So competition may be a result of the inability of sector members to cooperate or collaborate with each other. If they cannot cooperate, have they forgotten a basic principle of mutuality in the sector? We heard from few respondents that there was some cooperation but the examples cited often seemed to be about superficial relationships. More often examples of cooperation were also about everything that had nothing to do with funding and resources. Once funding was mooted members seemed to go into vested self-interest mode.

Given the interweaving nature of relationships among all issues identified in the sector (and all relating to leadership and management), it would seem facile to explain the unwanted consequences of competition as a lack of collaboration or a jaundiced view of cooperation in the sector.

Put another way, the lack of cooperation also raises the question of just how transparent members of the Social Economy are in their dealings with each other. Given that the individuals and organisations are working for the benefit of society, one might expect transparency (and its associated values of trust, mutuality and participatory democracy) in the sector. Building transparency rather than engaging in competitive behaviours would seem to lead Social Economy members to improved impact of organisations or programs. If the Social Economy were productively and cooperatively engaged with itself would this lead to less wastage of resources and consequent increased impact? And does working at a superficial and largely unproductive level reduce interaction of members within the sector?

Finally, as one participant in a Thought Leadership Forum commented, the etymology of the word collaboration indicates that the original meaning of the idea was “collaboration with the enemy” - and this seems to be borne out in members comments when issues of funding and resources are raised!

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)