Power, Conflict

1
Power, Conflict Learning in Interorganizational
Domains

• Barbara Gray
• Pennsylvania State University
• and
• Visiting Chair, Tilburg University

Wageningen University 27 September 2004
2
Origin of the Concept

• Collaboration A necessary response to
  turbulence in inter-organizational domains (Emery
  Trist, 1965)
• Domain Poorly-defined meta-problem that
  concerns many different stakeholders
• Turbulence Confluence of external pressures
  that individual organizations can not control
  unilaterally
• Collaboration is a collective response by domain
  stakeholders that enables them to tackle the
  problem and stabilize the domain

3
The Nature of Problem Domains

• Meta-problems, wicked problems, poorly-defined
  problems
• Whose problems are they?

• How to identify/disentangle causes
• What are the boundaries?

• Who is affected by them?
• Who is responsible for them?

e.g. biodiversity, refugees, homelessness,
aids/HIV
4
Problem Domain Global extinction of Northern
White Rhinos

• Exemplifies a case of failed or blocked
  collaboration
• Problem domain is complex, volatile and critical.
• A pressing societal problem with social, ethical
  and economic implications the precipitous
  decline in global biodiversity which some have
  termed catastrophic
• Why did this effort fail even though virtually
  all the parties came to the table to preserve the
  species?
• What can we learn about the dynamics of such
  processes and how to manage them successfully?

5
Problem Domains
Domains must be cultivated by all parties
concerned. Unless the meta-problems are commonly
appreciated, the messes will never be cleared up.
This requires a more future-oriented as well as
more holistic posture. When a longer time
horizon is taken, people tend more readily to see
the interdependencies of their objectives and to
envisage more of the consequences which will
affect them all. They are therefore more
prepared to collaborate.
(Trist, 1978)
6
Key Features of Collaboration

• 1) Interactive process to deal constructively
  with differences
• 2) Creation of shared rules, norms structures
  the govern
• 3) Joint decision making about the domain
• 4) Stakeholders assume collective
  responsibility for the domain
• 4) Collective authorization of some to act on
  others behalves
• 5) An emergent and fragile process that must
  be continually
• reconstituted
• B. Gray Collaborating Finding Common Ground
  for Multiparty Problems, San Francisco Jossey
  Bass, 1989.

7
Quote from Stanley Baldwin

• I am not struck so much by the diversity of
  testimony as by the many-sideness of truth

8
Arenas for Collaboration

• Environmental issues
• Health Care, Education Social Welfare
• Business

• Worldwide biodiversity
• Forests logging/deforestation
• Parks/recreation
• Energy/ Water/Land use

• Health/Mental health
• Education
• Refugee systems
• Social service delivery and disaster relief
• AIDS Prevention/Treatment

• Social responsibility
• Strategic Alliances
• Suppliers and competitors

9
Advantages of Collaborating

• Wider array of resources available
• Creative solutions emerge from differing
  perspectives
• Builds community through inclusion of many
  parties
• Improves relations among diverse groups
• Builds cooperation among governmental units
• No one has/knows entire solution

10
What Factors Motivate Your Organization to
Collaborate?
11
Factors Motivating/Preventing
Collaboration
Driving forces
Restraining forces Strategic
orgl factors Institutional
factors
Knowledge generation Need for resources Economies
of scale Interdependence Hurting Stalemate
Perceived loss of control Loss of constituent
support Internal conflict
Government incentives Legal/regulatory
mandate New opportunity arises
History of conflict mistrust Disincentives Power
differences
12
However, all domains are not
conducive to collaboration
13
Four Types of Domains
Power disparity among stakeholders
large
small


different
Volatile
Fragmented
Stakeholders Purposes
Suppressed
Organized
shared
14
Processes of Domain Change
Power Difference
large
small


contention
disparate
Volatile
Fragmented
conscienticizacion
collaboration
Purpose
compliance
Oppressed
Organized
common
15
CONAIE in EcuadorCase of Contention then
Collaboration

• 1994 Land Reform Law passed with help from IDB
• Law broke up tradition land management system of
  the indigenous communities, and reversed the
  existing agrarian reform program that
  redistributed land to land-less peasants.
• Confederation of Amazonian Indian Nationalities
  (CONAIE) objected to provisions of the new law
• Mobilized a two week protest with help from
  Catholic Church and Bank Information Center (BIC)
• Staged blockages of Pan American Highway filed
  legal challenge in courts
• Gained access to negotiations with IDB Pres.
  Iglesias

16
Role of Contention

• Antecedent to collaboration
• Promotes access to collaborative table for low
  power parties
• Forces powerful players to recognized their
  interdependence on others
• Faciltates leadership development among low power
  stakeholders
• Creates hurting stalemate that stimulates
  collaboration

17
Processes of Domain Change
Power Difference
large
small


disparate
Volatile
Fragmented
collaboration
Purpose
Oppressed
Organized
common
18
3 Phases of Collaboration

• Problem-Setting Phase
• Negotiation Phase
• Implementation Phase

Getting people to the table
Reaching Agreement on What to Do
Ensuring that the Agreement is Carried Out
19
Phase I Getting parties to the table

• Envisioning the joint problem/opportunity

• Identifying the stakeholders
• --scope
• --legitimacy

• Identifying a convener
• --credible
• --powerful

• Getting a commitment to collaborate

• Finding resources

20
Barriers to Collaboration

• Some groups or organizations resist coming to the
  table? Why?
• What factors make you or others reluctant to
  participate?
• What does it take to get you to agree to
  participate in a collaboration?

