Key Term in the Collaborative Process

Collaboration is defined as (Chrislip, D. & Larson, C., 1994) a mutually beneficial relationship between parties who work toward common goals by sharing responsibility, authority, and accountability for achieving results. It goes beyond communication, cooperation, and coordination. Collaboration is more than simply sharing knowledge and information, and more than a relationship that helps each party achieve its own goals. It creates a shared vision and joint strategy to address concerns that go beyond the purview of any particular party (p.87).

Collaboration could foster positive dialogue between urban and suburban communities that have simultaneously witnessed decay. According to Dreier (1992), many big cities and inner-ring blue-collar suburbs share the same social, fiscal, and economic troubles such as widening income disparities, and rising poverty. In order to gain national attention to our faulting cities, urban organizations must build political bridges with suburban partners. However, unless suburbanites believe that they, too, have a stake in revitalizing cities, such sentiment is unlikely to prevail (p.8).

Collaborative Leadership is defined as effective teams developing an “action orientation” that promotes the habit of taking action, even in small ways, because as Chrislip and Larson (1994) points out “Action is more likely to succeed than inaction” (p.22). Furthermore, action keeps the ongoing learning cycle in motion which gains momentum. According to Leighninger, (2006) groups should be aware of the many arenas for action they have, including policy change, changing institutions, taking direct action in small groups, and just inspiring new ideas and new ways of seeing the world around them (p.14).

A good example of collaborative leadership is the success obtained by the Yosemite Corridor Safety Action Committee (Fulton, 2012). In 2005, residence from Denver and Aurora, Colorado united to solve a crime problem that frequently shifted back and forth across the various jurisdictional lines of a high immigrant and refugee population. Attempts to enforce the laws in one area pushed illegal activity such as prostitution, and drug dealing into another area. Yosemite Corridor Safety Action Committee formed as an effort to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood on both sides of the street. The Justice Department got involved and brought together twenty people from a range of organizations and agencies; housing providers, refugee service organization, community organizing groups, residents, the local city councilwoman’s office, and business associations.

At first, the purpose of the meeting was to help arrange a one-day technical assistance training workshop for refugees and for the service providers who work with them. However, group members quickly decided that they should continue to meet to discuss issues other than just planning the workshop. The next year, the Yosemite Corridor Safety Action Committee was created to set goals to reducing crime and improving sustainability and the quality of life for the neighborhood. They gathered for dinner, developed a joint vision for what they would like their community to be like, finalized goals, and established steering committees and focus groups to carry out plans to achieve it. Members were made up of residents and organizations that existed in the community within a twenty-by-twenty block area extending on both sides of Yosemite Street.

The steering committee was responsible for outreach, logistics, materials, and communications, gathering data, and meeting planning. Focus groups conducted dialogues from the view of at least one small group of people on some central questions. Dialogues also served as safe spaces to introduce what was for many a new way of talking and meeting together, that of collaboration. During the collaborative process members provided a meal and a space for conversation at restaurants and potluck dinners, in one another’s homes. Attendees were also offered a $5 gift card as an incentive to remain engaged in the sequence of conversations. Discussions evolved such as concerns in the community, and visions participants had for it.

Frequently, the conversation migrated to where participants were interested in taking it. Turnout was sufficient for three meetings; twenty people showed up and engaged in the dialogue. Eventually, agency representatives began attending because they were interested in understanding the service needs of Yosemite neighbors and as a contribution to the dialogues, the agency covered the costs of food and outreach. From these efforts, a summit was convened and lasted for four months, from May to August