3. Qualitative Collaborations

3.0 Introduction

In practice, we observe a significant need for a procedural guide in shaping collaborations in the cultural sector. In this chapter, we focus not on the content and concept itself, but specifically on strategies that facilitate the seamless creation of that content. Instead of zooming in on the process, I would like to zoom out, revealing the intersections between the disciplines. After which we can zoom in to see which parameters affect the fundamental. This is not about project management; rather, it is centered on the interaction between the two collaborating partners.

Networks and collectives have proven to be of significant strategic value for many individual musicians. However, numerous questions persist about successful collaboration. The central question is how to shape the collaboration process from an idea to implementation: which phases do you go through, and which effective collaboration strategies do you apply? A created compass can provide a solution. In this chapter, the research dives deeper into three conceptual models that tell us something about collaborations: ‘het Kompas’ (Bremekamp et al., 2010), ‘the five dysfunctions of a team’ (Lencioni, 2002) and the ‘forming–storming–norming–performing model of group development’ (Tuckman, 1965).  

3.1 Various interests significance musicians & theatre performers

According to Twynstra and Gudde (z.d.), establishing sustainable collaborative relationships is complex. This complexity is largely driven by uncertainty. Professionals from different disciplines contribute a part of their autonomy to the collaborative relationship, which hopefully leads to added value in the long term. In successful collaboration processes, partners achieve shared meaning and ambition through mutual interaction, with the interests of the parties driving the process. An interest reflects the degree of importance or magnitude of a certain value. The greater the interest, the more important someone thinks something is or the more valuable it is to them. People can also have conflicting interests, which they are sometimes not always aware of (Webba, z.d.-a). For this study, an attempt was made to divide the interests into five types: artistic, educational, professional, cultural, and audience-oriented.

Interests of a musician in collaboration with theatre, specified for family performances:

1. Artistic interest:

• Enrichment of musical expression: instrumental music adds a profound, layered and timeless dimension to performance, providing more opportunities for dialogue formation, theatricalization and complex emotional expression.
• Cultural preservation: incorporating instrumental music into family performances can help preserve heritage and tradition. Especially if there is a focus on classical music or world music for example.

2. Educational Interest:

• Musical education: Culturally engaging different types of instrumental music in theatre offers educational value by exposing audiences, especially younger generations, to the richness and diversity of compositions and performances beyond their existing and already created frame of reference.

3. Professional Interest:

• Career opportunities for musicians: musicians will have new opportunities to showcase their skills in a wider artistic context, boosting their career and fame.
• Working conditions: good work-life balance with pay according to fair practice code.

4. Cultural interest:

• Bridging cultural gaps: instrumental music can bridge different cultural elements in a performance, creating a harmonious interplay between different traditional and innovative artistic expressions.

5. Audience-oriented interest:

• Increased art appreciation: Integrating different types of instrumental music can give audiences a deeper understanding and appreciation of the complexity and beauty of various compositions, increasing overall cultural literacy.

Interests of an actor in collaboration with a musician, specified for family performances:

1. Artistic interest:

• Strengthening theatrical elements: instrumental music enhances the theatrical elements by strengthening dramatic storylines and emotional impact, adding artistic depth to the performance.
• Visual aspects and scenography: theatre can synchronize visual elements with musical highlights, contributing to a more immersive and coordinated visual and aural experience.
• Emotional resonance: instrumental music adds emotional depth to characters and situations, enhancing the audience's emotional connection.
• Theatrical expression and movement: instrumental music enables choreographed movements synchronized with musical rhythms, enhancing theatrical expression. Both the singing and the speaking voice provide a certain timbre and rhythm. (Lehman, 1999).
• Creative artistic freedom: theatre makers gain an additional creative layer by collaborating with classical music, leading to more opportunities for innovative and unique performances.
• Experimenting with theatrical styles: collaboration opens the door to experiment with different theatrical styles, such as integrating operatic elements or exploring classical musical theatre.

