Collaboration and Natural Instinct

Our topic for this week's blog post asks a fascinating question: Do you believe that humans have a basic instinct to interact and work as a group? Using the Tragedy of the Commons and the Prisoner's Dilemma as a base for individualistic activity, Rheingold (2008) makes a strong argument for the power of collaboration in his TED Talk on the same topic. He pulls in examples, such as Toyota's coaching of its suppliers and collaborative Bittorrent streams, to make the claim that collective action is growing in ways that increase the efficiency and productivity of individuals in groups.

To return to our question, however, as to whether humans have a basic instinct to interact and work as a group, I think that the answer is not a simple yes or no. I'd argue that humans have a basic instinct to socialize, and an extension of that socialization may be interaction as a group. However, I'd argue that humans also have a fundamental instinct to act in their own self interests, as evidenced by Rheingold's (2008) articulation of studies that show that humans will by and large desecrate common resources. To argue then, that interaction and cooperation are instinctive is clearly overstating the case. They are not.

Complicating this issue further is the role of groups in society. One could argue that mothers, for example, have an instinctive protective response for their children. Is this evidence of a basic instinct to interact, or is it an extension of the human need for survival?

Also, it's very easy to mash together words like cooperation, collaboration, and collective action into a stew where each term means the same thing. Using these terms interchangeably, however, muddies the issue. When we look at human interaction in more detail, we find that what is often termed as collaboration or cooperation, is in reality individuals each working alone to produce a collective product. Collective action is not the same thing as cooperation. Most examples that are touted as cooperation are in fact individual actions, cumulatively producing a product. For example, my direct supervisor loves to present a graphic on the construction of a modern aircraft as an example of cooperation and collaboration, where multiple entities work together to produce a plane. However, when you look at what actually happens, what you begin to realize is that it is in fact each company acting individually to produce a product that in turn gets assembled into a final product. Collective action, then, in most cases, is the sum of individual actions only thinly connected by any semblance of cooperation.

What is clear, however, is that there can be powerful benefits to times when groups truly cooperate. Anyone who has played on a sports team where the team must truly coordinate actions in order to succeed knows the true power and force of actual cooperation. Similarly, orchestras, where musical timing and a strong awareness of the group's actions are necessary to achieve success, must know the magic that lies in strong, interdependent group action.

What is remarkable now is the opportunity we have to cooperate and collaborate in ways that would have been unthinkable a mere ten years ago. Technology plays a big role in this enhanced collaboration. There are two ways this happens. First, technology now grants us connections to information and people that create an ease and opportunity for collaboration that greatly enhances its likelihood. If anyone remembers the early days of online video conferencing, for example, when good connections were extremely rare, and most conversations were like Maxwell Smart using the Cone of Silence, you can appreciate how much more communication and collaboration happens because video conferencing for the most part works now.

It's better now.

Second, technology also facilitates collaboration with its impressive array of tools for collaboration and sharing of content. The most pronounced example of this in our organization is the explosion in use of Google Docs that allows us to cooperatively create and share data to a degree unimaginable five years ago.

Research supports collaboration as an effective tool for learning in education, as evidenced by numerous studies. One such study (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008) highlights the power behind professional learning communities (PLCs) in educational settings. This meta-analysis of several studies on PLCs showed that PLCs have a positive impact on student learning.

References:
Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), pp. 80-91. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/dvK2P

Photo Attribution:
Yuan2003, via flickr, Creative Commons. Thanks!