What this is about
The cooperation is under way. Now everyday work shows whether the agreement holds, in many small acts rather than in big decisions. This phase is the longest, and it is where the cooperation becomes what it will turn out to be.
The guiding question
How is the agreement lived, not merely performed?
There are three ways of pursuing a goal. You can go straight for it and deal with obstacles as they come, with force, money and stamina. That is the most expensive way, because every obstacle is paid for separately. You can apply techniques, of which there are countless in every field. Or you can reflect: first understand the situation you yourself are part of, and then act without a recipe, like an experienced negotiator who knows how his own manner changes the other side. In a cooperation, that situation includes the others, their goals and their contributions. Performing an agreement means delivering what is owed. Living it means acting in this third way, aware that your own goals are shaped by the goals of the others and that both change as the work goes on.
What helps now
A rhythm everyone knows. Working together needs recurrence: a regular meeting, a fixed time to align, reliable deadlines for replies. Rhythm takes away decisions that would otherwise have to be made each time, and it creates occasions for things that have gone unsaid. It should fit the work, not a template. A small group may need a meeting every two weeks, an intensive project a short daily check-in.
Recognising contributions. Whoever contributes wants it to be seen, not as praise from above but as notice among equals. That starts with naming a contribution when you build on it and extends to honest feedback when something does not fit. Anyone who cannot find their contribution in the result will deliver only what is asked for next time. Why this is so is set out on Recognition.
Handling small disruptions. A late delivery, an ambiguous sentence, a forgotten meeting. Most disruptions are small, and almost all grow if nobody mentions them. It helps to name them early, briefly and without blame, and then ask what is needed. Raising a disruption shows that the cooperation matters to you. Silence may look polite but is often the beginning of withdrawal.
Visibility rather than control. Cooperation thrives when the state of the work is visible to all without anyone having to monitor it. Showing your own work in the shared workspace, even unfinished, invites others to take part. Control presupposes that people do not trust each other, and often creates that mistrust in the first place.
The typical mistake
The typical mistake in this phase is mere performance: each side delivers what the contract says and otherwise holds back. That looks correct and usually is, legally. But a cooperation that is only performed loses what distinguishes it from an exchange. The participants stay as they were, nobody learns from the other, and when circumstances change each side clings to its own part. Those who instead charge at the goal without regard for the others remove obstacles by force and damage the cooperation itself in the process.
Online
Online, most day-to-day cooperation happens asynchronously. That has a real advantage: everyone can contribute when it suits their own work, and contributions remain on record. But it means the rhythm has to be set more deliberately. A fixed meeting live online, where everyone sees and hears each other, holds the asynchronous work together.
Recognition online has to be more explicit. On site you see who stayed late or who helped a colleague. Online you mostly see results, and only if you look. A sentence like “I’ve carried on working with your spreadsheet” is then often the only message the other person gets about what their work achieved.
Small disruptions grow faster in text messages than in conversation, because tone is missing and every sentence can be read in the least favourable way. When to switch from writing to talking is described on Good practice for working together online.
Law in this phase
- Cooperation as a legal relationship: long-term contracts create duties of consideration and cooperation alongside the duties of performance, and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has expressly recognised a duty to cooperate in construction contracts (judgment of 28 October 1999, VII ZR 393/98) [prüfen].
- Contract for work (Werkvertrag): where a work cannot be produced without the client’s participation, a client who fails to cooperate is in default of acceptance and owes reasonable compensation (Section 642 BGB), and after setting a deadline the contractor may terminate (Section 643 BGB).
- Service contract (Dienstvertrag): what is owed is the activity, not a result, which makes lived coordination especially important, and a client who does not accept the services remains liable to pay (Section 615 BGB).
Next
← 7. Starting the cooperation · 9. Supporting the cooperation →