Abstract
Collaboration is the process of people working together toward a common goal and occurs in a wide range of contexts. When done well, almost anything is possible. Because of its potential, collaboration is touted as one of the most promising ways to address today’s most difficult and complex problems. However, not all collaborative efforts realize their potential for a variety of reasons, including the relational aspects of collaboration. Central to collaboration and its efficacy, interpersonal relationships can be enhanced through positive communication. This research explores positive and negative communication patterns in collaborative contexts. Thematic analysis is applied to qualitative data collected from 278 participants involved in varied collaborative efforts. Fifteen collaborative communication practices emerge as playing an important role in fostering collaboration. Findings from this research contribute to the growing field of positive communication scholarship by offering positive communication practices that people can employ to strengthen interpersonal relationships in collaborative efforts. Guidance on ways practitioners can apply these findings is provided.
Keywords
Collaboration is about the process of people working together toward a shared vision, purpose, or goal. When done well, almost anything is possible by invoking the collaborative advantage—synergy resulting in positive impact (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Vangen & Huxham, 2013). Because of its potential, collaboration is touted as one of the most promising ways to address today’s most pressing, complex, and difficult-to-solve problems such as climate change and social injustice (e.g., Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Gray & Purdy, 2018).
However, not all collaborative efforts are fruitful and can fail (Koschmann, 2016) or fall into collaborative inertia—frustratingly slow or conflict-ridden processes (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Vangen & Huxham, 2013). These outcomes can occur for a range of reasons including organizational (e.g., governance structure, goals, resources, support), systemic (e.g., social, cultural, professional systems), and interactional determinants (e.g., components of interpersonal relationships) (San Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2005). Aspects related to interpersonal relationships—trust and acceptance of diverse values, norms, and cultures—are identified by many as salient in influencing the efficacy of collaborative efforts (e.g., Mickel & Goldberg, 2018; Porter & Birdi, 2018; Vangen & Huxham, 2013).
Despite the importance of interpersonal relationships, many people engaged in collaboration are not adequately prepared for the relational component of this work. There are people who do not know how to develop and maintain positive relationships within the groups in which they work and live (Allen, et al., 2021).
One way to develop and foster positive relationships is through positive communication. “Positive communication refers to any verbal and nonverbal behaviors that function positively in the course of human interaction” (Mirivel, 2014, p. 7). Communication behaviors are included as social skills that can help establish and maintain healthy relationships (e.g., Allen et al., 2021; Pitts & Socha, 2013; Zamanzadeh & Afifi, 2019). These behaviors, such as the seven in Mirivel’s (2014) Practical Model of Positive Communication, can be practiced to enhance relationships. Although positive communication behaviors are studied in a variety of contexts and ways, there is limited research on positive communication in collaborative contexts.
The purpose of this research is to fill this void by exploring both positive and negative interpersonal communication patterns. The primary research question is: “What communication behaviors foster collaboration and which ones discourage it?” Interpersonal perception theory (see Omarzu & Harvey, 2012 for a review) informs this study by asking participants to describe behaviors of individuals whom they perceive or experience as fostering collaboration and those discouraging it. To answer this exploratory question, I used a qualitative-inductive approach and collected data from professionals who participate in collaborative efforts.
The data analysis reveals 15 emergent collaborative communication practices: showing respect, having empathy, taking action, advancing a shared vision, being generous, displaying curiosity, being vocal, staying positive, empowering others, believing in the power of collaboration, demonstrating humility, modeling vulnerability, embracing uncertainty, acting ethically, and remaining resilient. Findings also suggest that the behaviors in Mirivel’s (2014) Practical Model of Positive Communication play an important role in one or more of the 15 collaborative practices. These practices cluster into four emergent categories: showing compassion, having character, committing to collaboration, and being courageous.
Findings from this research contribute to the growing field of positive communication scholarship by focusing on communication behaviors in collaborative contexts and by offering these communication practices as key to effective collaboration. This research provides additional support for Mirivel’s (2014) Practical Model of Positive Communication. Findings have implications for the collaboration and communication research stream by emphasizing the importance of interpersonal relationships and positive communication in collaborative processes.
On a practical level, by learning to engage in or avoid certain communication behaviors, individuals’ confidence and ability to cultivate positive interpersonal relationships and advance collaborative efforts will be strengthened. If those engaged in such efforts know how to foster collaboration, the likelihood of maximizing the collaborative advantage and minimizing inertia or failure is increased.
Background of Relevant Literature
The Promise of Positive Communication
Positive communication is a growing field in communication research that takes an interdisciplinary approach to exploring ways communication can benefit society (Browning et al., 2012; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2017). Led by Thomas Socha, the emerging field was heavily influenced by the movement of positive psychology and its leaders such as Martin Seligman, Christopher Peterson, and Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (Socha & Beck, 2015). Positive communication scholarship moves beyond the dark side of communication by focusing on and integrating the positive (Socha & Pitts, 2012). Mirivel (2014) further advanced the field through his model of positive communication which describes seven communication behaviors—greeting, asking, complimenting, disclosing, encouraging, listening, and inspiring—as exemplary practices that enhance relationships and organizational cultures.
