There are a variety of tools, ranging from motivational speeches to commands that an individual could use to elicit cooperative behavior in an organization, department, or business. These are called the Tools of Cooperation. This theory helps leaders choose the right tools to drive change by assessing stakeholders’ agreement on what the organization’s goals should be and how it can achieve them. Getting the diagnosis right has profound implications for how to roll out any proposed change.
Transcript:
You need to convince your team to get on board with an idea and work together to make it happen. How are you going to do it? After all, change is hard—especially when it requires consensus. According to the tools of cooperation theory, developed by Clayton Christensen, success relies on identifying stakeholders’ starting points.
On this diagram, the horizontal axis measures the extent to which people agree on cause and effect and how goals will be achieved. The vertical axis measures the extent to which people involved agree on everything from the goal to the outcome they seek, to their values and priorities, and to which trade-offs they’re willing to make to achieve results. On the right side of the diagram, strong agreement implies consensus on processes to reach a particular outcome, whereas little agreement places stakeholders on the left side. Your starting point depends on alignment around what stakeholders want and their agreement on how to get there.
Here are a few examples to illustrate the theory. One of the trickiest parts of a higher education president’s role is getting consensus on how to move an institution forward. Expensive higher education models are colliding with low-cost, technology-enabled learning solutions. Stressors such as shrinking numbers of high school graduates and turbulent debates over what schools can and cannot teach make it imperative for leaders to chart a path forward. It’s not unusual to see presidential tenures end after just three to five years.
Using the tools of cooperation, leaders can quickly understand the level of agreement within their college or university and then use the right tools to forge ahead. If stakeholders disagree on goals and how to achieve them, power tools are most effective. In higher education, threats and coercion may not work; instead, hiring and promotions, financial incentives, and negotiation within specific campus groups are a way forward.
If stakeholders agree on goals but disagree on how to achieve them, leadership tools like lofty vision statements and role modeling will rally individuals to the cause, even if they disagree on tactics or processes. If stakeholders agree on both goals and how to achieve them, you have a strong culture. Culture tools, such as rituals and folklore, will keep everyone moving in the same direction. Finally, if stakeholders disagree on goals but agree on how to achieve them, focus on management tools like measurement systems, standard operating procedures, and training. As you can see, getting the diagnosis right has profound implications for how to roll out any proposed changes.
Now let’s think about the tools of cooperation on an even greater scale. America’s working mothers are plagued by depression, anxiety, and burnout at higher rates than both working fathers and coworkers without children. In fact, mental illness is a leading cause of maternal mortality, which the CDC recently identified as preventable in 84% of cases. Meanwhile, missed workdays and associated healthcare costs for mental health issues cost the U.S. economy over $47.6 billion in 2020.
What’s got to give to improve working mothers’ health and reduce spending? According to the tools of cooperation, progress relies on consensus on the root cause as well as the goal. Nationally, there is a lack of clarity on the goal of improving maternal health. Do we ultimately want less stress on the healthcare system by reducing costs, a more productive workforce with low turnover, or both—or something else entirely? Without societal agreement, the pressure rests on the working mother to solve a national problem—and that’s not going to work.
Fewer constituents often lead to quicker consensus, so change might have a better chance if employers leverage policies and workplace benefits that promote maternal health. Walmart’s investment did just this. It now provides dual coverage for pregnant employees nationwide with the intent to address racial inequities in healthcare and improve maternal and infant health for employees and their babies. Policies like this from large employers can help move the country to the right on the cause-and-effect axis, enhancing national consensus on how to improve maternal health.
To learn more about the tools of cooperation, visit ChristensenInstitute.org/theorytoolsofcooperation.
