Module 6: Group responses
Reginah Yetunde Mako
Apr 4, 2023Apr 4 at 8:53pm
As we’ve explored how collaborative governance can take many forms, one aspect remained pertinent: how interpersonal the process is. Much of collaborative governance and management involves actors working in established roles in order to set boundaries and preserve the collaboration’s effectiveness. Silvia (2018) indirectly indicates an instance where boundaries are crucial, noting that participants are influenced by “their own personal opinion, the perspective of the home organization that they represent, and the collective view of the network” (275). Aside from boundary setting, negotiation tactics reiterate that collaborative governance maintains an interpersonal element. Borukva and Amsler (2021) explore interest-based and principal-agent based negotiation styles. While learning more about these negotiation styles, it made me wonder why conflicts still arise when the tactics seem so clear. Is it a matter of conflicting interests or not following through on established norms, if any?
Consider Starbucks. As you may know, various Starbucks stores unionized around the country, much to the corporation's dismay and despite its extensive (and illegal) union-busting tacticsLinks to an external site.. This past February, I sat in on a collective bargaining session on behalf of the store I work part-time (Poplar and Highland, the only unionized Starbucks in Memphis and one of three in Tennessee), where corporate representatives ended the meeting after not finding a common ground based on both parties’ interests. Conversely, it can be argued that the corporation’s actions towards union organizers could be an example of not following through on established norms set by both Starbucks (e.g., company culture, employee expectations and benefits, etc.) and the National Labor Relations Board (e.g., labor laws).
Therefore, I must ask two questions:
1. Have you experienced any form of negotiation, including collective bargaining?
2. To what extent do you perceive collaboration governance as an interpersonal way of collaboration?
WednesdayApr 5 at 11:52am
The material in chapter 7 in my opinion is the most important thus far regarding collaborative governance. Here, the planning stages come to life and set the group up for implementation. Regarding the four areas of deliberation and decision-making (Agreement on purpose and operating principles, joint learning, joint problem-solving, and consensus decision-making) Joint problem solving opens the table for real ideas and collaboration. One of the challenges discussed was power disparities and it addressed my issues with the “Northeast” theory. Having more power over another party in the collaborative group does not necessarily means extra resources, money, or credibility. If one party is dependent on the actions or resources of another, then they have more power. This can obviously lead to benefit for one over the other. If a good foundation is built through joint problem learning, the mutual respect and expectations of one another will be clear. This would allow for a realistic northeast region to be define and agreed upon, even if one party benefits more than others.
One point of emphasis that I disagreed with in chapter 8 was that when structuring agreements for implementation, it is good to have a written agreement of some sort, but generally it should not be legally binding. The amount of commitment and trust needed to have successful collaborative governance is fairly high. There is always a chance of a party not following up on promises or agreements. What happens under a change of management when said party does not want to participate in the group anymore? This could certainly cause the collaborative governance to fail, and this is why I feel that a legally binding written agreement of some sort should be involved. The depth and expectations of the contact can be altered by the goal or situation of course, and this would eliminate some elements of distrust and lack of commitment. Do you feel that there should be a push, with both agreement-seeking groups and collective action groups, for more legally binding written agreements? Why or why not?