INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#243 GddZ
Co-operation. Part 2
Conditions for successful cooperation? Above all, accepting uncertainty, vulnerability and diversity.
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".
Small series: Co-operation
Contents
Chapter:
Chapters
0:03 – Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit
1:40 – Failure of the cooperation
6:02 – Success factors for co-operations
9:48 - WPerception of success and failure
19:17 – Framework conditions for successful cooperation
25:43 – Uncertainty and vulnerability
32:29 – Confrontation vs. cooperation
38:44 – Cooperation as a solution to problems
44:28 – Challenges in the economy
53:26 – Conclusion and outlook for cooperation
detailed summary
In the latest episode of "Well through time", we once again look at the Cooperationa central aspect of mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. Once again, Prof Dr Guido Möllering, with whom I will be discussing the analyse the framework conditions that are decisive for successful cooperation processes in the economy. are. After a comprehensive discussion of the challenges and frequent failures of collaborations, today we will focus on the factors that contribute to the success of these processes.
We begin with the observation that attempts at cooperation are often perceived as failuresThis increases the frustration of those involved and limits their willingness to work together. It is discussed that despite successful small collaborations in market interactions on a daily basis, many larger, explicitly entered partnerships do not deliver the hoped-for results. We shed light on the reasons for this and recognise that Unrealistic expectations Such co-operations often lead to disappointment.
Another important point that we address is the Importance of transparency and mutual respect between co-operation partners. Both sides must be honest in their communication and clearly define their motives for working together. It is crucial that the interests and capacities of both partners are fully understood and accepted. We also examine the various forms of cooperation, from informal agreements to contractually binding joint ventures, and analyse the respective challenges.
In the course of the conversation, we shed light on how Trust and the courage to be vulnerable are essential in collaboration are. It is about being prepared to give up some of your autonomy in order to achieve greater goals together. We reflect on the fact that cooperation processes are often not linear and have to be orientated towards dynamics, uncertainties and a wide range of expectations. How can organisations better deal with these challenges? We examine this through the lens of successful examples of cooperation and analyse what has been particularly successful in their management.
Finally, we discuss the role of cooperative relationships in an environment characterised by confrontation. How can companies work together despite challenging conditions? We realise that approaching cooperation in small, manageable steps from a position of strength is often the key to long-term success.
With these topics, we have comprehensively discussed the challenges and opportunities of cooperation in today's business world and identified important success factors that are important both in business and in interpersonal mediation work.
Finally, we reflect on the need for professionalisation in conflict management and the opportunities that municipalities have to remain capable of acting in an increasingly complex social environment. Links to the works of Küpper and Fücker, which deepen the theoretical and practical aspects of municipal conflict management, round off the discussion. The audience will thus gain a comprehensive insight into the multi-layered challenges and dynamics that municipalities are confronted with.
Complete transcription
(AI-generated)
[0:03]
Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit
[0:00]You can also lose something in the cooperation. The stakes are high. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit. The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast from INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. And today's episode... a continuation of the first part on the topic of cooperation that was published recently. And that means that Prof Dr Guido Möllering is back in my podcast studio. A warm welcome.
[0:33]Yes, hello, I'm delighted. Yes, Mr Möllering, we've already discussed a number of things on the subject of cooperation, we took a round trip in our opening episode, where we explained the origins of this third way, as it was called at the time, and drew your attention to the fact that it was initially a counter-proposal to the hierarchical organisation of processes based on the division of labour and the free hand of the market, that cooperation was a third way of bringing things together that might otherwise not have been brought together at all. And that this is changing again at the moment and is currently taking place in a confrontational environment. We discussed a bit more, but have already indicated that today we are looking at the framework conditions for cooperation processes, especially in the economy. In other words, the conditions that should make the whole thing a success.
[1:40]
Failure of the cooperation
[1:41]But, and this is where I would like to start with you, I still have the statement in my ear and I hope I have not misunderstood it, it fails rather than succeeds or it is perceived to have failed all the time. And it hasn't been that easy in the economy to facilitate cooperation processes between different companies and economic operators. Firstly, that was correctly understood and secondly, what does that mean for cooperation?
[2:10]So yes, in any case, it was correctly understood in principle, as we talked about it, that one possible explanation for the fact that we are now back on a more confrontational path could also be that people are somewhat frustrated that the cooperative approaches have not led to the solutions that they had hoped for and that the expectations of cooperation are more often disappointed, so to speak. If you were to try to quantify this now, i.e. what percentage of attempts at cooperation fail, then you would of course have a problem in that there are very, very many, indeed very small forms of cooperation. That's where we were last time, so if you interpret every market exchange as even a small, brief form of cooperation, then of course we also have many, many interactions that succeed every day. So we shouldn't overdo it, lots of swapping and exchanging. It's also a form of cooperation that works.
