INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#235 GddZ
Co-operation
What has become of the Third Way?
In conversation with Prof Guido Möllering
D. from the University of Cambridge in 2003 and habilitated at the Free University of Berlin in 2011.
Has been Director and Chair of the Reinhard Mohn Institute for Corporate Management (RMI) at Witten/Herdecke University since 2016.
Under his leadership, the RMI's areas of specialisation include: Cooperative relationships, network and alliance strategies, managing openness and transparency, trust in and between organisations, new forms of leadership and work in the digital age and corporate responsibility.
Guido Möllering has published in leading specialist journals and is the author of books such as Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity (2006) and Production in networks (with Jörg Sydow, 3rd ed., 2015). In 2009, he received the Peregrinus Foundation Prize from the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities for his work of significance to business and society. Since 2018, he has been a member of the jury for the corporate responsibility competition "My Good Example".
Co-operation instead of confrontation!
Confrontation for co-operation?
Small series: Co-operation
Unity?
By no means is a goal and an interest on all sides necessary for co-operation processes?
Tuned?
Contents
Chapter:
0:03 Introduction to the topic of violence
1:33 The path to resilience
4:36 Number of unreported cases and public perception
6:40 Experiences of those affected
9:16 The influence of institutions
11:46 Violence as a phenomenon for society as a whole
14:16 The role of the media
17:12 Mediation as a solution approach
19:52 The need for companionship
22:07 Challenges for those affected
24:29 The silence of the silent ones
25:38 Biographical perspectives
27:36 The role of mediation
34:01 The dialogue with institutions
36:40 Mediators as companions
41:39 Conclusion and outlook
Summary of content
In this episode, together with my discussion partner, Prof Dr Guido Möllering from the Reinhard Mohn Institute in Witten, I am launching a new series that focuses on the topic of cooperation. We will shed light on the resurgence of confrontational behaviour in various areas of life and reflect on why cooperation remains a necessary basis for conflict resolution despite all the challenges. Through our discussion, we aim to develop a deeper understanding of the concepts of cooperation, trust and their roles in different organisational and social contexts.
At the beginning of the episode, we take a look at the evolution of the concept of cooperation, which I researched intensively during my studies and my doctorate. We examine how the idea of cooperation has developed over the last few decades, particularly in the context of economics and organisational theory. We discuss the possibility of cooperation emerging as a third form of organisation alongside the market and hierarchy, often involving voluntarism and interdependence. It becomes clear that the promotion of co-operation is often linked to specific conditions, which are not always given in the complex reality.
Using practical examples and current developments, we reflect on existing challenges associated with cooperative processes. In doing so, we realise that despite the theoretical foundation and the many positive examples of successful cooperation, in reality the situations in which cooperation fails often predominate. While we look at the success and failure factors of cooperation, a valuable discussion arises about the extent to which the economic and social framework conditions influence cooperative behaviour.
A central point in our dialogue is the differentiation between cooperation and confrontation, which has become increasingly apparent in recent years. We ask ourselves whether this confrontation is used as a strategic means to ultimately achieve some kind of cooperation or whether it even takes on destructive proportions that make any form of constructive dialogue impossible. The role of power and trust, which we analyse in relation to current political and economic developments, also plays a key role here.
Finally, we ask how we can succeed in reintegrating the principles of cooperation more strongly into our organisations and interpersonal relationships. We agree that the upcoming series will have to address many multifaceted aspects of cooperation in order to develop not only theoretical analyses but also practical solutions. With this in mind, I look forward to the next episode where we will look in more detail at the structural elements that are crucial for successful co-operation.
The question is rather how confrontation can serve co-operation!Co-operations in the economy in the form of joint ventures were rarely successful.
Complete transcription
[0:05]
Start of the cooperation
[0:00]It gives me a lot to think about why this confrontational approach is now becoming stronger again. Because you quickly realise that cooperation is always necessary again in the end. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit. The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast by Inko Fema. I'm Sascha Weige and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. And today's episode is a kick-off programme. It marks the start of a small new series, which I have already announced several times and which I am very much looking forward to, because as new as this small series will be, my interviewee, whom I would like to welcome first of all, Prof Dr Guido Möllerring from the Reinhard Mohn Institute in Witten, is well-known. A very warm welcome. Yes, hello, I'm really looking forward to this series.
[0:51]Yes, we've already started and completed another series, and also picked up on some themes. Humour in conflict was our kick-off and then we started another series. I can't think of the topic right now. Very close to the topic of cooperation, of course, because trust is one of the most important topics.
