Turf and Collaboration

One of the reasons most often given for not collaborating, or for the failure of collaborations, is turf. ...Yes, there is always the issue of boundaries of responsibility - a.k.a. turf - but, like conflict, these boundaries may give an opening for collaboration, not a closing. The boundaries of a clear organizational span of authority blur when an organization or a person enters a collaborative, yet the responsibilities remain intact. [People fear that when other groups or the collaborative itself enters or seeks to influence their turf they will loose their ability to meet their responsibilities or satisfy their interests.] Collaboratives are not intended to make responsibilities disappear; rather they are opportunities for the people in jobs, agencies, and neighborhood groups to rethink how those boundaries might overlap with others, or how the boundaries might be expanded to accomplish even more. Boundaries and turf lose their teeth as sustainability, economic viability, and successful outcomes replace them. (Morse,1996, p. 3)

Positions and Interests

Another way to think of boundaries and responsibilities is to think of positions and interests. A position is a particular stance taken by a party that offers a preferred solution to a problem. An interest is an intangible motivation (need, desire, concern or constraint) underlying the preferred solution. In a like sense an individual or groups turf or boundaries represent the position (or structure) they occupy in order to secure their interests (or fulfill their responsibilities). Some examples may help to illustrate these distinctions.

Example 1: Two individuals are sitting at mid-morning in a library room reading. The heat in the building was on during the cool preceding night. It is a breezy day. The main window for the room is open a small way. One person proposes closing the window because he is feeling cold. The other person proposes opening the window more in order to get more fresh air in the room.

The positions are: a. Close the window, b. Open the window further

The interests include: a. Restore body warmth, b. Increase fresh air

Example 2: The collaborative has $3,000 to spend and options on the table are hire staff, purchase computer equipment, or produce a public education video. Some parties have a sense of vested ownership in a particular option. Each option has different implications for the interests of various parties.

Example 3: The collaborative meets regularly from 7:30 to 8:30 am in a downtown Chamber of Commerce facility to accommodate work and office location preferences of downtown business representatives. Due to the short meeting time decisions are frequently made by the chair, a business representative. Some parties seek to change the meeting time, location, and, or chairperson to better satisfy their interests. Other parties seek to preserve the existing structure.

Example 4: One collaborative non-profit partner operates by securing funding through competitive grants. Their organization has established a reputation for serving low income clientele. Another state agency partner receives funding through general public revenues. They wish to give new and expanded attention to serving low income clientele. The first partner fears that programming of the second partner may threaten their viability as a prime funding candidate for low income services. The second partner seeks to build their programming by drawing on the contacts and experience of the first partner.

Often when discussing an issue, individuals focus their attention on only one or two solutions. As they move toward evaluation they view the discussion as a choice between alternative positions and quickly take sides. Because all their energies are concentrated on the two positions no effort is made to understand the interests behind the two positions. In such a contentious atmosphere the choice they face will likely lead to a win/lose outcome, an impasse, or a compromise that satisfies neither side.

By focusing on positions parties in a dispute:

• See only a predetermined way to solve a problem
• Don't understand the real interests of other parties
• Limit creative options

Collaborative Negotiation

A more constructive approach for resolving issues, including those around turf concerns can be to negotiate collaboratively (Smutko &Garber, 1998). This involves:

• Shifting the means parities use to influence each other from coercion to persuasion.
• Shifting the negotiation process from positional to interest based.
• Seeking inclusive (win-win) solutions to the extent possible.
• A collaborative discussion and negotiation that allows for an understanding of interests underlying positions:
  • moves people away from contending positions
  • promotes mutual education
  • allows a cooperative atmosphere to develop
  • sets the stage for reframing the issue (see below)
  • encourages the generation of multiple options
  • permits the search for a creative solution satisfying the most important interests of all parties

Framing and Reframing

How an issue is initially framed can greatly affect the parties problem solving perspectives and level of conflict. Many issues are initially framed as a debate. One of the most powerful ways of redirecting perspectives is to frame or reframe the initial issue as a search for an inclusive solution (Smutko & Garber, 1998). Reframing involves finding a common definition of the issue that is acceptable to all parties. For effective reframing to occur parties must have gained an understanding of their own interests and of the interests of the other parties involved. It is achieved by substituting the typical initial closed ended either-or question with an open-ended question that reflects the key interests of the parties involved. Secondly by shifting from a "Should We.." question to a 'How to..." question disputants are moved from debating the relative merits of their positions to focusing on searching for solutions.
A useful reframing formula is : How can we..., while at the same time...?

Example:

Framed by positions:

Question with one sided focus:

Should our county continue growing at its present pace bringing economic development and jobs?

Either-or Question:

Should our county continue growing at its present pace bringing economic development and jobs, or should we limit growth and preserve the qualities that make this area special?

