 , 595-607.
Bandura, A. (1997) Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W H Freeman.
Cameron, A. & Lart, R. (2003) Factors promoting and obstacles hindering joint working: a systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Integrated Care, 11 , 9-17.
Bell, L. and Allain, L. (2011) Exploring professional stereotypes and learning for interprofessional practice: an example from UK qualifying level social work education. Social Work
Education, 30 , 266-280.
Considine, M. (2002) The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networks, partnerships and joined-up services. Governance: An International Journal of Policy,
Administration and Institutions, 15 , 21-40.
Colman, A.M., Pulford, B. & Rose, J. (2008) Collective rationality in interactive decisions:
Evidence for team reasoning. Acta Psychologica, 128 , 387-397.
Dalzell, J., Nelson, H., Haigh, C., Williams A. & Monti§, P. (2007) Involving families who have deaf children using a Family Needs Survey: a multi-agency perspective, Child: Care,
Health and Development, 33 , 576-585.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) The children’s plan: Building Brighter futures.
Norwich: HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every child matters: Change for children.
Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Dhillon, J.K. (2007) Trust, shared goals and participation in partnerships: reflections of post-16 education and training providers in England. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 59 ,
503-515.
Dowling, B., Powell, M. & Glendinning C. (2004) Conceptualising successful partnerships,
Health and Social Care in the Community, 12 , 309-317.
Easen, P., Atkins, M. & Dyson, A. (2000) Inter-professional collaboration and conceptualisations of practice. Children and Society, 14, 355-367.
Edwards, A. (2005) Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International
Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168-182.
Edwards, A. (2007) Relational agency in professional practice: a CHAT analysis. Actio: An
International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1-17.
Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J. & Warmington, P. (2009) Improving inter-professional collaborations: Learning to do multi-agency work.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Edwards, A., Lunt, I. and Stamou, E. (2010) Inter-professional work and expertise: new roles at the boundaries of schools. British Educational Research Journal, 36 , 27-45.
Engeström, Y. (1999) Perspectives on activity theory . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
Frost, N. & Robinson, M. (2007) Joining up children’s services: safeguarding children in multidisciplinary teams. Child Abuse Review, 16, 184-199.
Gaskell, S. and Leadbetter, J. (2009) Educational psychologists and multi-agency working: exploring professional identity. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25 , 97-111.
Gilbert, M. (2001) Collective preferences, obligations, and rational choice. Economics and
Philosophy, 17, 109-119.
Gilbert, M. (2005) A theoretical framework for the understanding of teams. In N. Gold (Ed),
Teamwork: Multi-disciplinary perspectives (22-32). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Glenny, G. (2005) Riding the dragon: developing inter-agency systems for supporting children.
Support for Learning, 20, 167-175.
Glenny, G. & Roaf, C. (2008) Multiprofessional communication: Making systems work for children.
Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
Harris, S. (2003) Inter-agency practice and professional collaboration: the case of drug education and prevention. Journal of Education Policy, 18 , 303-314.
Hartas, D.D.H. (2004) Teacher and speech-language therapist collaboration: being equal and achieving a common goal? Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 20 , 33-54.
Hymans, M. (2008). How personal constructs about ‘professional identity’ might act as a barrier to multi-agency working. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24 , 279-288.
Leadbetter, J. (2006) Investigating and conceptualising the notion of consultation to facilitate multi-agency work. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22 , 19-31.
Leadbetter, J. (2008) Learning in and for interagency working: making links between practice development and structured reflection, Learning in Health and Social Care, 7 , 198-208.
Leadbetter, J., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Martin, D., Middleton, D., Popova, A., Warmington,
P., Apostolov, A. & Brown, S. (2007) Professional learning within multi-agency children’s services: researching into practice. Educational Research, 49 , 83-98.
Moran, P., Jacobs, C., Bunn, A. & Bifulco A. (2007) Multi-agency working: implications for an early intervention social work team. Child and Family Social Work, 12, 143-151.
O’Brien, M., Bachmann, M., Husbands, C., Shreeve, A., Jones, N., Watson, J. & Shemilt, I.
(2006) Integrating children’s services to promote children’s welfare: early findings from the implementation of Children’s Trusts in England. Child Abuse Review,15, 377-395.
Robinson, M., Anning, A. & Frost, N. (2005) ‘When is a teacher, not a teacher?’: knowledge creation and the professional identity of teachers within multi-agency teams. Studies in
Continuing Education, 27 , 175-191.
Rose, J. (2011) Dilemmas of inter-professional collaboration: Can they be resolved? Children and Society, 25 , 151-163.

Rose, J.
& Colman, A.M. (2007). Collective preferences in strategic decisions. Psychological
Reports, 101 , 803-815.
Salmon, G. (2004) Multi-agency collaboration: the challenges for CAMHS. Child and
Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 156-161.
Skinner, K. & Bell, L. (2007) Changing structures: necessary but not sufficient. Child Abuse
Review, 16, 209-222.
Sloper, P. (2004) Facilitators and barriers for co-ordinated multi-agency services. Child: Care,
Health and Development, 30 , 571-580.
Sugden, R. (2005) The logic of team reasoning. In N. Gold (Ed), Teamwork: Multi-disciplinary perspectives (181-199). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tett, L., Crowther, J. & O’Hara, P. (2003) Collaborative partnerships in community education.
Journal of Education Policy, 18 , 37-51.
Warin, J. (2007) Joined-up services for young children and their families: papering over the cracks or re-constructing the foundations. Children and Society, 21 , 87-97.
Watson. H. (2006) Facilitating effective working in multi-agency co-located teams. Educational and Child Psychology, 23 , 8-22.
Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (2001) Joining up the solutions: the rhetoric and practice of interagency cooperation. Children and Society, 15 , 315-332.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Figure Captions
Figure 1. A contextual framework of collaboration
Figure 2. A model of collaborative team processes
Figure 3. The relationship between tensions in groups and resolution of dilemmas on collaborative team processes