[1:12]of the mechanisms that make cooperation possible. Exactly, we then moved on from the topic of trust, which plays a major role in mediation, to the topic of cooperation and cooperation processes.
[1:24]Negotiation processes and, of course, in confrontational situations such as conflict, and that's what we want to start with today. But before we do that in terms of content and want to give an overview, an insight into the breadth of the topic today, Professor Möllering, how are you? I'm doing well. I've already finished my holiday and during the lecture-free period I'm happy to be able to deal with more conceptual things that you don't usually get to do during the semester. And yes, that's why I'm currently in a phase where I'm also very busy with things like cooperation or the bigger issues of uncertainty, vulnerability in a management context or in an organisational context, and I'm also looking forward to these kinds of opportunities to talk because I'm developing a lot at the moment. Right in the middle of it, so we can now pick out individual aspects. Let's take a look at it and, without going into depth right away, let's prepare the field that we want to work on. For me, cooperation was a similarly colourful term to communication and conflict during the years that I was involved in mediation and conflict management. You could read anything and everything into it, even the notion that a conflict is a co-operative event because one cannot escalate without the other.
[2:45]It seems to me that the term has become very sophisticated. How do you understand it when you look at it from an organisational perspective and from your point of view?
[2:57]How do economic units, how do you work in the economy, in society or social actors, when they co-operate with each other, what is the basis of the term for you? Perhaps I can explain that quite well by actually saying how I came to it. As a student, as a Master's student and at the beginning of my doctorate, we're talking about the late 1990s, when cooperation was also a topic in the field of management, BDL, organisational theory, as a third form of organising the economy, so to speak. In addition to the market organisation and the hierarchical organisation, it was then said, well, there is another form and it is somewhere in between or something of its own, namely that you cooperate with each other. So not hierarchically higher and can give instructions or completely anonymously the price on the market regulates who makes an exchange with whom, but people join together voluntarily to achieve something together and that was called cooperation, because that somehow belongs to the known forms of organisation.
[4:03]
The third way of cooperation
[4:03]categories didn't fit. And that was really so important at the time because it was realised that market failures and also hierarchical failures were becoming ever stronger under the economic circumstances, including social circumstances, and that's why this third form was also very attractive, because it could possibly solve the problems of the other two forms.
[4:23]I find that interesting from two points of view. Firstly, what you say about the third way was also a political aspiration at the end of the 1990s, when the more left-wing liberals came to political power in Europe and also in North America. Gerhard Schröder, Tony Blair and also Bill Clinton were also talking about the third way and the demarcation from hierarchy and unconscious, self-reliant market behaviour. That was not defined as co-operation. I find that interesting, because from today's perspective I would have assumed that these were also co-operation processes. Yes, in the broadest sense, of course, even in a hierarchical, hierarchy always sounds so dramatic, but actually we're just talking about normal employer-employee relationships. I'm employed, sign an employment contract, then I'm placed in a hierarchy and given instructions that I have to follow. That's actually hierarchy. It doesn't always have to be with a stick or a whip, it also has a certain degree of voluntariness and contractuality. But of course cooperation is also necessary, by following instructions I am cooperating. Just like on the market, where you say, well, I'll find out who buys something from whom by looking at the price.
[5:44]Bartering is also a form of cooperation. Economists would also say in a broader sense that this exchange really takes place; these are all forms of cooperation. So perhaps we can arrive at a better understanding by saying that there is hierarchically coordinated cooperation, then there is market-coordinated cooperation based on price and then there is this other way, which is more about trust and a voluntary dependency that is entered into. And that's just a slightly different logic. And it's all cooperation, but what we have described as cooperation, as a form of organisation, is precisely this way. That's perhaps why it sounds so positive. You voluntarily enter into a relationship of dependency because you want to achieve something together. And that has also, let's say, triggered a certain anthropological hype that we humans have developed so well because we can cooperate and so on. That somehow sounds a bit magical. It's just strange why it often doesn't work out in practice when people say we're trying the third way of cooperation. Unfortunately, I have to say from my research that it doesn't actually work more often than it works. So it's more unlikely that it will work than that it will work. That's why we're interested in the cases where it does work.
[6:59]With this starting point, it becomes clear to me once again, i.e. with the starting point that, at that time in inverted commas, the origin, so to speak, in the understanding of the terms, cooperation was brought into a frontal position on the subject of hierarchy, that I have taken this up quite differently in recent decades, that even in management programmes, when it comes to the subject of leadership, that in management programmes, when it comes to leadership, being led has been interpreted very strongly as a contractually self-confident decision to participate, that leadership takes place at eye level, so to speak, from both sides, in which the person being led not only says in the employment contract, but every time they come back to work, as a fully developed, independent personality, yes, I allow you, dear manager, to tell me what I should and should not do. And for a limited period of time. And that seems to me to be a very different and expanded understanding of hierarchy, which is underpinned by the concept of cooperation, which was still in a frontal position at the beginning. I find that interesting.
