DISCOURSE AND COLLABORATION: THE ROLE OF CONVERSATIONS AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY · 2010-03-28 ·...

DISCOURSE AND COLLABORATION: THE ROLEOF CONVERSATIONS AND COLLECTIVE

IDENTITY

CYNTHIA HARDYUniversity of Melbourne

THOMAS B. LAWRENCESimon Fraser University

DAVID GRANTUniversity of Sydney

We explore the relationship between discourse and interorganizational collaboration,arguing that interorganizational collaboration can be understood as the product ofsets of conversations that draw on existing discourses. Specifically, we argue thateffective collaboration, which we define as cooperative, interorganizational actionthat produces innovative, synergistic solutions and balances divergent stakeholderconcerns, emerges out of a two-stage process. In this process conversations producediscursive resources that create a collective identity and translate it into effectivecollaboration.

Organizations in all sectors of society increas-ingly are becoming involved in a variety of col-laborative arrangements—alliances, partner-ships, roundtables, networks, and consortia—inorder to promote innovation, enter new markets,and deal with intractable social problems(Dyer & Singh, 1998; Gray, 1989; Gulati, Nohria,& Akbar, 2000; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr,1996; Simonin, 1997). By collaborating, organi-zations hope to leverage the differencesamong them—in terms of knowledge, skills,and resources—so as to develop innovative,synergistic solutions to complex problemsthey cannot solve on their own (Bresser & Harl,1986; Gray, 1989; Gulati, 1999; Phillips, Lawrence,& Hardy, 2000). Thus, in successful interorgani-zational collaborations, individual participantsare able to draw on their organizational tiesand, at the same time, transcend those ties to actcollectively (Astley, 1984; Lawrence, Hardy, &Phillips, 2002).

There is little agreement as to how to definecollaboration; thus, a wide range of definitionsexists. We define it as a cooperative, interorga-

nizational relationship in which participantsrely on neither market nor hierarchical mecha-nisms of control to gain cooperation from eachother (Heide, 1994; Lawrence et al., 2002; Milne,Iyer, & Gooding-Williams, 1996; Phillips et al.,2000; Powell, 1990). This definition encompassesa large variety of collaborative arrangementsand distinguishes them from relationships thatare cooperative but where cooperation is pur-chased, as in buyer-supplier relationships, orwhere it is based on the invocation of legitimateauthority, as in cooperation between a state reg-ulatory agency and an organization operatingwithin its jurisdiction.

Although collaboration has the potential toproduce powerful results, not all collaborationsrealize this potential. Many collaborations failto produce innovative solutions or balancestakeholder concerns, and some even fail togenerate any collective action whatsoever(Gray, 1989; Huxham, 1996; Lawrence et al., 2002).Consequently, researchers and managers alikeare interested in identifying the factors and pro-cesses that lead to the accomplishment of effec-tive collaboration, by which we mean collabo-ration that (1) leverages the differences amongparticipants to produce innovative, synergisticsolutions and (2) balances divergent stake-holder concerns.

We thank Dev Jennings and three anonymous reviewersfor their insights and ideas on earlier versions of this article.We also acknowledge the financial support of the Universityof Melbourne.

� Academy of Management Review2005, Vol. 30, No. 1, 58–77.

58

Effective collaboration among organizationsis a difficult task; not only must cooperation andinnovation be achieved, but the interests ofthose organizations represented in the collabo-ration must also be met. The challenge is evengreater because cooperation among partici-pants cannot be secured through market or hi-erarchical forms of control; although market orhierarchical concerns may prompt the formationof a collaboration, and all collaborations occurwithin the broad context of both markets andhierarchies, these mechanisms do not operatedirectly within the collaboration itself. Effectivecollaboration therefore depends on the relation-ships among participating members, which arenegotiated on an ongoing basis throughout thelife of the collaboration. Consequently, collabo-ration represents a complex set of ongoing com-municative processes among individuals whoact as members of both the collaboration and ofthe separate organizational hierarchies towhich they are accountable.

In order to address these complexities andexamine how effective collaboration can beachieved, we consider collaboration from a dis-cursive perspective (Lawrence, Phillips, &Hardy, 1999). This allows us to develop a modelof interorganizational collaboration that relateseffectiveness to the conversations among partic-ipants and to the wider discourses in which thecollaboration takes place. In brief, our modelsuggests that effective collaboration resultsfrom a two-stage process in which participantsengage in conversations that can include notonly face-to-face dialogue but also a variety ofother discursive practices, such as memos, let-ters, e-mails, and minutes of meetings (Ford &Ford, 1995). The first stage of our model high-lights the importance of a discursively con-structed collective identity in the achievementof effective collaboration. The second stage ofthe model shows how this collective identity istranslated through further conversations into in-novative and synergistic action. Thus, by exam-ining the discursive practices that constitutecollaboration, we are able to explore the ways inwhich conversations can be managed to in-crease the likelihood of effective collaboration.

Adopting a discursive approach to the issue ofeffective collaboration provides a number of sig-nificant benefits. First, it directs attention to thecommunicative practices among participants,which are critical to effective collaboration, and,

thus, provides a basis for practical insights intohow conversations might be managed to in-crease the likelihood of effective collaboration.In this way, we build on other scholarly exami-nations of the role of language in effecting or-ganized, collective action (Ford & Ford, 1995;Heracleous & Barrett, 2001; Palmer & Dunford,1996).

A second benefit of a discursive approach isthat it highlights the processual and temporalaspects of collaboration, thus allowing us toview collaboration as a social accomplishmentthat occurs in an iterative fashion over time. Thefocus on language in use means that collabora-tion can be tracked more easily in a continuousfashion by following conversations on an ongo-ing basis, rather than trying to ascertain mem-bers’ beliefs at discrete points in time.

Finally, a discursive approach facilitates thedevelopment of theory and research that attendto the multiple levels on which collaborationoccurs; collaboration involves individual partic-ipants working in collaborative teams whilerepresenting the interests of organizationalstakeholders. A discursive approach is attunedto the complex interrelationships among theselevels and how they impact collaboration be-cause it examines the conversations that occurwithin both the collaboration and the organiza-tion, and because it explores how the languageused in conversations draws on discourses op-erating at organizational and societal levels (cf.Alvesson & Karreman, 2002; Hardy & Phillips,1999).

We present our argument in four sections.First, we provide a theoretical overview of orga-nizational discourse that highlights the role ofconversations in generating discursive objectsthat represent resources for action. Second, weintroduce the relationship between collectiveidentity and collaboration and discuss the formsof conversation necessary for the production of acollective identity among organizational repre-sentatives in a collaboration. Third, we arguethat collective identity alone is not sufficient toguarantee collaboration, and we explore theforms of conversation that provide the addi-tional steps that translate identity into effectivecollaboration. We conclude with a considerationof the implications of our model for research andpractice.

2005 59Hardy, Lawrence, and Grant

ORGANIZATIONAL DISCOURSE

In this section we provide an overview of keyconcepts from research on organizational dis-course that underpin our model of effective col-laboration. A discursive approach to organiza-tional phenomena is more than a focus onlanguage and its usage in organizations. Ithighlights the ways in which language con-structs organizational reality, rather than simplyreflects it (Grant, Keenoy, & Oswick, 1998; Phil-lips & Hardy, 2002). The study of discourse fo-cuses on the ways in which actors draw on,reproduce, and transform discourses, and, in sodoing, produce a social reality consisting of dis-cursively constituted objects and ideas. Accord-ingly, research on organizational discourse ex-amines the processes through which discursiveobjects are formed in organizations, the ways inwhich those objects constitute the social world,and the consequences of those discursive pro-cesses and objects for organizations.

Three concepts are critical to our discursiveapproach: discourse, text, and conversation. Al-though a wide variety of definitions haveemerged across different disciplines (van Dijk,1997), we define a discourse as a set of interre-lated texts that, along with the related practicesof text production, dissemination, and reception,bring an object or idea into being (Fairclough,1992; Parker, 1992; Phillips & Hardy, 1997). Forexample, the discourse of business strategy hasproduced a series of ideas, such as “core com-petence” and “strategic planning” (Knights &Morgan, 1991), that have shaped business prac-tice; the discourse of AIDS has established, inthe developed world, the concept of a “patient-activist,” which has led to various forms of ac-tive political opposition to governments andpharmaceutical companies (Maguire, Phillips, &Hardy, 2001). Discourses therefore help to consti-tute a material reality by producing “identities,contexts, objects of value, and correct proce-dures” (Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud,1996: 28), which lead to particular practicesthrough the way they shape what can be saidand who can say it (Deetz, 1992; Fairclough,1992).

