10 ways to engage essential but reluctant partners

I recently designed and delivered a workshop for a group of partnership working practitioners. One of the areas covered was how to engage essential but reluctant partners. After some discussion 10 very practical approaches were identified. 

If you are involved in the day to day practicalities of dealing with partners that are hard to reach and work with you may find some of the following helpful. 

What has worked for you? Let me know.

 

1. Market the benefits of partnership working to all partners

• Highlight the benefits to partners from their perspective.
• Make sure benefits are clear from the outset of the partnership and continually refer back to them.
• Tell the stories of how partnership working has worked/made a difference (give feedback and motivate).
• Give examples of good practice and good partnership work between members.

 

2. Gain the right partners and people from the outset

• Clarify the commitment required from partnership members at the beginning.
• Put work into gaining the names of key individuals and contacts.
• When inviting people, send a distribution list and ask if there is anyone else that should be invited.
• Get to understand the role and structure of the organisations you are working with.
• Ask people within these organisations who would best represent the partnership.

 

3. Identify barriers to engagement

• Ask! Consult! There may be physical problem i.e. they need a hearing loop.
• Encourage openness about difficulties to engage (a partner organisation might be restructuring so might not be able to attend – what other ways can they keep in touch? What is the restructuring about and what will it achieve?).
• Ask partners for their practical constraints around meetings dates/days/times/venues etc.
• Contact non-attendees after meetings to identify any issues.
• Hold quick critiques of meetings at their ends to identify issues etc.
• Invite key contacts to lunch to help identify barriers.
• Follow-up by phone if you suspect any bad feeling/concerns.
• Have non-judgemental discussions re. barriers.
• Survey partners to find out what stops them from being engaged (create an incentive to complete this survey to enhance its success/effectiveness).
• Do a market analysis style questionnaire.
• Ask them why they do not come – can you fit in with their needs?
• Follow-up if they do not come – phone call, find out why? Can you make it easier for them to come (give them dates of the next meeting etc.)? Can you give them a different role e.g., observer if they do not have time to participate?

 

4. Gain a better understanding of partners’ ways of working

• Work/job shadowing and swapping between partners.
• Ask if partners could be convinced of the merits of a study tour to find out how partners work, their issues and how they address them.
• Secondments to partner organisations.
• Shadowing may lead to improved understanding.
• Establish how organisations work at the beginning of the partnership – identify differences and agree a way of working that either recognises and embraces the differences or agrees on one way of working.
• Include dialogue at meetings about how partners work and what they want from the partnership.

 

5. Ensure that capacity concerns of partners are listened to and provide reassurance that the partnership will be flexible in its expectations

• Choose a skilled chairman
• Have a clear, expected (and agreed) remit for the input expected from each partner.
• Continually communicate and be flexible in response to changing circumstances.
• Accept that not all partners need to agree/participate before the partnership can move forward.

 

6. Understand the needs and limitations of partners

• Invite prospective partners to give a talk on their organisational limitations and needs.
• Maybe allocate partners a 10-minute slot at meetings to say what their organisation does, its limitations etc. This would improve mutual understanding.

 

7. Inform, value and involve partners

• Give timely information and give feedback.
• Information sharing should be relevant to the partnership – perhaps by a short newsletter or e-mail.
• Have a problem solving outdoor pursuit weekend/day.
• Issue minutes promptly.
• Get notes/action points from meetings out shortly after the meeting – do not wait until planning the next meeting.
• Engage in dialogue.
• Have a Christmas (or other special event) meal together.
• “Cherish” partners.
• Ask partners, either in or out of a meeting, what they need, want, do not want?
• Survey employees at all levels within the organisation to find out their understanding of the partnership’s purpose.

 

8. Ensure continuity of contact during phases of change

• Communicate with all stakeholders at all stages.
• In times of change focus on partnership outcomes and review where contacts should be.
• Have a nominated co-ordinator to review the list of contacts and circulate it to others as necessary.
• Use team/organisational e-mails not individual ones within organisations.
• Maybe have a rota of people attending from each partner organisation. Need only be 2 (if possible), this allows for extra input, sharing of workload and continuity if one leaves.
• Create a week’s calendar with ongoing entries and appointments to assure continuity of contact regardless of individuals involved.