[8:12]
Hierarchy and cooperation in transition
[8:12]Development history. I believe that if you look at it this way, it can also be empirically justified, because there are different forms of cooperation. And we also collected typologies of networks, i.e. network is another term that is often equated with cooperation, very early on during my time at the FU Berlin with Jörg Süde and others, and there you can see very clearly, to shorten it now, that cooperation can take place in very different ways and, Co-operation is also more or less, that's the important part, hierarchical, so in all forms of co-operation there is always the possibility that one partner has more control, more to say, to put it simply, than the other, but that is perfectly okay for the other, because the co-operation as a whole is desirable and brings benefits. And that's why you have to compare, do research, when is it a very equal, very voluntary and also very.
[9:16] Consensus-orientated cooperation and that doesn't always have to be the case. But of course there is also, I have to add one more thing, there is sometimes even the use of the term cooperation, which is almost a little bit cynical. So if we imagine certain American films where somehow, authoritarian forces, police or military or something like that, then say over the loudspeaker, thank you for your cooperation, so please move on, there's nothing to see here, thank you for your cooperation so that you move on now and don't cause any trouble here. That's obvious, of course, then they say thank you for your cooperation, but they actually mean that if they don't move on now, then we might have to arrest them or maybe even shoot them or something. And that's exactly what she's actually saying. So even with such power imbalances, we are actually always dependent on cooperation and the question is to what extent we strive for truly equal cooperation or rather something that has to do with coercion. Yes, of course Niklas Luhmann's term comes to mind here, who ascribed the competence and power to subordinate to those being led. In other words, whoever leads the manager and does so with a certain, shall I say, formal authorisation. I borrowed it, yes, exactly. Exactly, the new, exactly, is newly recorded.
[10:34]Quite topical, but this subway and it seems to me, since this has also been brought up again in recent decades, that when it comes to organisation, including in conflict management, it was an aspiration that nothing should ever be done against someone's will. So against someone's will, that was the old world, that was hierarchy in the narrower sense. And that in itself is not possible with equality, with working together as equals. And for many, it seemed as if the hierarchy was being killed, it was being done away with. And it wasn't allowed, or it wasn't the usual interpretation.
[11:11]With my employment contract, I confirm, i.e. by virtue of my watersoup and my rights, that you can do what you want with me for a limited period of time, for a limited topic, because I say yes to it. I believe that the important concept that needs to be added at this point is the question of control or the possibility of control. And the moment you have to recognise that the possibilities for control are limited, even for very powerful players, that they cannot enforce everything and cannot oversee everything. This creates opportunities for the other side not to act in the interests of the other party, which is why trust is an important factor here too. But the moment I realise, and this is also what I mean by saying that in the 1990s or so, the state of the economy was such that for many complex value chains, for the new knowledge professions and so on and so forth, the assumption that the stronger party can control the other is simply invalid or very, very much reduced. And that may not apply to all professions, but for the new things that were emerging, so to speak, it was somehow clear that there had to be a voluntary contribution, because you can't just force it.
[12:30]Complexity, uncertainty, you don't have to come up with VUCA right away, but you probably do. These are the conditions under which we say that ultimately we also need an independent contribution that is not just the result of coercion. Yes, that would be a history of development or, if you look at it, a contractual agreement, so to speak, in the whole negotiation process, what is good leadership, how does cooperation work, if you look at it from a distance over the past 30 years, the hierarchy has refrained from explicitly working against the will of employees.
[13:08]In the hope that the entrepreneurs in the company will participate with their own independence, their own thinking, their own initiative, so to speak. And the individual has said, okay, if I join in here, then I will refrain from immediately objecting to every question or wanting to have my say again. Instead, with my signature and an employment contract and what good I'm doing, that means I'll let it go through. I don't have to have a say in everything so that I have the impression that I have a say. And that this entails negotiation processes that simply require communication, explicit communication. That seems to me to have really changed compared to the 80s and 90s. But I think there really is simply a different perspective, although I'm not entirely sure whether this has always really been the case, but potentially there is a difference between talking about participation, where there is actually still a clear separation between those who ultimately decide and those who are somehow allowed to participate. So along the lines of, we'll ask you now because we're nice and then you can say something about it. But in the end, we decide. And these types of participation and consultation.
