A Mesolevel Communicative Model of Collaboration

Abstract

Generally theorized and empirically examined as an organization phenomenon, collaboration may be more productively explored from a mesolevel model that simultaneously addresses group, organizational, and public frames. Examining how individuals communicate in those frames revealed four discursive productions of collaboration, which were previously undertheorized. Thus, we propose a communicative model that details the simultaneously occurring communication at multiple levels that gives rise to the emergence and effectiveness of collaborating talk. In this model, communication is no longer described as one of the component(s) of collaboration; communication is elevated to the essence of collaboration. Working from observations and records of a 9-month interorganizational collaboration, this article develops a mesolevel communicative model of collaboration and demonstrates that the bulk of collaborative communication occurs at the team level-indeed, the level where relationships among individuals and organizations is revealed and acted upon.The critique and conceptual analysis that follows underlie the development of a communicative model of interorganizational collaboration. The model applies to problem-centered teams that perform tasks, such as facilitating organizational mergers, addressing public policy or civic issues, and creating product or service innovations across industries. That is, individuals in the collaboration represent multiple and potentially competing organizational or constituency interests. Limiting collaboration in this way highlights conditions influencing communication that may not be present or are hidden in other forms of collaborating.Focusing on organizational representatives rather than organizations makes two advances. First, it identifies a series of constructs that influence an individual's organizational representation and, therefore, his or her communication in COMMUNICATION THEORYa collaboration process. These constructs are as follows: investment in resources, expected impact of collaborative activity, network uncertainty, and network instability. Second, the model recognizes that ''by their very nature, organizations are multilevel, [thus] no construct is level free'' (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994, p. 198).To wit, collaboration must be considered at multiple levels. One level is the face-toface communication of representatives in the collaborative group. At the team level, the model addresses both communication within and among collaborative teams. At the organizational level, it addresses communication among represented organizations and between a facilitating organization and its direct and indirect (public) stakeholders. As such, the model is situated in both micro-and macrocontexts and applies to both zero-history groups and those with a past and an expectation of a future, as the conditions of the model are primarily based on organizational membership, not on the duration or history of the team.A communication-based model of interorganizational collaboration, in our view...

Participative Democracy and Voice: Rethinking Community Collaboration Beyond Neutral Structures

“…A core group of the membership considered each other good friends, and one of the cochairs was the in-law of another stakeholder. Much of the collaboration literature argues trust is vital to the process (Gray, 1989;Huxham & Vangen, 2005;Keyton et al, 2008), and fostering relationships is an important part of building trust (Moseley, 2001), however, it may also have unintended consequences by limiting participants' willingness to openly disagree, a vital part of a participative democracy (Barber, 2003b) and a key feature of voice as something that allows for the destruction of one's singular perspective (Deetz & Simpson, 2004).…”

“…It encouraged attendance not discussion. Inclusiveness in membership structure without thought to how to include people in the process can create a nearly impossible environment for participative decision-making because of the large number of participants and the need to continuously rehash information for new stakeholders (Keyton et al, 2008;Koschmann & Isbell, 2009;Lange, 2001). Thus an emphasis on inclusion pacifies by appearing to engage others, without truly engaging them.…”

“…Structurally interorganizational collaboration involves stakeholders from multiple organizations or groups working toward solving a particular problem or advancing a particular vision (Gray, 1989;Keyton, Ford, & Smith, 2008;Stohl &Walker, 2002). Collaboration is not only a particular interorganizational structure but is also fundamentally discursive and communicative, foregrounding processes that are laden with egalitarian values such as horizontal hierarchy and shared decision-making (Gray, 1989;Keyton et al, 2008;Lewis, 2006).…”

“…These studies have done an excellent job of articulating the organizational consequences of the absence or presence of particular democratic processes, such as the deterioration of collaborative partnerships (Bernard, 2010). Keyton et al (2008) refer to this as the mesolevel of collaboration in which case studies such as theirs explore the consequences of processes for the interorganizational group.…”

“…Structurally interorganizational collaboration involves stakeholders from multiple organizations or groups working toward solving a particular problem or advancing a particular vision (Gray, 1989;Keyton, Ford, & Smith, 2008;Stohl &Walker, 2002). Collaboration is not only a particular interorganizational structure but is also fundamentally discursive and communicative, foregrounding processes that are laden with egalitarian values such as horizontal hierarchy and shared decision-making (Gray, 1989;Keyton et al, 2008;Lewis, 2006). Indeed, early research emphasized egalitarian processes (Hardy, Lawrence, & Grant, 2005;Heath & Sias, 1999;Lewis, 2006); constructive conflict (Daniels & Walker, 2001;Heath, 2007); an overall cooperative ethos within civic decision-making environments (Hardy et al, 2005); and transparency, such as openly sharing agendas and turf (Huxham & Vangen, 2005;Leach, 2006;Moseley, 2001).…”