As noted in The Routledge Handbook of Positive Communication (Muñiz-Velázquez & Pulido, 2019), researchers suggest that positive communication is a promising way to generate beneficial outcomes in areas such as happiness, well-being, and social change. Positive communication is studied at personal, relational, group, system, and societal levels and within various contexts, including the workplace (Mirivel & Fuller, 2018), personal and professional relationships, in families, and in health or education (see Muñiz-Velázquez & Pulido, 2019). Examples include: (a) the effects of positive communication at peak communication moments on personal and relational happiness (Mirivel, 2014, 2019); (b) ways positive communication affects happiness in close relationships through relationship maintenance and resilience (Beck & Pederson, 2019; Zamanzadeh & Afifi, 2019); (c) influence of positive branding on consumer groups’ well-being and society at large (Havas Group, 2024); and (d) effects of positive corporate communication on its internal (Losana & Gallardo, 2019) and external (Rivas & Soukiazis, 2019) stakeholders. A form of positive communication, respectful communication is found to have positive benefits in the workplace (Carmeli et al., 2015), especially among those early in their careers (LaGree et al., 2023).
Because of the promise of positive communication and its emergent nature, scholars call for future research to explore additional ways communication can benefit society and generate social impact (e.g., Soler-Gallart, 2017). Examining relationships between positive communication and UN’s sustainable development goals—partnerships (i.e., interorganizational collaboratives) to advance goals relevant to the natural environment, health and well-being, social justice, and other topics—is identified as an area worthy of future investigation (Villarejo-Carballido et al., 2019). Because collaboration is inextricably tied to partnership work, calls for future research provide justification for exploring positive communication in the context of collaboration.
Collaborative-Effort Contexts
Collaboration is about the process of people working together, and collaborative efforts involve working toward a shared vision, purpose, or goal. These efforts occur across organizations (interorganizational), within one organization across units and individuals (intraorganizational), and in formal or informal groups. In some instances, responsibility and power are shared, and in others, a person(s) holds position power. Efforts vary in duration; some involve ongoing collaboration, while others involve working together for a specified amount of time. They also take place in a wide range of contexts such as work, school, teams, and home.
Successful collaborative efforts effectively bring different parties together who see different aspects of a problem, constructively resolve any differences, and search for integrative solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (Gray, 1989). Unfortunately, the potential of collaboration is not realized in many instances. Relational aspects of collaboration such as lack of trust and/or acceptance of different social values, norms, and cultures are cited as one reason for this (Mickel & Goldberg, 2018; Porter & Birdi, 2018; San Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2005; Vangen & Huxham, 2013).
Relational Aspect of Collaboration
Relationships are central to collaborative efforts, and positive interpersonal relationships are essential for effective collaboration (Kramer & Crespy, 2011). However, it is argued that there is often an overemphasis on structural aspects in collaboration research (Walker & Stohl, 2012) and on action/outcomes in practice (Hardy et al., 2005), while underemphasizing the relational aspects that are essential to effective collaboration. Moreover, many people engaged in collaborative processes are not adequately prepared for the relational component of this work. They do not know how to develop and maintain relationships (Allen et al., 2021), and deficits in social competencies can negatively affect them (Frostad & Pijl, 2007). The good news is that most people are capable of improving their social skills such as verbal and nonverbal communication, and thus, their ability to cultivate positive relationships (Blackhart et al., 2011).
Interpersonal communication is deemed pivotal in collaboration (e.g., Friedrich et al., 2016; Heath & Frey, 2004): “Communication is the backbone of effective collaboration” (Weger et al., 2022, p. 392). However, there is relatively limited research on specific collaborative communication behaviors. Studies focused on communication behaviors of collaborative leaders identify the following as important: framing situations (Zander & Zander, 2000), motivating others to action (Bennis, 1999), and empowering people with authority (Little & Little, 2006). In a study focused on collaborative leadership in a theater context, four additional behaviors promoting collaboration were observed: (a) asking permission to experiment, (b) asking questions, (c) expressing evaluative remarks, and (d) deliberately or accidentally experimenting (Kramer & Crespy, 2011). The dearth of research on specific communication behaviors in a wider range of collaborative-effort contexts provides additional rationale for this study, which in turn, will contribute to the growing body of collaboration and communication research.
Collaboration and Communication Research
Communication frameworks are used to analyze collaborative processes in various contexts, including interorganizational (Cooper, 2021; Woo & Leonardi, 2018), intraorganizational (Dixon & Dougherty, 2010), bona fide groups (Frey, 2003), and teams (Weger et al., 2022). Topics range from exploring communicative strategies to gaining entry into interorganizational collaborative efforts (Woo & Leonardi, 2018), examining the role of communication in shaping collaborative cultures (Dixon & Dougherty, 2010; Keyton & Stallworth, 2003), understanding how discourse creates collective identity in interorganizational collaboration (Hardy et al., 2005), and conceptualizing how communication informs key aspects of collaboration—knowledge creation/production, shared identity, and collective agency (Koschmann, 2016).
In communication research, a tension-response framework is often applied when examining collaborative processes. Communication studies focus on membership tensions (grasstops/grassroots, inclusion/exclusion) (Cooper, 2021), identity tensions (Kourti et al., 2018; Oetzel & Robbins, 2003), and autonomy-control tensions (flexibility/structure, fluidity/stability, exposure/privacy) (Manca, 2022), in addition to others. Responses to these tensions include ones that increase the likelihood of successful collaboration, and ones that decrease it. Examples of more effective responses are communication practices of emergence, exploration, and engagement (vs. aggregation, representation, expression) (Koschmann, 2016) and a more-than approach (vs. either-or, both-and approaches) (Manca, 2022; Putnam et al., 2016). These responses share the quality of moving away from individual positions and perspectives to generating something novel and innovative through working synergistically.