Discourses are embodied in sets of texts thatcome in a wide variety of forms, including writ-ten documents, speech acts, pictures, and sym-bols (Grant et al., 1998; Taylor & Van Every, 1993).At the same time, discourse has an existence

beyond any individual text from which it is com-posed (Chalaby, 1996; Phillips, Lawrence, &Hardy, 2004). Heracleous and Barrett describethe relationship between texts and discourse asanalogous to that between action and socialstructure: “Just as the structural properties ofsocial systems are, according to Giddens, in-stantiated as social practices, so the structuralproperties of discourse are instantiated in dailycommunicative actions” (2001: 758). The implica-tion of this relationship is that researchers mustexamine sets of texts that describe and consti-tute organizational realities, as well as the com-plex relationships among texts and among dis-courses (Phillips & Hardy, 2002).

One form that relationships among texts take,which is critical for this article, is that of a “con-versation” (Taylor & Van Every, 1993). We definea conversation as a set of texts that are pro-duced as part of an interaction between two ormore people and that are linked together bothtemporally and rhetorically (Ford & Ford, 1995).Texts only exist as part of the same conversationif they are in some way responsive to each other,either directly or indirectly (a rhetorical connec-tion), and are produced through chronologicallysequenced discursive acts (a temporal connec-tion). Conversations are important in under-standing the role of language in organizations:consequential action is not so much the result ofdisconnected utterances or isolated texts but,rather, is produced through ongoing linguisticexchanges among actors that draw on broaderdiscourses and produce discursive objects thatact as resources for action and for further con-versations (Fairclough, 1992). Thus, conversa-tions exist in a recursive relationship in whichexisting discourses provide resources to actorswho engage in conversations that in turn pro-duce, reproduce, and transform those discourses(Taylor et al., 1996).

Ford and Ford (1995) argue that the forms ofconversation associated with initiating organi-zational change are those that establish a needfor change. From a discursive perspective, a“need for change,” whether in the shape of anenvironmental shift, an organizational problem,or a political agenda, is a discursive object that,once produced, is available for use by otherinterested actors (Parker, 1992). In a collabora-tive context, individual participants might drawon a need for change in conversations both in-side and outside the collaboration in order to

60 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

justify resource allocations, motivate fellow par-ticipants and organizational colleagues, and le-gitimate decisions of inclusion and exclusion inthe collaboration. As the need for change isdrawn on in other conversations, it may becomeinstitutionalized in the discourse as one— orperhaps the only—legitimate way of talkingabout the issue.

These dynamics illustrate the potential politi-cality of conversation: conversations are at leastpartially the product of strategic action not onlyby elites but by a plurality of individuals in-volved in the production and consumption oftexts (Grant et al., 1998). Moreover, discursivepractices, including conversation, have the po-tential to produce significant political effectsthat result in the differential distribution of ad-vantage among individuals and organizations(Fairclough, 1992; Mumby & Clair, 1997).

In summary, we define a discourse as a set ofinterrelated texts and their related practices ofconsumption, production, and distribution,which bring into being an object or idea. Thetexts that populate discourses range from writ-ten works to speech acts to nonlinguistic sym-bols and images. Temporally and rhetoricallyrelated texts constitute conversations in whichparticipants draw on and simultaneously pro-duce discursive objects and ideas. Thus, a dis-cursive approach to interorganizational collab-oration is inherently processual and contextual(Lawrence et al., 1999): our focus on conversationhighlights the processes through which collab-oration is enacted over time; our interest in dis-course ensures a concern for the broader contextthat provides the discursive objects that act asconversational resources for potential collabo-rators.

COLLECTIVE IDENTITY

In the remainder of this article, we explore therelationship between collective identity and ef-fective collaboration and the role that discourseand conversations play in that relationship.Central to our argument is the idea that discur-sive processes produce collective identities,which lead to various forms of collective action,potentially including effective collaboration. Inthis section we discuss the fundamental rolethat collective identity plays in achieving col-lective action in the context of collaboration,and we then examine how collective identities

are discursively formed through conversationsin this context. In the following section we ex-amine the conversations that affect the likeli-hood that collective identity will lead to effec-tive collaboration (see Figure 1 for an overviewof the model). We discuss these two sets of dy-namics sequentially, but do not imply some sortof lock-step process; we separate them for ana-lytic purposes only, fully realizing they likelyoverlap in time and space.

Collective Identity and Action

The idea of collective identity is grounded in avariety of traditional sociological concepts,ranging from Durkheim’s “collective conscious”to Marx’s “class consciousness.” It “addressesthe ‘we-ness’ of a group, stressing the similari-ties or shared attributes around which groupmembers coalesce” (Cerulo, 1997: 386). In orga-nizational research, collective identity predom-inantly has been explained as members’ conver-gent beliefs about the central, enduring, anddistinctive attributes of their organization (Al-bert & Whetten, 1985). These beliefs affect theway in which members interpret and react toissues facing the organization (Dutton & Duk-erich, 1991; Gioia & Thomas, 1996) by influencingthe importance that members attach to them,whether or not they see these issues as a threator opportunity, and whether they are willing toinvest time and energy in addressing them (Els-bach & Kramer, 1996; Gioia & Thomas, 1996).Some writers argue that convergence aroundcollective identity leads to action by increasingorganizational commitment (Ashforth & Mael,1989; Dutton et al., 1994) and strengthening orga-nizational culture, motivating employees towork cooperatively (Fiol, 1991; Saffold, 1988;Schein, 1986). More recent work, however, high-lights the importance of tensions, fluidity, andparadox in organizational identity (Fiol, 2002;Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000; Pratt & Foreman,2000).

We adopt a discursive perspective, whichbuilds on recent interest in the tensions andfluidity associated with collective identity. Froma discursive perspective, a collective identityexists as a discursive object produced in andthrough conversations, rather than as a cogni-tively held belief (Taylor & Van Every, 1993).When collaborating partners discursively pro-duce a collective identity, they produce a discur-


sive object that refers to themselves as someform of collective, rather than as simply a set ofdisconnected individuals or as a group of orga-nizational representatives. This collective iden-tity “names” the group—it gives it an identitythat is meaningful to its members and to itsstakeholders—and is shared, in the sense thatmembers collectively engage in the discursivepractices that produce and reproduce it overtime. Thus, our focus is on collective identity asa linguistically produced object embodied intalk and other forms of text, rather than as a setof beliefs held in members’ minds.

Discourse-oriented studies of collective iden-tity concentrate on the processes through whicha collective identity is produced via the creationof texts, and on the relationship of collectiveidentity as a discursive object to patterns of ac-tion. Unlike research on social identity (e.g.,Abrams & Hogg, 1999; Ashforth & Mael, 1989;

Hogg, 2000; Tajfel, 1972), a discursive approachdoes not examine what members are thinking,nor does it attempt to relate collective identity toindividual social identities. Rather, its focus isprimarily on the constructive effects of conver-sations in which participants describe them-selves as a collective. A discursive conceptual-ization of collective identity provides a powerfulbasis for understanding the dynamics of collab-oration, because it situates collective identity inthe language in use among members andavoids the need to assess the degree of conver-gence across the minds of individuals. It shiftsattention from the intentions and attitudes ofindividuals to their observable linguistic prac-tices and the effects of those practices on socialrelationships and action (Potter & Wetherell,1987).

We argue that a collective identity, under-stood as a discursive object, is critically impor-

FIGURE 1A Model of Collective Identity, Conversations, and Effective Interorganizational Collaboration


tant in achieving effective collaboration. Thediscursive construction of a collective identityenables participants to construct themselves,the problem, and the solution as part of a col-laborative framework in which the potential forjoint action is both significant and beneficial. Acollective identity also acts as a resource forparticipants in future conversations—to ad-dress, for example, internal conflict amongmembers or differences in organizational inter-ests that might otherwise jeopardize the collab-oration. It helps individual participants in thecollaboration attach importance to an issue, col-lectively invest time and energy in it, commit toany compromises involved in tackling it, takecollective risks, and secure support from theirrespective organizations. A collective identity isparticularly important in the case of collabora-tion, because the absence of market and hierar-chical controls among participants means thatthey cannot rely on monetary exchange or hier-archical authority to achieve cooperation. Thus,the discursive construction of a collective iden-tity through conversations can help participantsin a collaboration identify with their partnersand provide a rationale for the cooperation thatis essential to its effectiveness (Gheradi, 1995).This relationship between collective identityand effective collaboration leads to our firstproposition.

