Collaboration Ecology

The Challenge of the 21st Century

By Mushin J. Schilling

What is collaboration?

Collaboration, as we understand it, is a process whereby two or more parties work together
closely to achieve mutual beneficial outcomes.
Collaboration is easily confused with but greatly differs from cooperation. When people,
organizations or companies cooperate there is really no need to jointly develop shared
understandings and trust; in cooperation it is enough that participants, for instance, simply
execute instructions willingly or do what they agreed upon previously. Also in cooperation the
desired outcome is relatively clear, whereas in collaboration it is mostly unpredictable although
all partners in the collaborative effort are certain that what will be realized far outweighs what
could be produced individually or in mere cooperation.
Clearly collaboration is a much more complex and demanding process than cooperation, and this
also because it relies heavily on trust and a joint commitment to shared understandings or values.

It is equally important to differentiate what in this article is understood as collaboration from

what is seen as such in the Internet. If you google collaboration you will get around 167 million
documents to choose from. Skimming the first 100 or so it seems obvious that collaboration is
generally regarded as “the sum of all logical and target group oriented workflows in and between
companies” to cite one document. The ‘net is full of so called collaboration-software and tools.
But it is very clear that what is regarded as collaboration is what we covered above as being
cooperation, “working together on something”, where it could simply be enough to execute
instructions willingly.

In this article by collaboration we mean a process where two or more people and/or
organisations work together by jointly developing shared understandings and building enough
trust to share knowledge, processes and activities in alignment with common values, intentions
and/or goals or a vision which is typically creative/innovative in nature.

Collaboration and competition

The dominant collective culture in most parts of the

world today, and particularly in the United States, is a
star culture in which “the winner takes it all; the loser has
to fall” (Abba). In today’s economic world business
leaders, entrepreneurs, CEOs, brokers, financiers etc, are
typically portrayed as a star, even though the
accomplishment and profit of any organisation or business is obviously created by everybody
engaged in it. Promoting a business leader as a star may produce a momentary marketing
advantage, but – as will become obvious in this article – collaboration creates a much greater and
most of all sustainable business value, and more than that produces social coherence and
community: collaboration produces wealth in every respect. The star culture and its incessant
competition might create individual fortunes but it does so by creating many losers in its wake,
our planetary environment obviously being one of them. The star culture is driven by and drives
the sense of isolation and disconnectedness from a larger whole by mythologizing the individual
and his or her achievements – which are seen as the result of competing well. This is most likely
a major obstacle to be surmounted if we want a sustainable future for a flourishing planet and an
open society. Contrary to the myths our star culture perpetuate, people working in collaboration
achieve far greater and sustainable successes than individuals, even if we narrow down the
meaning of success to be solely economic.

But even so, a collaborative culture doesn’t

oppose competition and the star culture, it just
surpasses it in every respect except ego-
gratification. Collaboration is a major step
beyond egotism, nepotism, feudalism and any
vertical leadership structure – not to mention
bureaucracy and adolescent’s games. All of
these are rooted in pyramidal systems where
the many carry and enrich those on the next,
narrower level and compete to become one of
them. People and organisations having chosen
a collaborative culture do recognize, and even honour the fact that competition has its historical
mission to play in society and the development of individuals and organisations.
Star culture and competition belongs to an era or developmental stage where humanity is
convinced that there is not enough for everybody, where resources, due to a lack of knowledge
and know-how, are thought to be limited. In the epoch we are embarking upon – often and
appropriately called the knowledge-society1 – it is obvious that we will be doing more and more
with less and less, exponentially so.
In this new century knowledge has become the main resource helping us to achieve the very
exponential growth we face today, which could, for instance, very easily lead to a situation
where in 10-20 years with the intelligent use of one drop of oil we are doing what we need a
whole barrel full for today. We have entered the epoch in which collaborative systems and
structures evolve other, far better ways to create excellence and incentives to foster better ideas,
policies, workflows and practises then are possible through competition and star cultures.
So there is really no need to oppose competition at all; we are surpassing it in every respect.