What is underemphasized in this body of research is the interpersonal communication component of collaboration. Positive communication is one promising way individuals can enact the aforementioned practices and approaches when responding to collaboration tensions. Therefore, understanding which communication behaviors foster or discourage collaboration will also contribute to collaboration and communication research more broadly.
Research Objective and Approach
This research is approached through the lens of interpersonal perception theory which examines the beliefs that interacting people have about each other.
Interpersonal perception is the process of forming impressions of others. This includes interpreting others’ nonverbal behaviors, creating meaning from others’ actions, and forming judgments about others’ personalities. Interpersonal perception is inextricably bound to interpersonal communication. . .. The ongoing process of judging and communicating with others can have lasting effects on relationships and interpersonal behavior. (Omarzu & Harvey, 2012, p. 465)
The purpose of this study is to examine communication patterns and identify which behaviors influence interpersonal perceptions in varied collaborative-effort contexts. Because communication scholars emphasize the importance of exploring both the positive and negative (Socha & Pitts, 2012; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2004), communication practices and behaviors fostering collaboration and ones discouraging it are considered. As previously mentioned, the main research question is: “What communication behaviors foster collaboration and which ones discourage it?”
Survey questions prompted study participants to reflect on individuals they perceive or experience as fostering collaboration and ones that discourage it. Informed by interpersonal perception theory, this research is predicated on the notion that perceptions of others impact interpersonal relationships, which will then affect individuals’ level of engagement in a collaborative effort. More specifically, when individuals perceive or experience one another as fostering collaboration, the interpersonal relationships will strengthen and increase the likelihood of people engaging in collaborative work. Conversely, when individuals perceive or experience each other as discouraging collaboration, relationships will weaken and decrease the odds of engagement.
By understanding that communication patterns affect interpersonal perceptions and experiences, those involved in collaboration can learn and practice certain behaviors, while avoiding others. The overarching goal of this research is to help those working together increase the probability of maximizing the collaborative advantage and minimizing inertia or failure.
Methodology
Because of the exploratory nature of this work, qualitative inquiry was determined to be the most appropriate form of investigation for identifying communication behaviors. Online surveys with open-ended questions were used to generate a larger pool of responses for inductive analysis.
Surveys
The online surveys were first approved by the Institutional Human Subjects Review Board at my institution. The surveys were administered through Qualtrics by contacting potential survey participants and inviting them to complete the survey. The potential participants were informed that their participation was completely voluntary and that they could leave the study at any time. They were notified that any information they provided was confidential and any identifying information would be removed from the final dataset prior to data analysis.
When responding to questions, study participants were instructed to consider the following definition: “Collaboration is a process where people work together.” They were asked to reflect on their personal experiences and describe the actions or behaviors of individuals they perceived as effective in fostering collaboration and ones that discouraged it. Specifically, respondents were asked four sets of questions. The first two questions were designed to elicit positive collaborative communication practices, and the second two were designed to elicit negative collaborative communication practices. For questions about specific examples, the prompt slightly changed depending on the target audience (i.e., partnership work for those engaged in interorganizational collaboratives, job for intraorganizational collaboration, etc.). In keeping with an exploratory approach to inquiry, I used the following open-ended questions to allow participants (in a non-guiding way) to discuss any qualitative aspects related to their experiences and perceptions.
1) “In general, think about those people who successfully foster collaboration. What do they do to encourage people to effectively work together?”
2) “Think of a specific example that exemplifies collaboration in your [partnership work, job, school, team, or other context]. Describe the example in detail. What actions/behaviors did key people take to foster collaboration in this example?”
3) “In general, think about those people who (unknowingly) discourage collaboration. What do they do to discourage people to effectively work together?”
4) “Think of a specific example that illustrates a lack of collaboration in [partnership work, job, school, team, or other context]. Describe the example in detail. What actions/behaviors did key people take to discourage collaboration in this example?”
Data Collection
Data were collected in three distinct efforts. The first focused on individuals participating in interorganizational collaborative efforts, the second on intraorganizational efforts, and the third on any type of collaborative effort.
Effort 1
The first data collection effort targeted those involved with interorganizational collaboratives such as multiparty partnerships and networks. These collaboratives have an added layer of complexity because responsibility and power are shared among all. Because the health of our natural environment is under threat worldwide, those involved in collaboratives focused on landscape stewardship and conservation in the United States and Europe were chosen as the first group of study participants.
Potential survey respondents were recruited using a snowball sampling method (e.g., Noy, 2008) which resulted in 30 participants who were involved in collaborative efforts throughout the United States (i.e., New England, Southeast, Great Lakes, Rocky Mountains, Southwest, and West Coast) and Europe.
Effort 2
The second data collection effort targeted those working in intraorganizational collaboration. The focus was on those who collaborate on an ongoing basis in their work organizations or in other groups such as a long-standing sports team or music band. Potential survey respondents were recruited using a network sampling method (Jian et al., 2014). More specifically, in exchange for extra credit points, undergraduate students from a large university in the United States identified possible study participants by providing names and email addresses of individuals who worked in collaboration with others on an ongoing basis.
Effort 3
The third data collection effort included those working in collaboration for any duration of time and in any context such as work, school, teams/clubs, and home. In exchange for extra credit points, undergraduates from a large university in the United States were asked to complete a survey about their personal collaborative experiences.