Framed by interests:

How can we achieve the economic development potential of our region while preserving and protecting the amenities that make our area such a great place to live?

The Collaborative Negotiation Process

Negotiating collaboratively is not easy. It involves pulling back from one's pre-existing ideas about the problem and considering other ways of framing and solving it. And it involves shifting from divergent thinking where parties expand their understanding of the situation and possible solutions to convergent thinking where they seek to come to agreements that satisfy the key interests of all concerned. Kaner (1996) provides a helpful diagram of this process (see attachment). Then Fisher and Ury (1991) in another attachment offer some practical steps to be successful with four key elements of the process:

• Separate the People from the Problem
• Focus on Interests Not Positions
• Invent Options for Mutual Gain
• Use Objective Criteria

Kaner (1996) gives special attention to the difficulties people have in expanding and then contracting their perspectives. He calls this the Agroan zone and suggests some activities that can be helpful in traversing this zone (see third attachment).

Collaborative negotiation is also challenging because parties participate voluntarily and thus are always free to withdraw from the negotiation and use other independent means to resolve the dispute. It is helpful if each party recognizes the alternatives they have to negotiating an agreement. In addition they will be best able to satisfy their interests if they have considered which of those alternatives is best and worst from the standpoint of meeting their interests and which is most likely to occur in the absence of a negotiated agreement.

Outside Help

Finally parties in collaborative negotiation are well advised to consider the merits of securing outside help if their efforts acting on their own are unlikely to yield constructive results.

Schoene and DuPraw (1994) describe three types of outside help:
facilitation, mediation and conciliation. 

Facilitation: An impartial facilitator helps a group structure constructive face -to- face discussions with full and active participation of all parties in the analysis and resolution of an issue. The facilitator serves as a catalyst, but stakeholders determine the outcome - whether there is an agreement and the content of the agreement. 

Mediation: An impartial mediator also helps a group structure constructive discussion with full and active participation. This process is used when issues are fairly polarized and parties are at a relatively high level of confrontation. For this reason the process is more structured. A mediator is also more likely to suggest possible bases for agreement, sometimes drafting a working document which is modified through discussions with the parties. Also a mediator may assist parties in communicating with their constituents or the general public.

Conciliation: An impartial conciliator assists parties in conflict to develop enough respect for each other to participate constructively in a non-violent conflict resolution process. Conciliation is not designed to resolve a conflict. Conciliation usually involves venting of feelings over perceived past wrongs committed by various parties. It's goal is to move the relationship of conflicting parties from one focused on personal animosity to one focused on legitimate, but apparently conflicting interests, values and needs.

Questions to Ask

When you see parties to an existing or potential collaboration reacting to each other in defensive ways and you suspect a turf issue the following questions may help you develop a constructive resolution.

• Is it a turf issue? This is important because defenses go up when it is.
• How "close to home" is the turf in question? (greater defenses close to home)
• Is the issue between: - two or more parties
• 1 or more parties and the collaborative itself
• If the issue is between two or more parties:
  • what can be done to assure safety/integrity of the turf security of parties?
  • how can reframing around interests be introduced? (By whom, when, where, with what messages related to each parties perspective)
  • If the issue is between 1 or more parties and the collaborative:
    • what can be done to clarify:
    • the non-turf role of the collaborative?
• the collaboratives orientation to relation building, inclusive solutions?
• what can be done to recognize and address the turf implications the collaborative does have for other parties?

Summary

Turf concerns arise naturally when parties attempt to work together to discover new shared approaches to improving their communities. Simple communication of the real purposes of collaboration helps resolve many turf concerns. For tougher issues a process of collaborative negotiation based on discovering solutions that meet key interests of all parties can be an effective strategy that offers better results than conflict, impasse, or compromise.

Sources:

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2^nd Edition. New York: Penguin Books.

Kaner, S. et. al. (1996) Facilitator=s Guide to Participatory Decision Making, Gabriola Island , British Columbia: New Society Publishers

Morse, S. (1996) Building Collaborative Communities, Charlottesville, VA: Pew Partnership for Civic Change

Schoene, L. & DuPraw, M. (1994) Facing Racial and Cultural Conflict: Tools for Rebuilding Communities, Washington, D.C. : Program for Community Problem Solving

Smutko, S. & Garber, S. (1998) Public Dispute Resolution and Participatory Decision-Making, Faculty Inservice Training, University of Wisconsin-Extension. (Authors from North Carolina State University)

Prepared by Boyd Rossing, Community Development Specialist, School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 1998.

Home Building Learning Our Ways Site Index
	Please email Boyd Rossing, content author with comments. Please email Paula Godkin, web author with comments © 2000 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension.