Collective commitment and collective efficacy: A theoretical model for

understanding the motivational dynamics of collaborative

processesdilemma resolution in inter-professional work

Abstract

This paper presents a new theoretical model which conceptualizes inter-

professional and multi-agency collaborative working, at the level of the

individual within a group. This arises from a review of the literature around joint

working, and is based on social psychological theories which refer to shared

goals. The model assumes that collective commitment, collective efficacy, and

process and outcome beliefs interact and feed into the development and

maintenance of collaborative processes and outcomes. This is situated within an

ecological framework that summarises the context of inter-professional and

multi-agency collaboration. The model illustrates working resolutions of specific

inter-professional dilemmas around identity, role and control. This paper extends

the literature around theoretical approaches to collaborative work in a multi-

agency or inter-professional context, with its specific social-psychological focus

on the motivations of the individual within the group.

Keywords: inter-professional work, professional collaboration; joint work

Collective commitment and collective efficacy: A theoretical model for

understanding the motivational dynamics of collaborative

processesdilemma resolution in inter-professional work

Authors: Jo Rose*a and Brahm Norwichb

*Corresponding Author

aGraduate School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square,

Bristol BS8 1JA UK. jo.rose@bristol.ac.uk

b Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter

EX1 2LU UK.

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out at the Graduate School of Education, University

of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU. It was funded by a British

Academy Small Grant, award number SG-46750.

Thank you to Professor Jo-Anne Baird, and anonymous referees, for their

helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Introduction

This paper presents a new theoretical model conceptualising inter-

professional collaboration, and shows how this model links with the resolution

of dilemmas in inter-professional working. Inter-professional and multi-agency

teams, by nature, are likely to experience problems (e.g. Sloper 2004; Watson,

2006), particularly around developing and coordinating collective goals.

Widely-used theoretical perspectives in this field include activity theory

(Engeström, 1999) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), which are

generally framed in terms of social theory, and as such do not address in detail

interaction between individuals and the groups in which they work (Edwards,

2007). Work on relational agency (Edwards, 2006, 2007; Edwards, Lunt &

Stamau, 2010) begins to address this, focusing on collaborative processes,

specifically the capacity of individuals to develop shared understandings in

joint work. However, there is a need for greater understanding about ways in

which individuals develop commitment to the processes of joint work, and how

such motivation can resolve inter-professional dilemmas. The model presented

in this paper addresses this need with a specific analysis of the social-

psychological processes involved in inter-professional collaboration and

motivation.

With the introduction of Every Child Matters (Department for

Education and Skills [DfES], 2004) followed by The Children’s Plan

(Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF], 2007), inter-

professional and multi-agency collaboration became increasingly important to

policy-makers and practitioners in children’s services. The restructuring of

government departments in 2007 created the Department for Children, Schools

and Families, illustrating the Labour government’s policy thrust towards child-

centred provision. The 2010 Coalition government returned to a separate

Department for Education, and subsequent changes to Local Authority funding

resulted in expectations that services will develop efficient ways of working

together around child-centred provision. There is an increasing requirement,

therefore, for professionals from different agencies and backgrounds to work

together. In education for example, Behaviour Support Teams might bring

together professionals such as advisory teachers, clinical and educational

psychologists, mental health workers, speech and language therapists, social

workers, and school nurses. Such mixes of professionals work across children’s

services in Youth Offending Teams, Teams Around the Child, Child and

Adolescent Mental Health Services, and many other groups and teams. Despite

this, guidance about the practicalities of joint working is lacking (Dalzell,

Nelson, Haigh, Williams & Monti§, 2007). Unique problems arise when

professionals from different backgrounds and agencies work together, in

addition to issues arising from collaboration in a single profession or discipline.

These difficulties stem partially from differing ideologies, working practices

and priorities that are encountered when practitioners from education, social

services, health and elsewhere work collaboratively to further children’s

interests. Such difficulties are common to inter-professional working in many

fields: the way in which this paper addresses these problems can be generalized

across the disciplinesdifferent occupational roles in different services and

industry.

The main theoretical perspectives used in this field include activity

theory (Engeström, 1999) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). The

alternative presented by this paper starts with an ecological framework of

processes and factors at national, local, group, and individual levels, based on

Easen, Atkins and Dyson (2000). We then propose a model drawing on

theoretical developments in the fields of team reasoning and collective

preferences (Gilbert, 2001; Sugden, 2005), joint commitment (Gilbert, 2005),

and collective efficacy and process/outcome beliefs (Bandura, 1997). These

perspectives are integrated into a model that sits within the context of the

ecological framework, representing the collaborative processes played out at the

interface between group and individual levels of analysis. This model shows

how dilemmas and tensions arising in inter-professional work may be resolved,

and addresses the need for a comprehensive model of processes and factors that

could be relevant to the success of multi-agency collaboration (Salmon, 2004).

The model extends existing perspectives of activity theory and community of

practice frameworks, providing greater clarity and detail of analysis around

collaborative motivation than previous conceptualizations of collaboration.