[14:25]
Participation versus cooperation
[14:26]And that's why participation is different from cooperation.
[14:29]For me, cooperation clearly resonates more with greater equality. In other words, that we have a joint project and therefore we contribute to it ourselves. And participation resonates even more strongly with equality. You're not necessarily on the same side, but somehow you almost have a sense of shared destiny and then you contribute a bit more. So when it comes to cooperation, and I've already said this, whether everyone has always felt this way, it's really more like we have the same goals, we really want to emphasise this commonality. And I also get something out of it, so I'm participating voluntarily. And it's not just that I concede something to the other person, I want to. So it's not this, it's very important to me that you want to contribute something. And not just that you do it because you're asked to. Because you bring in the term participation. How about the following order? Then perhaps we would have an initial classification of cooperation.
[15:28]In the case of participation, those at the top of the hierarchy practically say what is to be done and to what extent those at the bottom are allowed to participate. Do they have to listen, are they allowed to make suggestions and so on and so forth. Instead of simply executing, exactly. Those at the top determine to what extent those at the bottom are allowed to participate and in a democracy it's the other way round, where those at the bottom determine what those at the top are allowed to do and are controlled. And both democracy and participation, as opposing processes so to speak, require co-operation, concessions to shape something with the other person, which the other person also has a say in and I have to take a step back. But of course it is also important, if we take grassroots democratic processes, not necessarily the system of representative democracy straight away, but in principle just a group and there is a majority decision. And then those at the top have to do it. Yes, not those at the top, but those who have now voted on it. So if we as a group say we want to go for an ice cream or a coffee and the majority want to go for ice cream, then it follows that everyone goes for ice cream. And then there's the cooperation again, that even those who in principle had a say in the decision but were defeated...
[16:48]That's why it's also very much a prerequisite that, for example, the options being voted on don't include some that are completely impossible for some of those affected. So it really is unimaginable. Now we're getting into a political science discussion. But yes, in one case there is a vote and then, as you just said, they know what they have to do. Yes, but also what they are allowed to pass back down. For example, if they are allowed to pass laws, then those at the bottom know that yes, I have to abide by these laws now, because I decided beforehand who will make these laws. If they do that, then they are valid. Even for me, who in this case didn't write the law, but appointed the people who make the law. So that has many consequences. This type of decision-making also requires cooperation afterwards. So on the way there and then afterwards.
[17:42]Within the framework of this series, we will certainly have to focus on organisations, so that we can look at a wide variety of social, political, etc. fields. We won't be able to look at them all at the same time. But fortunately, in German companies we also find precisely such elements of participation, but also of democratic co-determination, which has its limits. And this is a good way of breaking these things down, including what constitutes cooperation in detail and what the success factors are
[18:18]
Current status of the co-operation
[18:13]or conditions that are rather unfavourable. We can take our time with that. For me, it would be interesting to start off today by asking where we currently stand with the concept of cooperation.
[18:28]Is it losing its power? I remember it was a very important book for mediation and negotiation theory in the noughties. It was entitled Cooperation instead of confrontation. And it described the new world. Confrontation was yesterday, so anyone who negotiated competitively was somehow really old school and a more co-operative style of negotiation was the order of the day, and this was also used in mediation.
[18:56]Where do we stand in the economic perspective, in economics or so with this concept of cooperation? As I said, this is also reflected in the understanding in the economy that you can't force everything. Even a very powerful chip manufacturer like Intel cannot simply turn the entire industry upside down. So that was also the same realisation that you don't actually get very far with confrontation under the given circumstances. At the moment, it really feels more like confrontation is the order of the day again. Whether that's in international relations or in the authoritarian style of leadership, which is experiencing something of a renaissance at the moment. Where can that come from? Well, as I just said, cooperation often doesn't work. And when I think back to the time when it was so much in vogue, everyone wanted to do joint ventures because that's the new thing now, to set up a joint venture, even with competitors and so on. And then there was research that showed that they were only successful in 20 per cent of cases. And that was so disillusioning. And this low success rate of such communities. Community, yes, and sometimes you just have to do it. It's not necessarily the case that you have much of a choice. Or it's still better to try than to do nothing. And there are many reasons why such forms still take place.
[20:19]Hey, you who are listening to this podcast, grab your smartphone now and leave feedback, a star rating, so that others can listen to this podcast too. And now the podcast can continue.
[20:37]There were some very bright examples where people said, well, I would be one of them. But the majority who fail, so to speak, are not seen at all.