2. Educational interest:

• Transfer of theatrical traditions knowledge: the collaboration can serve as an educational experience where theatrical traditions and techniques are shared with the audience, and vice versa.

3. Professional Interest:

• Expanding creative possibilities: instrumental music offers theatre makers an additional creative layer to work with, creating more opportunities for innovative and unique presentations.
• Working conditions: good work-life balance with pay according to fair practice code.

4. Cultural Interest:

• Historical and cultural representation: it can be an artistic challenge to bring complex and rich cultural themes to the stage to enhance the impact of theatre work.

5. Audience interest:

• More engaging experience: The audience benefits from a more immersive and emotionally charged experience through the integration of instrumental music in theatre.

Twynstra and Gudde conclude that many collaboration processes share common phases. Recognizing that collaboration processes often unfold unpredictably and are far from completely controllable, they have considered the following guideline: for practicality, we have visualized the model linearly. However, the transition to the next phase is not unconditional. The process is not solely 'forward.' It will feel sometimes feel more cyclic, like reoccurring events, negotiations, and solutions. The five phases they distinguish can almost be directly applied to a collaboration between musicians- and theatre performers. I want to create a new conceptual model by linking existing information to our own knowledge and wisdom from practice. After that contextualizing to increase coherence, understanding and meaning. For that I will explain the features and core aspects of the model ‘het Kompas’ of Bremekamp. In the end, we will visually represent a new conceptual model in Chapter 3.6.

1. Phase 1: exploring the situation

• Aim: To understand the interests of involved parties and the context of collaboration
• Implicit and explicit interests determine attitudes, wishes and actions. Lack of clarity can later lead to unexpected and frustrating behavior.
• Involved parties strive to understand the ambitions, challenges and desired direction of collaboration of potential partners.
• The tangible result as a starting point for subsequent phases: a starting document or presentation of findings, which provides insight into interests and ambitions.

2. Phase 2: sharing interests and ambitions

• Aim: go beyond understanding interests and refining the meaning of collaboration.
• The conversation becomes deeper and more focused: open discussion of views and ongoing refinement of the meaning of collaboration.
• Shared images reduce language confusion and form a common understanding.
• Field studies are conducted to understand context, market, forms of cooperation and finances.
• Results determine the focus of the next phase.
• Tangible result: a declaration of intent, describing joint ambitions, initial agreements and next steps.

3. Phase 3: agreeing on course and direction

• Aim: translate shared views into agreements on course and direction.
• Failure to agree often leads to confusion, mistrust or superficial cooperation.
• Negotiation and cooperation are not opposites; constructive negotiation is inevitable and aligns interests.
• Approach with mutual benefits (increasing the 'pie') instead of just compromising. This requires a different process and behaviour from parties.
• Tangible result: negotiated agreements.

4. Phase 4: Shaping the solution

• Aim: parties work on the content and form of the cooperation, which includes disagreements, negotiations, successes and setbacks.
• The nature of cooperation often changes after agreement is reached (phase 3), focusing on shaping.
• Sincere interest in each other's problems is crucial.
• External parties may be brought in for specific tasks.
• Result: Concretely structured cooperation with personnel, responsibilities and work program.

5. Phase 5: Executing and innovating a collaboration

• Goal: agreements are implemented and turned into tangible results.
• The outcome of collaboration is managed as a routine process, but new opportunities or external developments may arise.
• Effective process management is crucial because of the essential characteristics of collaboration.
• Evaluation and renewal are essential for long-term cooperation.

^{Figure 1 : 'het kompas': the five phases of the collaboration process (Bremekamp et al., 2010)}

These five phases provide insight into the staging and status of the collaboration: where we are, which steps we have or have not taken, and which issues are currently being addressed. It is helpful for agenda setting, providing guidance on the next steps to be taken, identifying key considerations, and outlining the requirements for roles and the nature of the conversation about collaboration. Finally, it also serves as an analytical framework. Twystra and Gudde frequently observe that parties in a collaborative process may skip or neglect certain steps. By phasing the process and recognizing the interconnectedness of these phases, an analytical framework is provided.