21
Barriers to Getting to the Table

• History of mistrust
• Power/status differences
• Conflicts within stakeholder groups
• Technical complexity
• Differing ethnic or institutional cultures
• Institutional disincentives
• Identity issues
• Audience dynamics

22
Example of Identity Issues Voyageurs National
Park

• New national park created on U.S./Canadian border
  in Minnnesota in 1975
• Land purchased by eminent domain
• Conflict over use and management of park
• Strong resistance to park by local residents
• Resistance rooted in identity issues

• Early and continued protests
• Lawsuits opposing park decisions
• 1995 attempt to decommission the park by locals
• Failed attempt at mediation of the conflict in
  1996-7

23
Identity Frames
One key factor underlying what frames we use is
our identity. Identity
Who am I? Who are we?

• Our identities
• Give us a sense of belonging
• Are closely aligned with values
• Give meaning to our lives
• Help us determine what actions to take

24
Local Park OpponentIdentity Frame

• Frankly, people are upset because they feel like
  the Federal government, in conjunction with those
  environmental communities, are trying to take
  away the culture of the people here, much like
  what happened to the Native American community.
  The government destroyed their culture, and the
  people that live here, that grew up here,
  immigrated here, have developed a culture here.
  Frankly, what they (environmentalists) dont
  understand is that every time they push that
  agenda, they are taking away from the culture of
  the people who live here.

25
Overcoming Barriers to Collaboration

• Understand frames of all stakeholders and the
  history of the issue
• Learn about/anticipate predictable dynamics
• Hire a convener/facilitator
• Learn or acquire process facilitation skills
• Acknowledge the identity issues
• Level the playing field

• Cultural differences
• Status differences
• Power

26
Strategies for Equalizing Power

• Establish new boundaries

--Create groundrules that balance power --Use
language that reflects balance of power

• Induce parties to reinvest in relationship

--Point out interdependencies --Reframe
escalatory behaviors as interests/concerns
27
Strategies for Equalizing Power

• Limit Influence of High-Power Parties

--Acknowledge privilege --Exercise voluntary
restraints --Increase dependence of high on low
power parties

• Increase Influence of Low-Power Parties

--Revisit existing sources of influence --Decrease
dependence on high power parties --Form
coalitions --Remind tops of consequences of
non-participation (BATNABest Alternative to a
Negotiated Agreement)
28
Phase II Direction Setting/ Negotiation

• Establish groundrules
• Agree on an agenda
• If huge problem Divide tasks by sub-groups
• Joint education
• --explain interests
• --jointly seek information
• Explore multiple options
• Craft consensus solution
• Reach agreement on next steps

29
Riceland Partnership (California)

• Longstanding pitched battles over allocation and
  use of scarce water in California
• Stakeholders Farmers, conservation groups,
  municipal water authorities, ranchers, industry,
  federal state regulatory agencies
• Partnership created wildlife habitat for
  migratory birds by flooding rice fields in winter
• Win-win solution for farmers conservationists
• Used what was costless for one to benefit the
  other

30
Phase 3 Implementing an Agreement

• Select the best technical and political solution
• Anticipate and address the two-table problem
• Build external (political) support for agreements
• Build in redundancy from planners to implementers
• Design monitoring/enforcement procedures
• Establish permanently flexible structure

-- Get feedback constituencies -- Modify the
agreement
31
What Can Go Wrong in Implementation?

• Pennsylvania Deep Mining Example

• 23 stakeholders
• 2 years of negotiations
• No consensus on cover letter of agreement

32
(No Transcript)
33
Collaboration Initiated by the New York City
Partnership (1987)
Urban Partnership
NY State Employment Office
New York City Employment Office
Citibank
United Federation of Teachers
Youth Employment Initiative
New York Public Schools
Time-Warner Corp.
New York City Partnership
34
Successful Collaboration Requires

• Anticipating the process issues in each phase
• Resolving key issues in each phase
• Frequent reevaluation of how the collaboration
  is/is not working
• Anticipation of collapse from
• Accommodations to change

• Changes in players
• Shifts in power resources
• Policy changes
• Natural or human-induced disasters

35
Tasks of Conveners/Facilitators

• Assess readiness to collaborate
• Decrease resistance to getting to the table
• Ensure effective representation
• Help parties establish and enforce groundrules
• Establish a climate of trust and model openess
• Design and manage the process/data
• Help the parties forge consensus
• Oversee implementation

36
How Do You Know When Youve Achieved It?

• Knotty theoretical issueopen for debate. Is it
  enough to
• Get parties to the table?
• Complete 3 phases?
• Create trust?
• Institutionalize the collaboration?
• Address/improve domain problem?

37
Consequences of NOT Collaborating

• No action Problems persist or get worse
• Blocking Tackling Attempts to impose
  unilateral solutions are resisted by other
  stakeholders
• Parties seek hierarchical remedies that generate
  high costs, long delays and inferior outcomes
  that often disenfranchise entire populations

38
Quote for Talleyrand

• There is one person that is wiser than
• anybody, and that is everybody.