 

9. Engage and gain the understanding of top management

• Invite top management to do some ‘hands on stuff’ so that they realise what is going on.
• Let top level management have all the information to keep them up to speed with partnership activities.

 

10. Engage all levels (and types) of partner organisations and know that this has been achieved?

• Take issues to different forums to ensure buy in; some partners and individuals may have access to some groups and not others.
• Survey organisations to gauge awareness.
• Survey employees at all levels within the organisation to find out their understanding of the partnership’s purpose.
• If a representative agrees something at a meeting follow up to confirm.
• Have high level commitment and contact in the partners’ organisations (to send a strong positive message through the rest of the partners’ organisations).
• Improve communication between partners and also inside partner organisations.
• Find out how partners cascade actions within their organisations.
• Get different representatives from partner organisations to take it in turns to come to meetings, so engaging different employees from different levels in the organisation.
• Be aware of and circulate the organisational charts of partner organisations.
• Ask how partners are informing their organisations.

 

 

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition

The 3 C's of partnership working

Co-ordinate

Cooperate

Collaborate

I have been reading the work of Dr Mark Elliott. He has lots of very interesting stuff to say about the future of collaboration and more specifically about how mass global collaboration can be effectively realised. Have a look at his website:

http://collabforge.com/stigmergic-collaboration-theoretical-framework-mass-collaboration

One of the very simple but insightful observations he makes is about  how collaboration differs from cooperation. Collaboration involves creativity and innovation and cooperation does not.

Think about people coming together to form a partnership of some kind. Firstly they have to co-ordinate themselves and their resources so that they can be effectively called upon and combined. It is about getting the right people and resources in the right place at the right time.

The next step is to create systems and processes, some rules of the partnership game, that can be used to ensure the various partners can cooperate efficiently. It is about the mechanics of agreeing what will happen, when it will happen, how it will happen and who will do it. 

When these first two stages have been achieved the partnership can build upon them and work towards true creative collaboration. They can do this by working hard at making the relationships between partners open, honest, tolerant and even welcoming of differing perspectives and the tensions these generate. As the relationships develop so too does the partnership's ability to harvest innovative ideas from the creative tensions increasingly being generated between people. The interplay of conflicting views becomes the source of the partnership's creative energy.

Think about the production of an opera or musical. It will go through each of the above phases: the company will come together; it will learn the details and rules of the work; it will then, if the production is going to be any good, explore and encourage differing approaches and interpretations and eventually select those most suited to its overall vision and goals.

If you are working in a partnership consider the following questions:

• Are you absolutely sure you have all the people and resources available to you that you need?
• Do you really know the rules of your particular partnership game? Does everyone know what they are?
• Are you ready and willing to be honest with others?
• Are you ready and willing to encourage others to be honest with you? 
• Are you ready and willing to be not only tolerant but also welcoming of others' views and ideas?       

    

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition

Using music to turn conflict into manageable and helpful paradoxes

The complex issues, problems and paradoxes at the heart of modern life cannot be solved without effective collaboration, and the musical world is very good at it!

Visualise a symphony orchestra. Now imagine the complex collaboration needed to form, maintain and develop it. Think about the additional and intense collaboration needed during its performances.

Now consider how much more difficult it would be to achieve all of this within an environment of extreme uncertainty, conflict and attrition.

Surely the lessons learnt whilst achieving this would be of immense value to all of us, whatever our walk of life.

My interests in music, creativity and collaborative working do not often come together so obviously and dramatically as they did when I viewed this short presentation by Paul MacAlindin, Music Director of the National Youth Orchestra of Iraq:

Paul MacAlindin youtube presentation

He talks about his collaboration with others to form and develop the National Youth Orchestra of Iraq. At the heart of his talk is an exploration of the ability of musical collaboration to take conflicts and turn them into paradoxes that can be managed to create positive and valuable results.

It has given me plenty to reflect upon as I continue to develop my understanding of the complex world of collaborative working. I hope it does the same for you.