[3:04]I think what is meant by failure are the collaborations that you explicitly enter into, where you explicitly set out to do something bigger together and then don't reach your goal or notice any real improvements. And that's what I think is strongly felt, because you've invested in it and because you've explicitly tried to find partners and do it together. And if that doesn't work, which is often the case, then it's also frustrating and puts a strain on further collaborations. So actually, we can't really speak in quantitative statistical terms here, but rather that these disappointments in cooperation are also experienced and this also discourages people from continuing to try.
[3:53]Then perhaps the term 'cooperation' could be sharpened again, i.e. these encounters between exchange partners, buyers and sellers, who of course somehow work together to bring about the exchange process. That is also a kind of co-operation, but that is not what you are looking at when you ask economic units to come together and build a product together. That was in vogue for a long time, especially in the noughties and possibly even in the tens of years, which simply produced more disappointment. So just to make that tangible. I was thinking of car companies that have had adventures, Daimler Chrysler was one such adventure, I think, that ended up being a failure.
[4:39]A wedding seen by major car brands. Are these things where you say that's what we mean by collaborations? Yes, of course, in business you immediately think of co-operations that are also sealed with contracts and where this is also part of it, that it is highly official. But it can also be a bit more informal, but I would call it this kind of expressiveness, saying that we're going to do something together. We at least look each other in the eye and say we're going to do it together. You also have the choice not to do it. And so if that is so explicit. Of course, we can talk about very specific forms such as joint ventures or joint, truly contractually agreed projects, which then come to an end at some point because they either fail directly or they somehow come to an end and then you look at what you have achieved, which is relatively little. Of course, there are also successful ones.
[5:32]Overall, it's difficult now because we're talking about so many countries, so many different sectors and so on. But the reality is that more than half of the explicit collaborations do not lead to the desired result. It's not exactly optimistic to say, well, you just have to assume that half, more than half of the co-operations don't work out. That makes it all the more interesting and I think that's also the motivation in research to find out what happens with those that are successful,
[6:02]
Success factors for co-operations
[5:59]perhaps done differently than those that failed. As is so often the case in life, there are times when you have simply had bad luck, when the context of the cooperation has changed so much that suddenly the originally good idea was no longer such a good one. If you take that out of the equation, then there are collaborations that have failed because they were poorly managed, because you didn't behave well in the collaboration and others did better. Of course, this is also the motivation for the research to find out how things can be done better, whether the cooperation might have worked if it had been realised in good time that it was necessary to act differently. On the one hand, this means the hopes that were placed in such joint ventures and other forms of cooperation.
[6:46]They have definitely been disappointed and I can't really check in retrospect whether this is really realistic, but the disappointment has already been clearly perceptible, you say, that the hopes were higher than what ultimately came out. You can also put it in very commercial terms, simply by saying that you had hoped to open up a new market, for example.
[7:08]You have to make sales in a country in which you have not yet been active with the local partner and the sales have been very low and even lower than what you had to invest and you have really just made a loss, a commercial loss. Or you had hoped that a great international partner would give you technical expertise and in the end not much happened or you only got outdated expertise and not the really exciting stuff and at some point you realised that you hadn't gained as much knowledge and expertise as you had promised. And the more you perhaps had an idea of what you wanted to get out of it, the sooner you realise whether it was created or not. And that's the first problem, which is really specific to cooperation, to what extent you can form realistic expectations in advance. This brings us to a point that also explains why sometimes collaborations are declared a failure simply because they have not yet lived up to previously postulated expectations. And in other collaborations, you may be able to live with the fact that you don't yet know exactly what the outcome will be.
[8:21]And then to do something about it when evaluating the success of the collaborations.
[8:28]It's smoother, more dynamic and therefore cooperation has a chance to prove itself. So if you promise too much too soon and say that this is the only logical way and that cooperation can only be a win-win situation.
[8:44]Then it is all the more likely that it will later be declared a failure, simply because the expectation margin is set so high. That would also be a classic error of perception. In other words, expectations are set too high, perhaps even too narrowly in terms of exactly what you can achieve. And of course, this is perhaps already inherent in the business management way of thinking about goals that are formulated in advance and the degree of goal achievement that is measured. The fact that you try to plan and formulate goals in the classic way, just as you do internally in your own company, is also an important difference and an important realisation. So if you approach a cooperation project with the same logic of measurability and controllability that you are used to at home, then at some point you realise that your own metrics don't necessarily fit. And if you then make the mistake of thinking that it is simply because the cooperation is not working.
[9:48]
Perception of success and failure
[9:49]Instead of thinking about the fact that we might be using the wrong tools to evaluate something, we sometimes declare something a failure that might have actually worked quite well from a different perspective. So I deliberately use this expression here too: what is declared a failure? Because you might not really know whether it could still work. At some point you just give up hope. So I think that's a parallel to working as a mediator or in conflict resolution, because it's very similar to how you now assess what a negotiated solution is in conflict resolution, where there doesn't have to be a mediator involved to see what ultimately comes out of it. And I find that interesting, because often not everything seems so measurable. And yet it is considered a success, even though the figures are sometimes against it. And sometimes you have to look at it differently and then realise that what we have achieved here is actually quite good. And in this respect, conflict is also a co-operative process. You take it to the extreme together and then want to reach agreements in negotiations or even in negotiations supported by third parties that enable good cooperation or a good parting of the ways.