Collaboration, being based on this and similar insights and more than this: on deep humane
qualities and behaviours, will inevitably replace competitive capitalism and its unhealthy – for
                                                            
1
 Transposing this onto a level of development of an individual or organisation this can also be regarded as the 
realisation that one is a global citizen in a pluralistic and open system of systems or society. 
the planet and social fabric – culture.
It is obvious for instance, that there is much more know-how about important matters outside any
business or organisation than there can possibly be inside of it. Since in competitive culture
knowledge is regarded and treated as power it is made scarce, and is, whatever the market may
be, heavily protected against the competition. Therefore it is very difficult to ‘harvest’ this
knowledge from other individuals or organisations on the market. One has to spend considerable
resources to obtain it. In a collaborative system knowledge is shared freely and whatever the
benefits are further down the line all participants trust that these are shared equitably between all
contributors. The value of knowledge that is common to collaborators – know-how about
processes, resources, practises, for instance – is exponentially higher than the value of the very
same knowledge available to competing individuals or organisations. This is the main reason
why collaborative enterprises, businesses and organisations have the evolutionary edge in a
heavily competitive global system, and this is also a major cause for optimism in spite of the
grave dangers humanity is presently facing. The day is not far when the collaborative culture that
is emerging presently has gained enough momentum to replace the competitive and authoritarian
structures where these are not as effective as the collaborative ones – most probably in relatively
open and liberal societies first 2 .

Recently a new term has come to my notice: “coopetition” combining the words cooperation and
competition in an attempt to go beyond the antagonism that resides in these two terms. What is
expressing itself here is already incorporated in the view on collaboration as it is expressed here
particularly since collaboration doesn’t stop us from jostling and struggling for best possible
practises and solutions to the challenges we are facing. It is the combination of competition with
star culture and stark ambition rooted in the “me first” conviction that is afflicting the planet.
The tournament that brings out excellence and can and does motivate individuals and teams
seems to be an intermediate developmental stage, though. It reflects a point of view, a very wide
spread one that has become ingrained in our global culture, based on the idea that there is not
enough for everybody, and therefore the strongest/fittest will take more to stay strongest. This is
a much too simplistic view of things – it doesn’t explain growing diversity and complexity on all
levels of evolution including the
cultural development of our
species.

Collaboration incorporates non-

exclusionary competition: In any
inquiring, deliberating and
deciding process many views or
propositions are inspected and
competes with other views.
Likewise individuals and
teams/groups with a
                                                            
2
 In less developed parts of the world where liberal and democratic societies have not yet developed well there 
might be a healthy competitive phase necessary – where cooperation plays an important role – before the 
possibilities of real collaboration can be pursued. 
collaborative endeavour can – and often do – pursue diverse lines or processes to add value to
the overall effort.

Learning collaboration

Collaboration that creates and applies knowledge for the purpose of social and commercial
enterprise is very sophisticated behaviour. Apart from subject matter expertise, skills,
competence and experience – which are basic to competitive endeavours as well – collaboration
requires shared understandings and values, trust among individuals and organizations, and the
efficient, full sharing of ideas, information, practises and processes. It rests upon the participants’
alignment with common intentions and works towards realizing a common goal or vision which
is typically creative or innovative in nature.

As much as it is true that the process of collaborative innovation and creation – here regarded
also as a novel form of entrepreneurship – can be learned only through experience, it is also true
that there are environments that greatly enhance the learning of collaboration. As a complex 3 ,
and because of the required trust, potentially fragile process it needs a safe surrounding to
germinate. And as it is basically embarked upon by people who have matured sufficiently
beyond competition and personal stardom (egotism), and who have understood that collaboration
requires equal respect of all for all, it is a voluntary, self-managing process that can only be
encouraged and facilitated – there will most likely never be standardized practices beyond the
creation of an ecology that fosters collaboration.
An ecology of patience also, as collaboration only works when the process adopts a pace of
development that is comfortable for all participants – it is important that there is enough space
for the necessary behaviours and procedures to be internalized individually and across
organizations.

Creating a collaboration ecology starts with

rediscovering or creating common ground: shared
experiences and/or values, intentions, visions. The
environment in which it develops easily is one of
being attentive and open-mindedly present to
other collaborators, giving authentic feedback and
‘being yourself’ and expecting the others to
likewise be; a willingness to accept differences in
perspective, perception and opinion. This is
relatively easy once a deep mutual understanding
of ‘our commonality of being, intention, vision
and value’ has taken root.
Moreover for an ecology of collaboration to support organizations it is prerequisite that these
                                                            
3
 The process of collaboration is only complex when regarded through analytical and linear lenses. When regarded 
from within a collaborating entity it is a naturally unfolding emergent dynamic system which is often better 
regarded as a work of art – ‘practical beauty’ is a term that comes to mind; a beauty that is easily seen in a natural 
landscape or ecology.  
organisations practise collaboration internally; this being analogue to the aforementioned
psychological outlooks and behaviours participants must be fluent in to participate in an effective
collaboration.
Collaboration flourishes in an environment of shared core values that are – beknown to all –
practiced on a day to day basis.