The second and third data collection effort produced 119 and 129 usable surveys, respectively. The surveys were determined usable if the responses answered the survey questions. Surveys were not included in the analysis if the respondent input the same answer for each question or provided an unintelligible response.
Demographics of Survey Respondents
A total of 278 individuals completed the survey and their responses were included in the analysis. Fifty-five percent of survey respondents identify as male, 44% as female, and 1% as non-binary. Twenty-three percent are between the ages of 18 and 20, 57% between 22 and 30, 10% between 31 and 40, and 10% over 40 years old. The only notable difference between the survey participants in the three different data collection efforts is age. The average age for these three data collection efforts—interorganization (effort 1), intraorganization (effort 2), or any collaborative context (effort 3) are 48, 29, and 21 years old, respectively.
Ninety-one percent of respondents are employed, 3% unemployed, and 6% unknown. The respondents are employed in government, businesses, and non-profits. Their fields of work include environmental science, education, construction, retail, food service, health care, accounting, automotive services, and many others.
Data Analysis
Prior to analyzing the data, data that could identify participants were removed. The data were then exported into spreadsheets. Well-established methods were used to analyze this collection of qualitative data. I started with the familiarization stage through a holistic reading of all data (Braun & Clarke, 2012). I then applied thematic analysis which is a method for generating, identifying, and analyzing themes within qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Having decades of experience analyzing qualitative data, I employed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). By using this iterative process, themes were generated based on their recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness (Owen, 1984).
I subsequently developed a coding scheme of the emergent themes from the reflexive thematic analysis. The coding scheme included specific collaborative communication practices, along with whether the practice was perceived as positive (fostering collaboration) or negative (discouraging it). For the data where participants described a particular example, they were also coded for context, duration, and power (see collaborative-context efforts section in results). The coding scheme was then applied by open coding the data (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). “Thought” units (i.e., main ideas contained in a phrase, sentence, or paragraph) were the basic unit of analysis. A sentence or paragraph was given two or three codes if it included more than one theme. Mirivel’s (2014) positive communication behaviors were added to the coding scheme, and the collaborative communication practices coded as positive were also coded for these behaviors.
A combination of consensus and split coding was used to code datasets (Olson, et al., 2016). Using the coding scheme, I, along with a second coder well-versed in qualitative data analysis, used consensus coding for approximately 20% of data. We coded the same qualitative data and met to compare codes. The intercoder reliability was 95% prior to discussion and 97% post-discussion (Holsti, 1963). Split coding was then applied, where I coded the rest of the data. The second coder conducted “check-coding” for approximately 20% of the data coded solely by me as a reliability check (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Basic statistics were used to analyze frequencies of emergent themes.
Results
Collaborative-Effort Contexts
The 278 survey respondents describe general behaviors of those who foster and discourage collaboration. Of these 278 study participants, 266 also report two collaborative-effort experiences (positive and negative) which result in 532 collaborative-effort contexts. Coded for setting, majority of collaborative efforts occur at work (50%), followed by school (37%), teams (10%), and personal/family (3%). These efforts vary in duration (i.e., ongoing or one-time project) and power (i.e., shared or position power). The breakdown of the reported examples is provided in Table 1.
Summary of 532 Collaborative-effort Contexts.
Collaborative Communication Practices
For both fostering and discouraging collaboration, the majority of emergent behaviors includes interpersonal and relationship-centered communication behaviors. These behaviors cluster into 15 collaborative communication practices. All 15 are mentioned in all contexts (i.e., those that varied in duration, power structure, and settings). Although all communication practices emerge in the analysis, some are mentioned more frequently than others. Frequencies are reflected in four main groups; the first group includes the collaborative communication practices most frequently mentioned, and the fourth group includes behaviors mentioned less often yet important.
The practices most frequently mentioned are showing respect, having empathy, and taking action. The second group of frequently mentioned behaviors include advancing a shared vision, being generous, and displaying curiosity. Being vocal, staying positive, empowering others, and believing in the power of collaboration comprise the third group of practices. The fourth and final group includes demonstrating humility, modeling vulnerability, embracing uncertainty, acting ethically, and remaining resilient. Representative quotes from study participants’ responses illustrating the behaviors are included in Table 2.
Fifteen Communication Practices with Representative Quotes.
Showing respect involves learning about others and their differences, honoring and valuing those differences, and treating everyone with respect: “They withhold judgment of others, even if their orientation to an issue is opposite theirs.” Being disrespectful means being dismissive and closed to differing viewpoints and opinions: “They do not respect or are not open to other points of view.” Showing respect regularly appears as a reported communication practice across all of the collaborative contexts.
Having empathy is demonstrated by actively listening, showing concern, and striving to see issues from others’ perspectives: “They listen well. They stand in others’ shoes and have the capacity to see from other perspectives and empathize.” A person lacking empathy does not listen, does not show concern for others, and sees issues only from their own perspective: “They lack empathy for others’ needs or concerns.”
Taking action means showing up and being present mentally and physically, being prepared to contribute, following through on commitments, and following up with others: “They are ready to dig in; they meet and exceed their commitments.” Avoiding action means being mentally/physically absent, unprepared, and not following through: “They miss meetings regularly, are not caught up when they do attend, and often sit through meetings with no thoughts.”