[20:45]Yes, of course. The positive examples are celebrated as successes. The many that have somehow given up without a trace or perhaps even lost a lot of money or reputation and trust with customers and so on are not talked about like that. In any case, the fact that cooperation is often very difficult and doesn't always work has taken a bit of the shine off the whole thing.
[21:11]
Confrontation and its consequences
[21:08]Cooperation as a necessity rather than the new panacea. It makes me wonder why this confrontational approach is becoming stronger again, because you quickly realise that cooperation is always necessary again in the end. So even if I, let's say, try to force things through confrontation again, we still end up back at the point we made earlier that the other side has to play along somehow. So confrontation is simply a different style in order to get back to co-operation, whereas in the past I might have tried to persuade someone to co-operate with me, now I just put them in a headlock and say, now I'll decide whether you want to co-operate with me or not and I need to know that now. But in the end, he still has to decide whether to co-operate or not. And trust that I'll let him out again. I can still remember that. That was always the critical situation. Do I let him out of the headlock now? Because that's when the decision is made. Yes, that's a great metaphor. I'm sure you also had some of your clients in mind. Yes, or childhood experiences.
[22:12]Free brothers, younger and older. So I know both situations, so to speak, but that was the critical situation, so to speak, when I exercised power and then took it back again. How does he react now? But that's exactly the point. So confrontation, where does it lead? Does it lead to cooperation again? Then the issue remains as topical as ever, even if the glamour is perhaps no longer as strong. What then becomes really bad, of course, is when confrontation no longer aims to achieve co-operation, but is actually geared towards destruction. But then we are really talking about a completely different story. Then we are no longer talking about a conflict for which there may be a solution, i.e. a solution supported by both sides, but then we are really talking about annihilation. And that's why I think you have to be careful here too if you take a very confrontational stance. So I don't know, it's a paradox to then say, yes, I'll put you in a headlock, but I actually mean well by you. How is that supposed to work? And that's why, if you're very confrontational, you act as if you don't care about the other person, as if you don't even need them in case of doubt. This then triggers uncooperative behaviour on the other side. So it's clear. That's why we should consider the extent to which, well, sometimes a certain amount of pressure is perhaps necessary in cooperation. But in general, can we talk again about why the whole thing is not always just peace, joy and pancakes in cooperation, but why we sometimes have to say, hey, you're not fulfilling expectations here, if we're to remain partners, then something has to happen.
[23:41]That is also a kind of confrontation with expectations.
[23:45]
Expectations in the cooperation
[23:45]But this confrontation, you do what I want now or then you're gone, that's something else. So again, the question is, should the confrontation ultimately lead to cooperation again? Then maybe we can talk about it constructively. Or if it's just about destruction, then of course it's a completely different story. There are two aspects from my working life that I find particularly interesting. It's different in conflict management, as we see in big politics, where this confrontation is actually conducted in a destructive way, but on the stage where such a conflict takes place, it is always claimed to third party observers or other powerful or powerless people that I don't want to destroy, but if the conditions that I set very unilaterally are met and I take that as my self-image, then it's okay, then it's co-operative. Then the other person has to surrender.
[24:39]So for me it's not about destruction in a violent form per se, but I have framework conditions that are tantamount to a dictate. But it's always done this way, so the blame is always placed on the other person, even on the person who is to be destroyed. In other words, according to the motto, I've made an offer, he just has to accept it. But it's definitely more than that, because the conditions are absolutely unacceptable and unacceptable for the other person and would effectively destroy them or restrict their options to such an extent that it's an unreasonable offer. And that is of course not something that usually leads to cooperation. In other words, co-operation is not a formal concept, not an empty concept. When two people do something together, you always have to look at how they feel about it. Would they do it the same way under different conditions? So are they both allowed to co-decide? And if one of them is dictated to, so to speak, in a headlock, then that's something, and that's the most degraded form, if you take reality into account, then you can't say it's cooperation. In cooperation research, which is what I mainly deal with, the term cooperation also appears in biology or something like that, for example.
[25:49]But in the social sciences, there is always this element of voluntariness. But also combined with dependence, but also mutual dependence. That is actually typical of cooperation. Voluntary, mutual dependence. And then, of course, that you then act and do something together. If I no longer see this voluntariness at all or see a completely one-sided dependency, then I don't really have the conditions to speak of cooperation. I would say that we should do a follow-up programme on this in more depth. What are these aspects and where do they have their limits? So where do I see that two people are still doing something in a coordinated way, but one of them is actually only doing it to avoid annihilation and that this is not cooperation? Another point on the subject of confrontation was from counselling or mediation work, so to speak. We use the term, not all of us, but I'm going to say we, because it's an indication of contradictions that the other person points out, because I have it in my head right now, just the big politics. You said that you were spending two per cent of GDP on NATO contributions. That's what you said there and I can see that you're not doing that. That is a contradiction and I want to confront it.