[11:13]And very similar processes. And I find that interesting, because when I say man, then I would say my consulting industry, sometimes even I myself, I mean the business world is so fixated on numbers. I want to impose it. But I have the impression that this is unjustified when I hear that you have to take an interpretative approach to what constitutes good cooperation. In any case, let's say that people like to measure everything quantitatively and even things that are difficult to measure, such as knowledge gains. If I say that we somehow want to gain new knowledge through cooperation, how do I want to quantify that? In other words, with what unit of measurement? But there are still ways of asking qualitative questions and then how do you assess the degree of knowledge gain in this project and then you make a scale from 1 to 100 and then you have it quantitatively.
[12:11]That is also satisfaction. You just say, you just make a scale from 0 to 10, 100, whatever. And then you have a number. So you can qualify everything. And even if they are subjective ratings. How satisfied are you with this cooperation? That's a very classic question that we also ask as researchers. And then we don't always let people explain it straight away, but also say something on a scale of. Just so that you can talk like this. That works, but interpretation also means: how did I set the goals beforehand? And am I in a position to adjust them so that I can simply say, well, we simply expected too much. We expected growth of X in the first year and that was simply unrealistic and now we are adjusting the figures. Of course, that's also part of the commercial world, that you also adjust targets quantitatively again without immediately saying that it failed, but rather saying that it's just not quite as dynamic as we had hoped. But of course, the underlying factor is that the judgement is subjective and can also be a gut feeling. One factor that was very interesting was what you just mentioned, but that is perhaps even something that is too special when you are involved in cooperation.
[13:20]Or act as a representative in the mediation process. So some managers, sometimes women, are seconded to work in the joint venture from both companies. And they are always still representatives of the main company they come from. And then we have often had cases where joint venture managers themselves have said that things are actually going quite well, yes, we may need a little longer than we originally thought, but actually it's going exactly as we thought, but then suddenly we hear from home that it's not enough, it's not good enough, why can't it go faster? And that the famous plug was then pulled by the partners who didn't work together directly, but who were behind it and had expectations and little insight into the reality of cooperation in everyday life. And then they simply said, quite quantitatively, you haven't achieved the goals, we're ending it. Without then seeing what state the cooperation is really in. So now this example of increased knowledge came to my mind spontaneously.
[14:26]VW, of course, because it's a big company. And I remembered the new joint venture after it somehow became clear that this subsidiary, Cariad, was supposed to drive digitalisation there.
[14:38]That this somehow became more difficult and she started this joint venture with the American Rivian. That was maybe a year ago now. That's an American e-car from Amazon, which has equipped a large fleet with them. That would be a cooperation process, i.e. on a very large scale, over several years, and we want to make it a success. And regardless of the details, we can't make any good suggestions right now, but where would you say that this must definitely be taken into account when entering into such a cooperation? What are the most important points for co-operation processes of this kind? And perhaps we can also generalise this for others that manage with fewer people. Yes, what do you have to pay attention to? Well, it's actually quite simple to say that it has to fit together somehow. In other words, you first need a story about what one person has to offer the other, but also about reciprocity. So what is it that makes us interested in each other in the first place? Of course, it helps in the first step if you talk to each other honestly. In other words, being open and honest with each other.
[16:01]We have an interest in this cooperation because you have something that we don't have, but we also think that you could use something from us that you don't have. And if we see this correctly, if we both see it correctly and have understood it, then that is actually the initial impetus for entering into the cooperation negotiations or even considering what it could become. Of course, if you're not honest with each other at this point, then it will most likely become clear at some point later on that the other person will realise this. Oh, they didn't want market access at all, they actually wanted to buy us in order to squeeze us out of the market. And this co-operation was only a preliminary stage to the takeover. And it's a justified one, by the way. So there are also plenty of stories where a co-operation has been used to see whether the other partner is as good as you think, in order to then buy them and take them out of the market, so to speak.
[16:54]So also quite typical. But we were looking at the question of what has to fit together, what has to fit at the very beginning. It has to be a story, incidentally also for investors who are supposed to support it, that you make really realistic statements, honest statements, if you want to be more normative about why you're entering into it in the first place. And then also things like respecting each other, which is all so incredibly normal now, and basically letting the other person have their own space. So precisely this danger that the other person might actually want to take away what I have, what they would like to have, that would be a danger that you don't want to take and that's why it has to be clear from the outset where the boundaries are. So making the other person shine, supporting the other person in the collaboration, that's not the worst idea.