Advancing a shared vision includes helping identify and create consensus, staying connected to a shared vision and encouraging others to do the same, finding opportunities for collaboration, and celebrating progress toward shared goals. People who advance a shared vision “identify opportunities to add value to a shared vision” and “point to early positive results as proof that collaboration is worthwhile.” A person hinders advancement of a shared vision by focusing only on their own goals and agendas: “They make unilateral decisions that are destructive to collaboratives or the project” and “only look at their own (or very narrow) interests.” For efforts with shared power, advancing a shared vision emerges as the third most regularly recorded practice (after showing respect and taking action).
Being generous is demonstrated by spending time thinking about others and their problems and offering help: “They reach across boundaries to offer help and resources.” An ungenerous person focuses on their own agenda and does not offer help to others: “They run their own agendas; hold information and resources close; seek to amass their own power, influence, and position at the expense of others.” For ongoing collaborative efforts and efforts where there is position power, being generous is the second most often mentioned practice (after showing respect).
Displaying curiosity involves asking questions, listening before providing input, being open to new ideas and ways of thinking, and maintaining a learning and growth mindset. People who display curiosity “ask questions first and listen, withhold their input until others have had their say, and facilitate dialogue.” An uncurious person lacks interest in others and their perspectives: “They are not open to or interested in diverse perspectives and voices.”
Being vocal includes openly sharing knowledge, clearly communicating concerns and fears, providing feedback, and speaking up when something does not seem right or just. Participants stated: “they willingly communicate honestly about barriers,” “provide feedback and ideas for course correction,” and “set rules of behavior by calling out egregiously selfish or short-sighted actions.” Not being vocal includes being silent and unresponsive, withholding information, and ignoring issues that are difficult to talk about: “They are unresponsive to requests” and “remain silent when commitments or joint decisions are needed.”
Staying positive encompasses viewing challenges as opportunities, embracing a “yes” attitude and inspiring others to do the same, and celebrating joyfully and frequently. Positive individuals “have a can-do, positive attitude,” “help people see opportunities in challenges,” and “have fun.” Those not perceived as positive are described as pessimists who focus on constraints and limitations: “They express pessimism or doubt that the idea can work” and “first say no to everything.”
Empowering others includes behaviors such as learning about other people and their passions, fostering opportunities where they can develop and shine, and trusting and enabling them to make decisions and work independently: “They trust people to work independently and “encourage the group to complete the work according to their own best judgement.” A person who disempowers others micromanages and thinks that their way is the only way: “They micromanage and pick apart others’ work” and “think their way of doing things is the only way.” It is worth noting that empowering others is mentioned more often in work contexts than other contexts.
Believing in the power of collaboration is demonstrated by affirming the value of collaboration through actions and words, reaching out to others (especially underrepresented groups), and modeling how to compromise for the collective good. For example, “they reinforce and affirm the value of collaboration throughout the collaborative process” and “demonstrate an understanding of complex reciprocity.” On the other hand, those who do not believe in the power of collaboration try to find ways to avoid collaborative work and are unwilling to compromise. One participant explained that “they are unable or unwilling to compromise and display siloed thinking and actions.”
Demonstrating humility involves sharing credit and success willingly and openly, knowing and acknowledging personal limitations (in addition to strengths), and being grateful for interactions and experiences. According to participants, they “are invested in the work, not their ego,” “show appreciation,” and “are humble enough to apologize when [they] make mistakes.” Not being humble is characterized by being concerned about getting credit and discrediting others: “They are concerned with getting credit for things” and “can be personally and professionally condescending.”
Modeling vulnerability involves sharing one’s authentic self, accepting critique, admitting mistakes, taking time for self-reflection, and asking for help. Those perceived as modeling vulnerability “let their barriers come down” and “self-reflect and encourage others to do the same.” Not being vulnerable is demonstrated by being inauthentic and putting up a façade: “They are critical of others,” “inauthentic,” and “always angling for power or advantage.” Modeling vulnerability and demonstrating humility are mentioned more often in work contexts in comparison to the other contexts.
Embracing uncertainty is characterized as taking risks, experimenting with different approaches, promoting outside-the-box thinking, and having tolerance for ambiguity. According to one participant, “they are creative and feel comfortable thinking outside-the-box and voicing possible solutions that are outside the status quo.” Preferring the status quo and stifling others’ innovative thinking are behaviors that reflect someone perceived as uncomfortable with uncertainty: “They actively prefer to stay within the status quo” and “stifle creativity and innovation.”
Acting ethically involves being transparent and consistent, considering all perspectives equally, and promoting equity and inclusion: “They are consistent and provide the same information to all participants” and “treat everyone fairly.” Behaviors perceived as unethical include lacking transparency and consistency, favoring certain people and groups, and being non-inclusive. Participants provide examples such as “fail[ing] to be inclusive of important stakeholders,” “lacking transparency,” and “communicating different things to different people.”
Remaining resilient is described as adapting to changing situations, persevering in the face of challenges, and finding lessons learned when confronted with failure: “They have dedication, persistence, perseverance, and patience” and “can adapt when needed.” Behaviors perceived as not being resilient include being inflexible, focusing on failures, and giving up when faced with challenges: “They give up easily.” Embracing uncertainty and remaining resilient are described more frequently in interorganizational contexts in comparison to others.
The Model of Positive Communication and Collaborative Practices
Data coded as one of the 15 positive collaborative communication practices were also coded with the behaviors featured in Mirivel’s (2014) Practical Model of Positive Communication greeting, asking, complimenting, disclosing, encouraging, listening, and/or inspiring (when applicable). Findings suggest certain positive communication behaviors are associated with different emergent collaborative practices. These behaviors contribute to cultivating positive interpersonal relationships, which in turn shape perceptions of fostering collaboration.