[27:03]I point this out. In the hope, in the confidence, that you will change your opposition and you will behave as a consistent negotiating partner and co-operator.
[27:17]
Confrontation as a clue
[27:15]I think that's an interesting point about confrontation. So the term confrontation or the word, let's say better, also appears in English, of course. It's just as ambiguous there. I know this from whistleblower research and whistleblower issues, for example, where it is said that the first stage of a whistleblowing process is to confront those who are doing something wrong. With your own colleagues, for example, you realise that someone is doing something that is not quite right, and then I confront them about it. But here, too, I can confirm what you have just said: the assumption is that this confrontation is possible because, on the basis of cooperation, you are more likely to remind the other person.
[28:04]That he deviates from the line that was actually agreed upon. And that's why, yes, I would rather use this word, remind or point out, instead of confrontation as a term, as a word, because it doesn't have to be so confrontational in terms of style. It can also be simple, even, here we are back to humour, a little joking remark, like, but you're going home early today or something, because the person is actually giving the wrong working hours all the time or something. And then it can also be a joking remark that somehow makes the other person realise, oh, I've noticed that I'm not meeting expectations. But that's all really still, or we also say with the concept of psychological safety in the company, that you dare to address mistakes that you perhaps don't really know whether it's actually a mistake or just a misunderstanding or something like that. So it's precisely this idea that you address unpleasant things and somehow confront the others with them because you might also be afraid that they won't necessarily react enthusiastically. It has this element of, I'm getting too close now.
[29:09]But actually on the basis of a relationship that was there beforehand, where you actually assumed that we both wanted something here. And that's why I would differentiate that very strongly from simply confronting someone with a knife on the street and telling them that you would like their money now. I'll leave out the humour that immediately comes to mind, but that's a good point. And I would perhaps like to conclude today by looking back at our two different fields of research or areas of work and perhaps a mistake or a confrontation that I would like to formulate as a thesis, that we have possibly worked strongly on the starting point over the past 20 years, everyone actually wants cooperation and wants to resolve the conflict well, wants to win the best for themselves, so to speak, and they all somehow want the best for the other side too, because if you could find that,
[30:09]
Changing the culture of cooperation
[30:09]then everything would be great. And that on this basis, solution strategies, the conditions for cooperation.
[30:16]Similar issues were also raised in cooperative negotiation management. And that today we are dealing with a tendency, or at least with unavoidable changes, where we are making it clear that it is obviously not the case that everyone wants the same thing after all, but that it is more difficult, or even more difficult, to pay a price based on outdated or traditional behaviour or behaviour that has been projected into the past. And that this is obviously still much stronger and has perhaps never gone away. That is still a feeling at the moment. To a certain extent, we still need to research whether we can really show that this behaviour is becoming more confrontational and ruthless, I would call it at this point.
[31:11]But it is no longer clearly condemned in public opinion, instead there is applause for it. Yes, you can no longer just say that the minority is the wrong side, it has become a much more open negotiation process. We have asserted ourselves and the others can be indifferent to us.
[31:29]This attitude was actually not so well recognised before. I hesitate a little, you realise, because of course... So cooperation wasn't just peace, joy, pancakes or a pony farm or something like that before. So even in cooperation management, in the way in which these forms of cooperation, networks and so on are managed, it was always clear that there were also strong tensions that had to be dealt with. It was therefore clear that there would also be difficult times in cooperative relationships or difficult questions to clarify with the partners and that there would not always be agreement. But the fact that one side no longer shows consideration for the other was somehow a premise, that you already take the others into account and that the premise no longer applies, that's something else now. It's still an open question as to whether that's actually the case. Yes, and above all, how much it has changed. Sorry, because the question that everyone always wanted the same thing or something, that's not necessarily the case with collaborations. You can also co-operate even though you're not actually pursuing exactly the same goals. You could also give very practical examples where everyone achieves their goal by working together, but not everyone achieves the same thing.
[32:45]Carpooling is the best opportunity. You have very different reasons for wanting to go to Berlin, but you travel together and then you're there and everyone does their thing. And then the cooperation has helped everyone, even though they came from different backgrounds.
[32:59]
Cooperation without the same goals
[32:58]motives. And it wasn't always just like that before, now it's the whole great harmony of the world. But the fact that you recognise the needs of others and also understand that if you don't recognise that, you won't get very far yourself, that has changed. That could have changed, yes.
