Search results

This paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of what collaborative leadership in interorganizational systems entails.

The empirical basis consists of the dynamics observed during two behavioral simulations involving seven stakeholders with managers and professionals as participants, dealing with a complex regional development issue.

The authors describe what functions collaborative leadership in multiparty collaboration serve by discussing relevant literature and introducing a system psychodynamic perspective on leadership that focuses on the emerging dynamics between a leading party and other stakeholders. The relational dynamics between the leading party on the one hand and the other stakeholders on the other, are described and interpreted, taking the larger systemic context into account.

The authors discuss some important group dynamics aspects that emerge in a multiparty context that can be used by participants in and facilitators of such complex systems in order to foster effective collaboration.

Multiparty systems are set up to deal with some important societal challenges that require the integration of insights, resources and interests across several organizations and societal actors, therefore this study provides important insights into the complexity of collaborative leadership emergent in such contexts in which position power is lacking.

The study provides a qualitative, in depth analysis of the collaborative leadership as it emerges in a multiparty context simulated by an experiential learning context.

This study aims to investigate the role of minority dissent (MD) as an antecedent for task (TC) and relationship conflict (RC) in groups engaged in multiparty collaboration. The authors hypothesized that MD triggers both TC and RC and that the association between MD and RC is mediated by TC. Moreover, the authors hypothesized that the positive association between MD and RC is attenuated by social acceptance, while the positive association between TC and RC is attenuated by trust.

The authors have tested the hypotheses in 36 groups comprising in total 145 professionals that attended a two-day workshop on working across organizational boundaries and who filled in three surveys during a multiparty simulation. The authors used multilevel mediation analyses to test the hypotheses.

The results generally supported the role of MD as an antecedent for both TC and RC as well as the mediating role of TC in the relationship between MD and RC. The attenuating role of social acceptance in the relationship between MD and RC was fully supported, while the attenuating role of trust in the relationship between TC and RC was not supported.

This study is based on a rather small sample and used a cross-lagged data collection design, and no causal claims can be derived from the findings. Behavioral multiparty simulations create a realistic context in which the authors investigate the dynamics of conflict transformation and explore the interplay of MD, TC and RC.

As nowadays, multiparty systems are engaged in dealing with important societal challenges and because RC is detrimental for collaborative effectiveness, the results have important implications for facilitating effective collaboration in such complex systems.

This study makes an important contribution to the literature on conflict in multiparty systems by showing that as an antecedent of intragroup conflict, MD can have both a beneficial as well as a detrimental impact on the conflict dynamics of multiparty systems. It points out the importance of social acceptance as a buffer against the detrimental role of MD.

This paper aims to report the development of the multiparty collaborative leadership scale (MCLS) that assesses four dimensions of collaborative leadership that have been defined in the literature regarding the functions of collaborative leadership in intra- and interorganizational settings.

The authors have tested the validity and reliability of the MCLS in a sample of 110 managers and professionals who participated in five multiparty collaboration workshops, each lasting for two days. The authors used multilevel analyses to test the construct, discriminant and predictive validity of the MCLS.

The results generally supported the reliability and validity of the MCLS. The scale has good internal consistency and in terms of validation, the authors show that MCLS negatively predicts the conflictuality and positively predicts the collaborativeness of the leading party as well as trust in the multiparty system and its entitativity.

The MCLS can be used to extend literature on collaborative leadership and generate insights on the antecedents and consequences of effective collaborative leadership in multiparty systems.

Multiparty systems are set to deal with important societal challenges and mediators involved in multiparty issues are asked to settle important international disputes and conflicts. Understanding collaborative leadership in such systems and its role in establishing effective multiparty collaboration is key. The MCLS can be used as a research instrument and as a development tool toward realizing much-needed collaboration.

The authors present a first attempt to develop a short scale to assess collaborative leadership in complex systems in which participating stakeholders lack position power.

The purpose of this study is to explore whether a group dynamics perspective still exists in the scientific study of groups and what factors may account for the current situation.

Alongside reflections based on my professional experience, I have analyzed the main academic journals that publish group research.

A group dynamics perspective is almost totally absent in the scientific study of groups. Contributing factors to this state of affairs are disciplinary developments in psychology (e.g. individualization, experimentalization and specialization), the demise of the status of psychoanalysis, changes in the meaning and manifestation of the “group,” and effects of New Public Management.

The study offers a critical perspective on current group research practices and considers these in a larger (social and historical) context. It advocates a group dynamics perspective for the study of groups, based on systems-psychodynamic insights.

This paper aims to address the group dynamics that evolve when representatives from various organizations come together to develop and work on a joint goal. Its aim is to share the author’s learnings when it concerns the understanding of the group dynamics of interorganizational relationships and the development of collaboration between these organizations.

The perspective taken draws on social and organizational psychology, systems psychodynamics and organization development.

The paper concludes with reflections on generic learnings about collaboration, its dynamics and its development.

Various action research projects are presented that have been conducted in different sectors.

The purpose of this paper is to test the influence of collaborative and consultative decision rules on groups’ sensitivity to framing effect (FE) and escalation of commitment (EOC).

