FROM: Gilhan Yoo (09/17/98)

SUBJECT: critic

[Reply | Send a personal message to Gilhan Yoo]

I think that collaborative leardership is beneficial on the base of stable democratic society. If the

society is unstable, I think that is harmful. Especially, If we consider about economical

effectiveness and development, collaborative work is wasteful. Dictatorship argue that democracy

must keep back for the purpose of economical effectiveness and developement. Is it right? I'm

confusing. Please give me a answer.

REPLIES (3): [ Hide Replies ]

FROM: larry kushner (09/19/98) [ Send a personal message to larry kushner]

SUBJECT: collaboration/democracy

Gilhen,

Collaboration creates consensus. When people reach consensus, efficiency occurs. Also,

there are two forms of democracy; direct and representative. Direct democracy can

usually be found in very small towns and used in very small organizations. The

representative form was created to make the democratic process more efficient.

FROM: Pamela Pulkowski (09/19/98) [ Send a personal message to Pamela Pulkowski]

SUBJECT: From Compliance to Collaboration

I don't believe that collaboration is limited to democratic societies; the journal article

addresses the change in leadership models based on human psychology. Compliance

doesn't necessarily mean that an individual accepts or agrees with a leader; compliance

simply means that a person is externally following a more powerful individual. Compliance

is short-lived; eventually the human personality will be expressed. How else does one

explain the revolts, rebellions, revolutions throughout history? Collaboration allows

individuals to have a sense of ownership, a vested interest in an organization or institution.

Expression can only be surpressed through compliance for a limited time.

FROM: Daniel Kennedy (09/21/98) [ Send a personal message to Daniel Kennedy]

SUBJECT: In response

[Edit]

As in many things, it may just be that the intent or the reason drives the mechanism.

Sometimes quick decisions or decisions made without input need to be made, without a

great deal of deliberation, but these don't make for good long term decisions.

Collaborative effort, even by diverse groups working toward a common goal (and in some

cases just developing a goal--not knowing if it's common or not) lend themselves to

outcomes that tend to last longer and are more readily adjusted. For instance, many

decisions that appear to be made without any input from those who are left to carry them

out often are 'adjusted' by the actual interpretation and implementation (for example, the

US congress passes legislation aimed at improving the delivery of financial aid in higher

education, but the Department of Education --the folks who implement the regulations --

spends a great deal of time 'interpreting' and 'implementing' what congress meant).

I'd like to think of collaboration as an ongoing process. In collaboration with others, you

begin to understand the position of others (you may not agree with it), and you begin to

understand the consequences and relationships that often you just can't get by interacting

with yourself. It's the difference between passively aquiring and processing information or

policy and then trying to 'find it's meaning' internally or 'grasping' the basics which you can

use to 'react' based on your own view or having an active 'understanding' of your view as it

relates to others. Collaboration enables you to practice the difficult move from reaction to

understanding.