As will be argued in this paper, collaboration across professional

boundaries highlights issues at policy, social and individual levels. This means

that an integrated conceptualization will be at various levels of analysis and

need to be inter-disciplinary. We argue that this is necessary to understanding

the complexity of the issues.

The Contextual Perspective

Easen et al. (2000) take an ecological approach to help them describe

multi-agency collaboration. Their framework uses nested contexts to model

relationships between factors that affect multi-agency working. They see the

over-arching context as being the nature of the political economy and the

current government’s policies: in short, the general historical and prevailing

political ethos of the government. Easen et al. describe the streams of policies

that compete and interact within a government system. They then focus in more

to consider the specific instance of collaboration: what is a piece of

collaborative work for, and what is it supposed to do? Finally, situated in the

local context, are issues affecting how collaborative working is played out: the

people involved, how they conceptualise their practice, what their conditions of

work are, what resources are available to them to support the collaborative

work, and specifics of the locality in which they work. Easen et al.’s model

presents a comprehensive overview of the layers of context within which

collaboration works, although they did not expand on the interactions between

the different levels of context, and they do not go beyond the contextual

analysis to consider the micro-processes of collaborative working in detail.

Social Theory Perspectives

Of more pertinence to the specifics of collaborative working, is the use

of cultural historical activity theory (Engeström, 1999, 2001). The relevance of

activity theory lies in its focus on knowledge creation and exchange in the

workplace and how tasks come to be redistributed in changing organisations

and teams. Conflict is seen to be generated as different communities or activity

systems come together to pursue common goals, as in children’s services. A

cycle of ‘expansive learning’ is described in this coming together that

eventuates in finding solutions and agreeing shared models of working. For

example, Engeström (2001) describes how children’s health care practitioners

were discussing a case where information sharing processes had broken down.

Individual practitioners made different claims about what had happened to the

notes on the case. The disagreements led to a suggestion of exploring the

systems of information sharing – an illustration of expansive learning. Activity

theory is presented in general terms and so it would be expected that its

influence would be most useful in framing issues rather than specific analyses.

This is what Robinson, Anning and Frost (2005) found in their study of multi-

agency teams, where the process of expansive learning helped them understand

how dilemmas might be resolved. However, these authors identify a gap in

activity theory; the lack of focus on the role of professional relationships and

rituals to sustain emergent shared models. This focus, according to these

authors, is important in facilitating the take-up of shared values.

Other work which uses activity theory to explore inter-professional

collaboration focuses on some process issues. In another study of multi-agency

working, Leadbetter et al. (2007) and Edwards, Daniels, Gallagher, Leadbetter

and Warmington (2009) use activity theory to illustrate the construction of a

shared common goal. They discuss the work that takes place at boundaries of

existing systems and organisations with established procedures and protocols.

Edwards et al. (2009) describe how practitioners

‘needed to become attuned to how other professions might

primarily interpret a child, for example, as a victim of family

disruption rather than primarily as a participant in crime. They also

need to learn how other practitioners would respond to those

interpretations and to become aware of resources they could bring

to bear to support a child and how they might use them’ (p.91)

Neutral spaces for discussion, with an emphasis on professional respect,

meant that practitioners could learn from each other in order to develop their

repertoire of preventative practice when working with children. It is these

boundary spaces, they Edwards et al. suggest, that provide the flexibility and

opportunities to develop new shared ways of working, although the extent to

which boundaries are defended and adhered to can affect the capability of

professionals to successfully collaborate. Leadbetter et al acknowledge tensions

that arise from the division of labour, sharing and distributing professional

expertise, and evaluations of professional knowledge. They suggest that there is

a need to work with more shared understanding while maintaining specialisms,

and activity theory has enabled them to identify contradictions between

systems, and where these tensions may arise. However, this use of activity

theory focuses mainly on the social aspects of collaborative work, rather than

individual characteristics. It does not provide a complete analysis of

collaborative dilemmas, so only partially explores ways in which individuals

can come to terms with problems that emerge from collaborative working. It

has been suggested that activity theory needs to work harder to incorporate the

individual and the collective (e.g. Edwards, 20062005), which has led to the

development of the idea of relational agency (Edwards, 20062005, 2007;

Edwards et al., 2010). Relational agency is the ‘capacity to align one’s thoughts

and actions with those of others to interpret aspects of one’s world and to act on

and respond to those interpretations’ (Edwards, 2007, p.4). In other words,

Edwards suggests that through interaction with others, individuals develop and

change how they think about concepts, problems and contexts. These

interactions, and resultant shifts in perspectives, inform how individuals

interpret contexts and others’ actions, and guide future experiences with others

in joint work. As an example, Edwards (2005) describes how

‘a teacher and a social worker might jointly expand their

understandings of a child’s trajectory using the conceptual and

material tools of their own specialisms. Following that

interpretation their different professional expertise is brought into

play in response to the expanded problem and their work is aligned

in the knowledge of the expertise of the other.’ (p. 178).

This linking of the individual and the social contributes to an

understanding of processes involved in joint work, particularly regarding how

individuals integrate their versions of knowledge and develop new, shared

understandings to take work forward.