Asking and listening are mentioned most frequently. Study participants explain the act of asking illustrates that someone is showing respect, having empathy, being generous, displaying curiosity, being vocal, empowering others, and/or modeling vulnerability. Listening is affiliated with showing respect, having empathy, being generous, displaying curiosity, empowering others, and modeling vulnerability. Disclosing is associated with acting ethically, demonstrating humility, staying positive, being vocal, embracing uncertainty, remaining resilient, and empowering others. Encouraging is linked to advancing a shared vision, taking action, believing in the power of collaboration, and being vocal. Encouraging and inspiring behaviors are both related to embracing uncertainty, remaining resilient, and empowering others. Complimenting is linked to demonstrating humility and staying positive, and greeting with showing respect. It is worth noting that positive communication behaviors are not the only behaviors described by study participants, rather they represent a subset.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the following question: “What communication behaviors foster collaboration and which ones discourage it?” Qualitative data were collected and analyzed from study participants involved in collaborative efforts in varied contexts. Fifteen collaborative communication practices emerge from the analysis with certain positive communication behaviors (Mirivel, 2014) being associated with them. Findings illustrate that interpersonal communication patterns contribute to people’s collaborative experiences.
Four Emergent Practice Categories
The 15 collaborative communication practices cluster into four emergent collaborative-communication-practice categories: showing compassion, having character, committing to collaboration, and being courageous. Rationale for these groupings is discussed below, along with representative quotes of the positive communication behaviors associated with each practice category. The four collaborative practice categories, associated collaborative communication practices, and positive communication behaviors are summarized in Table 3.
Positive Communication Practice Category, Collaborative Practice, Communication Behavior.
Showing compassion emphasizes other-focused practices. Defined as “sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), showing compassion is reflected in the collaborative communication practices of having empathy, being generous, and showing respect. Moreover, the perception that someone shows compassion is shaped by the acts of asking and listening. According to participants, those who fostered collaboration by showing compassion will “ask questions to show they were interested in and respected their perspectives” and “seek feedback from those that don’t often speak.” The individuals perceived as compassionate also “listen attentively to people’s problems,” “listen very actively without interrupting them,” and “listen to everyone’s suggestions and treat them with respect and proper consideration.” Greeting is perceived as a behavior that shows respect: “They showed respect by welcoming and greeting everyone.”
Having character includes practices used by individuals who portray certain positive personal character traits. Integrity (Engelbrecht et al., 2017), humility (Zhou et al., 2022), and optimism (McAfee et al., 2019; Seligman, 2006) are character traits found to influence collaboration and engagement. Therefore, acting ethically, demonstrating humility, and staying positive represent having character. The act of disclosing appears to shape the perception that a person has character. Those identified as having character “communicated to make sure everything was clear and understood by everyone,” “had energetic voices and clear communication,” “[were] humble enough to apologize when making a mistake,” and “transparent in money matters.” In addition, complimenting shapes the perception of having character through acts of “showing lots of gratitude,” “sharing credit and praise,” and “complimenting others even when they do most of the work.”
Committing to collaboration is demonstrated through word and action. Findings from a study on interorganizational collaboration highlight important behaviors demonstrating one’s commitment, including: (a) advancing a shared vision or goal by pointing out discrepancies between shared goals and the way programs actually work; (b) taking action by attending all meetings and conducting essential work outside of official meetings; and (c) believing in the power of collaboration by encouraging collaboration through facilitating open discussions and making others aware of tangible progress being made (Kramer et al., 2019). Therefore, committing to collaboration is represented in the collaborative communication practices of advancing a shared vision, taking action, and believing in the power of collaboration. The perception that a person is committed to collaboration is shaped by inspiring and encouraging behaviors. Individuals who foster collaboration through committing to collaboration “inspire others to work collaboratively because they believe in it,” “motivate [others] by saying words of inspiration and encouragement,” “inspire others to work collaboratively and to share their thoughts/ideas to achieve the shared goal,” and “encourage collaboration: ‘If we all work together, we can make it happen.’”
Being courageous captures practices that demonstrate one’s capacity to confront difficult, uncomfortable, or fearful situations and often involves risk (Jablin, 2006). Courage is defined as the “mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Everyday courage is further categorized into four types: moral, intellectual, disciplined, and empathetic courage (Lassiter, 2017). Six of the collaborative communication practices map onto these different types of courage which represent being courageous.
Being vocal is reflected in moral courage—standing up for one’s self or others in the face of opposition. The behaviors of asking, disclosing, and encouraging contribute to the perceptions of being morally courageous. Individuals perceived as having moral courage will “speak up, ask others to do the same if there was a problem instead of clamming up,” “encourage frank, vulnerable conversations that [are] scary,” and “communicate honestly about barriers and what they hope will change.”
Displaying curiosity is affiliated with intellectual courage—challenging old understandings and acting on new learnings. Asking and listening behaviors shape perceptions of being intellectually courageous. Participants describe these individuals as “being open-minded by asking questions about others’ points of views/values and listening to them” and “wanting to learn by asking questions and listening to different ideas and trying them out.”