Further qualities that cultivate collaboration are the wish to learn from each other, a stance that
could be called ‘mutual apprenticeship’; being respectful and appreciative of all, being
responsive to non-verbal communication and emotions; being explicit and clear. There are many
further helpful qualities but from this short list it is obvious that all behaviour that makes
relationships flourish is advantageous when it comes to creating the right environment for
effective collaboration.

From all of this it is evident that the ability to collaborate requires ongoing investments in
intangible assets over extensive periods of time. The personal and organisational qualities
mentioned are important for trust-building which is the major ingredient of effective and
successful collaboration.
To develop collaborative capabilities one might also need to learn new values and behaviours
and let go of old habits. Only organisations that already engage in a culture of collaboration
internally are sufficiently prepared for the challenges this type of investment poses; an
investment in people and their creativity and inventiveness involving unpredictable outcomes; an
investment in building trust from the ground up.
Embarking upon a self-generating and self-managing process, there is no formal means of
economically measuring these intangible assets, and that might be something that share- and
stakeholders might have a hard time to stick with for the required time to come to fruition.
However, the results of collaboration are definitely measurable as they demonstrate reduced
risks, faster performance and greater or new sources of revenues. And all the while from the
point of view of those who practice collaboration the practical value in the day to day process is
very clear.

Barriers to collaboration

Optimum collaboration is co-created by caring

participants who hold the contributions of their
peers in high regard and are concerned with their
equitable treatment. A main barrier therefore may
be the difficulty between parties having diverse
viewpoints in achieving agreement which is an
impediment to effective but basically distributed
decision-making. Even if collaboration
participants manage to agree they might be caught
up in a cultural boundary that is not recognized
and are therefore agreeing from a different perspective. Apart from the already mentioned deep
mutual understanding a consciously cultivated culture of mutual appreciation can very well steer
around this boundary and regard different viewpoints as an enriching experience and helpful tool
in embracing a situation as a whole.
Hierarchy as it is usually understood – rank or job title are crucial and power/decision-making
flows from the top down – is another major barrier to collaboration. In organizational cultures
that emphasize hierarchy, people feel compelled to go through channels. This prevents front-line
people from contributing to decisions and makes it difficult or even impossible for leaders to get
real-time, unfiltered information from the field. The different levels of the hierarchy are
essentially desynchronised and the natural flow of information and social energy is greatly
impeded. In these hierarchies knowledge is often privileged and not easily available to
everybody; instead of serving a greater whole, or a common goal or vision people are serving
their superiors. In these cultures qualifications are person-centred and not issue- and intention-
centred thus making it hard for a lower ranked person who may be much more qualified for a
task than her or his superior to take a lead where this would be necessary in real collaboration. A
culture of mutual apprenticeship can help change this situation. But, as has been said before, real
collaboration can only occur between organisations that already collaborate internally in which
case the hierarchies will already be flat and decisions are basically made by consent. 4 Smart
organizations encourage collaboration across levels, functions, business units and regions.

These are two major impediments to collaboration. There are minor ones which have to do with
what could be called ‘bad habits‘ – leftovers from the competitive star culture; for instance the
"stranger danger" where people are reluctant to share with others unknown to them, or
"information hoarding” where they do not want to share knowledge for fear of losing power; the
"needle in a haystack" syndrome where people, believing that the problem may have already
been solved by others spend much time and energy looking for it, or the contrary “not invented
by us” disorder which shuns previously performed research or knowledge that was not originally
developed within the group. As the art of collaboration develops – for an art it truly is – and
more collaboration ecologies are flourishing a more comprehensive map of barriers will become
available that will help community gardeners and
collaboration ecologists alike to steer free of these
obstacles.