Nonetheless, activity theory still has limitations in its applicability to

multi-agency and inter-professional working. The components of the theory are,

in general terms, applicable to many situations and instances of collaborative

work. While some may see this as a theoretical strength, we consider that over-

generalisability does, in fact, highlight a limitation to the usefulness of activity

theory: there is a need to develop more subtlety and detail to facilitate the

detailed analysis of individual motivations within collaborative working. The

individual as part of the group is a key feature of collaborative working.

Relational agency contributes to an understanding of certain aspects of this, in

terms of how individuals develop shared interpretations, but there is still a need

to consider in detail how individuals commit to ideas of working together in the

first place.

Wenger’s (1998) work on communities of practice is also used as a lens

through which to consider inter-professional work (e.g. Frost & Robinson,

2007; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009). Wenger suggests that through participation

in group activities, and formalization of group procedures, individuals come to

see themselves as team members. Wenger considers the role of the individual

within the group, and describes how identities change as individuals begin to

see themselves as part of a multi-professional team. Wenger acknowledges that

multiple identities held by individuals may conflict and create tension, needing

some kind of reconciliation, and suggests that individuals renegotiate and

reshape their identities through developing roles and redistributing knowledge.

As Robinson et al. (2005) found, changes in professional identities are an

important aspect of developing effective multi-agency teamwork. In a similar

vein to activity theory, however, the communities of practice framework is

essentially a social theory deploying generalised concepts with a broad scope.

As with activity theory, the communities of practice framework is useful in

enabling framing of key issues, but the core concepts need more detail to

examine specifics of individual motivations and processes. This is particularly

applicable when considering specific tensions over identity, which are

identified in the wider literature in this field and were prominent in Robinson et

al’s study.

In summary, Easen et al.’s ecological framework, and those of

Engeström (1999) and of Wenger (1998), which have their origins in social

theory, are able to frame collaboration in general terms. Edwards’ (20062005,

2007) work on relational agency also sheds some light on some aspects of the

interface between groups and individuals. However, more work is needed to

understand processes that arise at this interface, particularly around

collaborative motivation. Concepts relating to motivational processes at this

interface will enable a fuller analysis of difficulties encountered in multi-agency

and inter- professional collaboration, and also help us to understand ways of

resolving such difficulties.

An Inter-Disciplinary Framework of Collaborative Working

Social level of analysis

The framework of collaborative working proposed here situates

collaborative practices in the context of a specific field of provision (‘local

context of collaboration’), set within and interacting with a national policy field

(‘policy context’) (see Figure 1 for a contextualised framework of

collaboration). Interacting at the heart of the model are group and individual

processes. This framework used Easen et al’s (2000) explanatory model of

inter-professional collaboration as a starting point, and developed it according

to the literature review. The literature search used the British Education Index,

Education Resources Information Center, and PsychInfo databases: search

terms included “inter agency”, “inter professional”, “multi agency”, “multi

professional”, “professional collaboration”, and “professional cooperation”.

Studies that focused on professionals from different organizations working

together to support children and young people were considered. In view of its

levels of analysis, this the framework presented here assumes that interactions

between professionals (inter-professional collaboration, e.g. social workers and

psychologists) are distinct from interactions between agencies (inter-agency

collaboration e.g. schools and mental health service).

Insert Figure 1 about here

In the policy context the key factors identified by research are:

national and local Government policies and structures (O’Brien

et al., 2006);

interactions and tensions between different policies (Bagley,

Ackerley, & Rattray, 2004; Harris, 2003); and

the regulations and codes of practice of different services and

professions (Hartas, 2004).

The policy context establishes general frameworks and approaches that

need to be worked out in the local context. These approaches pose problems

and challenges which have to be worked out within the real, ‘messier’ contexts

of practice. A two-way interaction between the local and policy contexts is

assumed, because of the impact of national policy on local contexts and the way

local contexts ultimately feed back into future policy development. The key

factors and processes in the local context of collaboration as identified by

research involve:

the purpose of collaborative action (Bachmann et al., 2009;

Easen et al., 2000; Glenny, 2005; Skinner & Bell, 2007);

roles and responsibilities of specific professions (Abbo, Watson

& Townsley, 2005; Bell & Allain, 2011; Frost & Robinson, 2007; Moran,

Jacobs, Bunn & Bifulco, 2007);

leadership and management structures (Bagley et al., 2004;

Watson, 2006);

lines of accountability (Frost & Robinson, 2007);

resourcing (Easen et al., 2000; O’Brien et al., 2006; Sloper,

2004; Tett, Crowther & O’Hara, 2003); and

shared/differing concepts and knowledge (Frost & Robinson,

2007; Moran et al., 2007; Salmon, 2004).

The local context of collaboration sets the scene for and interacts with

group collaboration. The key factors and processes in group functioning as

identified in research involve:

roles and responsibilities within collaborative groups and teams;

(Considine, 2002; Frost & Robinson, 2007; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009;

Sloper, 2004);

kinds of joint activities (Frost & Robinson, 2007; Hartas, 2004;

Watson, 2006); and

history, duration, continuity and kinds of collaborative

relationships (Abbot et al., 2005; Easen et al., 2000; Skinner & Bell, 2007;

Sloper, 2004).