[17:43]And, above all, not to threaten them or, so to speak, not to radiate that you want to take something away from them, but that they give something voluntarily so that the co-operation works. That sounds, I have to think about it now, with the two companies you mentioned, the question is what exactly they have agreed on, to what extent they are investing together in a new company, these joint ventures, or perhaps sometimes it is simply a transfer of patents that is agreed in return for not buying the patents, but offering something else in return. And of course that also depends on the extent to which you really work together intensively or that it is a purely legal story. But this clarity about why you think the other person is interesting for the cooperation in the first place is very important. In this case, it really was a great adventure, but what you said, the narrative has to be inspiring on both sides, honestly meant and also credible for the other side. It has to be possible to spin a common story out of it that is also interesting for investors and there has to be honesty and respect in our dealings. In my opinion, we can easily set this up for two people working together. So it's probably no coincidence that people talk about weddings, but also in business, because that's fundamental. If this works well, this wedding will also find sufficient support.
[19:09]Whether that's in the family circle, in the extended family or in the economy in the form of investments. I find that interesting.
[19:17]
Framework conditions for successful cooperation
[19:17]Even in such, let's say, number-driven large organisations, there are ultimately very familiar things that set the conditions. Yes, when it comes to the wedding, the question is whether you necessarily have to be so in love in that case. But here too, I would go so far as to say that in the case of collaborations that work well, I think it's better to talk like that. So if certain things are there, then the probability that it will work is higher than if they are not there. And I would also add, to stay with the wedding image, that it's not just respect for each other that you maintain, respect, but perhaps even a bit of recognition or even admiration. So to really say that we also chose this partner because there might be others, but this partner impressed us. He does it better, we trust him even more and, that's the next point, he also suits us well. So despite the other differences in what the partners might contribute, there are also collaborations that simply bundle things together. We both do exactly the same thing and together we simply have more.
[20:30]The partners are not so different, but you can make a plan for that too. It could be a problem that we diverge. We're actually competitors because we might even be doing the same thing, but now we're doing it together because the two of us are somehow more important on the market and are simply more efficient. But with the different partners, it's really not just any partner, so to speak, but really the one that impressed us and that we really value. And then there's a second point that somehow also seems to suit us. So this common wavelength or a similar idea of what the whole thing can bring and so on, that also helps of course. But I actually wanted to stick with this wedding image, so that you also feel attracted to the others. And not just like this, unfortunately I have to look for a partner somehow because I can't do without one. Yes, for a while it was the case, or in some cases still is, that you needed local partners for foreign investments. Then you just said, come on, we have to find someone.
[21:30]Maybe one was even put in front of you, yes, in China or something, you have to do it with them. These are not love marriages. Ideally, you really do think that this is a great partner, if we can build it up with them, then it will be something. Of course, that also helps, rather than going in there already doubting a partner or perhaps even having a low opinion of them. Hey you who are listening to the podcast right now. We bring you a new episode every week in this podcast. Also for you to listen to and need your support. Take your smartphone, leave a star rating and a comment on how you like the podcast and make others aware of this podcast here. Thank you very much and now the podcast continues.
[22:15]In other words, both currents are important there too. The one where you say, well, there's something admiring about it, something chosen, that should be there so that you realise that we are meant for each other. But on the other hand, you also have to take a very sober look and sort it out. For married couples, there is the prenuptial agreement, too rarely implemented, but always recommended. You have to look at it again with a sober eye. Yes, of course. That goes without saying. No, I'll say the other way round. Why has this topic, this supposedly somewhat softer topic, become interesting for business administration? Because we're already familiar with the contracts and the hard rules and so on. It's a normal, rational, administrative approach, that's all...
[23:01]To be contractually regulated and planned through. And on the other hand, the co-operation relationships are different. They are more open, more undefined. You're not necessarily used to that. But it's typical for co-operations that you need an openness that's easier if you also have factors such as trust, of course. That's also trust, so you don't always have to say trust. And that can contribute to this admiration or recognition of what others have perhaps already achieved in other areas in the past. In other words, saying that we don't yet know exactly how things will work out when we work together, but the company or business partner has already shown what they can do in other areas and that's why we're prepared to take the risk. And being open-minded and not too fixated on a finish line also helps, these are all things.
[23:59]I can adopt this almost one-to-one from my work in conflict counselling with individuals and for further cooperation possibilities, i.e. if you want to illuminate the common future and ask, stay together, continue the project or not, should I quit or not, stay together. So it's very similar. I find it amazing that the same applies even to large organisations that join forces. I want to try again to get into it a little differently, to take a different approach so that everything doesn't sound so banal.
[24:38]What makes it not banal? Well, it's banal for you because cooperation works great.
[24:45]When everything is clear, you have nothing to lose, you think and tick the same way in every area. So everything is transparent, you may already have a lot of experience with each other. Statistically speaking, the risk is zero. You know exactly what the outcome will be and how much it will be worth. The balance of power is so clear that nobody feels pressurised to take part and you have clear goals, values and you know exactly how you are going to do it. So the implementation practices are also somehow known. That's why it often fails in the end. It's simply that you've actually clarified everything, but then the details of how to implement it, that's where things get stuck and then everything falls apart again. Once everything has been clarified, you can easily co-operate. What is really the practical difficulty and the skill that a management team has to learn first is that it has to deal with uncertainty and vulnerability.