Disciplined courage—being reflective, strategic, and focused in the face of distractions and opposition—is related to embracing uncertainty, remaining resilient, and empowering others. Asking, listening, disclosing, encouraging, and inspiring all contribute to the perception of displaying disciplined courage. Those perceived as embracing uncertainty are described as “willing to communicate the uncertainty of new paths forward” and “helping alleviate stresses about the unknown through pep-talks.” “Even when things don’t work out, turning failures into lessons and encouraging others to do the same” is explained as a way to foster collaboration by remaining resilient. For those empowering others, study participants stated: “they asked us what we needed and then empowered us to do the work,” “got to know everyone in the group by listening and then played to everyone’s strengths by assigning each person a task based on their skills/traits,” and “encouraged us with a soft voice saying we are capable of more.”
Lastly, modeling vulnerability (and having empathy) is reflected in empathetic courage—opening up to others and sharing with and feeling deeply for others. Individuals perceived as fostering collaboration through empathetic courage engage in asking, listening, and disclosing behaviors. They “ask for help when they needed it” and “ask how they can help others.” They “listen to and receive constructive criticism” and “listen to others with an open heart.” In addition, they model vulnerability through disclosing by “sharing their personal lives with others.”
Communication Patterns
Findings suggest that individuals enact multiple behaviors across multiple collaborative communication practices, and it is the conglomeration of practices and behaviors that contributes to the perceptions of other parties in collaborative contexts. More specifically, when describing those who foster or discourage collaboration, study participants describe multiple actions that shaped their perceptions and experiences. Two examples are provided below.
Employed as a safety training coordinator in the construction industry, a 22-year-old female study participant works in an intraorganizational context where there is position power. She explains that she has to “collaborate with others frequently in her job” and experiences her supervisor as someone who successfully fosters collaboration. Through asking, listening, disclosing, complimenting, and encouraging, the supervisor engages in practices of acting ethically, displaying curiosity, staying positive, and remaining resilient. The safety coordinator explains: My supervisor sets goals and communicates checkpoints/deliverables/deadlines uniformly to all. She actively seeks and listens to input from those who don’t often speak and expresses interest in our suggestions, concerns, solutions, and ideas. Even when things don’t work out as planned, she turns failures into lessons. She compliments us and uses words of encouragement.
An example of discouraging collaboration is provided by a 68-year-old female describing a partner of an interorganizational network focused on stewarding lands in California and Nevada. The study participant states that “after many months of working toward one of our network’s collective objectives, a key and necessary agency partner withdrew its support at the last minute.” This example illustrates how not believing in the power of collaboration, acting unethically, and disempowering others discourages collaboration. She explains that: They [the network agency partner] thought a collaborative program would take away their power and influence. So, they created new issues at the last minute and refused to ever reach agreement. The agency partner made erratic shifts in their position and created false issues as red herrings. They falsely blamed others for non-cooperation and insufficient work, and they incessantly asked for more information.
These examples are important, for they show that it is a conglomeration of actions that influences individuals’ perceptions and experiences. This highlights the importance of communication patterns.
Practical Implications
This section is designed for individuals, groups, and organizations wanting to increase the likelihood of harnessing the collaborative advantage through positive communication. More specifically, how to apply the emergent collaborative communication practices and positive communication behaviors to cultivate and sustain positive interpersonal relationships in collaborative contexts are discussed. These suggestions can be included in skill development programs and workshops offered by educators, consultants, trainers, coaches, and peer-learning cohorts. Individuals who already have personal practices are encouraged to consider incorporating these recommendations into their already-established routines. This section is written in the voice of offering advice to practitioners.
First and foremost, there needs to be a general understanding and acceptance that positive relationships are vital to promoting engagement and participation by those involved. As individuals interact, they judge and form beliefs about each other. These perceptions and experiences impact interpersonal relationships, which affect engagement and participation in a collaborative process. Communication patterns play an important role in shaping these perceptions and experiences. Findings from this research help us understand which communication practices foster or discourage collaboration and how Mirivel’s (2014) Practical Model of Positive Communication behaviors contribute to the positive practices.
Mindfulness, a universal quality of consciousness, is one way to improve interpersonal communication skills (Jones et al., 2019), and therefore, a worthwhile strategy to incorporate. To enhance one’s ability to foster collaboration, mindful observation could be used to heighten awareness when one or more of the collaborative communication practices (positive or negative) are enacted. One suggestion for practitioners is to record observations of both positive and negative actions by having checklists to note when observing oneself and others engaging in one or more of the communication practices. Learning how to identify communication practices and patterns is an important step to personal improvement.
Mindful reflection is suggested as a second phase in a person’s personal development journey. After being able to identify positive and negative communication patterns, practitioners are encouraged to reflect on the ways different collaborative communication practices affected themselves and others. A suggestion is to reflect on thoughts, feelings, and subsequent actions (Baer et al., 2008), and perhaps, record them in a journal. This process will help individuals understand which practices to embrace and which ones to avoid.
Once awareness of communication patterns and their effects is heightened, individuals may want to consider being evaluated on how effectively they engaged in one or more of the collaborative communication practices. Self-evaluation and peer-evaluation are encouraged. These evaluations can be used to determine which communication category to work on improving.
In an effort to cultivate and sustain positive interpersonal relationships, the next step focuses on how to start shifting ways individuals interact with others. This requires mindfulness and practice. Practitioners are advised to work on one positive-communication-practice category at a time; working on all of the categories simultaneously is overwhelming. After picking a category, they should focus on practices and behaviors associated with that category. For example, if showing compassion is targeted, the scope should be narrowed by focusing on having empathy, being generous, and/or showing respect. Next, individuals might list specific ways this can be done when collaborating, including the positive communication behaviors of asking, listening, and greeting.