Finally, key factors and processes in individual factors identified by

research are:

individual professional expertise, perceived status, and

professional experiences (Bell & Allain, 2011; Frost & Robinson, 2007);

past experiences of collaboration (Cameron & Lart, 2003;

Sloper, 2004); and

personal skills (Abbot et al., 2005; Cameron & Lart, 2003;

Skinner & Bell, 2007).

Social-Psychological Level of Analysis

The above parts of this new framework are based on Easen et al.’s

(2000) model of relationships between factors affecting inter-professional

collaboration, and draw on relevant literature to exemplify key factors and

processes at these levels. What is new about the framework is the integration of

a conceptualization of the interaction between the group and individuals into

these social levels of analysis as a descriptive model of collaborative processes.

This paper introduces a social social psychological level of conceptualization

analyses into this inter-disciplinary framework of collaborative working. By

focusing on the interaction between the individual and the collective, we show

by showing how conclusions from literature about multi-agency and inter-

professional collaboration can be conceptualised as social psychological

processes and factors.

Shared purposes and common goals are themes running through the

literature on inter-professional and partnership working. Shared goals need to

be clear (e.g. Anning, Cottrell, Frost, Green & Robinson, 2006; Dhillon, 2007;

Sloper, 2004), and commitment to those goals and to the process of joint work

is critical to effective collaboration, from managerial levels through to delivery

levels (eg Atkinson, Wilkin, Stott. Doherty & Kinder, 2002; Dowling, Powell

& Glendinning, 2004; Sloper, 2004). Motivation to work in partnership across

professional boundaries can be enhanced where a single profession on its own

would struggle to meet the demands of a complex problem. In such cases as

these all parties could benefit from collaboration (Hartas, 2004; Dhillon, 2007).

Trust and confidence that other professions are ready to come on board in cases

such as these can contribute to a sense of shared responsibility for successful

outcomes, but communication systems must support this (Glenny and Roaf,

2008).

The principles and strategies for collaborative work also need to be

agreed by those working together (Harris, 2003; Tett et al, 2003). Differences in

values, concepts and knowledge bases, however, need not hinder collaborative

work: shared goals can be general enough to allow for differences in particular

values, and can still refer to group processes around how an issue can be

addressed (Frost & Robinson, 2007).

This framework outlined in this paper draws on theoretical concepts of

collective preferences (Gilbert, 2001), team reasoning (Sugden, 2005), and joint

commitment (Gilbert 2005). These ideas about shared purposes, joint

responsibility for and commitment to these purposes are brought together as the

basis for finding strategies to progress these purposes. Experimental work on

decision making revealed demonstrated that collective preferences come into

play where contributions are required from several people to achieve a stated

goal, especially in situations involving public accountability for actions

(Colman, Pulford & Rose, 2008; Rose & Colman, 2007). Collective preferences

are demonstrated when actions and resultant outcomes are considered in terms

of ‘what the group wants’, rather than what each individual wants. The

assumption behind this perspective, therefore, is that individuals in interaction

are focused on the group’s goals and outcomes, and feel a sense of commitment

and shared responsibility. Collective preferences, then, are illustrated by the

following conditions:

i. the group prefers and intends to achieve the best outcome for

the group, and

ii. the individual acts as a part of the group to achieve this outcome

iii. the individual is accountable to the rest of the group for their

actions.

Collective preferences are useful for analysis of multi-agency and inter-

professional collaboration, because they can elaborate on the key role of shared

goals in informing ways that individuals work together to solve problems.

Considered in this way, collective preferences involve: i. the processes of

generating shared goals, ii. shared perceptions of collective responsibility and

iii. a willingness to act as part of a group. However, Gilbert (2005) has

extended her discussion of collective preferences to describe the idea of joint

commitment, which describes how group members can all be committed to a

joint course of action, and be answerable to everyone else who is committed. In

joint commitment there is an intention to coordinate action in order to achieve a

joint goal, with some expectation that the goal cannot be achieved by

individuals alone. This leads to an obligation to perform the planned actions, to

achieve the goal.

These concepts integrate and highlight some of the underlying processes

in inter-professional groups; they pull together the different stages of decision-

making and action that are involved in joint work. Together they can be

summarized as ‘collective commitment’: the key aspect of relevance is the

assumption that individuals in interaction develop commitments to the group’s

goals and outcomes. This concept of collective commitment to group goals has

affinity with Considine’s (2002) notion of a ‘culture of responsibility’ in which

professionals come to see themselves as responsible for ensuring positive

outcomes. As such, collective commitment is applicable to collaborative group

work and can help to explain some of the underlying processes in inter-

professional collaborative working. Collective commitment identifies the key

role of shared goals in collaborative processes, with these goals guiding the way

that individuals work together to solve problems.

