A common source of disagreements in partnerships is a managerial role—whether you call it the orchestrator, coordinator, secretary, facilitator, or something else. Some want a "strong hand" and a "charismatic leader," while others prefer inclusiveness and an egalitarian approach. The compromise between these two modes often leaves everyone dissatisfied. To avoid this, let’s take a step back and ask: what exactly is the manager of the network supposed to do?

Most people have no trouble defining their goals. They might say, “improve elderly care in our province” or “increase awareness of funding opportunities for SMEs.” These are perfectly valid goals, especially when supported by concrete KPIs. However, disagreements often arise when it comes to implementation.

 Isn’t a clear goal enough?

No, because people interpret “working together” differently and therefore expect their manager to fulfill very different roles. There are at least three modes of “working together”: coordination, cooperation, and collaboration.

Coordination: Members agree on a common goal and take steps within their own organizations to achieve it.

Example: Several organizations meet at a conference, identify cybercrime as a serious risk, and decide to improve their online privacy and security standards. Each representative then appoints someone within their organizations to oversee these improvements. They meet at the next conference and update each other on what they have done.

Cooperation: Members work together to implement these common goals.

Example: Organizations recognize cybercrime as a serious risk, form a joint working group, and allocate funds for its initiatives.

Collaboration: Members actively work together and support each other to achieve a common goal. They may also assist each other in reaching individual organizational goals.

Example: After setting up a working group and allocating funds for cybercrime prevention, Organization A experiences a data breach. Organization B sends IT and PR specialists to help Organization A manage the situation.

Why is this distinction important?

For two reasons.

• First, the manager’s role varies significantly depending on whether the focus is on coordination, cooperation, or collaboration. In a cooperative setting, managers act primarily as facilitators, helping members decide on common goals and avoid duplicating initiatives. In a collaborative setting, the manager’s role can range from facilitator to sole decision-maker. We’ll explore this further in the next issue.

• Second, when people have differing expectations about what “working together” means, it can lead to resentment and disappointment. If members of OrgA think they’re coordinating while members of OrgB believe they’re collaborating, friction is inevitable. OrgA may hesitate to allocate funds to joint initiatives, while OrgB may feel resentful when OrgA refuses to introduce them to a key policymaker. I’m sure you encounter these situations daily.

For Dutch speakers, this distinction can be tricky because the same word —samenwerking — is often used to describe all three modes (thanks for pointing this out, Marcel!). But English speakers, too, sometimes use these terms interchangeably.

What should we do?

Talk about this issue once, agree on the level of involvement you expect from each other, and then forget about these linguistic differences. It does not matter which word you use as long as you understand each other, but the distinction between coordination, cooperation, and collaboration may bring more clarity to your "samenwerking".