International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations

International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations

2002 Symposium

June 20 – 22

Melbourne, Australia

“Who’s in charge here?!” Leadership Dynamics in Multiparty Collaboration.

Silvia Prins

Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Tiensestraat 102

3000 Leuven - Belgium

Member of ISPSO

Key words: leadership, authority relations, multiparty collaboration, role taking, self management

Introduction

At the time I prepared the abstract for this symposium, I was struck by a remark from the leader of a project I am involved in. When I met him in the hallway of his office and asked him how the project was going, he exclaimed: "Nothing is happening!!! Who's in charge here?" This points out an interesting issue in so-called 'multiparty collaboration' that has not been researched very often: leadership of loosely coupled, emerging systems.

In this contribution I would like to explore the meaning and difficulties of collaborative leadership in complex organizational settings. More specifically, I would like to take you through the story of the first three years of an EU funded project, dealing with erosion and flooding problems in Flanders (Belgium). I will focus on two issues: (1) Which dynamics emerge in and around the project group during the collaborative process? (2) How do the members of the project group make sense of leadership issues and authority relations? My findings are based on field observations, interviews with the members of the project group, documents and my research journal.

For me, this project is a pilot study was my first experience in multiparty collaboration. It has helped me focus my research on collaborative leadership in these settings. It is not a success story, but merely a journey paved with a lot of questions, uncertainties and mistakes. I will conclude with some general findings regarding collaborative leadership that will guide the next steps in my research.

Context

In order to deal with the environmental and societal problems or ‘meta-problems’ of today, organizations often have to work across organizational boundaries (Trist, 1983; Ackoff, 1997; Chisholm & Elden, 1993). So-called ‘multiparty collaboration’ involves a process of collective decision making among key stakeholders of a problem domain (eg. erosion), focused on the future development of that particular domain. In multiparty collaboration

(1)the stakeholders are interdependent;

(2)solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences;

(3)joint ownership of decisions is involved;

(4)stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction of the domain;

(5)collaboration is an emergent process (Gray, 1989).

A central feature of such task systems is that it includes people who belong to different groups, institutions or social categories. It is precisely this diversity of perspectives that provides the added value of multiparty collaboration. Making use of diversity by involving multiple stakeholders from different organizations or groups enables a broad and complete perspective on the origin of the problem and allows for creative, innovative solutions that have a higher chance of successful implementation.

Some features of multiparty collaboration include:

• a lack of stable structures
• ambiguous authority relations
• unclear boundaries (eg. task, time)
• a high degree of complexity
• ambiguous and shifting membership and purpose (Chisholm & Elden, 1993, 280; Huxham & Vangen, 2000).

The definition of the primary task, the most appropriate social system and the most appropriate workmethod to achieve the primary task (Menzies, 1988, 50) have to be negotiated and developed among the stakeholders.

Working in such systems is complex, uncertain and can provoke anxiety for a number of reasons. These include:

• a lack of trust;
• dealing with diversity and differences in power and influence among the parties;
• power games and playing politics;
• rivalry and competing for resources;
• manipulation of the agenda;
• conflicting objectives of the stakeholders;
• the fear of losing one’s identity while creating a new common identity;
• the lack of road maps;
• shifting alliances;
• conflicting roles;
• the fear of being left out of the final deal;

• etc...

One general feature of multi-organizational systems is that the containing function of stable structures and clear authority relations is lacking (Krantz, 1998, 96). Paradoxically, a collaborative relationship might even be more anxiety provoking than a competitive relationship, because stakeholders have to acknowledge their mutual dependence for achieving success (Gilmore & Krantz, 1990, 200).

Because uncertainty and turbulence are high in such settings, the systems psychodynamics perspective seems appropriate to explore and make sense of how stakeholders deal with the ambiguity of leadership and authority.

Let me first give you a general description of the erosion project.

The LIFE project

The preparations for this project started in 1998 when the convenor, belonging to a well known engineering firm T, brought together the stakeholders and prepared the project proposal for the EU Life Fund. This process took about one year. In September 1999 the project started. The deadline for the project is September 2003.

Stakeholders

The erosion project involves different kinds of organizations: government institutions (eg. 3 local governments, Flemish Ministry of Soil Protection), profit organizations (eg. 2 engineering companies), not-for-profit organizations (eg. university partners, environmental council, farmers union), and unorganized parties (eg. local inhabitants). Some parties consist of several sub parties (eg. the local government is represented by elected politicians, technical staff members, representatives of the farmers union and of the environmental council). A number of parties have been invited during the collaborative process. In total 15 parties are officially involved.

