Proposed: (Collaboration) Interdependent cooperation with others
Rationale: Simpler and more general. Descriptor does not need to include a reference to delegation nor Subsidiarity.
New Label: Collaboration Old Label: Collaboration/Subsidiarity
Old Statement: Delegating tasks to people so as to create interdependence
New Statement: Collaborating for a common purpose
Final: Working with others, bound by a common purpose, sharing responsibility and accountability.
Final: Working with others, bound by a common purpose, sharing responsibility and accountability.
Some people will not be familiar with the word Interdependent and I think Collaboration is more than being mutually dependent.
ReplyDeletein my view, collaboration is a process, but to make it simple...how about
"Sharing power, responsibility and accountability in a group with a common purpose."
This value was entered in the February batch. We need to review the comments there too.
ReplyDeleteWe should avoid entering the same value twice.
Rona Lynn I like your descriptor.
suggestion:
ReplyDeletebeing mutually dependent and reliant on others to achieve common outcome(s)
rationale:
keeps the essence of collaboration being about not being able to 'do this' by ourselves while leaving it open for people to determine how that mutual dependence and reliance happens
i am aware that the word collaboration evokes strong emotions amongst some germans, dutch, italians, belgians english and french i have worked with in the last 6-8 months but have no strong sense as to whether the label would benefit from changing and if so what to
Working together cooperatively, in a group with a common purpose, sharing, responsibility and accountability.
ReplyDeleteWorking cooperatively with a common purpose, sharing responsibility and accountability. :-)
ReplyDeleteWe are going to urgently have to re-evaluate the descriptor for this values because it is being chosen at double priority by STs over other brain-preferences. They are responding to the delegation aspect which we deleted.
ReplyDeleteThe statement to which they are responding is: "Delegating tasks to people so as to create interdependence"
My thoughts may seem too philosophical yet perhaps something to consider for our discussion tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteEach value descriptor does imply an imbalance of power exists. Who is doing the delegating and ensuring it is appropriate?
How can hierarchy (power) enhance collaboration? In my mind these concepts present an oxymoron.
Jung believed “where power lies, love does not”. What does love have to do with collaboration?
Krishnamurti states that when you love you cooperate and that is the highest form of intelligence – not when you love as a superior entity or when you are in a good position, which is nothing but fear. “When your vested interests are there, there can be no love; there is only the process of exploitation, born of fear.”
Krishnamurti asks, How can there be intelligent coming together to do something (co-operation) when we are urged, compelled, driven by authority, or any form of fear?
For what it is worth, here is the most recent Hall-Tonna definition for the Means value of Collaboration. As Paul indicates, the original Hall label was Collaboration/Subsidiarity and is located in his “New Order” stage.
ReplyDelete“Cooperating with all levels of management to ensure full and appropriate delegation of responsibility. This generally is experienced within highly functioning teams of peers.”
It seems to me that the emphasis here is on delegation with cooperation understood as supportive of that function. The original use of the word Subsidiarity underscores that interpretation.
“Subsidiarity” is a carry-over from the theological baggage of the original Hall-Tonna scale. According to Wikipedia the word Subsidiarity is derived from the latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic Social Teaching. It refers to an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority; i.e. delegation within a hierarchical system.
Given that interpretation, it may be that the Organizational Cluster is a better home for that value than the New Order Cluster since delegation is a function that usually occurs within a hierarchical/organization.
Is the emphasis of the value on the delegating of tasks, creating interdependence or the act of collaboration?
ReplyDeleteIn its current format the statement "Delegating tasks to people so as to create interdependence" would have little connection to Collaboration as currently described
Collaboration - Working cooperatively with a common purpose, sharing responsibility and accountability.
If the descriptor is accurate for reflecting the value of collaboration, then i’d suggest a statement like;
working with others who share a common purpose and who share responsibility and accountability
Delegation
ReplyDeleteHaving the authority to pass on tasks and projects to others
or
passing on tasks and projects to others
Sharing responsibility and accountability to achieve a common purpose
ReplyDeleteIn pursuit of a common purpose to work with others through sharing accountability and responsibility
ReplyDeleteworking with a group who share responsibility, accountability and a common purpose
ReplyDeleteWorking with others with a common purpose, sharing responsibility and accountability.
ReplyDeleteWorking with others, bound by a common purpose, sharing responsibility and accountability.
ReplyDelete