Establishing a Collaborative Organizational Culture

Robert T. Trotter, IIMeaningful Engagement:

Methods for Facilitating Continuous Improvement and Evaluation

Friday, May 17, 2019 | 10 AM – 3 PM

2

“It’s a Two-Way Street:” Partnering in Today’s Competitive Environment

Voluntary Parterships Fail at an alarming rate: 60-70% failure rate is common

The most common reasons for failure are: lack of common goals, lack of stable relationships, mismatches in roles and structure

3

GM : “We need to know why our partnerships are working so we can duplicate success.”

• Qualitative data sources– 83 interviews about the organizational

cultures of the partners, nature of their past and current relationship, success factors, expectations about the future

– 10 focus groups about partnership goals and expectations, an assessment of current status, recipe for an ideal partnership, ideas for strengthening the partnership

– Some observation of partnership meetings• 173 social-network e-mail surveys (60.5%

response rate) about type and nature of relationships within a partnership

• Collection of partnership documents (e.g., MOUs, project reviews)

• 10 validation sessions with all partners• Currently administering a follow-up

social-network survey to HRL and initial CRLs, and a first-time survey to selected recent CRLs (Fall ’03)

4

Finding: Maintaining relationships is critical in holding partnerships together, and reciprocity is a key element in that process.

• Interviews and focus groups emphasize “trust and mutual respect,” “working together,” and “being open to suggestions,” along with dating and marriage metaphors

• Researchers on both sides of the partnerships are interested in finding mutual ground to serve both common and individual interests

• Trotter, Robert T. II, Elizabeth K. Briody (2006) “Its all about relationships” not just buying and selling ideas: improving partnership success through reciprocity. Vehicle Dynamics Research Lab. June 14, 2006. General Motors R&D.

Reciprocity – A process for establishing and maintaining relationshipsthrough the exchange of goods and services.

5

Finding: Both formal and informal roles contribute to partnership structure and dynamics. • Each partnership has individuals with critical, stage-related functions

– Catalyst roles are key at Start-Up through Mid-Term– Collaboration roles, which facilitate technical interaction, are key from

Mid-Term through Maturity – Bridging roles are key throughout the partnership cycle

• The role mixture changes over the life of a project and the partnership life cycle

• Poor role mixes impede progress• Loss of key players may make ongoing relationships and transitions

difficult• Elizabeth K. Briody and Robert T. Trotter, II (eds.) (2008) Partnering

for Performance: Collaboration and Culture from the Inside Out. New York: Roman and Littlefield, Publisher

6

Finding: Research-institution partnerships experience predictable tensions, some of which are stage-specific.

• Courtship– Gift vs. contract– Vision/procedures for joint work– Input into project

conceptualization• Start-Up

– Clarification of thrust areas, goals, and processes

– Number and type of reviews/interactions

– Availability of resources, personnel exchanges, student training, equipment installation/calibration

– IP, field/data access

• Mid Term– One-way information flow– Defining deadlines and evaluating

project progress• Maturity

– Uncertainty surrounding renewal– Change in thrust area and/or

leadership• Non-Stage-Specific Tensions

– GM researcher time availability – Technology transfer– Annual generation of new project

proposals

Elizabeth K. Briody Tracy L. Meerwarth Robert T. Trotter, II (2008) Chapter 11: Learning from the Partnership Experience in Partnering for Performance: Collaboration and Culture from the Inside Out Elizabeth K. Briody and Robert T. Trotter, II (eds). New York: Roman and Littlefield, Publishers

7

We developed a relationship-dynamics model to diagnose and predict partnership issues.

• The relationship dynamics model is based on empirical data, and a review of the It social-network, cultural, systems-dynamics, and modeling literatures

– It features a composite of four components – communication, joint work, quality of interaction, and connectivity of social structure

– It applies the concept of evolutionary stages to the partnership cycle; a partnership life cycle approach

– We simulated the model using a systems dynamics approach

Joint WorkCommunication

Importance

Communication

CommunicationFrequency

Cooperation

Quality of Interaction

Trust

ConflictRelationsh

FragmentationDensity TransitivityBetweenness -

Centrality

Connectivity of Social Structure

Role DynamicsStructure

Reach

Joint WorkImportance

Joint WorkFrequency

Joint WorkCommunication

Importance

Communication

CommunicationFrequency

Cooperation

Quality of Interaction

Trust

ConflictRelationshipEffectiveness

FragmentationDensity TransitivityBetweenness -

Centrality

Connectivity of Social Structure

Role DynamicsStructure

Reach

Joint WorkImportance

Joint WorkFrequency

Relationship Effectiveness Model for Collaborative Partnerships

Resource: Gulcin H Sengir, Robert T Trotter, Elizabeth K Briody, Devadatta M Kulkarni Linda B Catlin Tracy L Meerwarth. (2004)“Modeling relationship dynamics in GM’s Research Institution Partnerships” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol 15, No. 7, 2004.