Primary task

The objectives and expected results of the project are defined as follows in the proposal text addressed to the sponsor (the LIFE environmental fund of the European Union): "Step by step elaboration of an effective (reduction of erosion, costs/benefits) action programme for erosion control. Integration of agricultural, public and environmental interests. Evaluation of the total effectivity of state-of-the-art measures, at a sub-catchment scale.” This 'official' primary task was defined by engineering firm T, in their project proposal. This official primary task, however, should be negotiated among the stakeholders and translated into a collective task.

Work method

The project had to be developed as a "demonstration" project involving all parties with a stake in the problem domain. These stakeholders are supposed to be consulted during the analysis of the problem, during the search for possible solutions and execution of the selected measures. This approach is defined as a "consultative process", involving "multiple stakeholders". The EU LIFE Fund stresses the importance of collaboration, transfer of knowledge between government institutes, non-government institutes and/or socio-economical actors. Multiparty collaboration and participation, as a way of dealing with environmental issues, are therefore high on the European agenda.

Researchers from the department of organizational psychology of the K.U. Leuven were invited to the project to support a "bottom up approach", "participative decision making and consultativetechniques". This way of working is presented as an "innovative methodology" in the domain of erosion and water conservation programs.

Social system

The organizational chart of the project was outlined in the initial project proposal by T. At one point in time (dec. 1999) the project leader makes a distinction between two organizational charts. The "contractual" chart, reflecting the contractual relations and financial streams (project proposal) and the"functional" chart reflecting the functions and responsibilities of the stakeholders and the composition of the different groups. In addition, there is the informal structure of the collaboration as it emerges during the collaborative process. The local governments, for example, are formally part of the 'project group', but they are hardly ever present at project group meetings and the project leader doesn't even send them the report of the meetings!

In the next section I will highlight some striking observations from the erosion project, focusing on leadership dynamics and sense-making processes around authority and leadership.

Leadership dynamics: is LIFE alive?

The most striking feature of the erosion project is the state of 'collaborative inertia' (Huxham, 1996) that started last summer when the second project leader out of three left the project and his organization. In the initial phase there had been a lot of energy: there were frequent meetings of the project group that were very creative, the information meetings for the farmers and local inhabitants were run collectively and generated a lot of ideas, enthusiasm and energy. At a certain moment things changed: there was less and less contact between the stakeholders, procrastination increased, there was a decrease in activity, a dip in motivation and leadership abdication. In what follows I try to make sense of how the stakeholders perceive this state of collaborative inertia and the authority vacuum and what possible contributing factors might be.

Some stakeholders give more general reasons for the lack of progress in the collaboration. These include the elections for the local governments resulting in a shift in political coalitions; the delay in giving concrete information about financial compensation to the farmers. Today I would like to focus on the internal dynamics in the project group (2 engineering firms T and R, 2 university partners, physical geographists and organizational psychologists). I distinguish three important subgroups: the project leader(s), the project group and the specific role of the organizational psychologists, belonging to the project group.

Project leadership: who's in charge here?

In the course of the project there have been three project leaders. The first project leader (FV, engineering firm T) was uncomfortable with the ‘participative approach of decision making’ prescribed by his own engineering firm in the project proposal. He relied on the university facilitators to help him deal with that part of the work. He was, however, dismissed shortly after the start of the project because of restructuring of his engineering firm (“FV had to give away his baby”, JV). After that he was involved as a subcontractor, responsible for only a part of the solutions. Ever since the project was taken from him, he has been present at meetings without saying much (“He was physically present, butnot mentally”, JV). He was very frustrated because T had spent about one year of (unpaid!) preparation to convene and convince the different parties and to submit the proposal to the sponsor.

"It is not pleasant having to do only a partial aspect." (FV of engineering firm T)

"RK and FV had a hard time accepting it. They have invested a lot of work in it, but the project went to R." (ED)

The second project leader (MV, engineering firm R) was a very idealistic and ambitious young man. He came from a Dutch engineering firm and was eager to introduce participative ways of dealing with public issues in Belgium, where this is not the custom. At first he was the 'hero' of the project for about 2 years, carrying the project on his shoulders with his vision and enthusiasm. When he started loosing his initial enthusiasm, the other stakeholders also lost their motivation and started criticizing his leadership.