However, there is more to the processes of collaborative working. This

is where a further theoretical approach is relevant; the social cognitive theory of

group motivation, commitment and performance (Bandura, 1997). Of particular

relevance from this theory are the concepts of collective efficacy beliefs, on one

hand, and collective process and outcome beliefs, on the other. This theoretical

focus on collective beliefs fits neatly with and complements the focus of

collective commitment on shared goals, as goals and beliefs are core parts of

social cognitive theory’s explanatory concepts. Collective efficacy refers to a

group’s beliefs about its capabilities to carry out a course of action. It is an

extension of Bandura’s work on human agency; where he extended the idea of

self efficacy to explain groups’ motivation, commitment and performance.

Perceived self efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs about her or his

capability to successfully execute a certain course of action in a given context,

with reference to ‘the control of action, regulation of thought processes,

motivation, and affective and physiological states’ (Bandura, 1997, p.36). In

collective efficacy, the group’s perception is taken as an aggregate of

individuals’ perceptions. However, collective efficacy relates not only to a

group’s perceptions of the ability of individuals to successfully carry out certain

courses of action, but also to the interactive aspects of group functioning; how

the group operates as a whole. Group motivation and performance depend on

both collective efficacy in social cognitive theory, and on collective process and

outcome beliefs. To initiate and maintain collaborative actions, according to the

theory, depends not only on shared goals and collective efficacy beliefs, but

also on collective beliefs that undertaking collaborative actions leads to positive

outcomes.

Figure 2 illustrates this integration of the shared group goal aspect of

collective commitment with collective efficacy, and process and outcome

beliefs from social cognitive theory. These three parts interact with each other

in initiating and maintaining collaborative actions and outcomes. Collaborative

action is likely to be initiated if there is collective commitment to group goals,

and there are beliefs that collaborative action will lead to desired outcomes

(‘process and outcome beliefs’), as well as efficacy perceptions about the

capabilities of the group to carry out collaborative actions (‘individual and

collective efficacy’). Once collaborative actions begin, early actions and interim

outcomes feed back to the motivational processes in a dynamic way, where

there may be changes to collaborative actions. In this respect, the model

presented in this paper illustrates an iterative process that can allow for the

development, responsiveness and continuation of collaborative processes.

These collaborative processes represented in Figure 2 are seen as operating at

the interface of individual and group levels of analysis in the overall contextual

framework of collaborative working (as in Figure 1).

Insert Figure 2 about here

This model of collaborative team processes illustrates the social

psychological processes that occur to differing extents in collaborative teams.

The extent to which collective commitment, individual and collective efficacy,

and process and outcome beliefs occur will affect the nature, development and

maintenance of collaborative processes. Therefore, this model provides a

framework with which to analyse such processes with a particular focus that has

not been used before. This paper will now illustrate the relevance of this model

to collaborative practice, in particular, the resolution of inter-professional

dilemmas.

Dilemmas in inter-professional teams

The way in which inter-professional teams operate means that there are

certain types of problems that they are likely to encounter, particularly around

defining and working towards a shared goal. This is demonstrated by the

extensive literature on barriers to inter-professional and multi-agency working

(e.g. Sloper, 2004; Watson, 2006). Anning et al. (2006) outline a number of

tensions in inter-professional work, but this paper, as in Rose (2011),

recognizes the distinction between fairly straightforward problems and more

complex dilemmas. Dilemmas are a particular type of hard-to-solve problem,

where there is no clear solution because all possible courses of action have

disadvantages, This paper conceptualizes inter-professional dilemmas in three

ways: dilemmas around role, identity and control.

Role dilemmas

Dilemmas around role happen when there is a mismatch or conflict

between the level of expertise and the type of task. In a role dilemma, a

specialist may be asked to take on a more generic role which does not use their

expertise, or a professional may feel that their expertise is devalued when a

less-specialized individual takes on specialist roles. In inter-professional work,

there is often a need for both specialized expertise and more generic work, but

some specialists may not be keen to carry out the necessary generic work: this

can be problematic in a team of specialists. Undertaking generic roles can,

however, be useful to help practitioners overcome professional boundaries

(Abbot et al., 2005; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009) and sharing working practices

can help avoid compartmentalized views of the child (Leadbetter, 2008).

Although generic roles can be useful in terms of speed of delivery,

professionals may feel anxieties around others carrying out “their” rles, and

concerns around the quality of service provision (Frost & Robinson, 2007;

Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009; Webb & Vulliamy, 2001). In essence, then, role

dilemmas concern the appropriateness of tasks undertaken by an individual.

Identity dilemmas

The conflict between deep, but bounded, specialist knowledge and

wider knowledge which spans professional boundaries can result in an identity

dilemma. Hybrid professionals, with experience, knowledge and approaches

that draw from a range of disciplines, are now becoming more commonplace

(e.g. Sloper, 2004). It can take time to develop a clear idea of what it means to

be a hybrid or ‘multi-agency’ professional in practice, which can result in

practitioners feeling insecure within such a role (Hymans, 2008; Leadbetter,

2006). The resulting change in status, as well as blurring of role boundaries,

can also be threatening to professional identity (Abbot et al., 2005; Frost &

Robinson, 2007; Leadbetter, 2006; Robinson et al., 2005). Stepping outside

ones area of specialist expertise into a more wide-ranging role can also reduce

an individual’s sense of unique professional contribution (Frost & Robinson,

2007; Moran et al., 2007), and it can be hard to maintain deep specialist

knowledge and hold onto specialist identities, while constructing new ‘multi-

agency identities’, particularly where knowledge bases and professional

cultures conflict (Bell & Allain, 2011; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009; Robinson et

al., 2005). In essence, then, identity dilemmas are about how an individual sees

themselves and how others see them.