Proposition 1: Effective interorganiza-tional collaboration will be morelikely to ensue when the participantsin a collaboration discursively pro-duce a collective identity for them-selves.

Conversations and Collective Identity

Although a collective identity is critical to suc-cess, the complexities of interorganizational col-laboration make the discursive construction of acollective identity relatively difficult to achieve:whereas some notion of the central, enduring,and distinctive attributes of an organization canoften be taken for granted (although perhaps ina minimal or problematic way), collaborationsare often neither central (participants’ home or-ganizations continue to take priority) nor endur-ing (collaborations often have a fixed life spanor lead a tenuous existence). It may also bedifficult to develop distinctiveness when collab-

orations take on a mixture of the attributes ofparticipating organizations. At a minimum, in-terorganizational collaboration represents acomplex arena in which to construct a collectiveidentity, because it involves individual partici-pants working together as a group while re-maining connected to the organizations inwhich they work. This question thus arises: Howis a collective identity produced in the case ofcollaboration?

Collins argues that collective identities areproduced through conversations that discur-sively construct common “realities” regardingmembership in different groups:

For example, shop talk involves membership inoccupational groups, political and other ideolog-ical talk involves contending political coalitions,entertainment talk invokes groups with varioustastes, general discussion invokes different intel-lectual and nonintellectual strata, while gossipand personal talk invoke specific and sometimesquite intimate memberships. Again, it is not im-portant whether what is said is true or not, butwhether it can be said and accepted as a commonreality for that moment—that is what makes it anemblem of group membership (Collins, 1981: 999–1000).

In the context of collaboration, this argumentsuggests that the types of conversations inwhich participants engage have a critical effecton the likelihood a collective identity willemerge.

Two specific types of conversations are par-ticularly critical to the production of a collectiveidentity within a collaboration: (1) those conver-sations that produce generalized membershipties— discursively constructed relationshipsthat connect participants to a common issuearound which the collaboration is organized—and (2) those conversations that produce partic-ularized membership ties, which connect theparticipants directly to each other, rather thanindirectly through an issue (Hardy, Lawrence, &Phillips, 1998). Although we discuss these tiesseparately, conversations may involve an exten-sive network of connected exchanges, and, con-sequently, both generalized and particularizedmembership ties may be produced within thesame conversations. Together, generalizedmembership ties and particularized member-ship ties provide the foundations for the discur-sive construction of a collective identity.

Generalized membership ties. Generalizedmembership ties revolve around membership in


a community based on a connection to someissue or problem (Collins, 1981). These ties areproduced through conversations that define anissue in a particular way and that connect orga-nizations to that issue. Conversations that gen-erate generalized membership ties provide abasis on which participants can identify an is-sue as relevant to their organizations and con-sequently identify themselves as interested inor affected by it.

The conversations that produce generalizedmembership ties are those in which issues areconstructed, and so involve the production ofaccounts of the world as problematic and requir-ing action (Lawrence et al., 1999). Such conver-sations might be diagnostic, in that they definea problem and specify its causes; prognostic, inthat they build consensus and mobilize action;or motivational, in the form of a general call toarms to potential participants and stakeholders(Benford & Snow, 2000). The way in which anissue is constructed has important political ef-fects on collaboration: it places limits on poten-tial interactions and plays an important role indetermining who has a legitimate case for mem-bership in the collaboration (Gray, 1989; Gray &Hay, 1986).

Some organizations will be more powerfulthan others in defining the issue (Altheide, 1988).We do not suggest that these actors necessarilyenter into these conversations with fixed or pre-determined views that they intend to “sell” (Dut-ton & Ashford, 1993); rather, the discursive con-struction of issues often occurs in an emergentfashion as actors coproduce those constructionsthat affect the distribution of advantage anddisadvantage, although in ways that were notnecessarily intended or predicted.

At the same time, actors do not operate in avacuum but in a larger discursive setting thatshapes these conversations; only conversationsthat are sensible and legitimate within the con-text of prevailing discourses will produce gen-eralized membership ties. For example, in thedevelopment of a collaboration between Cana-dian AIDS community groups and pharmaceuti-cal firms to improve access to AIDS treatment(Maguire et al., 2001), community members drewstrategically on scientific discourse. This pre-existing discourse provided the means by whichto construct generalized membership ties andallowed community members to connect to theissue of treatment as responsible and informed

laypeople; however, it also constrained conver-sations—for example, by restricting incompati-ble talk of “irresponsible” activism.

Generalized membership ties play a criticalrole in the discursive production of a collectiveidentity in the context of collaboration by facil-itating participants’ articulation of a shared is-sue as important to a number of stakeholders,including themselves, and as sufficiently endur-ing to warrant some form of collective response.For example, in a study of collaboration amongemployment service organizations, Hardy et al.(1998) found that only when conversations oc-curred that explicitly built generalized member-ship ties around a common issue were partici-pants able to articulate an enduring rationalefor a collaborative partnership and a collectivevision of the future. Until then, a lack of gener-alized membership ties had impeded the pro-duction of a collective identity, despite monthlymeetings over an eighteen-month period: forcedtogether by their primary funder, and never hav-ing discussed who they were as a group or whattheir purpose was, participants had not clearlyarticulated an issue that located them as mem-bers of a larger domain. The relationship be-tween generalized membership ties and collec-tive identity leads to our next proposition.

Proposition 2: Participants in an inter-organizational collaboration will bemore likely to discursively construct acollective identity when they engagein conversations that establish gener-alized membership ties among them-selves.

Particularized membership ties. The produc-tion of a collective identity depends on partici-pants understanding themselves as tied to eachother directly, as well as indirectly through theissue. Collins (1981) refers to ties that produceand reproduce direct relationships among con-versational participants as particularized mem-bership ties. These ties describe status, author-ity, and task-role relationships, as well asaffiliative and collegial relations. In a collabo-ration, particularized membership ties involveroutines, procedures, and structures that delin-eate, for instance, what roles individuals take inproblem-solving or idea generation processes,who attends particular meetings, and, more for-mally, who can legitimately make decisions or


speak on behalf of the collaboration (Gray, 1989;McCann, 1983).

The conversations that produce particularizedmembership ties are those that refer to specificpersons, places, and objects and, consequently,provide a set of discursive resources from whichparticipants can position themselves as con-nected in specific, identifiable ways. Gricar andBrown (1981), for example, describe collabora-tions as mapping relationships and interdepen-dencies among member organizations, as wellas coordinating activities among these stake-holders. Through these conversations, particu-larized membership ties are produced as certainstakeholders are included, patterns of interde-pendence are established, authority and statusare conferred, and roles and responsibilities areassigned. In addition, the repeated nature ofroutine conversational activity—about particu-lar matters, between particular people, in par-ticular places— creates specific attachmentsand relationships (Collins, 1981; Taylor et al.,1996).

The discursive production of particularizedmembership ties is a political process: the inclu-sion (and exclusion) of particular organizationscan be highly contentious and can significantlyaffect collaborative outcomes (Gray, 1985; Hardy& Phillips, 1998). Participants with power mayuse it to exclude other stakeholders (Gricar &Brown, 1981) in order to avoid “extreme” or “rad-ical” views (Warren, Rose, & Bergunder, 1974). Inaddition, who has authority, which proceduresare invoked, and what particular coalitions areformed all have political implications, and, assuch, participants may use power to influenceparticularized membership ties. At the sametime, the larger discursive context constrainsaction; to be able to participate in a collabora-tion, participants need to occupy some legiti-mate position (Gray, 1985), but within any dis-course, only a limited number of subjectpositions are understood as meaningful, legiti-mate, and powerful (Fairclough 1992; Foucault,1972). Hence, inclusion or exclusion of certaingroups, by virtue of whether they are legitimateparticipants in a collaboration or not, maylargely be determined by broader discourses(Hardy & Phillips, 1999).

The formation of particularized membershipties through conversation is an important pre-cursor to the discursive production of a collec-tive identity in the context of collaboration.

While generalized ties provide a substantivebasis for the existence of a collective identity asstakeholders collectively face a particular issue,particularized ties provide a processual andstructural basis for specific participants to ad-dress the issue in a particular forum. The col-laboration in question is thus constructed as areal and distinct entity, separate and differentfrom the organizations involved in it and morethan simply a set of their representatives.