3.3 The role of interaction in collaborations

Simultaneously, within the collaborative framework, complex interactions occur among individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences. Interaction is the way individuals relate to each other and influence each other's behavior. Successfully collaborating is easier said than done. People's behavior in collaborative relationships is influenced by various complex considerations and external factors. Openness is crucial, but when can you lay all your interests on the table?

The meaningful interaction required to sustain the collaborative process makes the difference between dialogue and collaboration. Twynstra and Gudde offer five recommendations that hold significance in any collaborative process:

1. Expanding the reservoir of trust:

• Trust is seen as the key to the success of collaboration, but it does not arise naturally. It needs to be built and confirmed through genuine interest, openness, transparency, reliability and consistency. This requires appropriate attitudes and behavior from all involved.

2. Recognize and use power differences:

• Power differences strongly influence interaction and opportunities. Understanding power mechanisms is essential as people tend to maintain or increase their power (downward power) or reduce the power gap (upward power).

3. Embracing conflict:

• Conflict is inevitable in collaboration, but it can be used to give meaning to the collaboration. It is important to understand conflicts and consciously choose between escalation and de-escalation, while also recognising the psychological aspects of collaboration.

4. Encourage connecting leadership:

• Leadership is crucial for initiating collaboration, even when it is not clear who the 'leader' is. Sometimes a mediator is needed to keep the process going and let go of selfish interests.

5. Ensuring value creation:

• Successful collaboration requires not only looking after each other's interests, but also ensuring that all parties add value and gain from it. Striving for win-win situations is the key to maximizing benefits for all involved.

^{Figure 2: The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (Lencioni, 2002)} 

The Pyramid (five phases)

The pyramid illustrates the foundation of effective teamwork and how it can be built upon. Lencioni argues in his book that teams experience five layers of 'frustrations' and can only progress up the pyramid once they have moved beyond the previous layers. These layers are:

1. Trust: when trust is absent, the team will not perform well. To build trust, it's important to be open. What are you good at? What are your weaknesses? Being able to admit mistakes is also part of building trust. According to Lencioni, trust is the foundation of teamwork.
2. Conflicts: conflicts are not only inevitable in a good team, but they are also necessary. Sometimes clashes are needed to arrive at the best solution. If handled respectfully and constructively, your team is effectively addressing this step of the pyramid.
3. Commitment: when healthy conflicts are allowed, decisions made will have more support. After all, everyone has had their say. Because everyone participates and feels comfortable expressing their opinions, team members commit to the chosen path.
4. Accountability: when people have committed to the goals, are honest, and trust each other, they will take responsibility and hold each other accountable for their actions. Shortcomings are acknowledged and openly discussed, which leads to better results.
5. Results: well-functioning organizations focus on achieving the right results. In a poorly functioning team, members are not sufficiently focused on results or are focused on the wrong ones. For example, team members may be overly concerned with their own profile or budgets. An effective team focuses on shared goals and achieving them.

3.5 Tuckman’s model

Bruce Tuckman initially distinguished four developmental stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. (Redactie Insights, z.d.). Later, he added another phase: Adjourning or Farewell. These stages help you understand why things are going the way they are within the team and serve as a useful framework for a good team discussion. Each stage is associated with recognizable feelings and behaviors, as well as tasks that the team needs to accomplish. In the early stages, the team primarily focuses on social-emotional tasks, while in the later stages, the focus shifts to task-oriented ones. A crisis can cause a team to regress to a previous stage or even move forward. According to Tuckman, for a team to truly be successful, it must pass through all stages. This includes establishing clear team goals, assigning roles, and even engaging in constructive conflicts, as these are all part of specific phases. Teams may not always progress through these stages in a fixed sequence and sometimes get stuck in a particular phase. Scott Grafius (z.d.) updated the model with a different color for each phase, which stands for the characteristics of the five different phases.