Control dilemmas

When professionals from different disciplines come together, they may

bring with them contradictory models of practice and use of different causal

models to analyse cases, and different versions of knowledge (Easen et al.,

2000; Frost & Robinson, 2007; O’Brien et al., 2006; Sloper, 2004). This can

result in a control dilemma: where one perspective is given priority over

another, some professionals may feel undervalued or ignored, and there may be

resultant confusion for service users. Different agencies may have different

specific agendas, priorities and approaches (O’Brien et al., 2006; Warin, 2007),

as well as different structures and conditions of work (Easen et al., 2000). In

essence, then, control dilemmas centre upon professional disagreements in

collaborative decision-making processes.

Figure 3 applies the model of collaborative motivational processes

(collective commitment to group goals, collective efficacy, process and

outcome beliefs, as in Figure 2) to kinds of tensions and dilemmas around role,

identity and control and their resolution, discussed above. Figure 3 represents

how the assumed motivational processes operate in the context of the working

out of these tensions and the resolving of these dilemmas. This model therefore

shows how the working out of the tensions and dilemmas influences

collaborative actions and outcomes and are mediated by these motivational

processes. In this way, collaborative outcomes represent the working resolution

of these role, identity and control dilemmas. So, as professionals accept and

work with the emergent tensions, we assume that resolutions are rooted in, and

feed back into the development of collective commitment, process/outcome

beliefs and efficacy beliefs that comprise the motivational processes.

Insert Figure 3 about here

To illustrate this, we can use examples of the three different dilemmas

discussed in Rose (2011). In an example of a role dilemma, an educational

psychologist was asked to contribute to a support programme for children with

emotional and behaviour al difficulties, and she felt that this contribution would

not make use of her specialist skills. A portage worker identified tensions

around goals (such as whether people’s agenda in being involved in

collaborative work was about being seen to lead or take over, rather than

working as part of a team), around efficacy (particularly around different skill

sets being valued), and around process-outcome beliefs (such as perceptions of

how different inputs will contribute to supporting a child). When discussing

potential resolutions for this dilemma, the portage worker commented,

‘I suppose that they need to get together and just discuss what

actually needs to be done and how that actually needs to be carried

out or where it needs to be carried out. So you know it is that they

are saying it needs to be carried out in the school throughout the

day then it’s not possible for an EP to be there every day, carrying

it out throughout the day, so then they have to look who is there

throughout the day, who can be working with that child, and

looking at that person’s skills and how they can use the skills that

they’ve got to help implement the programme, and whether they

need a bit more support or some extra training. Or it may be that

they have already got those skills but no one has actually said well,

actually you can do this because remember when you worked with

this child you did this and you did that, well actually that’s what we

want you to do for this one’

In the first sentence, the portage worker is discussing establishing joint

goals, in terms of ‘what actually needs to be done’. She then goes on to discuss

process-outcome beliefs – looking at how and where the work needs to be

carried out, and who will be implementing it. Finally, she ends up discussing

efficacy beliefs – around people believing that they have the skills to carry out a

piece of work. When role dilemmas were discussed, joint goals, process-

outcome beliefs, and efficacy beliefs all featured in the suggested resolutions.

In identity dilemmas, however, efficacy beliefs and process-outcome

beliefs were more prevalent in suggested resolutions. Process-outcome beliefs

arose when people discussed ‘what is going to be most valuable in the long

term?’ and considered how sharing ideas with other types of professionals can

provide the means to work effectively with children. Efficacy beliefs arose in

discussions around how confident people were in carrying out their role and

maintaining their expertise in order to do their job effectively. When discussing

an identity dilemma where a CAMHS nurse was facing a choice between being

based with an education team, or with health colleagues, for example, a clinical

psychologist reflected on how well-established people were in their roles:

‘Certainly at the beginning of someone’s career, I think if you’ve

been working as a CAMHS nurse for 20 years and you are very

well rooted in your professional identity and the kinds of things

that you keep abreast of, and you are really closely linked to

different networks, then it might not affect you as much as if you

were, it was your first job for example and suddenly you are

thinking hold on I am not sure what I would do in this situation as a

CAMHS nurse, and the educationalist is saying I should do this,

and I am not seeing my supervisor for another two weeks so I don’t

know really what I should do. So I think there’s a definite tension

there and I think how it will play itself out depends on I think how

experienced you are and how confident you are in your world.’

Discussions around control dilemmas focused mostly on group goals,

and process-outcome beliefs. Suggested resolutions included thinking about

‘what you are actually trying to achieve’, and in an example where an

educational psychologist and a SENCo were arguing about the best course of

action, a primary mental health worker suggested ‘I would maybe want to ask

her some questions about the sort of outcomes she was looking for and how she

would know when she’d got them.’