In a study of a collaboration between an aidorganization located in the West Bank and adepartment of a Scandinavian university, Law-rence et al. (2002) found that the two organiza-tions were able to discursively produce particu-larized ties to one another, despite significantcultural and sectoral differences between them,as a result of extensive conversations amongtheir respective employees regarding the specif-ics of the project and their roles in it. Theseincluded operational and information meetingsamong employees of the two organizations, aswell as a series of multiparty meetings that alsoinvolved government and nongovernmental or-ganization (NGO) stakeholders. Through theseprocesses, participants constructed themselvesas closely and directly tied to each other. Therelationship between particularized member-ship ties and collective identity leads to our nextproposition.

Proposition 3: Participants in an inter-organizational collaboration will bemore likely to discursively construct acollective identity when they engagein conversations that establish partic-ularized membership ties amongthem.

CONVERSATIONS IN COLLABORATION

The discursive construction of a collectiveidentity may make collective action possible,but it does not necessarily lead to effective col-laboration (cooperative, interorganizational ac-tion that produces innovative, synergistic solu-tions and balances divergent stakeholderconcerns). We argue that collective identity istranslated into effective collaboration throughthe impact of two other aspects of conversations.First is “constructions of key issues,” by whichwe mean the ways in which central issues aredefined in conversation. Second is “styles of


talk” that characterize these conversations—their tone, style, rhythm, and format. Each ofthese aspects of conversation makes importantcontributions to the process, but most critical toproducing effective collaboration are the ten-sions, in the form of conflict and ambiguity,among different constructions and styles of talk.

Constructions of Key Issues

In collaborations, conversations must produceresources on which participants can draw tomake sense of the situation and to create andlegitimate courses of action. These discursiveresources— understandings, frames of refer-ence, and forms of knowledge, or, as we callthem, “constructions”—are similar to Swidler’sconception of culture as a “‘tool kit’ . . . fromwhich actors select differing pieces for con-structing lines of action” (1986: 277). Construc-tions provide a discursive tool kit from whichparticipants can select and, having selectedsome constructions over others, engage in cer-tain actions over others. A construction “rulesin” certain ways of thinking about, talkingabout, and acting on a topic and “rules out”other ways (Hall, 2001: 72). In the process of col-laboration, this occurs as the issue that hasbrought the collaborating partners together isdescribed, examined, analyzed, and acted on;these conversations discursively produce andmaintain certain forms of knowledge, frames ofreference, and understandings.

Our perspective on the construction of key is-sues is distinct from one in which the under-standing of a problem is cognitive in nature; acognitive perspective might focus on “informa-tion” and the ways in which it is collected,shared, processed, and analyzed in order to de-termine the correct course of action (Huber,1991). In contrast, from a discursive perspective,through conversations associated with the col-laboration, individuals construct and legitimateparticular knowledge, frames of reference, andunderstandings, which, in turn, make certain ac-tions meaningful and appropriate. Thus, thecritical significance of constructions is theiravailability to participants to use as resourcesin further conversations (e.g., securing legiti-macy and commitment for particular courses ofaction).

We argue that for effective collaboration tooccur, two types of constructions must be estab-

lished in participants’ conversations: (1) com-mon constructions of key issues and (2) privateconstructions of those same issues. As we dis-cussed with generalized and particularizedmembership ties, these constructions may beproduced in the same, overlapping, or differentconversations. We treat them separately for the-oretical clarity, but any empirical investigationwould need to be attuned to this potential over-lap.

Common constructions. In order for effectivecollaboration to occur, participants must engagein conversations that produce resources to makesense of the issue and related matters in termson which there is general agreement. We callthese discursive objects “common construc-tions.” They occur when participants negotiate ageneral agreement regarding the causes, symp-toms, assumptions, and potential solutions thatrelate to the issue around which the collabora-tion is formed. These constructions are essen-tial, because they allow participants to makesense of complex problems (Weick & Roberts,1993) and to communicate with each other wellenough to coordinate collective action (Huxham,1996). It is not enough to be connected to otherparticipants and to the issue; participants mustalso establish a basis for communication if theyare to reconcile their different interests and ifsynergy is to occur (Gray, 1989; Trist, 1983).

The production of common constructions isdistinct from the establishment of the general-ized membership ties that help to produce col-lective identity. Participants may engage in con-versations that recognize their common interestin an issue without necessarily constructing it inthe same terms. For example, union representa-tives and managers involved in wage negotia-tions may well produce generalized ties thatconnect them to a successful business. Throughthose negotiations they may even developstrong particularized ties that connect them toeach other as negotiators. Accordingly, theymay develop a collective identity around theirjoint roles in industrial bargaining. But they willnot necessarily have a common construction ofthe problem: managers may construct wage in-creases as a threat to competitiveness, whileunion representatives may construct them as aredistribution of profits. In such a situation, itbecomes difficult to produce a synergistic out-come; instead, the “solution” is more likely to beimposed, if one party proves more powerful, or


to be a compromise, if not. While this form ofaction may be common in negotiations (Wells &Liebman, 1996), it does not constitute effectivecollaboration.

Common constructions are necessary for ef-fective collaboration, because communicationamong participants is contradictory and confus-ing without them. For example, in a study ofinterdepartmental collaboration associatedwith innovation, Dougherty (1996) found that dif-ferent departments employed different mean-ings of the term market-oriented innovation. ForR&D, it meant product specifications and tech-nical features—what the product could do. Inmanufacturing, it meant durability and reliabil-ity, which translated into fewer features andsimpler specifications. Members in the planningdepartment thought it meant having the productin the right market niche. Although these de-partments got together to collaborate and sawthemselves as connected to the same issue, par-ticipants failed to produce a common construc-tion of this issue. As a result, attempts to inno-vate failed, because the would-be innovatorsfailed to bridge their different “thought worlds”through the articulation of common construc-tions, even though they engaged in conversa-tions with each other and used the same termi-nology (Dougherty, 1996).

Private constructions. Effective collaborationalso requires participants to engage in conver-sations that produce private constructions. Inusing this term, we are not referring to undis-closed constructions held by participants but,rather, constructions that are produced in waysthat attach them to particular participants in-stead of the group as a whole. Thus, privateconstructions are discursive objects that leadindividuals to make sense of and express keyissues in disparate and often conflicting terms.In the context of interorganizational collabora-tion, they are often associated with the goals ofthe different organizations represented in thecollaboration, but they might also involve awide range of issues, such as appropriate tech-nologies to employ, time frames for the collabo-ration, and stakeholder involvement.

Private constructions play a critical role infostering creativity by juxtaposing “widely di-vergent bodies of knowledge and experience”(Fiol, 1995: 71), whereas conversations that in-volve only stable, shared knowledge inhibit thediscovery of contrary experience from which in-

novation arises (Jehn, 1997; Lovelace, Shapiro, &Weingart, 2001). In other words, while commonconstructions facilitate communication and al-low participants to create an atmosphere of mu-tual understanding, private constructions allowcreativity and innovation (cf. Dougherty, 1996;Fiol, 1995). The value of diversity to innovation isa well-established idea in the collaboration lit-erature, which often recommends bringing to-gether individuals with different backgroundsto generate new ideas (e.g., Gray, 1989; Huxham,1996), We suggest, however, that it is not thediversity of the collaborators per se that is thecrucial element but, rather, the production ofconstructions of the issue that are clearly at-tached to particular participants.

The articulation of private constructions pro-vides a set of discursive resources on whichparticipants can draw as they attempt to nego-tiate solutions to the issue at hand. As such,private constructions play an important role inensuring that the actions that emerge out ofcollaboration balance stakeholder interests, be-cause they publicly commit participants to takeinto account the interests of the organizationsthey represent (Salancik, 1977) and because theyhelp to ensure that the substantive issues pre-occupying the organizations represented in thecollaboration are present in the conversationsamong participants. In fact, private construc-tions are likely to be rooted in conversationsthat occur in participants’ home organizations:as participants discuss the progress of the col-laboration with their managers, private con-structions will be produced, which then can bearticulated in conversations among collabora-tors.

Effective collaboration is more likely to ensueif conversations produce both common and pri-vate constructions on an ongoing basis. Com-mon constructions provide a basis for movingforward; private constructions facilitate the cre-ation of the task-oriented conflict among partic-ipants necessary for innovation (Cosier & Rose,1977; Jehn, 1997). Private constructions are alsoan important way to ensure that stakeholderinterests are not neglected through both publiccommitments and the inclusion of substantiveconcerns.

