View Full Version : Collaboration or Cooperation?

Ted Hoppe
02-08-2010, 01:39 PM
We live in a new world where wordplay and ethics have become problematic to the common local and national good.

Think about your input you provide in your job, life or even the net.
When you do give your thought and energy to your work, would you rather have collaboration or cooperation in achieving a result?

Ian McColgin
02-08-2010, 01:49 PM
It would be helpful to have a little essay utilizing the terms "collaboration" and "cooperation" in whatever contexts and whatever special connotations the author has in mind. Primarily these words mean exactly the same, but while one can cooperate with and collaborate with an enemy, connotativly we more commonly look at collaboration as cooperation with an enemy and cooperation as collaboration with a friend or partner.

Clear so far?

Rather than trolling for a fancied distinction, it seems to me better to make the distinction in the process of saying something interesting about working relationships in, say, business or politics where people of conflicting goals or values do something together versus teams of people who generally agree on the big values.

Ian McColgin
02-08-2010, 02:05 PM
It's either as they both mean the same thing. It's just historical accident that in WWII "collaborator" got pinned on Quisling rather than "cooperator."

In the business world, "cooperatives" are a distinct business organization while business names that include "collaborative" can be of most any structure but imply and equality of importance in the different parts. Perhaps Norm is part of the "Police Highway Safety Collaborative, Inc."

Ted Hoppe
02-08-2010, 02:21 PM
In a group dynamic there are generally three ways of dividing up labor.
There is coordination as well as cooperation and collaboration. Each appear to be similar. Each funtion has various limits.

You initally think they are the same. Ponder this:
Would you rather be thought of as a Nazi Collaborator or a Nazi cooperator? The degree of your contribution is therefore more implied.

Ted Hoppe
02-08-2010, 02:42 PM
Many words do carry emotion and historical context.
That's why they hurt or motivate.

In a world where economic models are changing, we need to remember the power of words. My point in the post is to consider the spin of common corporate words and the removal of the individual. In a wiki world, the owner of the collaborative structure gets the reward verses the model of shared benefit. In this rational - the collaborator is at the top of this new model and those who cooperate in it's construction regardless of amount of contribution seeks to benefit later at a later project.

02-08-2010, 02:47 PM
Think about your input you provide in your job, life or even the net.
When you do give your thought and energy to your work, would you rather have collaboration or cooperation in achieving a result?

I'd like to achieve the commonly understood goal. What would you like?

02-08-2010, 02:55 PM
ignore function works

Ted Hoppe
02-08-2010, 02:58 PM
A capitalist would suggest a profit.
A humanist would suggest the common good. As for my convictions, I am a contributor to the common good.

It could be one of the key questions resubmitted in the modern western society. It has both inclusive and exclusive factors. Furthermore it might be the question that shapes the future of the American economic standard of living. It begs to answer how the first world deals with emerging countries.

Ted Hoppe
02-08-2010, 03:02 PM
Do any of you actually work for a living?

Seeing the quantity and extent of some of your comments Id guess not.

I thought I was bad enough coming here at lunch and on breaks but some of you need some real time to invade your lives.

No offense intended.

I work nearly 60 hours a week. I run my own business as well. After I set my equiptment, I often wait for my clients, thus down time waiting for the next thing. If you ever see me working... You know you are going to have a rotten day!

02-08-2010, 03:03 PM