Today's paper:

Fan, G. H., & Zietsma, C. (2017). Constructing a shared governance logic: The role of emotions in enabling dually embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2321-2351. The full text is here.

What was the question?

How emotions help to construct shared logic in networks that consist of very-very different organizations with conflicting interests. Here is the short answer:

• common moral purpose helps build new shared logic;

• no common moral purpose reduced commitment.

I am, however, not a specialist in emotions, and I have selected this paper for different reasons. The authors give very specific examples of what worked and what did not work. I add my comments on how can the problems be prevented or minimised by using structural (not emotional) interventions.

What worked:

“All happy families are alike,” no surprises here!

1. Discussing values explicitly. One participant shared a particularly useful phrase to start these discussions, and I absolutely loved it: "I'll try to tell you how I feel about it, how I feel this may affect me and the things that I know about, and that will help inform you. And I will ask the same from you.”

2. Formalizing values. They created two subcommittees: one to write down the guiding principles, and the other to work on the vision, mission, and goals. You don’t have to create subcommittees, but it’s crucial to have the results of your values discussion written down.

3. Mapping how different topics/issues relate to each other. A simple mind map can help give you a clear picture of which issue to address first and what information is needed.

4. Writing a Strategy document. This step becomes much easier once you’ve completed the previous ones.
   

What didn’t work:

1. Council representatives (directors) changed simultaneously → Staff started avoiding sensitive topics at the Council → No in-depth discussions → No agreement on top priorities → Engagement dropped.

   How could it have been prevented? It might have been easier for staff to bring up sensitive issues if two things had been in place: 1) a way to add topics to the agenda anonymously (e.g., a Google doc where members could contribute anonymously but results are public); 2) a clear conflict resolution procedure that shows conflicts are a normal part of the working process.

2. The council submitted a grant proposal that wasn’t discussed with members (on a sensitive topic) → Anger, resentment, and lower trust in the Council.

   How could it have been prevented? It's unclear whether this was intentional or due to a misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities. A simple way to prevent this is to complement the strategy with a document (a blueprint) that clarifies who is responsible for what, such as who handles donor and media relations, and which financial decisions need approval from all members versus the management. Let me know if you need a template for this.

3. Members avoided “highly sensitive political issues” → Instead of systematically implementing the strategy, they focused on "low-hanging fruit" → Frustration because members felt they could have done more but weren’t given the chance.

   How could it have been prevented? There should always be a person or group responsible for monitoring the implementation of agreements (in this case, the strategy document). This shouldn’t be the manager. There also needs to be a step-by-step process for what to do when agreements aren’t fulfilled—e.g., first inform management, and if no changes are made within a certain period (e.g., N months), raise the issue during the assembly. This is usually also part of the blueprint.

4. Contrasting institutional logics: Some staff members emphasized scientific measures, while others focused on emotions and shared understanding → Tension among members.

   How could it have been prevented? Ideally, both aspects should be part of regular evaluations. There are many ways to measure shared understanding and team collaboration quality (e.g., shared mental models, Team Climate Inventory, Teamwork Quality (TWQ), etc.). If these aspects had been measured earlier, the issue of shared understanding would likely have surfaced sooner and could have been addressed proactively, avoiding much of the tension.