Hi Benjamin, not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for but maybe you want to give it a try: David Knoke (1994): Political Networks - The Structural Perspective.

Best, Volker

Dear Benjamin,

with your question I feel the same way like Volker. But here are some things you can do to "unite" individuals with different "characters" - I hope it suits what you are looking for:

1. Expand communication with all parties concerned. 

The more communication you make, the easier it will be to unite all the individuals. Sometimes unnecessary issues and differences arise due to poor communication. It does not have to be a direct and formal communication, but still an effective communication although its frequency is not too often. In doing so, it has more effect on the unification process. 

2. Create a "common opponent".

A common enemy is needed as a catalyst for organisational development (the affected group) in a political community. By having the common enemy, each individual is forced to work together more effectively and efficiently to defeat the enemy - certainly not an enemy in the true sense as the case may be.

3. Create a healthy competition climate.

Every individual needs competition. In order to make the competition effective and efficient, always create a healthy, fair and balanced competition climate without any favouritism to every individual within the organisation. Through a healthy competition climate a mutual trust will arise. When the mutual trust continues to strengthen, the process of collaboration of individuals with different data sets can be done faster.

On a final note, different data sets inside a political community is not something to be regretted. But it must be utilised for the good of the community. The methods mentioned above can be tried to be done in the community where we work now. Because sometimes we can not choose the individuals in accordance with the direction we want to. Thus, begin to do with what we have now. Do not complain about what we do not have and then make it as a scapegoat for organisational failure. 

I second the views of Prof Trio. Having a climate of healthy competition always leads to positive politics which is reflected in the trust reinforced by the voters on the competing parties. Not badmouthing the opponent is a key feature of a healthy political system. There might be differences which would exist between the opponents but the end goal of all the competing parties ought to be the welfare of the state which could not be possible in an acrimonious political setup.