Reciprocity Dynamics Model of Collaborative Partnerships

The Primary Cultural Model Elements: Results from the Ethnographic Data

• Joint Work• Relationship Values• Structure

– Connectivity– Roles– Dynamic Structures

• Communication

Resources: Meerwarth, T.L., E.K. Briody, and D.M. Kulkarni. 2002. “The Discovery and Exploration of Partnership Rules: A Methodological Perspective,” Society for Applied Anthropology Meetings, March 6-10, Atlanta, GA.; R&D – 9907 THE EVOLVING NATURE OF GM R&D’S COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH LABS: LEARNING FROM STAGES AND ROLES ROBERT T. TROTTER, II Northern Arizona University ELIZABETH K. BRIODY Vehicle Development Research Lab LINDA B. CATLIN Claymore Associates TRACY L. MEERWARTH Vehicle Development Research Lab GÜLCIN H. SENGIR Manufacturing Systems Research Lab Approved by Jan H. Aase Vehicle Development Research Lab Approved by Steven Holland Manufacturing Systems Research Lab 15 October 2004

Key Findings

“Joint Work”

Resources: Elizabeth K. Briody, S. Tamer Cavusgil and Stewart R. Miller (2004) Turning Three Sides into a Delta at General Motors: Enhancing Partnership Integration on Corporate Ventures Long Range Planning, Oct 2004 v37 pp. 421-435; Tracy L. Meerwarth; Elizabeth K. Briody; Devadatta M. Kulkarni. 2005 Discovering the rules: folk knowledge for improving GM partnerships. Human Organization, Fall 2005 v64 i3 p286-303.

“Joint work” is critical to creating a “common ground” for Collaboration

what, how,when

Joint Work + Reciprocity + Social Structure= the “Common Ground”

Common Ground of Collaboration

why Who

goals, processes,

The Importance of Common Ground

Org. BOrg. A

Information Flow and Filters

Joint work ofTechnical Roles

Joint work ofManagerial Roles

Environment beyond partnership

Work practicesStructureReciprocity

“Common Ground”

- Individual Org. Focus-Integration

Of Outcomes-Environment

Beyond Partnership

-Strategy for Partnering

-Strategy for Integration

-Selection of Partners

- Goals for Projects

-Selection of Projects

-Resource Planning

-Communication -Measures of

Success- Exit/Enhance

Strategy

-Review Process-Issue

Resolution-Resource

Modification-Recognition

and Incentives

Challenges to Collaboration Motivation Planning Execution

Partnership

Work Practices-Decision making authority

-Resource planning-Incentives

Org. BOrg. A

Common GroundJoint WorkStructure

Reciprocity

Key Findings

Relationship Quality And

ReciprocityResources: GM R&D 9747 MODELING RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS IN GM’s RESEARCH INSTITUTION PARTNERSHIPS GÜLCIN H. SENGIR

Manufacturing Systems Research Lab ROBERT T. TROTTER Northern Arizona University ELIZABETH K. BRIODY Manufacturing Systems Research Lab DEVADATTA M. KULKARNI Manufacturing Systems Research Lab LINDA B. CATLIN Claymore Associates TRACY L. MEERWARTH Manufacturing Systems Research Lab Approved by Steven W. Holland Manufacturing Systems Research Lab March 15 2004

“Reciprocity” is critical to creating a “common ground” for Collaboration

values, beliefs, rules, ti l

what, how,when

Joint Work + Reciprocity + Social Structure= the “Common Ground”

Common Ground of Collaboration

why Who

Reciprocity• Reciprocity is a process for establishing and maintaining relationships

through the exchange of goods and services– Based on cultural expectations about relationships– Guides decisions partners make about relationships

• Balanced reciprocity is largely a two-way exchange in which goods of equal value are exchanged within a relatively-short time frame; it seems to be the desired state for R&D partnerships

• Generalized reciprocity is largely a one-way exchange with the anticipation of delayed return; obligations created by these exchanges tend to balance out in the long run

• negative reciprocity, in which one partner tries to get the better end of the deal, which lead to disruption of relationships and productivity

An Integrated Model of Reciprocity and Relationship Dynamics

Reciprocity Dynamics Relationship DynamicsReciprocity Typology

Joint WorkCommunication

Importance

Communication

CommunicationFrequency

Cooperation

Quality of Interaction

Trust

ConflictRelationshipEffectiveness

FragmentationDensity TransitivityBetweenness-

Centrality

Connectivity of Social Structure

Role DynamicsStructure

Reach

Joint WorkImportance

Joint WorkFrequency

Joint WorkCommunication

Importance

Communication

CommunicationFrequency

Cooperation

Quality of Interaction

Trust

ConflictRelationshipEffectiveness

FragmentationDensity TransitivityBetweenness-

Centrality

Connectivity of Social Structure

Role DynamicsStructure

Reach

Joint WorkImportance

Joint WorkFrequency

Reciprocity Dynamics Relationship DynamicsReciprocity Typology

Joint WorkCommunication

Importance

Communication

CommunicationFrequency

Cooperation

Quality of Interaction

Trust

ConflictRelationshipEffectiveness

FragmentationDensity TransitivityBetweenness-

Centrality

Connectivity of Social Structure

Role DynamicsStructure

Reach

Joint WorkImportance

Joint WorkFrequency

Joint WorkCommunication

Importance

Communication

CommunicationFrequency

Cooperation

Quality of Interaction

Trust

ConflictRelationshipEffectiveness

FragmentationDensity TransitivityBetweenness-

Centrality

Connectivity of Social Structure

Role DynamicsStructure

Reach

Joint WorkImportance

Joint WorkFrequency

The Structure of Collaborative Networks

what, how,when

Joint Work + Relationships + Social Structure= the “Common Ground”