[25:43]
Uncertainty and vulnerability
[25:40]and diversity. In other words, to accept that we can get rid of them. So I say again, the three of them - insecurity, vulnerability and diversity - make cooperation difficult.
[25:53]That's why you might work on them, but you'll never get rid of them completely. So there is no complete certainty as to how it works and whether it works. You can also lose something in the cooperation. There's something at stake and if it doesn't work, you lose it too. So the fact that you carry that has a lot to do with our favourite keyword, which we've already mentioned, trust. Trust just means living with this uncertainty and vulnerability and also the diversity and living passion. But it seems to work best when the partners have actually eliminated as many of these three factors as possible beforehand or have reduced them so that it becomes bearable. So we don't want to go back to trust, but if you don't know everything beforehand in a partnership, if you don't have the certainty that you won't lose anything, that the other person is in the same mood as you are, that's just not realistic. And, so to speak, it doesn't have to be the whole co-operation that you lose, but you have to be clear, as I understand it now.
[26:56]If I get involved, then we will also lose something, a piece of identity or a piece of whatever, but if I can get involved, I don't even have to be prepared, but then I increase the likelihood that the collaboration will succeed. That doesn't make it trivial, I can understand that. Yes, it also means that you then have the famous partial loss of control or give up your autonomy to a certain extent. The so-called paradox of cooperation is that you have to give up some of your autonomy in order to achieve more, so to speak, in order to have more autonomy, but then you have to give up autonomy together with the other person. That really sounds like a good giver for marital relationships. So the image really fits and that in organisations.
[27:54]Achieving how this is managed is certainly a task in its own right, with different interpretations taking place between the individual departments, how they experience it or between the internal players who control each other or have different interests. And that is also the field of work of organisational developers and flick consultants and mediators, for example. But I think the basic principles are very similar. So on the one hand, I find it reassuring that it's not something completely new that mediators also experience when they are called in to mend such large-scale processes. But also, okay, it's really not something you can control in a linear way. It's very complex.
[28:44]And you just said again that what is added and certainly also in the situations that accompany you is the temporal component, the dynamic. To begin with, it's very static to say that in order to gain the ability to act, I have to give up autonomy of action. And to gain something, I have to give something away. That's very commercial thinking again. Then I can ask myself at any time, yes, how much have I given away and how much have I received in return? You can constantly compare that. It's clear that the balance is always either negative or positive, but never exactly at the 3% plus that you would like to have or 13% or something. And preferably for both partners at the same time.
[29:26]This means that there is always a chance that one of the two thinks, "But I've just given away more than I've received.
[29:33]While the other person might be happy about that point. In other words, with the balance sheet, which is constantly running, or with the balance, if you keep it constantly, you always have moments when you think.
[29:43]You are currently in credit and just like with a bank account or, let's say, an investment account, where you have to put up with the fact that you are in the red for a while and then it somehow goes back into the black. You have to sort that out too. It's the same with the co-operation balance that you might constantly have in your head. Am I now gaining as much in terms of my ability to act through cooperation as I have given up in terms of autonomy? Does it pay off for me? If you're constantly doing the maths, there are always situations where it doesn't seem to pay off in the short term to come up with static considerations, from which you then also see that in the phases where I give away a little more than I get.
[30:25]That the cooperation is not already unfair and, in my view, a failure. There are three calculations. Each former individual partner has a separate calculation and then there is also an objectified, joint where-we-stand-with-each-other. And that can perhaps be viewed again from this newly created third perspective. And there are also installations where you compare who actually benefits more from this cooperation. Does the other person get more out of it or do I? And you don't have to assume that even if it's not exactly the same, that it can still be worth staying in the relationship. That one person gets a lot out of it, the other a little less, but at least doesn't end up in the negative.
[31:13]So if they both benefit, just one a little more than the other, then the relationship usually remains stable for the time being. So only when the other person really feels exploited because they are worse off as a result of the co-operation than without it.
[31:27]Then they try to finish. And probably also, if one of them gets so much more out of it and your own profit seems marginal, then you probably have the same fairness problem. Yes, for example, if the salary increases are somehow 5%, but the payout increases by 50% or so, then you think to yourself, well, we've all had some of it now, but it hasn't been divided up fairly. Yes, a bit more. But that...
[31:59]Realising and saying, okay, this has to be taken into account in cooperation processes, whether on a large or small scale. And we're in the economic context here. We realised in the first episode, or they said, yes, things seem to be turning a bit at the moment. The hype, or the fervent advocacy of cooperation and cooperation figures, has diminished a little.
[32:29]
Confrontation vs. cooperation
[32:26]Apparently, confrontation is a little more en vogue again. Cooperation has not disappeared completely and as such can no longer be eliminated, but it now remains one option among several. Even perhaps, if the thesis is correct, under confrontational environmental conditions. What is your idea of how this will develop or how it will have to adapt? Is there anything where we can already say, yes, under these conditions the game should be played differently or kept the same? Can you observe that at the moment, even though we are still very close to it? Of course, it's really very easy to say in general terms.