Collaborative Capitalism

Collaborative efforts can have many objectives. In the

context of entrepreneurial and business collaborations it
means collaboration for the co-creation of financially
robust, ethically sound and even-handed market systems;
systems that will most likely produce sustainable products
and services of high innovative value and great quality.
This objective is achieved through jointly generated ideas
emerging from the sharing of information and knowledge
                                                            
4
 This doesn’t mean that there can’t be rank‐hierarchical departments or teams in a collaborative organisation. We 
do acknowledge that people are centred on different developmental levels and might feel most comfortable in a 
position where they are “simply following instructions”. It is important to remember that these are not ideological 
or doctrinal statements about hierarchy but are oriented towards encouraging people and organisations towards 
greater collaboration across all possible demarcation lines. 
in an atmosphere of trust and mutual support and apprenticeship, and by co-creating ways and
means to turn these ideas into actions that are relevant to all participants.
The role of the new art and science of Collaboration Ecology and Community Gardening is the
co-creation of on- and off-line environments that make it very likely and attractive for “the
willing” to bravely embark on the journey of collaborative entrepreneurship. It is creating the
space for and identifying the knowledge, possibilities, needs and resources that align themselves
around values, intentions and understandings, constellating and being constellated by the
communities of practise using these spaces; creating a place where dialogue, mutual
apprenticeship and trustful enterprises are inevitably emerging to create the collaborative culture
of what could be called Sustainable Commerce and Wholesome Economy.

Collaborative capitalism is one of the many forms the sharing culture takes that has taken root
amidst the ruins of an overly greedy, individualized and competitive capitalism. Yet it would be
a mistake to see this new culture as a hippie-like ‘feel-good’ culture without bite, without an eye
for brilliance, performance, efficiency and the strong desire to create, innovate and struggle
towards ever improving situations, products, services, procedures and the like.
Collaborative capitalism is all about creating wealth, real wealth for humanity and the planet –
and it is not opposed to people becoming rich on the way there! Only is the wealth not solely or
even primarily economic; the wealth is related much more to “the good life”, a life worth living
in a sustainable surrounding that’s not regarded solely as resource that can be stripped of it’s
assets to enrich individuals but as a ‘partner’ whose well-being is important, and who then is
more than willing to share.
The game we play in collaborative capitalism is win-win-win-win: I win, you win, society wins
and nature wins. It is a game worth playing.

Collaboration Ecology Principles

What is possible cannot be determined by opinions, but only by attempt. And we were
determined to make the attempt. – Dee Hock

1. Everybody is a leader

♦ Leading by being
Collaboration Ecologists (CEs) are the change they wish to see.

CEs provide relational and situational information and knowledge to

participants, who are seen as quite capable to judge for themselves what, given their
values, purposes and principles, they should do in the best interests of the community
as a whole.
 ♦ Collective Intelligence
The intelligence and intuition of the whole community by far exceeds any partial
intelligence by individuals and manifests in many – sometimes unprecedented –
ways.

CEs trust the collective intelligence of the whole and are constantly on the look-
out for ways and means to capture its patterns and processes so that community
participants can more easily know of it and participate in it.

♦ Permission Granted
Accountability and authority are regarded as a natural part of everybody’s
character.

CEs provide and live principles (not rules) to foster the free expression of the
community’s participants. All participants of the community are regarded as being
fully accountable for their words and deeds.
If conflicts arise they act like “people whisperers” and/or mediators to help turn
possible mistakes into lessons that the whole community profits from. They do have
the authority to mandatory refer participants who disrupt the community’s
functioning to a mediating “Council of Community Elders”.

2. Promote connectivity and collaboration between the community’s

participants

♦ Connectivity & collaboration

Provide tools and occasions for maximum connectivity between participants.

CEs seek close connection with their community and are therefore most of all
available to be contacted with any issue at any time – within reason; they might
delegate this obligation at certain times to CEs of other communities.
CEs are always on the look-out to improve tools, procedures and situations that
foster deeper and wider connectivity and are very keen of bringing opportunities to
collaborate to participant’s attention.

♦ Synergy
Treat participants of aligned external communities as fully trusted community
participants.

CEs – with the aid of Gaiaspace’s Alignment Process and their colleague CEs – are
actively seeking out synergies, and having found them they carefully create
connections and suggest collaborations. Once connections and collaborations have
been committed to by these partners they are regarded as fully trusted community
participants.

♦ Cluster
Nurture the community’s internal and external networks and connections
 CEs pay attention to the networks within the community and networks with
which the community is connected and even embedded in. They know how
systems become systems of influence by being well connected in larger networks
and networks of networks.
They also ensure that the information coming in through “weak ties” from the world
in which their communities are situated is fed into the community’s collective
intelligence.

