Relationship Between Collaboration and Innovativeness: A Case Study In an Innovative Organization Track: Human Resource Management

code Reflections on how collaboration happened in the Organization Explicitation of viewpoints There is an open dispute for the best ideas in order to convince the other area on the best decision to be made. To do that, a dialogue is encouraged and conflicts between departments are exposed. ́You have to be exhaustive, always feel that the other is important, that another area is important, not only your area. ( ... ) Everyone has to have his strong conviction, if not, things don ́t happen, then it will bring a failure.` (S 15). Mobilizing leadership There is an assertive style from whom that assumes the role with his team to take firmly an argument or point of view that mobilizes people and areas. Thus it sustains a culture of encouragement to viewpoints expressed objectively and based on rational arguments. `He imposed the mission of to be a company that launches innovative new products (...) So it begins a digestion through the vice presidents, directors, through a charge to have an innovative.` (S 11) . Preservation The preservation of areas of expertise involves the assertion of technical knowledge as a source of power, around a set of practices and procedures that reinforce the language and practice of a given area based on the conviction of an intellectual superiority. `( ... ) one is too focused on reality, very down to earth, and the other lives in the stars (...) Engineering who have a little more down to earth, are dreamers, but not as much as designers.` (S 9). Interaction among people and areas Difficulties of integration relates to the pace in which decisions are taken at the time and in the appropriate level of detail. The lack of pace is more evident due to information that was not provided at the right time or the resistance of the areas in comprehending limitations and requirements. `Many steps have been skipped and we ended up with a shorter time, so I think that while there is a process, I think that in practice, things end up being kind of run over.` (S 5) Openness to experience There are stimulus to generate ideas and trial and error, especially from the leaders. This stimulation is more evident in encouraging pairs of the same area but not necessarily in another area. `(...) you just make mistakes when you do something, then this is the message that we receive, you have to try.` (S 1). `We are not shy, we go along, sit, discuss and we will go forward always.` (S 14). Involvement and detachment There is high involvement and willingness to contribute, which leads to a greater willingness to interact and help each other in another area. The individual is motivated by the satisfaction of donating to a level that leads to sacrifice for others. `I called the lab manager and said, "I need you to do me a workout," and he picked the best person he had and left me all morning learning every component or system , and I came to the meeting with a very clear information (...) ́ (S 6). Alignment of goals Goals and objectives are agreed and shared at regular monitoring meetings and constructed to encourage integration between areas and make collaboration the best way out to get a result. `Nothing is left out and you do not get there in the end of the project to realize you forget to evaluate an important aspect of the project, or an idea, or something along those lines (...) It is important have the assurance that what you will really deliver the need of what has been identified as an opportunity (...) (S 14). Complicity There is a confirmation of expectations, promises built over time, that exposes participants to share information. There is relaxation of formalization turns into shortcuts in a process. ́ If I promise I 'll call and say: "look happened a problem, I will send you tomorrow, " ( ... ) It generates proximity, this gives openness that allows to discuss things that actually needs to be discussed (S 2). We have a lot of confidence in the quality (of work) made by the others ( ...) This is what gives us security and also reduces the level of friction (S 17). Cohesion There is a closeness of values, beliefs and behaviors, which may extend from a professional category to personal ties of friendship. `They work very synchronized in the mission of the company and they give us lots of autonomy to work in order to make great things happen ( ...) being very open among them and very familiar with the product`. (S 11). Complementarity There is little willingness to combine efforts and interests around differences, which may be associated with areas of knowledge or beliefs and values. `It lacks synergy with other areas (...) we understand those areas work at different paces (...) we still need to find a way of passing the bat, who is the project owner, who was and who will design, to make it happen in a natural way (S 6). Access to information and people who hold information There is good access to people who hold information, dependent on the hyerachical level . The technology that allows access is a precondition to cooperate. `I think that information is power, but I think the information here is still pretty much stuck in Executive and Managerial level, some information that would