[33:09]How to get out of the development that's going on. But I want to give it a try anyway. I've just said that the unfavourable circumstances are actually insecurity, vulnerability and diversity. The confrontational approach basically tries to... now use violence to eliminate insecurity, vulnerability and difference. So we try to make ourselves invulnerable because this vulnerability doesn't work. We try to force certainty on ourselves by simply regulating things unilaterally and then they are regulated. And we eliminate difference by simply suppressing everything that is not like us. And then we no longer have any differences, are invulnerable and have somehow created a certainty for ourselves. And the problem is that this will all break down at some point because at the end of the day, sorry, I'm just going to say it, you're never invulnerable, everyone is never the same and you never know exactly what the future holds. But if you want to try to get back into dialogue with people who are so confrontational and enter into a form of cooperation, then in principle you should give people what they need at these points, namely a certain amount of security.
[34:34]A certain degree of protection and also an assurance that they are accepted as they are and that their species will not be jeopardised. So that means you are then... Maybe, sorry, it's not easy for me to say, but you have to be conciliatory in principle and demand too much from people in terms of cooperation. And it only works if the side offering it has a certain degree of sovereignty and strength in the first place. In other words, someone who is much weaker than the other, who is so confrontational. It will be difficult to tell the other person to relax.
[35:19]Don't hurt yourself and let's see if we can work together again. But it's very abstract, but it's about to become very concrete and practical again. That's actually also the reason why we like to start cooperation on a small scale and then slowly grow. So you do a small thing together that is relatively manageable, in the sense of what can happen, where you don't have anything to lose and where you start with the common ground, which is very clear. That's why we say that you start out by making cooperation projects as simple as possible so that you learn that it works and can then slowly increase the degree of uncertainty, vulnerability and diversity. That would really be ideal, to say we'll start with a very simple story and if it works, we'll do it better. But today that would also mean that in order to get out of such a confrontational situation, you first have to do something relatively simple that then works to show that we can get out of it. And that's how it actually is, I know, sorry, even with the war or something like that, the small exchanges and things like that are visible, where you realise, yes, we can still cooperate.
[36:35]I find the interaction interesting, so to speak. We have a view, if I've understood correctly, of someone who favours more confrontational forms of cooperation, in other words someone who approaches the other person with strength and certainty, threatening to flatten them if they don't surrender voluntarily, so to speak. Someone who is consilient because they are interested in cooperation cannot simply surrender out of weakness. So you can't be consilient from a position of weakness, so to speak. That would simply not be credible. He has to offer it himself from a secure position, small cooperation processes, and strangely enough, he puts himself in an uncertain situation. The benefits of both must somehow become clear that the project is worthwhile. Of course, this somehow also presupposes that the other side has realised that it cannot be completely isolated. For various reasons, in other words, that being isolated also has its disadvantages, to put it bluntly. So you must have realised somehow.
[37:42]In other words, that they can't do without others. But then the question is, how do you get there again? And that is of course the question, once they have realised that yes, we can't do without the others, then they can also make their first small offers of cooperation in order to see with whom they are more likely to enter into this partnership relationship. But on the other hand, it is also the case that the other side can also make offers with a certain degree of sovereignty, as I said. It's really hard to imagine that someone who has had to swallow all the insecurity, vulnerability and differences that the other person didn't want all this time has had to put up with it all.
[38:22]Then make the offer for the other side to reduce it. But the realisation that you have to cooperate has to come from both sides somehow. That doesn't make cooperation any more, so to speak, and that may never be true, but it's a kind of deep-rooted path that applies on its own merits, so to speak,
[38:44]
Cooperation as a solution to problems
[38:42]but it is a form of problem solving. There has to be a prior perception that the problem can or cannot be solved alone and that co-operation, even with someone who is more confrontational, has a chance of solving the problem. I'm still trying to find practical examples so that we can visualise this more clearly, so that perhaps a moment like this has arrived. And we can perhaps also imagine that a person who is very violent might also be exhausted at some point. And then let's really imagine someone who beats up other people or something like that. Let's take a really bad party where someone suddenly goes berserk and starts beating up everyone around them with their bare fists. So very confrontational. I don't know how I came up with that idea, but at some point in the situation this person is also just exhausted. Just exhausted.
[39:41]They really no longer have the strength to maintain this aggression. And such moments of exhaustion would be an example of this, where you can then say, so now we have the choice to either finish him off directly at the moment when he is exhausted. So now we are, so to speak, now he can no longer defend himself, now we destroy him. Or to say, okay, maybe now he realises that he can't go on like this in the long term. Now we'll make him an offer to come down and behave normally again. And it could be a state of exhaustion. The other would be.