We argue that both sets of constructions needto be produced on an ongoing, rather than se-quential, basis; this argument contrasts with thegroup development literature, which tends to


suggest a period of divergence, such as brain-storming, followed by convergence prior to ac-tion (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Mohrman, Co-hen, & Mohrman, 1995). Our argument for theongoing juxtaposition of common and privateconstructions stems from the perspective thatlanguage does not represent or reveal the factsof the world but constructs them in conversation;thus, facts are not established once and for allbut must continuously be reproduced if they areto be meaningful conversational elements thatcan affect the actions ensuing from the collabo-ration.

To summarize, effective collaboration is facil-itated by a tension that stems from the ongoingcirculation and interplay of common and privateconstructions and the ambiguities that result.While representational perspectives of lan-guage and communication “view ambiguity asa problem to be solved,” a discursive approach“treats ambiguity as an opportunity to chal-lenge, skirt, and reinvent received knowledge”(Eisenberg, 1998: 97). Thus, the innovation asso-ciated with effective collaboration is fueled bythe ambiguity that emerges out of the simulta-neous production of common and private con-structions. These dynamics lead to our nextproposition.

Proposition 4: The relationship be-tween collective identity and effectivecollaboration will be strengthened bythe maintenance of an ongoing ten-sion between common and privateconstructions of key issues throughoutthe life of the collaboration.

Sustaining the production of both commonand private constructions of key issues over thelife of a collaboration is made difficult by peo-ple’s preferences for coherence in conversation(Woodilla, 1998). A number of factors can miti-gate this tendency toward convergence, how-ever, and can facilitate the ongoing productionof both sets of constructions. The first factorstems from the relationship between conversa-tions that occur inside and those that occur out-side the collaboration. We argue that the greaterthe awareness of the content of those conversa-tions on both sides (participants are aware ofother participants’ conversations in their homeorganizations, and home organization manag-ers are aware of the conversations within thecollaboration), the more diverse the discursive

resources available to all participants will beand the greater the motivation will be for par-ticipants to ensure that the tension betweencommon and private constructions is main-tained. This is not to say that, as the collabora-tion develops, there will be not particular mo-ments where convergence occurs, allowingdecisions to be made and coordinated action tobe taken. However, thereafter, new issues willarise, and tension must again be created andmaintained until convergence once again oc-curs.

The second factor stems from the impact of thecomposition of participants on the dynamics ofconversations (Westley, 1990). We argue that theintroduction of new members, in terms of eitherparticipating organizations or individual repre-sentatives, will be associated with both the in-troduction of new private constructions and theexamination of the differences between commonand private constructions; the conversationsprompted by the arrival of new participants will,therefore, offset participants’ tendencies towardconvergence.

Finally, formal barriers to convergent lan-guage can be erected in the institution of collab-orative practices, such as situations where par-ticipants are required to articulate privateconstructions for the purposes of creating con-flict. These are not the only factors that influ-ence the production of common and private con-structions, but they represent three importantfactors, as indicated below.

Proposition 5: The ongoing productionof common and private constructionsin conversations will be facilitated by(a) mutual awareness of conversationsacross the collaboration and the rep-resentatives’ home organizations, (b)the introduction of new members overtime, and (c) barriers to convergencein the collaboration.

Styles of Talk

The second feature of conversations that mod-erates the relationship between collective iden-tity and the likelihood of effective collaborationis the style of talk in which actors engage—thepatterns in tone, style, rhythm, and format ofconversations. Styles of talk are critical in col-laboration because they provide the emotional


energy necessary for participants to translate acollective identity into effective collaboration.The lack of market and hierarchical mecha-nisms of control among participants inherent incollaboration means that participants must gen-erate their own motivation if they are to collab-orate effectively. Different styles of talk gener-ate this motivation in different ways and withdifferent results. As with our discussion of theconstruction of key issues, it is not the utilizationof a single style or even a combination of stylesthat is critical to the accomplishment of effectivecollaboration but, rather, the creation and main-tenance of a tension among different styles oftalk by participants.

We argue that effective collaboration involvesan ongoing tension between two styles of talk inparticular: (1) cooperative talk, which ariseswhen the tone, style, rhythm, and format of con-versations emphasize the willingness of partic-ipants to listen to and engage with each other’spositions and interests, and (2) assertive talk,which occurs when the character of conversa-tions emphasizes participants’ insistence on ar-ticulating their own views and positions. In theremainder of this section, we explore the waysin which these two styles of talk influence therelationship between collective identity and thelikelihood of effective collaboration, arguingthat both forms are necessary for effective col-laboration to occur.

Cooperative talk. Cooperative talk tends tooccur in conversations that emphasize partici-pants’ similarity, mutual affiliations, andshared interests. This emphasis might be cre-ated through particular words chosen (oravoided), a tone that suggests mutual respectand consideration, or a structure in which allparticipants play an equal role (Atkinson & Her-itage, 1984; Psathas, 1995; Woodilla, 1998). Byconducting conversations in this manner, partic-ipants associate the content of those conversa-tions with a willingness to work with and accom-modate each other’s interests and preferences.This can occur even when the topic of conversa-tion revolves around participants’ private con-structions and particular interests; through thetone, style, and format of their conversation, par-ticipants can signal accommodation and a will-ingness to compromise. Such cooperative talkunderlies many normative models of collabora-tion:

In collaboration, problem-solving decisions areeventually taken by a group of stakeholders whohave mutually authorized each other to reach adecision. Thus, power to define the problem andto propose a solution is effectively shared amongthe decision makers (Gray, 1989: 119).

Thus, through cooperative talk, action is gen-erated collectively and inclusively. The adop-tion of such a style of talk ensures that commu-nicative activity is shared and that meaning iscoproduced by all participants, including lesspowerful partners. As Warren et al. point out,simply including diverse stakeholders is notenough to ensure effective collaboration, sincethere is always the risk that their voices willsimply be “outweighed and outheard” (1974:127). Cooperative talk works to ensure that theviews of weaker organizational partners are in-corporated, thereby enabling some form ofshared purpose to emerge. It also helps partici-pants to maintain their common constructionsas central to the conversation and to integrateprivate constructions in a way that is morelikely to produce the synergistic outcomes asso-ciated with effective collaboration (e.g., Lewis &Weigert, 1985; Sabel, 1993). Moreover, coopera-tive talk tends to reinforce a group’s collectiveidentity—in signaling a willingness to cooper-ate, participants will draw on the collectiveidentity as a discursive resource, talking interms of “we” and “us,” and recreating and re-vising identity in an ongoing manner.

A study of a collaboration between an NGOand a number of refugee organizations in theUnited Kingdom (Hardy & Phillips, 1998) pro-vides an example of the importance of coopera-tive talk among differentially powerful partners.This collaboration involved a considerable em-phasis on cooperative talk, particularly on thepart of the more powerful NGO, whose represen-tatives were constantly questioning, “Should webe doing this or should we be helping a commu-nity organization to do it? You have to introducethat questioning so you don’t automatically as-sume that you’ve got to do it” (collaboratorquoted in Hardy & Phillips, 1998: 222). Represen-tatives of the NGO set great store on full partic-ipation by refugees as equal partners: “We don’tusually impose things on [these] groups, we tryto facilitate it” (collaborator quoted in Hardy &Phillips, 1998: 222). Hardy and Phillips concludedthat this collaboration was effective because ofthe way in which all partners—but particularly


the more powerful participants—voluntarilyand cooperatively participated in it, comparedto other relationships that appeared to be col-laborative on the surface but where neither par-ticipation nor power was shared.

Assertive talk. Assertive talk aids in effectivecollaboration by helping participants ensurethat their organizational interests are repre-sented in any action generated by the collabo-ration. Assertive talk energizes the differencesamong participants and provides a motivationalbasis for achieving synergistic, rather than sim-ply compromising, outcomes. By engaging in as-sertive talk, individual participants attempt toinfluence the direction of conversations andframe the discussions that go on within them(Westley, 1990). As with cooperative talk, asser-tive talk can be produced through a conversa-tion’s tone (highly pitched, self-assured, insis-tent), style (aggressive, uncompromising), orstructure (forceful turn-taking, free-for-all). It al-lows individual participants to discursively pro-duce positions in which they are visibly andaudibly affected by their personal and organi-zational stakes in the issue at hand. It also en-sures that private constructions are articulatedstrongly and can be explored, promoted, andpursued; without assertive talk, private con-structions are more likely to remain peripher-al—stated, but not pushed forward for inclusionin collective sensemaking and decision-makingprocesses. Moreover, assertive talk can be im-portant in holding up common constructions toscrutiny, whereas cooperative talk tends to rein-force them. Since effective collaboration de-pends on innovation and creativity, the forcefulpromotion of private constructions and the crit-ical examination of common constructions areboth essential elements in this process.