3. Experiment, collaborate and support mutual apprenticeship

Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck. Open 
your arms to change, but don't let go of your values. Take into account that great love 
and great achievements involve great risk. – The Dalai Lama 

♦ Purpose, principles & people

People guided by robust purpose, having developed principles that guide the
realization of that purpose create strongly aligned behavior that gets things done in
fast and often unprecedented ways.

CEs understand that guiding principles derived from overarching purposes that
align the community and they therefore support participants of their community to
find and/or express their very personal purpose first.
They secondly support finding and/or expressing the principles of communication,
connection and action that foster and support this. Then they continually support the
alignment of personal with universal purposes and the powerful collaboration,
action, behavior that results from this alignment.

CEs take a keen interest in anything which might foster the development of deeper,
wider and more effective community whether it’s within anybody’s defined role or
not. They therefore strengthen a culture of mutual apprenticeship in which
everybody can learn from everybody else.
♦ Transparency & Fair Share
Transparency about personal agendas and the fair sharing of – material and
immaterial – outcomes fosters the necessary trust for real collaborations in
community.

CEs understand that ”Win-Win-Win” is an outcome and not a strategy. If the

community as a whole is to profit from its being and collaboration and knowledge-
ecology a sophisticated behavior is needed: acting in trust, freedom and clarity,
always also thinking about “how to fairly share the outcome with everybody who
had an input?” Therefore at times CEs also address the "what's in it for me" question
for each participant of collaborating networks within the community.

♦ Fluid Dynamics
Learn through experimentation, differentiation, mutation, mutual apprenticeship,
 trustful relationships, collaboration and appreciative inquiry and review.

CEs understand that communities are held together by a sense of identity that
results from shared purposes, principles and personal bonds between its
participants. The also understand that community is more akin to a fluid than a
solid, and that to help it to continually and creatively reinvent itself invigorates it and
keeps it alive. Therefore they see purposes and principles as processes in flux and
encourage challenging questions, experiments and all kinds of creative proposals and
behaviors – if necessary balancing it so that a dynamic equilibrium is maintained.

4. Support natural forms of organisation

♦ Autopoiesis (Self-Organizing Networks)

The vital communities of the 21st Century are self-organizing entities in a state of
continual self-transformation in concert with an exponentially accelerating growth
of diversity, complexity and rate of change of the cultural and natural environment

CEs, understanding and accepting the exponentially accelerating rate of change in

this century, support all tendencies toward self-organization and self-
transformation of the community they serve. They therefore support servant-
leadership on every level; they are always on the look-out for participants with
leadership potential and make it their priority to support and mentor them towards
becoming a collaboration ecologist. CEs understand their role to be temporary – they
work towards the community’s self-organization whose servant-leaders grow from
its own participants; this being part of the self-transformative trend of every
community.

♦ Alignment
Self-organizing networks seek maximum alignment with other networks, communities
and individuals that advances their purpose(s)

CEs are always looking out for other communities, networks and individuals
whose purpose might align with the community they serve. The wheel has been
invented many times over; most likely humanity as a collective has or can easily
develop all the know-how and procedures needed to cope with any and all challenges
it faces on the micro-, midi- and macro-level. The open alignment of purposes, goals,
intentions makes this much more apparent, and the culture of appreciative co-
humanity makes it easier accessible. Therefore CEs are an example of collaboration
across all boundaries, and have a basically pluralistic view on values – looking for
alignment instead of for differences (yet without ever diminishing diversity).

♦ Emergence
All ecologies, be they natural or cultural, have natural cycles of growth and
emergence.

CEs are well aware of natural cycles of community growth, flourishing and
 transformation. They know that sustainable development is not to be managed or
controlled because the resilience of such ‘artificial’ growth is low and needs to be
artificially supported continually. They therefore trust in the community’s own
rhythm and cycles of development which the serve and support. Their ability to
allow uncontrolled development and “being the change the want to see” creates
space for novel and unforeseen flourishing.

© Mushin J. Schilling, Berlin, Collaboration and Community Management for Gaiaspace; Berlin
February. 2007 - http://www.gaiaspace.org/global/mushin/

Mushin Schilling has 25 years experience in facilitating deep connection between people in face‐to‐face and on‐
line communities. He supports the development of community leadership to achieve results through collaboration.  
He learns from, trains and mentors a global network of Community Development Professionals to facilitate 
collaboration in areas ranging from market development for sustainable energy to Millennium Development Goals 
supported by the Gaiaspace on‐line collaboration processes and software. 

Contact: Mushin@gaiaspace.org