[33:16]So I always have these conflict processes as a reference area, which cannot be resolved so easily with decision-making bodies in companies and the representatives on the HR or management side, who were really together and they could not simply say to each other, then we won't do anything together anymore. And for a while it was just so clear that you couldn't just say on a stage or I don't care what you think, we're going to do it this way, it just wasn't possible. And yet, on a content level, that was often the assumption.
[33:49]They don't care about us, they do what they want, they don't care where the company goes or vice versa. That's what they said on their side and they believed it to be true. But even this accusation could not always be made publicly. It was like, this is not a topic of conversation, it was like a taboo, that you had the assumption that you were like this, you acted as if you were only for yourself. That was often a relationship of mistrust. Whether anything has changed is still an open question for me. The question triggers me to think about the extent to which the time horizon has changed. In other words, in these difficult times, people are actually thinking more short-term and not taking into account the long-term consequences of such a strongly confrontational attitude. So not strong enough. You only know strong enough later. But the fact that you somehow risk it by pushing through in the short term, hoping somewhere to perhaps somehow cut a knot and then we'll see that you think in such a short-term way.
[34:58]And what actually also played an important role in the past was that third parties were still looking at how people dealt with each other. And business and corporate ethicists, such as Andreas Suchanek, would say that you want to preserve your opportunities for cooperation. That is actually also a reason, a functional reason for ethical and moral behaviour, is that you want to retain your opportunities for cooperation. And if you destroy the other person in one relationship, then it could be that the other person no longer wants to have a relationship with you. And that, to put it bluntly. And here, too, you can ask yourself to what extent this view of the third party is now different? That you now recognise that he has asserted himself, great, instead of saying that he has finished off the other person. That doesn't work at all. And here, too, you have to see how the third parties react, who are simply observers, but also potential future co-operation partners. And they might not even think about what it's like for them, whether they would like to be treated like that.
[36:02]So the judgement of third parties is an important aspect. And also time, which I also observe in conflict management. Time is more pressing.
[36:10]
Influence of third parties on cooperation
[36:11]And the willingness to say, no, we're not going to talk again, we're not going to have another round of talks, I'm going to do it this way. It's probably cheaper than doing another round now and this non-decision, which costs time, is more dangerous. And I notice that in conflict management, when cooperation is under discussion and is to be regained, that the consequences are assessed differently. And more communication is no longer the panacea, but many people say, no, that's fine now. We have so many opportunities to explore the topic in greater depth.
[36:44]There is also one point that is subsequently important, namely that the value of this cooperative, participative behaviour is no longer seen as such. So that happens above all when you say, well, we need more authoritarian bosses again who simply make decisions. And we can no longer afford to ask people how they would like things to be and involve everyone. You hear that a lot these days. Times are difficult, and now we really need to be more ruthless again.
[37:14]It's not a pony farm here. Football was always the guys, we need guys again. We need a guy like that and it's not a pony farm either, we're in business here. And yet, of course, the representation of what co-operation actually entails is completely wrong. That this, according to the motto, I don't know, this mindfulness or this consideration and somehow this kind of vocokeness or something, that this was somehow the essence of cooperation, that's not true at all. That's important, because cooperation means that people contribute their skills. It's very, very important that cooperation is also misrepresented as somehow being a luxury. Dealing with each other as equals and that you can no longer afford this luxury. But it wasn't a luxury, it really was part of the idea of cooperation
[38:06]
Misunderstandings about cooperation
[38:00]In itself, you achieve more by letting people get involved. In retrospect, we no longer talk about the fact that everyone was allowed to get involved so that better solutions can be found, but instead present it as if everyone was allowed to get involved so that they feel better.
[38:18]And that's what sometimes makes me really angry when people talk about no longer being able to afford to ask everyone how they would like things to be. That's a really inaccurate description of why cooperative forms were perhaps introduced in the past. That means that co-operation, the term as such, was interpreted differently or misunderstood. Yes, I'm not so sure whether it's being maliciously portrayed differently nowadays or whether it's a genuine misunderstanding. But nowadays it's often pretended that the cooperation that was tried out in the past was more about making people feel better. And not so that they could work together better and achieve better results. And I find that very worrying, because the forms of cooperation that were proposed in the company or between companies always had a functional purpose, namely to achieve more and not simply to make everyone feel better. And when people now say that someone has to make an announcement, that we need a strong leader again and we don't care whether people feel good or not. That's really very misleading, because it doesn't matter whether people are still involved. And minorities shouldn't be part of it at all.