Process-outcome beliefs were connected to issues around goals –

participants considered goals, and then how those could best be achieved. The

same primary mental health worker, for example, said

‘If I was the ed psych and the SENCO was absolutely driven to do

this then I would be really clear with her about where I thought the

pitfalls were.’

In a similar vein, a learning mentor explained:

‘It’s difficult because the professions that do come into our school

we know them and you can sit down and you can be reasonable and

you can have child-centred conversations, really it’s not about what

I want and it’s not about you want, it’s about what do you think is

going to work best.’

Conclusion

This paper presents an Inter-Disciplinary Framework of Collaborative

Working that integrates social with psychological levels of analysis. Its

originality involves two broad aspects. First, it draws together the ideas of

collective commitment, collective efficacy, and process and outcome beliefs, on

one hand, with ideas about tensions and dilemmas in multi-agency group

functioning, on the other. Second, it locates these ideas about motivational

processes within social processes and factors relevant to multi-agency and inter-

professional collaboration. The potential usefulness of this model is that as it is

situated within a set of social contexts it provides a way of gauging the extent to

which such teams can work constructively. It does this by examining whether

the possible tensions and dilemmas are resolved to an extent where the group

achieves collective commitment, has collective efficacy about joint working

and holds collective beliefs that joint working will eventuate in constructive

outcomes.

The model also implies that there is a two way relationship between

collaborative outcomes, motivational processes and group tensions and

dilemmas. Motivational processes feed into collaborative outcomes, and in turn

are responsive to such outcomes. These processes and outcomes also affect the

ways in which professionals interpret and respond to inter-professional

dilemmas, and this response will in turn feed back into how motivation and

collaborative processes develop. To achieve a working level of collaborative

processes, involving collective commitment, collective efficacy, and process-

outcome beliefs, would suggest that individuals within a group had accepted

such dilemmas and were prepared to resolve these tensions. As such, achieving

a level of collaborative process as represented by this model can be seen as a

working resolution of dilemmas.

This framework has drawn on and conceptualized existing literature

about inter-professional and multi-agency working, with the detailed focus on

the social-psychological motivational processes that operate within the

individual as a part of the group. It situates these processes within an ecological

model of inter-professional working similar to that proposed by Easen et al.

(2000). While Wenger’s (1998) work on communities of practice acknowledges

that individual identities play a role in group processes its main strength is as a

middle level social theory. Its conceptual terms, therefore, are not best suited to

addressing the specific issues of collaborative working at the interface between

groups and individuals. The framework presented in this paper presents an

analysis that is both specific, and situated within the wider local and national

contexts – this distinction comes from Easen et al. (2000), but is not considered

in detail in the communities of practice literature (Wenger, 1998). Work on

relational agency (Edwards, 2006, 2007; Edwards et al., 2010) has brought the

interaction between the group and the individual in activity theory into sharper

focus. The main agenda of this work is to look at the actual processes of

developing shared conceptualizations. The current paper, therefore, presents a

new contextualized framework for considering the social-psychological

motivational processes involved in collaborative working.

References

Abbot, D., Watson, D. & Townsley, R. (2005) The proof of the pudding: what difference does

multi-agency working make to families with disabled children with complex health care needs?

Child and Family Social Work, 10, 229-238.

Anning, A., Cottrell, D.M., Frost, N., Green, J. & Robinson, M. (2006) Developing

multiprofessional teamwork for integrated children's services. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Atkinson, M., Wilkin, A.., Stott, A., Doherty, P. & Kinder, K. (2002) Multi-agency working: A

detailed study. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Bachmann, M.O., O’Brien, M.O., Shreeve, C., Jones, A., Watson, N., Reading, J., Thoburn, R.,

Mugford, M. & the National Evaluation of Children’s Trusts Team. (2009) Integrating

children’s services in England: national evaluation of children’s trusts. Child: Care, Health and

Development, 35, 257-265.

Bagley, C., Ackerley, C.L. & Rattray, J. (2004) Social exclusion, Sure Start and organizational

social capital: evaluating inter-disciplinary multi-agency working in an education and health

work programme, Journal of Education Policy, 19, 595-607.

Bandura, A. (1997) Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W H Freeman.

Cameron, A. & Lart, R. (2003) Factors promoting and obstacles hindering joint working: a

systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Integrated Care, 11, 9-17.

Bell, L. and Allain, L. (2011) Exploring professional stereotypes and learning for inter-

professional practice: an example from UK qualifying level social work education. Social Work

Education, 30, 266-280.

Considine, M. (2002) The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networks,

partnerships and joined-up services. Governance: An International Journal of Policy,

Administration and Institutions, 15, 21-40.

Colman, A.M., Pulford, B. & Rose, J.  (2008) Collective rationality in interactive decisions:

Evidence for team reasoning.  Acta Psychologica, 128, 387-397.

