Collaboration Fatigue: Defining the Concept and Explaining Its Emergence

• In Event: Collaborative Governance in the Digital Era: Accountability, Deliberation and Decentralization

Abstract

An abundance of research has documented what collaboratives need to do to generate the most collective impact (Pulido-Gómez et al., 2025). This includes research on the design choices around collaborative work (Scott & Merton, 2022), the incorporation of data into decision making (Kroll, 2022), and the strengthening of collaborative resilience (Getha-Taylor, 2019). 

While there has been much work on why some collaborations will never take off or reach their full potential, we know less about how to continuously engage members and prevent group fatigue. If cognitive, emotional, or social strains are discussed, they are usually considered individual-level stressors rather than treated and understood as a part of group-level phenomenon. 

This paper defines and substantiates the concept of collaboration fatigue. Drawing from work on other types of fatigue and work-related strains (Sciepura & Linos, 2022;), it argues that collaboration fatigue is a standalone, though currently undeveloped, concept that allows us to better understand the role of social strains on group behavior. It further contends that fatigue (i.e., diminished levels of energy, enthusiasm (Cunningham et al., 2022) for partnering with others) becomes increasingly problematic if it turns into a group-wide attribute. 

The paper theorizes about social mechanisms that can exacerbate collaboration fatigue. It identifies relational configurations among members and group-level factors – such as connectedness, power imbalances, and participatory decision making – that explain why collaboratives experience more collective fatigue in some instances than in others. To that end, it integrates the literatures on collaborative governance, group behavior, and interpersonal strain. 

The paper illustrates its arguments using a case study of an anti-displacement collaborative in Miami. The collaborative consists of more than 100 partners and tries to mitigate the effects of climate gentrification on minority, low-income neighborhoods. Using data from 60+ interviews, a survey, and 50+ meeting observations (including repeated interviews with the same members conducted over time), the paper documents and explains the collaborative’s life cycle including severe occurrences of collaboration fatigue.

References:
Cunningham, T. R., Guerin, R. J., Ferguson, J., & Cavallari, J. (2022). Work‐related fatigue: A hazard for workers experiencing disproportionate occupational risks. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 65(11), 913-925.

Getha-Taylor, H. (2019). Partnerships that last: Identifying the keys to resilient collaboration. Cambridge University Press.

Kroll, A. (2022). Shared measures: Collective performance data use in collaborations. Cambridge University Press.Pulido-Gómez, S., de Jong, J., & Rivkin, J. W. (2025). Cross-sector collaboration in cities: Learning journey or blame game? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(2), 117-132.

Sciepura, B., & Linos, E. (2022). When perceptions of public service harms the public servant: Predictors of burnout and compassion fatigue in government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(1), 116-138.

Scott, R., & Merton, E. (2022). Contingent collaboration: When to use which models for joined-up government. Cambridge University Press.

Author

• Derrick Boakye Boadu, Virginia Commonwealth University
  Presenting Author