![\"Portrait](\"https:\/\/esbri.se\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/John-Erik_Bergkvist_portratt-e1765974111974.jpeg\")
Two ways to divide the work<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The study shows that work in innovative partnerships without formal authority is often organized in two broad ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One is a collaborative and democratic way of working, <\/em>where participants jointly discuss what tasks should be done and who should do what. This can be inclusive, but also carries risks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n – The democratic principles of governance become the focus and the knowledge component can be obscured. Not everyone involved in decision-making necessarily has the knowledge required to perform the task. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The second way is a self-selecting approach, <\/em>where individuals draw on their own knowledge and experience, initiate tasks and bring together others who want to contribute their expertise in the specific area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – It is individuals who shape tasks and take them on, and others can qualify if they feel they have relevant knowledge or interest, explains John-Erik Bergkvist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whatever the approach, there are what are known as knowledge dependencies<\/em> – situations where individuals’ actions depend on their knowledge of what others can and do. In more democratic ways of working, participants try to deal with this by building a shared understanding of each other’s relationship within a specific task. <\/p>\n\n\n\n – They try to get to know each other, share information and create informal information structures to cooperate better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In self-selecting groups, coordination is instead achieved through similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – It tries to bring together those in the collaboration who have the same type of knowledge. It is easier to work together if you already “speak the same language”, <\/em>explains John-Erik Bergkvist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A key finding of the research is that both approaches can be problematic in their extremes. The collaborative approach can lead to an excessive focus on joint activities – something John-Erik Bergkvist calls joinholism<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n – It becomes very time-consuming to constantly get to know each other, especially when people come and go. There is a risk that there will be a lot of talk and little action, he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The self-selecting approach can instead lead to alignophilia<\/em>, where the pursuit of homogeneity becomes exclusionary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – The point of these partnerships is that no one has all the necessary knowledge. If the similarity is taken too far, important perspectives risk being lost. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A long-term approach thus requires both balance and tolerance for different ways of participating. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As the partnerships lack formal mandates to give directives or provide incentives such as salary or promotion, the individual perspective becomes crucial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – It is individuals who make things happen. So you have to focus on their motivation, knowledge and what information they have to coordinate themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n John-Erik Bergkvist’s advice to those leading or participating in large-scale social partnerships is clear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n – Focus less on agreeing on targets at the organizational level and more on creating the conditions for individuals to actually contribute time, knowledge and effort, he urges.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKnowledge dependencies and coordination<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
When solutions go too far<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Individuals make things happen<\/h2>\n\n\n\n