Tuckman's model helps pinpoint what may be going wrong in such cases. Tuckman describes the following phases (see figure):

^{figure 3: Phases of Team Development (Grafius, 2022)}

Phase 1: Forming (Orientation Phase) - There are individuals forming a group, but there's no group or team feeling yet. Individual positions and roles have not been established. Group members take a wait-and-see attitude and need direction (course/task) and leadership (who leads?).

Phase 2: Storming (Power Phase) - In this phase, group members try to establish their position within the group. This process often leads to conflict as the ideas of group members may clash. Questions arise about who holds the power? Informal and organized leadership emerge.

Phase 3: Norming (Affection/Norming Phase) - Group members come closer together. Agreements, rules, and methods of collaboration are determined. Common team goals are shared and established. There's a transition to a more mature way of collaboration, focusing on both relationships and tasks.

Phase 4: Performing (Performance Phase) - The team is now functional. Team members complement each other and collaborate towards the common team goal. The team is capable of working independently and addressing potential problems.

Phase 5: Adjourning (Farewell Phase) - The team is dissolved. Variations include: the team disbands, members leave and/or new members join; leadership changes within the team, the team's mission changes requiring different qualities and competencies. The team reverts to being a group and may fall back into one of the previous phases.

3.6 Cyclic knowledge sharing model

Schedules and models create an illusion of grip; they only take away your view of reality. This model is no more than this, but also no less. I want to give (artistic) leaders a tool to help them determine their direction and stay on course. The essence of the artistic leader's work is to work with their team to turn an idea into reality. The difficulty here is not in the idea - ideas aplenty - but in the reality. We work at a time when the artistic leader and team do not see each other daily. We work much of the time at the client's premises or on the road or at home, and, thanks to the Internet, are in constant interaction with the world outside our own organization.

So the "Cycling Sharing Knowledge" model helps the artistic leader and team set their course, and stay the course. Not to choose the goal, because you can only do that yourself. Reality is fickle and unpredictable, and therefore the most likely outcome, if we are heading somewhere with our organization, is that we end up near that goal. Never quite exactly, but close. Along the way, you encounter all kinds of things: whether they are obstacles that you have to get around or unexpected vistas. This can also change the image of where you want to go. A rigid diagram or model would then protest, would preclude that outcome. The visual model is determined by the relationship of 2 factors: trust and knowledge sharing. These factors were determined based on practical experience and the research from Chapter 3. This Linear model shows a cyclical feeling in which 5 phases are distinguished.

3.7 Conclusion

In examining different models for effective collaboration within the cultural sector, several key insights emerge. "The Compass" by Bremekamp et al (2010) emphasises the importance of understanding the interests and ambitions of all parties involved, with cooperation being guided by five different phases. This model highlights the need for negotiation, constructive cooperation and structured collaboration with clear responsibilities and work programmes. Similarly, "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" by Lencioni (2002) identifies five layers of team dysfunction, highlighting the importance of trust as a foundation and the importance of healthy conflict, commitment, accountability and result-oriented focus in building effective teams. Finally, Tuckman's (1965) "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing Model of Group Development" distinguishes the 5 stages of team development, offering insights into recognising and navigating the challenges inherent in team development and collaboration, from setting team goals and roles to achieving high performance.

Integrating these insights from various models introduces the new "Cyclic Knowledge Sharing Model", emphasises the cyclical nature of collaboration, highlighting five phases: lack of awareness, recognition of knowledge need, search for knowledge, sharing knowledge, and integrated knowledge sharing. This model offers a practical overview for artistic leaders and teams to navigate the complexities of collaboration, promoting trust, effective communication, and continuous improvement within organisations.

next page