What Collaboration Is Not

On July 22, 2018, I had an experience on a personal matter with an individual who happens to be a licensed mental health care professional, collaborative divorce practitioner and longtime collaborative divorce trainer, which reminded me why I stopped practicing collaborative law.

The incident involved my sharing a Facebook post of hers and expressing my opinion of it.

Her post was as follows:

“Today’s church message. Our differences are often driven by fear. Practice Grace. Rather than ‘you and them’, remember it is ‘Us.’”

After I posted my comment and before sharing it with my comment on my own Facebook page, she responded as follows to my comment:

"Amen, Mark Brian Baer."

Considering her initial response to my comment, I thought nothing of sharing her post along with my commentary, which consisted of the definition of Grace and my opinion as to why the concept of Grace itself is inherently about “you and them” and therefore entirely inconsistent with her church’s message advising the flock to remember that Grace is about “Us.”

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Grace, in Christian theology, [is] the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favour in the salvation of sinners, and the divine influence operating in man for his regeneration and sanctification.”

In other words, Grace is about being kind to sinners. By judging a person or group of people as sinners and then being kind to them, there is no “Us” – only “you and them.” Being kind to “them” doesn’t change the “you and them” to “Us.” Who are you if the “other” is a sinner?

According to the Bible, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage and to have tattoos. Choice is involved in both those things, in the absence of force.

Sin is defined as “an offense against religious or moral law; and an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible.” Offense is defined as “breach of a law or rule; an illegal act.” In other words, sin involves an action.

While people may differ in opinion as to what is sinful and immoral, such things are always based upon actions and behaviors – not unalterable traits.

Yet, a Christian minister said the following with regard to LGBT people in a sermon that can be found online: “Today, if you call sin, sin, you’re a person of hate.”

As such, many Christians today view LGBT people as sin, irrespective of their actions and behavior. They changed the definition of sin to hate LGBT people. And, they circumvent that reality by claiming that being LGBT is a choice; yet, they have never been able to explain why anyone would make such a choice and subject themselves to the type of treatment LGBT people receive.

And, being that I happen to be a gay man and have a lifetime of personal experience being on the receiving end of such hate, I mentioned that I find it incredibly offensive and disrespectful.

After she unfriended me without a word and before she deleted my similar commentary from her Facebook post itself, I’d like to share the other commentary she received – all from her fellow straight white Christian friends, as it pertained to my commentary:

• “To operate from a state of grace, to me, means that one recognizes a collective consciousness and how important it is to see no difference between one and the other. To operate from a state of grace, to me, is to recognize that we are all the same.” – that comment was from the poster herself
• “I propose a new definition of ‘sinner’ to include everyone. This conversation saddened me.”
• “That makes two of us.”
• “Three”
• “My understanding of ‘sin’ is whatever is keeping us from fully realizing and living that we are part of the Creator.”
• “My personal understanding is that the word ‘sin’ is synonymous with the word ‘shame’. I believe it is shame that creates the barrier.” – that comment was from the poster herself
• “Oh, agree…I can do something to make-up for having done x, y, or z (usually) or failing to do a, b, c, but I cannot make-up for not having a right to exist, to be here.”

The individual who had previously said “Three” – that my commentary saddened him, then posted the following:

“Well we all may be referred to by the church (es) as sinners nevertheless we don't spend our lives proclaiming our sexual orientation. Did you ever realize Mark Brian Baer that we literally don't give a damn about your sexual tastes? If you think you have something intelligent to say, would you be so kind to just say it without mentioning your sexual orientation? Thank you.”

If I know or assume that someone is straight or they inform me of such even though based upon statistics it’s assumed everyone is straight, does that mean that I know anything about their “sexual tastes”?

How does a person convey that they feel offended and disrespected, if they don’t explain why?

If I feel offended and disrespected because I am gay and how I am treated by those who view it as a sin, how do I explain it without stating my sexual orientation? The truth is that I can’t. It is impossible to do so. Any commentary I make would be theoretical and not based upon my actual personal experiences.

So, the next question is why would someone who claimed to be “saddened” by my commentary, reprimand me for proclaiming my sexual orientation? Might it be for the exact same reason I made my commentary in the first place?

For reasons that will become more clear later in this article, empathy toward those who differ from yourself is related to the concept of collaboration. It therefore shouldn't surprise anyone if I were to mention that the particular individual who reprimanded me for mentioning my sexual orientation is the only person whose membership in the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was revoked and who has been banned from the organization. It also bears mentioning that the Executive Director of the organization at the time informed me that even her dog could become a member if she applied on his behalf.

In any event, if you don’t think that being kind to those you judge as sinners isn’t self-righteous, something’s terribly amiss.

If people need to create their own definitions of Grace, sin, and sinners in order to reconcile their sincerely-held religious beliefs with the reality that such concepts are incredibly self-righteous and divisive, there’s a problem.

Words have meaning and people act in accordance with the meaning of those words and concepts.

What makes individuals think they can alter such definitions in their own mind and that the issue is resolved? Does everyone else know and accept those altered definitions?