[39:43]Yes, and whether people still get involved and so on, that doesn't matter. Yes, that's something I notice or I think it's described in political science as the shift from minority protection to majority dictatorship. And if that's what you meant, that it must be allowed again today, so to speak, that we are the majority, we are doing this now. We don't have to somehow come to an agreement with every minority and every minority opinion, we're just going to do it. And in the past, you only did that if you didn't want to offend them. Is this also the case in economic cooperation? If you take a relatively hard look at it from a business perspective, then the basic principle of cooperation is that only those who contribute should take part. So that's actually a very clear story. I choose my cooperation partners based on this and we talked about voluntariness and dependency, whether they can contribute or not. And the rule is that if you can't contribute, you won't be involved. So that's also quite harsh, along the lines that a company doesn't become a member of Star Alliance because it wants to be nice, but because it benefits the Alliance and the company and so on. That's how I would have understood it, to say in retrospect that we let people join, we only let them join to make them feel good. But they didn't actually contribute anything to the fact that this is, so to speak, the cutting, politically-influenced, but in any case very powerful impetus that is now coming up again, including in company policy.
[41:13]I'm a bit torn between the two. It's kind of both. On the one hand, if you really involved people who couldn't actually contribute, then that was a mistake. Sorry. From the narrow perspective of how to co-operate. Of course it's not good if there are people involved who can't contribute anything.
[41:28]Then was there the actual Error. But when one now in the Principle political argued, we need the even not, but the actual Reason is, one wants the not, then is the natural very perfidious. And then to say, we need now again one clearer Line and one clearer Hardness, the is then, well, so say we times very questionable, there must one really scrutinise, whence the comes. In fact must one now concede, it gives also Co-operations, the therefore not function, because one to many People involved. And there must one simple times say, we must this Project smaller make, so that it again works. The gives it also. From therefore, there is also a little what on it.
[42:02]So like said, to the Motto European Union, the Nuclear Union and like this, the is somehow also what on it. But nevertheless can one the political and also against Minorities use, at to say, so Yours Contribution is now first not important, her are out. Yes, so these Idea or these Presentation, so much like possible Perspectives, the is always better, when still more will be added. I believe, the is actually something, what again new in Speech stands. And there find I also, is a more constructive Point in the changed Kind and Wise and also in the Confrontation this Idea, the again to scrutinise and to make clear, what is because the Purpose for Diversity of perspectives? Both in the Conflict management, in the Team development or like this, or also in larger contexts. I would say, these Question Go we times also still more to in one the next Programmes in addition. The find I really still one open Question. And me would it good fallen, when we so to speak in favour concrete Examples as Starting point our Conversations take. I believe, the was something, what we in this Case from Co-operation take or make can, because we then the Context better in the Handle have. And this very abstract Topic then but concrete make can.
[43:17]Mr Möllering, the was the Kick-off. Or gives it still one Point, the we for the Introductory episode today on each Case still record have to? Simple only, that it infinite many Examples gives, the one also immediately itself come to mind and that it even very Helpful is, itself more accurate to look at and like wide the Aspects, about the we spoken have, each there strong to the Carry come or rather not. And therefore, the would be also my Interest, that we if possible many practical comprehensible References find, but the gives it.
[43:53]
Outlook for the next episode
[43:50]We Search the, we curate the, like one so beautiful says. We curate the also. Many Thanks to, that You here the Prelude co-designed have for the new Series Co-operation as Core concept. And I happy me as soon as on the next Episode and there look we us more accurate to.
[44:09]What are because the Aspects and the individual Elements or also Structural elements from Co-operation, that them succeeds or even also what it lie can, that them fails.
[44:20]Wonderful, on it happy I me already. Many Thanks to. Good Time for You. Ciao. Sich on Co-operation approach and Co-operation successful make, The was not only Topic ours Podcasts, but the was also noticeable, that the a Negotiation process is, because with Mr Möllering someone here in the Podcast with thereby is, the the Topic absorbed has and incredible many various Examples and one long Research history to this Term brings along. And we become here look, that we there Order bring in in the Episodes and the Whole unfold. Because also for the Mediation and for the Conflict management is the Topic Co-operation natural not only the Starting point, that them failed is, but also the Target size of the Procedure, that them afterwards again succeeds. Also when natural in the Mediation whole frequently the Situation so is, that itself promised becomes, again to co-operate and then is the Mediation to End. But whether the succeeds, the Realisation phase, that the then mostly outside of the View and Field of work from Mediators is. Many Thanks to, that you and her all here again with thereby maintained at the Podcast Good through the Time. I wish you everything Good, we listen us here. I am Sascha Weige, small Host from Incofema, the Institute.
[45:50]Music.
Leave A Comment