In an experimental study (using a sample of 233 professionals with project management experience), the authors test the effects of collaborative and consultative decision rules on groups’ sensitivity to EOC and FE. The authors use four group decision-making tasks to evaluate decision consistency across gain/loss framed decision situations and six decision tasks to evaluate EOC for money as well as time as resources previously invested in the initial decisions.

The results show that the collaborative decision rule increases sensitivity to EOC when financial resources are involved and decreases sensitivity to EOC when time is of essence. Moreover, the authors show that the collaborative decision rule decreases sensitivity to FE in group decision making.

The results have important implications for group rationality as an emergent group level competence by extending the insights concerning the impact of decision rules on emergent group level cognitive competencies. Due to the experimental nature of the design, the authors can probe the causal relations between the investigated variables, yet the authors cannot generalize the results to other settings.

Managers can use the insights of this study in order to optimize the functioning of decision-making groups and to reduce their sensitivity to FEs and EOC.

The study extends the research on group rationality and it is one of the few experimental attempts used to understand the role of decision rules on emergent group level rationality.

The paper aims to describe and understand the gap between the psychodynamic literature on groups and the social psychological perspective on group dynamics.

As Wilfred Bion is the most influential group dynamics representative of the psychodynamic tradition the authors performed a citation analysis of Bion's work to find out whether it influenced the social psychological research on group dynamics. They compared three domains of literature: therapy/clinical, management/organization studies and social psychology. Moreover, they depict (by drawing on interviews with European pioneers in social psychology) the historical context in which European social psychology developed to explain the gap between the psychodynamic and social psychological approaches in the study of group dynamics.

The results clearly indicate the existence of a gap between the social psychological and psychodynamic perspectives on group dynamics. Moreover, the authors show that Bion did influence scholars studying or working with real-life groups and is cited more by American than European scholars. The attempt to build a legitimate scientific identity for social psychology provides a context for understanding of the neglect of the psychodynamic tradition.

The authors conclude by exploring ways in which the psychodynamic tradition may fertilize the social psychological tradition in studying groups.

The paper is one of the first to address the discrepancy between the social psychological and psychodynamic perspectives in the study of group dynamics.

In the implementation of integrated care, the role of managers is important and their mutual collaboration should be addressed more visibly. The purpose of this study was to investigate how cross-boundary collaboration is constructed in the discourse of middle-level managers in health and social care.

The study was based on a discursive approach. Group discussions with three groups of Finnish middle managers (n = 39) were analyzed using discourse analysis.

Five ways of talking about cross-boundary collaboration were identified, labeled “ideal”, “structure”, “defence”, “money” and “support” discourses. In the ideal discourse, cross-boundary collaboration appeared as a “good thing” and is self-evident. Structural discourse defined managers as passive actors in self-sustaining entities. Defensive discourse highlighted the problems of cross-boundary collaboration and the hierarchy within the health and social sectors. Financial discourse constituted the ultimate obstacle to successful cross-boundary collaboration, and both strengthened and explained defensive discourse. Supportive discourse portrayed other managers as partners and as an important resource.

Cross-boundary collaboration can be experienced as a resource, helping managers cope with their workload. However, identification of and continuous attention to challenges at macro, meso and micro levels of integrated care is crucial for successful collaboration. Thus, critical discussion of collaboration needs to be given space.

The study design and discursive approach highlights the power of language and give voice to middle managers who are key actors when implementing integrated care.

The idea that relational processes are central to knowledge creation and knowledge sharing is an idea in good currency (Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004; Brown & Duguid, 1996; Wenger, 1998). Rather than considering knowledge as a commodity that can be transferred from one mind to another, when knowledge is viewed as a relational practice, it resides in social interactions and is actualized in common practices that evolve within a particular community of practice (Sternberg & Horvath, 1999; Van Looy, Debackere, & Bouwen, 2000). Thus, knowledge is both embedded and emergent — subject to change as participants in a community interact with one another. To understand what is known, it becomes necessary to study how members of an organizational community interact and how their knowledge shifts over time.

Based on an experience, the paper aims to describe how group dynamics can play out in a traditional classroom setting and reflect on how the author worked with these dynamics from a systems psychodynamic perspective.

The experience involved teaching a two-day module on group dynamics to a class of 35 mature students enrolled in a business school. The author tried to create a space to understand and work with here-and-now dynamics as the module progressed.

Frustration grew among the students regarding the time spent on discussion and reflection. The group was split in two, with one subgroup opening up to experiencing and reflecting on the dynamics, whereas the other subgroup grew more frustrated and demanded that the author take up his authority. Apart from attempting to work with the dynamics, the author introduced relevant concepts and theories that could help to understand the dynamics. The group was characterized by an emotional climate of dependency while students projected hitherto unexplored frustrations onto the lecturer. Although the conditions for experiential learning were far from optimal, the group did experience group dynamics and did engage in reviewing their experiences. Learning did take place, although the depth varied among individuals.

Reflections are provided on the (im)possibilities of learning about group dynamics at business schools. Suggestions are given how to create conditions for experiential learning in management education.