The fact that the those who commented on her post either tried to change the meaning of words and concepts or reprimanded me for proclaiming my sexual orientation and telling me never to do so again, proved my entire point.

When I contacted my former Facebook friend to ask why she unfriended me and to say that I was entitled to my opinion, she responded as follows:

“Stop, Mark. You set yourself apart from everyone else by calling yourself ‘entitled.’

We all get to be free thinkers and we all have opinions. That is why being gracious is so important. This makes me so sad. If I didn’t treasure our friendship, it wouldn’t be very important to me.

Please remove my post from your Facebook page. It makes me quite sad to have been on the receiving end of your behaviors today. I thought there was more respect between us.”

Based upon the fact that she convinced me to delete my post and deleted my commentary from her post, she clearly doesn’t believe that people should express their opinions, unless she agrees with them. If I disagree with someone and convey my reasons, apparently the person whose commentary I disagree with is “on the receiving end of my behaviors.” In this instance, she was on the "receiving end." How is that respectful toward me? In fact, I'd say that she was shaming me, which was interesting considering that on her Facebook page, she had stated, "My personal understanding is that the word ‘sin’ is synonymous with the word ‘shame’. I believe it is shame that creates the barrier.”

None of this should have surprised me, considering that I later discovered that she had previously posted a picture of herself with Kellyanne Conway on her Facebook page and referred to Conway as "a sweetheart" and all of the commentary on her post agreed with her assessment. Of course, that doesn't mean that contrary commentary wasn't deleted and those making it unfriended. For what it's worth, Conway had a record of divisive politics, even before she began working with Trump.

My former Facebook friend couldn't understand why I was "dragging Kellyanne Conway into the issue." Maybe, because it was exactly on point. It related to divisiveness within our society. If she doesn't realize that the politics of Conway and Trump are very much about "you and them" and doesn't see the hypocrisy in her post, there's nothing I can do other than point it out and try and engage in a dialogue with her. Regardless of how she claims to personally define Grace, her political choices align with the Christian theological definition. If nothing else, this reflects a lack of self-awareness, at the very least.

When those involved in such behavior are licensed mental health professionals, mediators and self-proclaimed peacemakers, that’s far worse and incredibly dangerous, in my opinion.

Now, I am going to explain why this incident reminded me of the reasosn I stopped practicing collaborative divorce. It involves what collaboration is not, as explained by collaboration expert Stephen Willis, Ph.D. in his book Power through Collaboration: When to Collaborate, Negotiate, or Dominate! The following is an excerpt from that book:

“What Collaboration Is Not

Collaboration Is Not Just The Act of Working Together….

The mere act of working together on the same task cannot be turned into collaboration by coercion, whether economic necessity or brute force….

Collaboration Is Not Just The Existence Of Common Goals And Mutual Benefit….

Collaboration does not even require common goals and mutual benefit, despite common belief to the contrary. Collaboration can occur even when goals being worked on are not shared or of direct mutual benefit….

Collaboration Is Not Doing Everything Together….

Mistaking collaboration for the act of working together on a task can lead to an erroneous conclusion that collaboration is ineffective. Often working together on a task is not needed and is counterproductive. Working alone sometimes can be faster, cheaper, or produce the best results, and can still be part of collaborating.

Collaboration Is Not Just Using Project Management, Teamwork, Or Collaboration Tools….

People in conflict can strategically engage in seemingly collaborative behavior and processes, but in reality be working against the other parties or trying to gain an unfair advantage. People in such situations often mistakenly attribute poor results to the failure of a collaboration that was only a fa?ade and never actually existed….

Just about every process can readily be part of non-collaboration, and sometimes even part of predation. The Nazi regime, for example, was infamous for its project management system. They were successful in getting the trains to run on schedule, but achieved their efficiency via reliance on fear, coercion, and brutish power – not collaboration. They were no more collaborative than any lion pride or wolf pack hunting as a group for their next meal.

Collaboration Is Not The Absence of Conflict Or Competition. Collaboration sometimes fosters greater cohesion and harmony, but that does not mean having to be polite, nice, and agreeable to everyone all the time. The absence of conflict is neither required for nor indicative of collaboration, and can sometimes indicate the opposite….

When conflict avoidance prevents issues from being addressed, a fa?ade of harmony can be detrimental. As Edwin Land, the co-founder of the Polaroid Corporation, stated, ‘Politeness is the poison of collaboration.’ Conversely, polite and agreeable behavior can actually be a deception….

A manageable degree of tension, conflict, and competition can be productive for the workings of organizations…. When it is imperative to achieve the best possible outcome, conflict needs to be faced and managed productively.

The best approach, for collaborative situations or otherwise, is to make conflict purposeful and productive, and harness its potential for creating innovative options and solutions. Collaboration takes diverse viewpoints and progresses from tolerating them to understanding, respecting, balancing, integrating, and ultimately synthesizing them….

