Collaborative Process Institute

Partial List of Clients:

BC Ministry of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources

BC Ministry of Environment

BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

BC Ministry of Forests & Range

University of Victoria, Law

Camosun College, Victoria

Capital Regional District

Grasslands Conservation Council

BC Agriculture Council

Land Use Coordination Office

Fundamental Policy Change within a Collaborative Setting

In the long term, government officials who recognize that a fundamental shift is underway and willingly employ a network management approach will not only improve their ability to meet agency goals but will build a stronger support network in the process.

Competitive decision-making in a policy context is often associated with a ‘command and control’ style of public administration. In recent scholarship on ‘new governance’, Saloman* recognises the shift in public management from command and control to negotiation and persuasion as the preferred management approach: “…the new governance acknowledges that command and control are not the appropriate administrative approach in the world of network relationships that increasingly exists. Given the pervasive interdependence that characterizes such networks, no entity, including the state, is in a position to enforce its will on the others over the long run." In a collaborative style of governance, negotiation replaces competitive decision-making.

In policy settings where the stakeholders and various actors choose to collaborate and seek an outcome based on mutual interest rather than self-interest, the process of policy-making establishes a new dynamic, as depicted below. Within a collaborative system the discourse of the competing coalitions becomes superseded as a new discourse is forged between key participants in the new collaborative coalition.

Significant Policy Change Often Involves a Paradigm Shift

	the authority of the prevailing policy paradigm is gradually eroded by the accumulation of ‘anomalies’ that influence policy makers to experiment with new forms of policy
	policy failures tend to discredit and stretch the ‘intellectual coherence’ of the prevailing policy paradigm
	leads to frustration with the failure and unwillingness of policy leaders to consider new ideas or to admit questions and challenges to the prevailing paradigm and the associated institutional framework
	the process is initially chaotic and unstable as conflicting arguments are made and compete for dominance. This is to be expected as new collaborative arrangements and institutions take on greater importance.

Process of Policy Paradigm Change

Stage	Characteristics	Network Characteristics
1. Paradigm Stability	Reigning orthodoxy is institutionalized and policy adjustments made, largely by a closed group of experts and officials.	Initially, only a few perceptive individuals recognize problem (often scientists or those directly affected).
2. Accumulation of Anomalies	‘Real-world’ developments occur which are neither anticipated nor fully explicable in terms of the reigning orthodoxy	Problem recognition grows as individuals invest social capital in advocacy, trying to get others interested in collective action.
3. Experimentation	Efforts are made to stretch the existing paradigm to account for anomalies.	Links form between like-minded stakeholders who differentiate themselves into groups or coalitions.
4. Fragmentation of Authority	Experts and officials are discredited and new participants challenge the existing paradigm.
5. Contestation	Debate spills into the public arena and involves the larger political process, including electoral and partisan considerations.	Conflict increases with increased ‘we-them’ perspective as mobilised coalitions pressure for change. If few social links exist between groups, prolonged period of polarization may follow.
6. Institutionalization of New Paradigm	Advocates of new paradigm secure positions of authority and alter existing organizational decision-making arrangements in order to institutionalize the new paradigm.	Integrative solutions are developed and institutionalized as social network structures (links) bridge gaps between interest groups, coalitions, and hierarchic levels.

Source: from Howlett and Ramesh (1995, Fig 18, adapted from Hall, 1993) . Network characteristics adapted from Scheffer et al. (2002:234)

Comparing Competitive and Collaborative Strategic Orientations

Concept/Feature	Competitive/Distributive	Collaborative/Integrative
Party’s goals	Maximise own share of benefits (individual gain)	Increase benefits for both sides (mutual gain)
Theory base	Game theory, economic utility, collective bargaining	Human relations, systems, problem solving, communication
Utility orientation	Individual	Joint
Motivation	Self-interest	Mutual-interest
Relationship worth	Minimal, present focus	High, future-oriented
Relationship perception	Adversary, rival, competitor	Collaborator, partner
Trust	Limited, guarded	High
Communication	Controlled, selective, purposeful, tactical	Open
Power	Individual-centred; coveted, sought	Shared; in relationship, process
Norm of Justice	Equity	Equality
Issue focus	Positions	Interests
Rules, procedures	Dictated by conflict structure or imposed	Generated by the parties

Source: adapted from Daniels & Walker** (2001:58-9)

Government Role in shifting from Adversarial to Collaborative decision-making

Decision-making Approach

Adversarial

Has its place, but does not always produce most fair or competent agreement

Consensual

Seen as more legitimate, especially when problem is technical, impacts uncertain and complex, or values in competition

Government Management Style

Managerial, ‘command and control’

Network Management

Type of policy change

Incremental Policy Change

Adversarial Paradigmatic Policy Change

Collaborative Paradigmatic Policy Change

Paradigm Shift

Original Paradigm

New Paradigm

Comments:

·        With Incremental and Adversarial policy dynamics, government policy brokers can maintain a "power and control" type of managerial style.

·        With a paradigmatic shift to the collaborative policy change dynamic, however, government’s management style is forced to shift from ‘managerial command and control’ to ‘network management’ if policy change is to occur without open conflict and adverse media attention

·        Policy brokers within government are often resistant to this shift because of perceived loss of power and control, even if long-term public interest is better served. In the long term, government officials who recognize that a fundamental shift is underway and willingly employ a network management approach will not only improve their ability to meet agency goals but will build a stronger support network in the process.

References:

* Salamon, L M (2002). 'The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action, an Introduction.' in L.M. Salamon & O.V. Elliott (ed), The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford University Press, New York.

** Daniels, S E & G B Walker (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach, Praeger, Westport, Conn.

[ Home ] [ Collaborative Facilitation ]