[40:17]That he then somehow realises that he is so busy maintaining this aggression that he no longer gets to do the things that he actually really enjoys. So that could also be a realisation at some point that it's not exhaustion, but rather a lack on the other side, that so much energy goes into this aggression that it's a lack of permission to do the things that you actually want to do. And this realisation could at some point lead to you cutting down on the booze and saying, I'd like to do something nice again. That would still be more abstract, but perhaps somewhat more figurative games. Just as this confrontational side sometimes reaches a point where it doubts whether confrontation is the long-term solution. Of course, we also have another image, which we haven't even mentioned yet, of deterrence. It could also be a precursor to cooperation or an unresolved situation. We don't co-operate, but we don't attack or harm each other. We have mutual means that we could use if the other gets too close to us. But that's not cooperation at all, it's coexistence or getting along with each other. That is also a reality, of course. So that's often the way to go. We were looking for conditions for success, so to speak. Out of a confrontational situation, so to speak.
[41:46]Organising cooperation as a solution, as a change in the way we live together, I think that's another very special task or challenge. You say that yes, sometimes it is also necessary to wait or look until exhaustion sets in or to prepare for the fact that... That only then is the time really right for a hand-out or for an idea for a new beginning. And that it makes sense to be prepared for cooperation. I think that's a very important aspect for developments, whether in politics or in business, of course we also experience this. This is also important for conflict management at home. Even if we experience confrontation and have to prepare ourselves for it or simply have to expect to be or become the target of all this confrontation, i.e. to have hope or certainty that there will be and represent another phase.
[42:50]Do I have to be ready to act? It's just the question, I say, I don't find it at all pleasant to talk in these images, but there really is a sensible way of proceeding, which is not to let such an angry person rage, but to restrain him. Disciplined. But it's the case that, let's say, because we're not talking about really bad theatrical situations, but that you also tie people up in some cases. You can captivate people, but you can also have different intentions. And one is to really protect them from themselves. So you tie them up and then they can come down. Not when the whole thing has calmed down and then you ask them, you've calmed down again, have you realised what you've done?
[43:31]So, should we loosen the shackles again or not? It depends on whether you co-operate. I wanted to say that you don't just let the other person rage until they have no more strength, but you also start to use force to restrain them, but with the aim of waiting and seeing if cooperation is possible again, or if they have calmed down, so to speak. But then we would be in a situation where you are the more powerful one. Where you are still the stronger one. As I understood it before, we are in a development process where we are no longer in this position of being the more powerful, but where we are actually exposed to confrontation and have to come to terms with it. Yes, that's very depressing, of course. the imaginers don't have such unrealistic ideas that there's nothing you can do for the time being except to plug away and withdraw and wait for him to calm down, to realise for himself what he's lacking.
[44:28]
Challenges in the economy
[44:27]also has through this behaviour. What does this actually mean in business? I mean like this.
[44:32]Experiencing that a business partner makes several accusations that you are somehow taking advantage of him or have not been honest in the cooperation and so on, and in principle also calls himself into question with serious accusations and so on. So you need this sovereignty and calm so that at some point he realises that he actually has advantages with the cooperation and that he has to assess things on a larger scale and perhaps not just short-term incidents. They need to see the overall benefits of this cooperation again. I think that's ultimately fair, because many collaborations are not routine. You don't do it all the time. So you don't necessarily have many opportunities for comparison. So whether this relationship is going well or badly, whether it's a very unique, unusual relationship, you can't compare it with anything else. That's why there's a danger that you often think in the short term that it's not working well and then overreact. And because you don't have a yardstick for whether it's the best possible thing you can achieve or not. And then short-term disappointments are often very quickly a cooperation killer because you don't have the framework, the larger framework, in which you can categorise it and say it was an outlier or an exception. Too little experience.
[45:53]And the more you believe in it, the easier it would be to continue a cooperation, even if there is a small disappointment. But if you don't have that, then it's very easy to say that. And that's why, if we transfer it back to geopolitics, to big politics, it's increasingly difficult to simply say, oh well, we've been through this before, it'll be fine. This is also something new, that we are not simply solving the crisis in the same way as we did before, but are facing completely new challenges and are also more insecure.
[46:25]If I summarise this, I think it has been essential for me to take into account the comparable, parallel requirements if you want to cooperate in Europe in good times in order to perhaps make things even better. That is, so to speak, from the world of experience of the last few years or decades, where this at least comes from in the economy and cooperation is made to succeed. In other words, that the narratives are credible, are meant honestly, are entered into with respect and also leave a certain openness for developments and uncertainties. A situation where confrontation is a starting point, not just the environment, but even the starting point, it depends on the right time to make the offer of cooperation. That was the example with the exhausted guardian, you don't fall into acts of revenge, so to speak, when the other person has shown weakness, but also offer co-operation at that moment. That's a negotiating lesson, and a good mnemonic, so to speak.