In general, collaboration allows for better use and management of conflict. It creates a safer climate in which to deal directly with sensitive and divisive issues. Collaborators tend to have greater toleration for differences of opinion, greater ability working around or resolving people related conflicts, and staying focused on what really needs to be accomplished.

Collaboration Is Not Collaborationism. Cooperation with the Nazis during World War II was referred to as collaboration, and thus associated the term collaboration with betrayal and cooperating with an enemy. Some of the cooperation by ‘collaborationists’ may have been a classic case of trying to appear cooperative while actually doing as little as possible and covertly resisting….

Collaboration Is Not Being Leaderless And Egalitarian….

When collaboratively functioning leaders make decisions, those affected typically feel understood, respected, and appropriately involved in the decision, and experience goodwill and trust with respect to the designated leader’s decision-making efforts and intentions.

Collaboration Is Not Being Weak and Powerless. Collaboration is the exact opposite of weakness and powerlessness! Collaboration is strong and powerful! Collaboration is empowering!...

However, real power is the power to act with other people, and that is what collaboration is all about….

So much more can be achieved by working with people than trying to make them do what needs to be done….

Collaboration requires assertive and frank contributions to generate the best results….

Collaboration needs empowered individuals who are capable of working ‘willingly and freely.’ Individual empowerment enhances collaboration. The more you have of the former, the more you have of the latter as well….

Collaboration encourages and frees people to use their capabilities to their maximum potential…. The more difficult, complex, and vital the task is, the more essential as well as advantageous collaboration of empowered individuals actually is….

Collaboration Is Not Just Cooperation….

While working together and common goals often indicate some degree of cooperation is occurring, it may not rise to the level of collaboration….

Collaboration is used to refer to a narrower range of cooperative behavior, and that behavior is considered to have a meaning related to partnering.

Collaboration Is Not Forced Cooperation. There is a clear distinction between cooperation and collaboration with respect to coercion. Cooperation can include coercion and domination…. ‘You better cooperate or else’ is not considered a prelude to collaboration, only cooperation.

When people negotiate with dominating or controlling parties it is not collaboration, just a form of cooperation….

Collaboration Is Not Just Intensive Cooperation. Intensive cooperation does not automatically become collaboration….

Just because cooperation is extensive and intensive does not make it collaboration… Mere cooperative behavior is often given the halo of collaboration.”

The reason I shared this information on behavior that isn’t collaborative is because this former Facebook friend of mine regularly trains collaborative law practitioners. In fact, I have taken two such interdisciplinary trainings several years apart from each other and she was one of the trainers on both occasions. She was the trainer with regard to the licensed mental health professional’s role on a collaborative divorce team, as both a coach and a child specialist.

The following information is from a book chapter I authored titled A Comparison of Dispute Resolution Methods Available in Family Law Matters:

“ The coaches (licensed mental health professionals) use their training for any and all of the following purposes:

1. To help reduce clients’ stress levels;

2. To improve their coping mechanisms;

3. To improve the way in which they communicate with each other;

4. To restore or at least improve their cognitive understanding and reasoning capabilities;

5. To assist in creating an effective parenting plan; and

6. To assist in restructuring the family.

The child specialist (a licensed mental health professional) is the advocate for the interests of the children….

Collaborative teams are no different from any other team in that they are only as strong as their weakest member. Collaboration only works when the professionals involved are like-minded individuals who actually trust one another. The professionals involved in a team must respect each other’s boundaries. If conflict develops between fellow professional team members, it needs to be addressed and resolved immediately because such conflict will otherwise derail the entire process. 'It is the ability of the team to process these moments of tension and reach a shared understanding that sets a well-functioning team apart from those that struggle and flounder.' Also, the professionals involved in such work must be actual peacemakers. Many people claim to be peacemakers merely because they use the right ‘terminology’ and speak (orally and/or in writing) in a ‘peaceful’ manner. Terminology and tone alone do not make something or someone collaborative or a ‘peacemaker.’ Training provides tools, but it does not change a person’s character. Self-awareness is essential, regardless of a particular person’s skill set.”

Let’s now discuss the importance of the self-awareness aspect I mentioned.

Emotional self-awareness is not only one of the twelve components of emotional intelligence, but according to Daniel Goleman, the psychologist and author of international bestseller, Emotional Intelligence, it is “the foundation of emotional intelligence.”

Higher levels of emotional self-awareness has been shown to help make us more understanding and less judgmental of others. While these skills can and should be taught, early on, by parents, even when they are not, people can develop and hone such skills on their own. Unless we take it upon ourselves to learn and master such skills, it’s highly unlikely that we will develop them.

You can’t have empathy toward those who differ from yourself if you lack emotional self-awareness.

According to Dr. Willis, “Without empathy there can be no collaboration. There can be cooperation, but not genuine collaboration. We need empathy to support caring for others’ goals.”

When those who not only train collaborative law practitioners, but who train the trainers who then train collaborative law practitioners don’t know what collaboration really entails, how do you think that will play out in actual collaborative law teams? The fact that I no longer handle collaborative law cases should give you a clue as to the answer to that question.