Institutionalization vs. collaboration: the end of the world as we know it?

• Author: Smuts, Jennifer
• Position: Message from the Editors

She Said ...

Clay Shirky has developed a presentation on Institution vs. Collaboration. According to Shirky, an Institution is a structure with defined goals and a financial cost for output, while Collaboration builds cooperation into a volunteer infrastructure. And law firms epitomize the idea of Institution.

In the context of Institution vs. Collaboration, Shirky's primary question was "How do groups get anything done?" Well, look at the way the Institution works. Activity is coordinated within a prearranged structure with goals that have a financial cost, and they obtain a desired output. So what about the idea of collaboration? Today more and more collaboration is being used quite successfully, especially in the world of online networks. Shirky pointed out that although "you lose the right to shape people's effort when they are volunteers," you benefit by not having the "overhead' of the institution.

I'm intrigued and wonder whether collaborative efforts are truly effective. Don't they suffer due to lack of accountability? I'd like to think individuals are driven to succeed by being part of something bigger than themselves. However, proposing a goal and imposing a goal definitely bear different results.

LMA is a volunteer organization where we work collaboratively and excel in many and varied areas of specialty. As an active member, I can honestly say that we benefit because the volunteer base has been trained and conditioned by the Institution at one time or another throughout our careers.

Shirky believes that there is a revolution going on and within the next 50 years society will see the Collaboration model succeed the Institution. While I am a proponent of change, I am skeptical that future generations would benefit without having the Institution as a model. You can love or hate the idea of structure, plans and process, but the alternate idea of simple coordination feels very naive and optimistic. Trusting people to contribute as much (or as little) as they'd like and in turn produce a measurable and successful result sounds a little dreamy.

If Shirky is right and this revolution leads us into chaos, I suspect future generations will adopt the practices that will make them successful, and by that point I will accept the change. What interesting times we live in.

--Jennifer Smuts

302/888-6214, jsmuts@cblh.com

He Said ...

I admit it: I'm a sucker for the big idea. And so when I watched Clay Shirky's presentation I was both...