[47:34]In other words, not to step on those who are already on the ground, but to reach out a hand and enable co-operation in small steps. Where would we be in Germany after the Second World War if they hadn't done that with us? At least in the old Federal Republic. In small steps then, that is the concession to the fact that cooperation fundamentally forms these uncertainties and the whole thing once again in this triad and you don't jump right back into it. That sounds funny again, you can also start too small again, which then seems too much as if you simply can't bear this insecurity and vulnerability and so on. Yes, where the message is in there, I'd rather not. I don't really want to. Maybe it can't be too small. Perhaps it's more important to say to yourself that we're starting small. Not to say, I can't give you more than that now because it's too delicate for me, but I can give more, but we'll start small first. And start small is the magic word, then more can come. That's how you should approach it. Mr Möllering, I would like to make a cut for today, so to speak, because otherwise this will lead us into further discussions on the subject of cooperation.
[48:57]I believe that these are very important aspects that we have identified for the conditions for success. And I would like to summarise or name the points that you have also mentioned several times. In other words, diversity, uncertainty and vulnerability. These are three aspects with which you enter into cooperation processes. And as a mediator for conflict resolution between people, I think it's quite appropriate to keep this in mind when you leave the mediation process, regardless of whether you want to stay together or separate after all. You could even say that these three things are actually poison for cooperation. In principle, I have to be able to deal with these three things for co-operation to work. And that, so to speak, is why interconnectivity, uncertainty and diversity make cooperation difficult. But if I manage to deal with that, then I have actually arrived in the mode of cooperation, to say that it is simply part of it.
[50:08]Then it works. So if I can tolerate these three things, which are actually poison, and perhaps also simply ensure, to stay with the metaphor, that the dose of poison remains at a precise level, that my body can still handle it, then it works. And then to show once again that I really am a business economist after all, you can even say that some companies have a strategic advantage over other companies because they are able to digest this poison and therefore successfully find cooperation partners, which the others cannot. So this is another reason why we are also called cooperating to compete, i.e. by finding good partners, I can compete better than those who cannot find good partners or who do not manage their partnerships and cooperative relationships successfully because, and here we are again, they are not able to deal with these three cooperation killers. So in principle, there are exactly three things that make cooperation difficult and are also the key to how it can work in the end.
[51:19]The is so also one competitive Expertise or a more strategic Advantage, when I good Partnerships build up can and design can. Yes, exactly. We bring on End whole often also again the both Terms Competition and Co-operation, Competition and Competition. Partnership again together. Would be also again a own Topic even for the third or fourth, fifth Consequence. So like the both merge on End of the Day, Co-operation and Competition, like also in Co-operation relationships always still a certain Element of the Competition inside stuck. Since were we today already briefly, because the then also on it fail can, that on End the supposed Co-operation partner then but again therefore compete, who because on Most thereof has. And through this Competitive thinking, who Profits because now on Most from this Co-operation, make them the Co-operation broken, there were we actually already. But also co-operate, at better against again other compete to can, is Yes also a classic Picture of course. Yes, grab we on, because the also in mine Work, straight also in Science and Research organisations, the high competitive Areas are, Science, You know it itself, but even also high co-operative Processes require. Find I the Interaction also again interesting from Co-operation and Competition. Möllering, so make we that. And there is, that it the Co-operation is, at so one Rampage under Control to bring.
[52:45]The can Yes also the Picture grabs one then on and characterises it then still more from I thank you me for the detailed.
[52:56]Readiness itself in unknown Torrent to go or still not coloured because it was today clear that we us so prepared have in full Uncertainty not know what we still exactly say become, but so is the sometimes in one good Co-operation. In favour sincere Thanks to.
[53:16]Thank you likewise and the Comparison fits natural very good. Thank you very much. Good Time, until soon and good Success with all Co-operations.
[53:26]
Conclusion and outlook for cooperation
[53:26]Professor Guido Möllering, in the second Part our Episode to the Co-operation processes and today are we really jumped in in Questions the General conditions and Conditions for success. And it has itself highlighted, and the has me personally a little surprised and was but then also delighted about it, that the Parallels to also individual spoilt Co-operation processes between individual People, Teams, the whole similar run and from similar General conditions also managed become. So one good Idea for the Co-operation, a good Narrative. Everyone Participants one Co-operation needs one good History and one good Explanation for this Go there one Co-operation, what paradoxically both Delivery from Autonomy to the Consequence has, as also the View on one Gain on Autonomy. The are we then more followed and have also the Response approaches found, the under Conditions Co-operation enter, the rather more confrontational Nature are. The Addressee the Co-operation straight not on one Co-operation interested is, but rather confrontational acts. And that the one The challenge is for Those willing to co-operate.
[54:53]But it is also clear become, that Co-operation not simple a Character trait is or one Matter at their itself will, but them solves a Problem. You is a Problem-solving approach and from this Wait here also whole sober to check, fits straight this Solution approach on the own Problem definition. Many Thanks to, that you ready were, here again with thereby to be. When you the Consequence please has or the Trolley open remained are, then write me, leave behind a Feedback and one Star rating and say also yours Colleagues, that her to Mediation and Conflict issues posted have.
Leave A Comment