“I have the impression that when MV left, the project stagnated. A project shouldn’t depend so much on one person” (JP, technical consultant, university partner)

“A person like MV carries this project purely by his enthusiasm. Why did he lose interest in December 2000? He was not motivated anymore. The importance of a charismatic figure goes in two directions” (KC, third project leader).

“MV had to take up contact, he had to give us deadlines. What happened now was that everybody just did what they wanted. People took initiatives independent of the goal. And MV said: ‘go ahead’” (ED, T engineering firm)

“R had done a lot of talking, but concretely in the field nothing much has happened. (…) MV said ‘there is no more money’. That means there has not been a good management of the project if the money was spent so quickly” (JP, technical consultant, university partner)

“MV’s approach was too theoretical, too little practical concerning budget and planning.”. (KC, present project leader)

"MV didn't tell me which direction we were supposed to take and I needed that." (JV)

"Maybe the project needed to be pulled by someone with expertise, someone senior like KC, and besides that someone for communication." (FV)

His strength in leading, inspiring and enthusing people was at the cost of taking care of management tasks (eg. budget management, project planning, follow up of agreements and deadlines). He had a motivation crisis, gave up and left the project and the engineering firm.

The present project leader (KC of engineering firm R) has shifted to the other extreme in his leadership style. He talks about himself as a rational and pragmatic person who tries to make sure that every activity is necessary and does not lead to financial losses. He is not very keen on leading this project and gives a minimal interpretation of his role:

“It is my task to make sure we reach the objective and that it we do not lose too much money, which is not the case today. I make sure that what minimally has to be done is done and that we do not spend more time than necessary doing it. (…) I’m going to delimit my own contribution to pure follow-up. Making sure that useful and necessary things are done”

And: “We are stuck now with project leadership, it is not our choice. (…) It is not a present to take over this project.”

In his view using the appropriate management tools (eg. project plan, budget control) is enough to get the work done. He seems to disqualify the importance of face to face meetings, communication, good social relations, creativity, sharing a common ideal together. Process issues, like facilitation and the presence of organizational psychologists don't seem relevant to him. He criticizes the previous project leader saying:

“He tended to turn the project group into a nice and cozy club.(…) Tapping each other on the shoulders, but what did we achieve? There were some vague agreements that were never followed up.” (KC)

Some stakeholders experience him as not very visible or committed to the project. One member of the project group doesn't even remember his name. He is criticized for his lack of communication, vision and presence (leadership issues). The project group members have the impression that nobody is behind the project since he has taken over.

"R does not give the impression of pulling the project. (…) R should be the motor of the system!" (JP, technical advisor, university partner)

The present project leader seems to have abdicated in minimizing his role. It seemed difficult for him to face the problems in the project and take action to move the project forward. He did not take up his authority after a long period of striking inertia and after getting feedback from the researchers about what was going on in the project and what the perception of the project group members was.

Over the last year, because of the authority vacuum, responsibility became diffused. This lack of clarity in authority relations and the lack of concentration of authority might have prevented the project group from making and implementing decisions (Menzies, 1988, 65).

There seems to have been no integration of leadership and management functions, making it hard for ideas and a vision to be implemented. In the first phase there were many creative and ambitious ideas that were never realized (eg. make a video of the pioneering farmers as a way of motivating them). Since more than a year, however, there have been very few creative ideas and issues dealing with vision (sustainability) are swept off the table. All stakeholders stress the importance of ‘implementation asap’ as an absolute priority. Gilmore and Krantz called it 'heroism' and 'managerialism': two defensive ideologies that are used to avoid the uncertainty and ambiguity of the organizational context (Krantz & Gilmore, 1990). This raises the question: what is the underlying anxiety and what is being defended against? Let me propose some hunches.

Some hunches…

At one point there is a sudden take-over of leadership. In the summer of 2001 the convenor who initiated the project pops up from behind the scene. He makes a move to restore the confidence of the local governments in the project (important clients of his firm!). The governments had started complaining about the lack of results, the delay, the impatience and disappointment of the farmers. He temporarily takes over the lead of the project to restore trust. The second project leader calls him “a spider in the web. He arranges everything” (MV). The project leader has to report to the convenor on the content and progress of the project. Surprisingly enough, when I ask the convenor for an interview he seems completely surprised and claims other people know much more about the project and are more interesting to talk to… One of the project group members says (JV):