Assertive talk is also important for the way inwhich it constructs participants’ representa-tional roles as legitimate and central aspects ofthe process. In engaging in assertive talk, par-ticipants demonstrate their commitment to theproprietary interests of the organizations theyrepresent. This can smooth what has been de-scribed in collaboration research as the “two-table problem” (Gray, 1989), where participantsare perceived as overly identified with the col-laboration rather than the organization in whichthey work. Consequently, assertive talk can in-crease the degree to which home organizationmanagers perceive that their representatives

are committed to organizational interests. As aresult, they will be more likely to continue theirsupport for collaboration, which, in turn, willmotivate participants to contribute to the con-versations instead of the reverse—wonderingwhether their organization is likely to pull out ofthe collaboration, which makes it difficult forparticipants to sustain energy (cf. Westley, 1990).

The danger that stems from lack of assertivetalk is illustrated in Westley and Vredenburg’s(1991) study of a collaboration between a super-market chain and an environmental organiza-tion in Canada to develop a new line of environ-mentally friendly products. The two CEOsengaged in highly cooperative talk and sup-ported a common construction of the chal-lenge—the importance of environmental groupsand business working together. This coopera-tive talk was not, however, complemented withassertive talk, since the CEO of the environmen-tal organization attempted to “streamline” meet-ings and to constrain the opportunity for otherparticipants in the collaboration to engage inassertive talk. This made it difficult for dissent-ing employees to promote or defend privateconstructions of the issues, and it reduced thedegree to which the interests of outside stake-holders were considered. As a result, the collab-oration failed to produce innovative outcomes,lost the support of the board of the environmen-tal organization, and was publicly condemnedby other high-profile environmental groups.

We argue that a combination of cooperativeand assertive talk will have a positively mod-erating effect on the relationship between col-lective identity and effective collaboration. Co-operative talk facilitates the leveraging ofcommon constructions and the integration ofprivate constructions, both of which engendercollective action. Assertive talk ensures that pri-vate constructions are advanced, organizationalresponsibilities are acknowledged, and com-mon constructions are critically challenged, allof which help to produce innovation and ensurethat stakeholder interests are represented. Mostcritically, effective collaboration is driven by anongoing interplay of both styles of talk and willemerge from situations in which agreement isregularly challenged and where styles of talkvary over time and across conversations in afluid and potentially unpredictable manner.

Each style of talk plays a critical role in theaccomplishment of effective collaboration, and


neither can be suspended or set aside. Theyneed not always feature together in an individ-ual conversation, but they will have the greatestimpact if both are interwoven over the life of thecollaboration. In summary, a tension betweenthe styles of talk helps to promote innovationand synergy and to ensure that stakeholder in-terests are represented. These dynamics lead toour next proposition.

Proposition 6: The relationship be-tween collective identity and effectivecollaboration will be strengthened bythe maintenance of an ongoing ten-sion between assertive and coopera-tive styles of talk throughout the life ofthe collaboration.

The ongoing production of both cooperativeand assertive talk may be difficult to achievebecause of the potentially self-reinforcing as-pects of each style of talk: norms of reciprocitysuggest that cooperative talk on the part of oneparticipant is likely to engender cooperativetalk by others; similarly, assertive talk is likelyto be met with equally assertive talk (Andersson& Pearson, 1999). Thus, factors that increase theongoing production of both styles of talk will bethose that mitigate these self-reinforcing ten-dencies.

One such factor is the legitimacy of bothstyles of talk within the collaboration. Thismight be affected by direct discussions of theissue within the collaboration (as might beprompted by a skilled facilitator) or by thebroader discursive context surrounding the col-laboration (with different sectors and industrieshaving distinct norms that might challenge orprivilege one style of talk or another). A secondfactor concerns the diversity of roles or identi-ties that participants take on. From a discursiveperspective, different identities are associatedwith different legitimated vocabularies and con-versational styles (Fowler, 1991; Iedema, 1998).By ensuring a heterogeneity of roles for partici-pants within the collaboration, a single domi-nant style of talk is less likely to emerge. Fi-nally, collaborative practices such as the pacingof conversations can help sustain both coopera-tive and assertive talk. Styles of talk are morelikely to be self-reinforcing within the context ofcontinuous conversations; consequently, themore often conversations are broken up, thegreater the opportunity will be for participants

to change the dominant style of talk and switchto the alternative form.

Proposition 7: The ongoing productionof cooperative and assertive styles oftalk will be facilitated by (a) legitima-tion of both styles of talk within thecollaboration, (b) heterogeneity ofroles among participants, and (c) tem-poral discontinuities in conversation.

The penultimate point to make about ourmodel concerns the various feedback loops thatexist among the concepts we have discussed.First, the relationship between generalized andparticularized ties and common constructions iscomplex. Common constructions are distinctfrom membership ties, although both can be re-sources for the production of common construc-tions: collaborators can draw on the connectionsto the issue and to each other as they elaboratethe way in which they jointly construct the issue.At the same time, common constructions act asresources for the ongoing discursive accom-plishment of these ties, and, in fact, both tiesand common constructions may be produced inthe same conversations.

Second, styles of talk are also linked to mem-bership ties in a reciprocal relationship. Gener-alized and particularized ties are resources forboth styles of talk, depending on the emotionalreaction to the issue and to the partners. Forexample, a passion for the issue (generalized)and respect for partners (particularized) arelikely to produce cooperative talk, whereas apassion for the issue and a suspicion of partnersmay produce assertive talk. The style of talkalso influences ties. For example, the predomi-nance of cooperative talk may weaken general-ized ties, but if, as a result, the participativeprocess becomes more important than the enditself, particularized ties will strengthen. In con-trast, the predominance of assertive talk maystrengthen generalized ties but weaken partic-ularized ties.

Finally, and more generally, to sustain effec-tive collaboration, the processes underpinningthe model must remain ongoing and success-ful—hence, the feedback loop shown between“effective interorganizational collaboration”and “generalized” and “particularized member-ship ties” in Figure 1. Any deviation or break-down of these intricate processes would lead tothe failure of the collaboration. Thus, we are


suggesting in this model that the process ofachieving effective collaboration may be a rel-atively fragile one.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a theory of effective col-laboration that focuses on the roles of collectiveidentity and conversation. Having defined effec-tive collaboration as cooperative, interorganiza-tional action that produces innovative, synergisticsolutions and balances divergent stakeholderconcerns, we adopted a discourse-oriented per-spective that highlights the interaction of the dis-cursive context, conversations among partici-pants, and the discursive resources that arecritical in achieving effective collaboration. Wehave argued that the discursive production of acollective identity is an important step in produc-ing effective collaboration and that it depends onthe production of generalized and particularizedmembership ties. We have further argued that therelationship between collective identity and effec-tive collaboration will be stronger to the extentthat conversations among participants sustain anongoing tension between common and privateconstructions and between cooperative and asser-tive styles of talk. This theory has important im-plications for research on collaboration and forthe study of language in organizations more gen-erally, as well as significant practical implica-tions.

Implications for Research

The first implication is for research on the roleof language in effective collaboration. Tradi-tionally, studies of interorganizational collabo-ration have tended to privilege action at theexpense of talk; effective collaboration has beenassociated with “getting things done” whileavoiding “talk-fests.” We believe in the impor-tance of action, but we focus on the way inwhich talk establishes the foundations for ac-tion in effective collaboration.

Our model suggests some specific directionsfor research on this relationship. Researchersinterested in the role of language should focuson the discursive resources (generalized andparticularized membership ties, collective iden-tity, common and private constructions of keyissues, and cooperative and assertive styles oftalk) that are available and, especially, the ten-

sions among them. Our discursive perspectivealso highlights the role of broader discourses insupporting and constraining conversations; fu-ture research might examine the impacts anddynamics of the particular discourses withinwhich an interorganizational collaboration isenacted.

A second research implication concerns the roleof stakeholders. Collaboration researchers haveoften adopted a social psychological perspec-tive, focusing on group dynamics and the behav-ior of individuals within the collaboration, whilegiving the interactions between stakeholderand the collaboration rather less attention. Ourmodel suggests that discourse-oriented studiescan make an important contribution to our un-derstanding of this relationship when the con-versations between organizational membersand their representatives on the collaborationare examined. Researchers could examine col-laborative failures caused by the withdrawal oforganizational support and identify the signalsto which organizations react when assessingwhether to continue their support. It is not clearwhether organizational members respond moreto formal texts, such as progress reports, or toinformal conversations with representatives.Similarly, researchers could examine the sym-bols that reassure stakeholders that a collabo-ration is safe and productive and, consequently,worthy of continued support.