be very important for the team to come down (S 4). Risk exposure There is a greater willingness among participants to take risks and share. `They came up with a totally new, breakthrough, differentiated proposal that would shake with Engineering. It was a fuss and we from Marketing loved it, we enjoyed this innovative proposal because it was to break up (...) (S 4). Disposition to share There is little shared language between areas. Participants do not always build a common knowledge, which encompasses both the intellectual and the emotional field. '(...) Each area wants to value its own work and also wants to work very closed, with a very local view (...) without looking, for example, another area that needs to perform its work very well. (S 7). The fourth step encompassed the interpretive stage, with a second reading of the definitions of the coding system. It had the purpose of specifying more clearly the indicators of each of the sub-factors and the generation of a new synthesis. This implied the construction of a new naming system of factors and sub factors that influence collaboration and a set of associated indicators. The interpretation procedure was also enriched with the reading of the definitions of the coding system, so that the indicators of each of the sub-factors that influence collaboration were clearly specified. Table 5 summarizes this interpretative effort, describing the evolution in the denomination of the factors through the construction of a new naming system of factors and sub-factors that influence collaboration and a set of associated indicators. Table 5– Factors and sub factors that influence Collaboration and associated indicators New denomination of factors and sub factors that influence Collaboration Associated indicators Flexibility: Involves continuous adjustments of expectations around different perspectives in high tension load interactions. • Ability to build commitments and agreements • Degree of risk sharing • Degree of sharing goals • Degree of willingness to change • Degree of encouragement for explanation of differences • Ability to engage in situations of disagreement • Degree of persistence in defending a point of view Reciprocity: Continuous building of social ties grown around positive expectations of trust and reciprocity. • Degree of positive expectations of reciprocity • How obligations are met and expectations are met • How much one takes advantage of another in situations of vulnerability • Degree of informality • Number of shortcuts around formalized processes Congruence: Shared vision based on clear expectations, goals, roles and responsibilities that brings a sense of identification. • Degree of openness and involvement in decision making • Degree of consistency in decisions • To what extent an individual shares knowledge • To what extent roles and responsibilities are defined Access: There are persons who have access to information. Technology infrastructure is adequate, but the technology that allows access to information is a precondition to collaborate. • Degree of access to people • Degree of access to information Mobilization: The leader ensures the legitimacy to manage resources and manage tensions inherent to collaboration when combines assertiveness and courage to take risks. • Ability to align people to a goal • Degree of information sharing • How much encourages team autonomy • How the leader encourages staff to venture • The degree of technical mastery Transparency: Informal interaction lines between members using information channels molded by transparency, with explicitness of differences, in an open and constructive atmosphere. • Degree of informal social relations Selflessness: Degree of support and mutual aid in the workplace, which is revealed in the interdependence of individuals. This results in donation, risk taking and moving away from the established rules. • Degree of longevity of relationships • Degree of willingness to help • Degree of respect between individuals • Degree of willingness to ask for help • In what context one benefits the other beyond what is necessary, required or expected • Degree of anticipation of a need • Relationship between the length of an experience and a willingness to help Openness: Flexibility and stimulating environment for creating shared, which provides openness to ideas, but sensitive to resource constraints. • Degree of reworked ideas • Openness to criticism • Level of fault tolerance • Openness to new ideas • Degree of tolerance to lack of resources • Degree of tolerance for taking risks Self-sufficiency: Movements of affirmation between individuals and areas, taking into account the need for autonomy and preservation. • Degree of freedom for decision • Degree of explicitness of viewpoints • Degree of delineation of roles and responsibilities • Degree of acceptance of paradigms from other fields of knowledge • Degree of attachment to their own field of expertise Sharing: Process of exchange and combination of shared interests, complementary or homogeneous, in an interdependence that supports the combination of diverse interests. • Degree of knowledge sharing • Degree of tolerance to behavioral differences • The degree to which each one is perceived to belong to a group • Level of openness to the power of others