why who Connections and structure

Key Findings

• Evolution

• Structure

• Roles and Postions

Resources: GM R&D 9747 MODELING RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS IN GM’s RESEARCH INSTITUTION PARTNERSHIPS GÜLCIN H. SENGIR Manufacturing Systems Research Lab ROBERT T. TROTTER Northern Arizona University ELIZABETH K. BRIODY Manufacturing Systems Research Lab DEVADATTA M. KULKARNI Manufacturing Systems Research Lab LINDA B. CATLIN Claymore Associates TRACY L. MEERWARTH Manufacturing Systems Research Lab Approved by Steven W. Holland Manufacturing Systems Research Lab March 15 2004

The Life Stages of Collaboration

• Both our ethnographic and social network data demonstrate that there is a replicable series of life stages for ideal collaborations.– Courtship Phase– Initiation Phase– Start Up Phase– Mid-Term Phase– Mature Phase– Transition Phase

• The stage appropriate structures, connections, roles and connections are the critical conditions that allow joint work to proceed and allow the primary aims and goals to be accomplished.

21

Finding: Partnerships evolve through a predictable life cycle

Early Start-up Start-Up

Mid Term Maturity

Trotter, Robert T., II, Elizabeth K. Briody, Linda B. Catlin, Tracy L. Meerwarth, and Gulcin H. Sengir (2004). General MotorsR&D 9907 The Evolving Nature of GM R&D's Collaborative Research Labs: Learning from Stages and Roles.

GM Research & Development Center Pub.

Key Roles

Roles

Positions

Key Players

what, how,when

Joint Work + Relationships + Social Structure= the “Common Ground”

why who

A Typology of Key Player Roles

– Visioning roles• Identifying potential

partners• Identifying potential joint

work• Finding common ground• Maintaining focus on goals

and objectives• Revitalizing collaborative

ties– Collaboration Roles

• Structural Roles – Leadership

(Relationship generation)

– Management (Relationship maintanance)

– Administration (infrastructure support)

– Collaboration Roles (Cont.)• Bridging Roles (gatekeepers

and bridges)– Communication/

information roles – Technology transfer roles

• Problem resolution roles – Technical roles

• Catalyst roles (idea generation)

• Idea development and testing • Worker Bee roles

– Problem Resolution Roles• Problem identification

(diagnosis)• Problem resolution

Key Player Roles

• Each network has individuals with critical functions;

• Some of the functions are uniform through the life cycle of collaboration

• Some of the functions vary by life cycle stage• The actions of these KEY PLAYERS may

enhance or harm partnerships• Loss of key players may make ongoing

relationships and transitions difficult

Model Based Recommendations:

• Joint Work:– Early agreement on the goals and objectives is important– Formal and informal reviews, including presentations of research results by both

partners, are critical to keeping joint work going in the right direction Accommodate different time cycles and time constraints of partners (availability and time dependent interactions)

• Reciprocity– Work to maximize the benefits of the research for both partners (e.g., publications,

commercialization of new technology, joint press conferences)– Deal with intellectual property rights, publication processes, and order of authorship

processes (rules) up front.– Create sufficient “informal” interactions to allow strong individual to individual

relationships to flurish• Structure

– Identify and reward participants for liaison roles to strengthen the network and reduce network fragmentation (reciprocity key players).

– Minimize either role complexity (people wearing too many hats) or the number of tasks given to key players in partnerships.

– Develop a succession plan to replace key players

26

Best practices from GM-Research Institution partnerships help ensure partnership effectiveness.Increase partnershipinvolvement Encourage informalinteraction to build trust

Prioritize projects

Define, evaluate, and recognize partnership success

Use multiple strategiesto transfer technology

Building andSustainingRelationships

Improving Work-ProcessEffectiveness

PartnershipSuccess

Engage potential customersin research conceptualization and application

Examples of solvable tensions partnerships experience over the course of their life cycle

• Courtship– Exclusivity vs. wide partner

choice– Vision and procedures for

joint work– Intellectual Property rights

• Start-up– Clarification goals, and

processes – Number and type of

reviews/interactions– Availability of resources,

personnel exchanges, student training, equipment installation/calibration

– IP, field/data access

• Mid term– Information flow, and number

and type of reviews/interactions

– Uncertainty surrounding renewal

– Defining deadlines and evaluating project progress

• Transition– Uncertainty surrounding

renewal– Rules for negotiating

transitions– Change in thrust area and/or

leadership

Examples of solvable tensions not tied to any particular stage of the life cycle.• Insufficient time commitment from partners to devote to partnership

projects• Learning curves that result in ebb and flow in productivity• Organizational boundary issues

– Information sharing– Technology transfer

• Negotiations concerning the relative weight of theoretical vs. applied research