Now, it is time for action which requires being mindful and intentional. For example, practitioners might decide to focus on shifting how they respond to a person who expresses experiencing a problem. On at least five different occasions, they should practice doing the following: ask about the problem in a respectful manner; listen intently with an open heart and mind; follow up with empathetic questions, if appropriate; offer support and encouragement; ask how to help in an authentic way; and later check in on the person. They are advised to avoid the negative side of the practices by refraining to judge, interrupt, trivialize, or shift the conversation back to them. After each incident, practitioners are encouraged to spend time reflecting on how they feel and how the other person reacted in the moment and in future interactions. It is recommended that they continue to adjust and practice this approach with intention, until the changes become habits; conduct another self-evaluation and peer-evaluation six months to a year later; and repeat these steps with another positive-communication-practice category when ready.
Another strategy to bring attention to collaborative communication practices and behaviors is to set intentions prior to collaborative interactions. Continuing on with the example of showing compassion, one might repeat: “Show compassion. Respectfully ask questions. Listen intently with an open heart and mind. Offer support and encouragement.”
While these suggestions focus on personal development at an individual level, they can be applied to groups and teams. For example, if there are certain collaborative practices that are important to a group, they could be incorporated into a group agreement. In the group agreement, particular practices and behaviors that are acceptable (and unacceptable) should be outlined. Groups working in collaboration are also encouraged to find ways to compliment colleagues when they exhibit the desired communication patterns and to respectfully point out when an unacceptable behavior is enacted. Lastly, groups might consider starting their meetings by reviewing the group agreement or collectively setting intentions such as: “show compassion–have character–commit to collaborating–be courageous.” These practices help everyone be mindful and pay attention to their own actions and words.
Contributions, Limitations, and Future Research
Contributions to Communication Research
This study contributes to the growing field of positive communication scholarship by exploring positive communication in collaborative contexts and identifying 15 collaborative communication practices. Like other studies (e.g., Biganeh & Young, 2021), this study also illustrates the important role of Mirivel’s (2014) seven positive communication behaviors in cultivating and sustaining interpersonal relationships and fostering collaboration. The significant role positive communication plays in shaping perceptions and experiences of those interacting is also underscored.
Contributing to collaboration and communication research, this study highlights the interpersonal communication component of collaboration, which is underemphasized in this research stream. Mentioned earlier in the background section, a tension-response framework is one that is often applied when examining the process of collaboration. Responses to tensions share the quality of moving away from individual positions and perspectives to generating something novel and innovative through working synergistically (e.g., Koschmann, 2016). A more-than response represents effective collaboration, rather than an either-or response which suggests zero-sum gain and making trade-offs (Manca, 2022; Putnam et al., 2016). Study findings contribute to this research stream by identifying specific practices and associated behaviors that enhance interpersonal relationships and foster collaboration. The enactment of these practices and behaviors is one way to help realize a more-than response and invoke the collaborative advantage.
Limitations and Future Research
This research has both limitations and opportunities for future research. This research does not explicitly examine how the 15 collaborative communication practices directly impact ways people feel or act in collaborative efforts. Socha and Beck (2015) argue that positive communication can help satisfy basic human needs, including belongingness. Future research should address whether or how these practices influence others’ sense of belonging in the context of collaboration. This is important because a sense of belonging is found to influence individuals’ participation and engagement in collaborative efforts (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Trust and psychological safety are other concepts worthy of incorporating in future studies (Carmeli et al., 2009; Edmondson, 2004). As these elements increase, so do the chances that individuals will bring their whole selves (i.e., ideas, talents, expertise, and perspectives) to the collaborative process and participate fully.
The study featured herein is exploratory and qualitative in nature. Future research should apply quantitative methods to (a) determine if the four collaborative-communication-practice categories are reliable and valid and (b) if the relationships between the 15 collaborative communication practices and Mirivel’s (2014) positive communication behaviors (see Table 3) are statistically significant. Another limitation of this research is the generalizability of convenience sampling; this calls for studies focused on groups of people collaborating in a specific context or effort.
Future research should also explore if and how practicing these collaborative communication practices shifts one’s mindset about collaborative work. More specifically, some people approach collaborative work optimistically (i.e., believe in the potential of collaboration and are excited to work with others), while others approach collaborative pessimistically (i.e., view collaborative work as a waste of time and dread working with others). Therefore, another question to consider is: To what extent does routinely engaging in these practices shift one’s mindset and approach to collaboration?
Because interorganizational efforts are imperative to addressing today’s most complex issues, it is advised that future research continue to examine the influence of these practices in multiparty collaborative efforts. Collaborative efforts designed to advance the UN’s sustainable development goals—ones related to health, poverty, hunger, social justice, climate action, and so on—should be studied (Villarejo-Carballido et al., 2019).
Conclusion
Positive collaborative communication patterns have the potential to enhance the efficacy of collaborative efforts. By learning to engage in practices and behaviors that foster collaboration and avoid ones discouraging it, individuals will be more effective in developing and maintaining positive interpersonal relationships. Their confidence and ability to cultivate and nurture the relational aspect of collaboration will be strengthened. By tending to interpersonal relationships, the odds of maximizing the collaborative advantage and minimizing inertia is increased. This is especially critical as we collaborate to confront today’s most pressing and difficult-to-solve problems such as those related to the health and well-being of our natural environment and its people. In the inspirational world of collaboration where almost anything is possible, we all can help realize visions through positive communication by enacting these collaborative communication practices.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.