Dalzell, J., Nelson, H., Haigh, C., Williams A. & Monti§, P. (2007) Involving families who

have deaf children using a Family Needs Survey: a multi-agency perspective, Child: Care,

Health and Development, 33, 576-585.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) The children’s plan: Building Brighter

futures. Norwich: HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every child matters: Change for children.

Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Dhillon, J.K. (2007) Trust, shared goals and participation in partnerships: reflections of post-16

education and training providers in England. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 59,

503-515.

Dowling, B., Powell, M. & Glendinning C. (2004) Conceptualising successful partnerships,

Health and Social Care in the Community, 12, 309-317.

Easen, P., Atkins, M. & Dyson, A. (2000) Inter-professional collaboration and

conceptualisations of practice. Children and Society, 14, 355-367.

Edwards, A. (20062005) Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner.

International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168-182.

Edwards, A. (2007) Relational agency in professional practice: a CHAT analysis. Actio: An

International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1-17.

Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J. & Warmington, P. (2009) Improving

inter-professional collaborations: Learning to do multi-agency work. Abingdon: Routledge.

Edwards, A., Lunt, I. and Stamou, E. (2010) Inter-professional work and expertise: new roles at

the boundaries of schools. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 27-45.

Engeström, Y. (1999) Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical

reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.

Frost, N. & Robinson, M. (2007) Joining up children’s services: safeguarding children in multi-

disciplinary teams. Child Abuse Review, 16, 184-199.

Gaskell, S. and Leadbetter, J. (2009) Educational psychologists and multi-agency working:

exploring professional identity. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25, 97-111.

Gilbert, M. (2001) Collective preferences, obligations, and rational choice. Economics and

Philosophy, 17, 109-119.

Gilbert, M. (2005) A theoretical framework for the understanding of teams. In N. Gold (Ed),

Teamwork: Multi-disciplinary perspectives (22-32). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Glenny, G. (2005) Riding the dragon: developing inter-agency systems for supporting children.

Support for Learning, 20, 167-175.

Glenny, G. & Roaf, C. (2008) Multiprofessional communication: Making systems work for

children. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.

Harris, S. (2003) Inter-agency practice and professional collaboration: the case of drug

education and prevention. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 303-314.

Hartas, D.D.H. (2004) Teacher and speech-language therapist collaboration: being equal and

achieving a common goal? Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 20, 33-54.

Hymans, M. (2008). How personal constructs about ‘professional identity’ might act as a

barrier to multi-agency working. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24, 279-288.

Leadbetter, J. (2006) Investigating and conceptualising the notion of consultation to facilitate

multi-agency work. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22, 19-31.

Leadbetter, J. (2008) Learning in and for interagency working: making links between practice

development and structured reflection, Learning in Health and Social Care, 7, 198-208.

Leadbetter, J., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Martin, D., Middleton, D., Popova, A., Warmington,

P., Apostolov, A. & Brown, S. (2007) Professional learning within multi-agency children’s

services: researching into practice. Educational Research, 49, 83-98.

Moran, P., Jacobs, C., Bunn, A. & Bifulco A. (2007) Multi-agency working: implications for an

early intervention social work team. Child and Family Social Work, 12, 143-151.

O’Brien, M., Bachmann, M., Husbands, C., Shreeve, A., Jones, N., Watson, J. & Shemilt, I.

(2006) Integrating children’s services to promote children’s welfare: early findings from the

implementation of Children’s Trusts in England. Child Abuse Review,15, 377-395.

Robinson, M., Anning, A. & Frost, N. (2005) ‘When is a teacher, not a teacher?’: knowledge

creation and the professional identity of teachers within multi-agency teams. Studies in

Continuing Education, 27, 175-191.

Rose, J. (2011) Dilemmas of inter-professional collaboration: Can they be resolved? Children

and Society, 25, 151-163.

Rose, J. & Colman, A.M.  (2007). Collective preferences in strategic decisions.  Psychological

Reports, 101, 803-815.

Salmon, G. (2004) Multi-agency collaboration: the challenges for CAMHS. Child and

Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 156-161.

Skinner, K. & Bell, L. (2007) Changing structures: necessary but not sufficient. Child Abuse

Review, 16, 209-222.

Sloper, P. (2004) Facilitators and barriers for co-ordinated multi-agency services. Child: Care,

Health and Development, 30, 571-580.

Sugden, R. (2005) The logic of team reasoning. In N. Gold (Ed), Teamwork: Multi-disciplinary

perspectives (181-199). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tett, L., Crowther, J. & O’Hara, P. (2003) Collaborative partnerships in community education.

Journal of Education Policy, 18, 37-51.

Warin, J. (2007) Joined-up services for young children and their families: papering over the

cracks or re-constructing the foundations. Children and Society, 21, 87-97.

Watson. H. (2006) Facilitating effective working in multi-agency co-located teams. Educational

and Child Psychology, 23, 8-22.

Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (2001) Joining up the solutions: the rhetoric and practice of inter-

agency cooperation. Children and Society, 15, 315-332.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. A contextual framework of collaboration

Figure 2. A model of collaborative team processes

Figure 3. The relationship between tensions in groups and resolution of

dilemmas on collaborative team processes