A third implication concerns the factors thatfacilitate the maintenance of the tensions be-tween common and private constructions andbetween cooperative and assertive styles oftalk. Although the tradeoff between partici-pants’ roles as collaborators and as stakeholderrepresentatives has long been recognized in thecollaboration literature (Gray, 1985, 1989), it isless clear how such a tradeoff can be managedeffectively. We have identified specific ways ofmaintaining the tensions that produce effectivecollaboration. Thus, in future research scholarsshould pay close attention to such factors asbarriers to convergence, introduction of newmembers, and transparency of conversations instakeholder organizations (which affect the like-lihood that a tension between common and pri-vate constructions will be maintained), as wellas temporal discontinuities in the process, het-erogeneity of participants, and the legitimacy ofvarious styles of talk (which affect the partici-pants’ styles of talk).


A fourth research implication stems from themethodological advantages associated with theadoption of a discursive perspective. Studies ofdiscourse are strongly empirical because of theway in which discourse leaves “traces” (Taylor& Van Every, 2000), meaning that the objects ofanalysis are observable instances of talk andtext. Accordingly, proponents of a discursive ap-proach view the social world as an ongoing ac-complishment that is held precariously in placethrough discursive struggle, which allows us toview a collaboration as something that is al-ways in the act of “becoming” (cf. Tsoukas &Chia, 2002), rather than as a discrete entity. Adiscursive approach also allows us to examinethe “levels” involved in collaboration withoutreifying them. Whereas traditional research hasfocused on the psychology of individual partic-ipants, the group dynamics of the collaborationteam, or, less often, the stakeholders repre-sented in the collaboration, a discursive ap-proach allows us to conceptualize these interac-tions through conversations that embrace andinterconnect all “levels.”

A final implication is connected to the emerg-ing focus on organizing, rather than organiza-tion (Weick, 1998), and the conceptualization oforganizational change as a process of becoming(Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This perspective high-lights the importance of developing theoriesthat attend to the dynamic, ongoing nature oforganizational processes. Our model has shownhow the maintenance of ongoing tensions withrespect to the constructions produced in conver-sation and styles of talk is connected to effectivecollaboration through the way in which thesetensions balance the competing needs of partic-ipant and representative in an ongoing process.Similar tradeoffs exist in other organizationalprocesses (e.g., interdepartmental collaboration,cross-functional project teams, or taskforceswhere the individual is both a member of aproject team or taskforce and a representative ofa department or unit). In fact, organizationalmembership generally is fraught with conflict-ing goals and the need to balance individualis-tic and collectivist inputs.

In line with this perspective, our model explic-itly focuses on how discourse theory enables usto observe the means by which individualsmaintain multiple conflicting constructions ofkey issues and styles of talk on an ongoingbasis. In doing so, it shows how researchers

might attend to a broader range of organiza-tional issues by considering the tensions ef-fected by the presence of alternative construc-tions and styles of talk. We believe that much isto be gained by developing a wider array ofmethods that can highlight primary patterns ofinteraction without submerging less dominantthreads.

Implications for Practice

Our model has important practical implica-tions for organizational actors attempting to de-velop effective collaborations. Participants firstneed to produce a collective identity through theestablishment of both generalized and particu-larized membership ties. Practically speaking,the opening sequences of collaboration shouldinvolve conversations that connect the issue topotential participants and articulate specificconnections between them. Generalized mem-bership ties rely on the establishment and legit-imation of a vocabulary from which participantscan draw to explain their own and others’ par-ticipation to each other and to their home orga-nizations; particularized ties require discursiveresources that can be used to describe and ex-plain the relationships among participants.

Once a collective identity is discursively pro-duced, collaborators need to shift the conversa-tions toward the ongoing production of commonand private constructions. Our analysis sug-gests that this can be facilitated by establishingformal procedures in the collaboration that fo-cus on repeatedly articulating the concerns ofmanagers in the home organization; by buildingstructures into the home organizations, such asteams, whose focus is integrating the learningoccurring in the collaboration; by rotating mem-bership in terms of who represents the homeorganization and, where appropriate, by rotat-ing or adding to the stakeholders represented inthe collaboration; and by including in the col-laboration process some formal joint analysis ofthe differences among participants’ private con-structions and between common and privateconstructions. These mechanisms help to main-tain the salience of both common and privateconstructions, as well as help to maintain thedistinction between them. More imaginativemechanisms might include role plays in whichparticipants swap representational roles for aperiod of time and are encouraged to voice


“strong” descriptions of others’ private construc-tions.

Facilitating an ongoing tension between as-sertive and cooperative styles of talk over the lifeof a collaboration requires an array of differentskills, structures, and processes (Schweiger,Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). At a minimum, theimportance of this tension suggests the value ofskilled facilitation that can engender coopera-tive styles of talk amidst conflict and can engen-der legitimate assertive talk despite a group’sdesire to “get along.” The importance of thistension also suggests the need to legitimateboth forms of talk among participants and,where possible, to embed that legitimacy in con-versations outside as well as inside the collab-oration. In addition—and given that differentidentities are associated with different legiti-mated vocabularies and conversational styles—ensuring heterogeneous roles are assigned toand rotated among participants may help to pre-vent one form of talk from dominating. Finally,more use might be made of temporal disconti-nuities to engender a change in the style of talk,by a facilitator calling “time out” or by the de-liberate pacing of the meeting schedule.

A final practical implication concerns theboundaries of when the model can and shouldbe applied. Our intent has been to develop atheory that explains the role of discourse in pro-ducing effective collaboration. If organizationalactors engage in the processes described here,they should increase their chances of achievingcooperation and innovation while also meetingtheir respective interests. However, not all orga-nizations, and not all forms of collaboration, areso ambitious. A significant proportion of interor-ganizational relationships are not intended toachieve innovative solutions or balance stake-holder interests; organizational actors regularlyenter into relationships that are aimed at nego-tiating stakes in some fixed pot of resources,rapidly solving some temporary problem, orsimply gaining legitimacy in the eyes of a thirdparty. In none of these cases would we suggestthat actors engage in the processes describedabove. Our model shows how large an invest-ment and commitment effective collaborationdemands in terms of the ambiguity that partici-pants and stakeholders have to tolerate, as wellas the need for subsidiary sets of supportingconversations to be set up in home organiza-tions. Such an investment is only worthwhile

when the stakes are high, but when they are,managers and researchers would do well to lis-ten to the talk of collaboration.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). 1999. Social identity andsocial cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. 1985. Organizational identity. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263–295.

Altheide, D. L. 1988. Mediating cutbacks in human services:A case study in the negotiated order. Sociological Quar-terly, 29: 339–355.

Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2000. Varieties of discourse: Onthe study of organizations through discourse analysis.Human Relations, 53: 1125–1149.

Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiralingeffect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Man-agement Review, 24: 452–471.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and theorganization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.

Astley, W. G. 1984. Toward an appreciation of collectivestrategy. Academy of Management Review, 9: 526–535.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). 1984. Structures of socialaction: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes andsocial movements: An overview and assessment. An-nual Review of Sociology, 26: 611–639.

Bresser, R. K., & Harl, J. E. 1986. Collective strategy: Vice orvirtue? Academy of Management Review, 11: 408–427.

Cerulo, K. A. 1997. Identity construction: New issues, newdirections. American Review of Sociology, 23: 385–409.

Chalaby, J. K. 1996. Beyond the prison-house of language:Discourse as a sociological concept. British Journal ofSociology, 47: 684–698.

Collins, R. 1981. On the microfoundations of macrosociology.American Journal of Sociology, 86: 984–1013.

Cosier, R., & Rose, G. 1977. Cognitive conflict and goal con-flict effects on task performance. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Performance, 19: 378–391.

Deetz, S. A. 1992. Democracy in an age of corporate coloni-zation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dougherty, D. 1996. Organizing for innovation. In S. R. Clegg,C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizationstudies: 424–439. London: Sage.

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top man-agement. Academy of Management Review, 18: 387–428.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organi-zational images and member identification. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263.

Dyer, J., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperativestrategies and sources of interorganizational competi-


tive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23:660–679.

Eisenberg, E. M. 1998. Flirting with meaning. Journal of Lan-guage and Social Psychology, 17: 97–108.

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members’ responses toorganizational identity threats: Encountering and coun-tering the Business Week ratings. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 41: 442–476.

Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cam-bridge: Polity Press.

Fiol, C. M. 1991. Managing culture as a competitive resource:An identity-based view of sustainable competitive ad-vantage. Journal of Management, 17: 191–211.

Fiol, C. M. 1995. Thought worlds colliding: The role of con-tradiction in corporate innovation processes. Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice, 19: 71–90.

Fiol, C. M. 2002. Capitalizing on paradox: The role of lan-guage in transforming organizational identities. Orga-nization Science, 13: 653–666.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations inproducing intentional change in organizations. Acad-emy of Management Review, 20: 541–570.

Foucault, M. 1972. The archeology of knowledge. London:Routledge.

Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the news: Discourse and ideol-ogy in the press. London: Routledge.

Gheradi, S. 1995. Gender, symbolism and organizational cul-tures. London: Sage.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. 2000. Organizationalidentity, image, and instability. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 25: 63–81.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Identity, image, and issueinterpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change inacademia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370–403.

Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. 1998. Introduction: Orga-nizational discourse: Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.),Discourse and organization: 1–14. London: Sage.

Gray, B. 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational col-laboration. Human Relations, 38: 911–936.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground formultiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gray, B., & Hay, T. M. 1986. Political limits to interorganiza-tional consensus and change. Journal of Applied Behav-ioral Science, 22: 95–112.

Gricar, B., & Brown, L. D. 1981. Conflict, power, and organi-zation in a changing community. Human Relations, 34:877–893.

Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influenceof network resources and firm capabilities on allianceformation. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 397–420.

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Akbar, Z. 2000. Guest editors’ intro-duction to the special issue: Strategic networks. Strate-gic Management Journal, 21: 203–215.

Hall, S. 2001. Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. InM. Wetherell, S. Yates, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Discourse the-ory and practice: A reader: 72–81. London: Sage.

Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. 1998. Talk andaction: Conversations and narrative in interorganiza-tional collaboration. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick(Eds.), Discourse and organization: 65–83. London: Sage.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. 1998. Strategies of engagement:Lessons from the critical examination of collaborationand conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organi-zation Science, 9: 217–230.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. 1999. No joking matter: Discursivestruggle in the Canadian refugee system. OrganizationStudies, 20: 1–24.

Heide, J. 1994. Interorganizational governance in marketingchannels. Journal of Marketing, 50: 40–51.

Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. 2001. Organizational change asdiscourse: Communicative actions and deep structuresin the context of information technology implementa-tion. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 755–778.

Hogg, M. A. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization pro-cesses in organizational contexts. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 25: 121–140.

Huber, G. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributingprocess and the literatures. Organization Science, 2: 88–115.

Huxham, C. (Ed.). 1996. Creating collaborative advantage.London: Sage.

Iedema, R. A. M. 1998. Institutional responsibility and hiddenmeanings. Discourse and Society, 9: 481–500.

Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types anddimensions in organizational groups. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 42: 530–557.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. 1993. The wisdom of teams:Creating the high performance organization. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Knights, D., & Morgan, G. 1991. Strategic discourse and sub-jectivity: Towards a critical analysis of corporate strat-egy in organizations. Organization Studies, 12: 251–273.

Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. 2002. Institutionaleffects of interorganizational collaboration: The emer-gence of proto-institutions. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45: 281–290.

Lawrence, T. B., Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. 1999. Watchingwhale-watching: A relational theory of organizationalcollaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35:479–502.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as a social reality.Social Forces, 43: 967–985.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximiz-ing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativenessand constraint adherence: A conflict communicationsperspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 779–793.

Maguire, S., Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. 2001. When “silence �death,” keep talking: Trust, control and the discursive


construction of identity in the Canadian HIV/AIDS treat-ment domain. Organization Studies, 22: 287–312.

McCann, J. E. 1983. Design guidelines for social problem-solving interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-ence, 19: 177–189.

Milne, G. R., Iyer, E. S., & Gooding-Williams, S. 1996. Envi-ronmental organization alliance relationships withinand across nonprofit, business, and government sectors.Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 15: 203–215.

Mohrman, S., Cohen, S., & Mohrman, A. 1995. Designing teambased organizations. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mumby, D., & Clair, R. P. 1997. Organizational discourse. InT. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction: 181–205. London: Sage.

Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. 1996. Conflicting uses of metaphors:Reconceptualizing their use in the field of organiza-tional change. Academy of Management Review, 21:691–717.

Parker, I. 1992. Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for so-cial and individual psychology. London: Routledge.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. 1997. Managing multiple identity:Discourse, legitimacy and resources in the UK refugeesystem. Organization, 4: 159–185.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. 2002. Discourse analysis: Investigat-ing processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2000. Interorganiza-tional collaboration and the dynamics of institutionalfields. Journal of Management Studies, 37: 23–43.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse andinstitutions. Academy of Management Review, 29: 635–652.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse and social psychol-ogy: Beyond attitudes and behavior. London: Sage.

Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Networkforms of organization. Research in Organizational Be-havior, 12: 295–336.

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interor-ganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 41: 116–146.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. 2000. Clarifying managerialresponses to organizational identities. Academy of Man-agement Review, 25: 18–42.

Psathas, G. 1995. Conversation analysis: The study of talk ininteraction. London: Sage.

Sabel, C. F. 1993. Studies of trust: Building new forms ofcooperation in a volatile economy. Human Relations, 46:1133–1170.

Saffold, G. S., III. 1988. Culture traits, strength, and organi-zational performance. Academy of Management Re-view, 13: 546–558.

Salancik, G. R. 1977. Commitment and the control of organi-zational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw & G. R.

Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behav-ior: 1–54. Chicago: St. Clair.

Schein, E. H. 1986. Organizational culture and leadership: Adynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. 1986. Groupapproaches for improving strategic decision making: Acomparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s ad-vocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 29: 51–71.

Simonin, B. 1997. The importance of collaborative know-how:An empirical test of the learning organization. Academyof Management Journal, 40: 1150–1174.

Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies.American Sociological Review, 51: 273–286.

Tajfel, H. 1972. La categorisation sociale [Social categoriza-tion]. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction de la psychologiesociale, vol. 1: 272–302. Paris: Larousse.

Taylor, J. R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. 1996. Thecommunicational basis of organization: Between theconversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6:1–39.

Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. 1993. The vulnerable fortress:Bureaucratic organization in the information age. To-ronto: University of Toronto.

Trist, E. 1983. Referent organizations and the development ofinterorganizational domains. Human Relations, 36: 269–284.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming:Rethinking organizational change. Organization Sci-ence, 13: 567–582.

van Dijk, T. A. 1997. Discourse as interaction in society. InT. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process:1–37. London: Sage.

Warren, R., Rose, S., & Bergunder, A. 1974. The structure ofurban reform. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Weick, K. E. 1998. Improvisation as a mindset for organiza-tional analysis. Organization Science, 9: 543–555.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in orga-nizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.

Wells, J. C., & Liebman, W. B. 1996. New models of negotia-tion, dispute resolution, and joint problem solving. Ne-gotiation Journal, 12: 119–136.

Westley, F. 1990. Middle managers and strategy: The micro-dynamics of inclusion. Strategic Management Journal,11: 337–351.

Westley, F., & Vredenburg, H. 1991. Strategic bridging: Thecollaboration between environmentalists and businessin the marketing of green products. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 27: 65–90.

Woodilla, J. 1998. Workplace conversations: The text of orga-nizing. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Dis-course and organization: 31–50. Sage: London.


Cynthia Hardy is professor of management in the Department of Management, Uni-versity of Melbourne. She received her Ph.D. in organizational theory from WarwickUniversity, UK. Her research interests include power, organizational discourse, andcollaborative strategy. She is cofounder of the International Centre for Research onOrganizational Discourse, Strategy and Change.

Thomas B. Lawrence is the Weyerhaeuser Professor of Change Management at SimonFraser University in Vancouver, Canada. He received his Ph.D. in organizationalanalysis from the University of Alberta. His research focuses on the dynamics ofpower, change, and institutions in organizations and organizational fields.

David Grant is chair of organizational studies, The School of Business, University ofSydney. He received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and PoliticalScience. His primary area of research interest is organizational discourse, especiallywhere it relates to organizational change initiatives.


DISCOURSE AND COLLABORATION: THE ROLE OF CONVERSATIONS AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY · 2010-03-28 ·...

Documents

Transcript of DISCOURSE AND COLLABORATION: THE ROLE OF CONVERSATIONS AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY · 2010-03-28 ·...