Charles

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition

To see more about music and creativity go to: Creativity-in-the-Air-50-Ways-Music-Can-Make-You-More-Creative

https://www.amazon.com/author/charlesmlines



           

Avoid relational lock-in

Given enough time and collaborative activity even the fiercest of rivals can become that little bit too comfortable with each other for decency. At the very least, partners that have invested a great deal of time, money and resources in each other can be very unwilling to admit that their relationship is past its sell by date, persisting with it and investing ever increasing resources in return for ever decreasing benefits. In these circumstances they will very quickly find themselves experiencing unhealthy and unproductive 'relational lock-in'.
 
Toyota’s practice of using senior and junior supplier partners is a good example of how to keep partner relationships healthy, flexible and dynamic, so minimising the risk of 'relational lock-in'. The junior partner will always be keen to impress; the senior partner can never become complacent about their status (whilst simultaneously having to treat the junior partner with fairness and respect, taking into account their mutual relationship with the client).

Various Local Government Authorities now maintain and indeed publish listings of potential partners and suppliers, demonstrating an awareness of the wider network of businesses and organisations that surround them and broadcasting their willingness to take advantage of the opportunities presented by new and innovative partnerships and relationships.

The most successful IT and Biotechnology companies continually scan the wider network of activity in their sector, looking for new blood with which to infuse their existing innovation platforms, partnerships and alliances.

Identifying and taking advantage of new partnering opportunities will help avoid relational lock-in and help maintain and enhance organisational flexibility, one of the key advantages of collaboration. It will facilitate the timely exit from stale, non-productive collaborations and the swift creation of fresh, dynamic and achieving ones.

How do you know if your partnership is likely to make any difference?

This is a question I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks (if not years!).

Whilst doing some research I found the following resource from the University of Wisconsin:

http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3658-8.PDF

Even though it was written 15 years ago it is one of the best pieces of guidance I have come across for evaluating partnerships and collaborations. Have a look.

Two of the areas covered by the manual stick in my mind:

1. The use of 'if/then' modelling to plan out what your partnership is going to do and the effects you expect it to have, which can then be compared with what actually happens as your partnership progresses and goes about its work.
2. Breaking down the concept of outcomes, the effects you want your partnership to have on people, the environment and situation, etc., into immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes. This creates and highlights an audit trail of effects that can be traced back to the activities of your partnership, so adding credibility to your claims that they are directly contributing to positive impacts.

How to encourage flock thinking

As promised in my previous post, here are a couple of tools that can be used to encourage flock thinking during partnership discussions.

 

Flock thinking can be encouraged in the following ways: 

• By providing each individual with a ‘perch’ upon which they can place their ideas in full view of the rest of the flock.
• By providing each individual with ‘flying space’ within which they can explain, explore and develop their ideas.
• ‘Dovetailing’ individual ideas into discussions and/or future actions. 

Tools to develop flock thinking

To ensure that the three aspects above are effectively integrated into discussions and decision-making, it is advisable to use thinking and problem solving tools that provide both clear structure for discussions and space for individuals to explore their ideas and how they could be integrated into decisions. 

Two tools that provide the above mentioned structure and space are:

• Two-circle thinking
• Edward de Bono ’s six thinking hats

Two-circle thinking

Two-circle thinking ensures that each individual’s ideas are acknowledged, explored and given the opportunity to influence actions and decisions (the flock is able to try out different directions of travel before deciding upon the journey it will take). 

It consists of drawing or marking out two large circles, one within the other. The circles need to be big enough to enable a few people at a time to move around, within and between them.

As individuals consider an issue or problem, they are asked to write down their ideas for addressing it on large pieces of card or post its (one idea per card/post it). They are then asked to place their ideas face-up within the inner circle.

When everyone has contributed as many ideas as they can, each person is asked to review all the contributions. When they identify an idea they feel unsure of (perhaps they feel it needs clarification or that it will not work) they are asked to place it within the outer circle.

When the above stage of the process is completed, there will be ideas within the inner circle upon which everyone can agree. These can be incorporated within the final decisions reached by the group.

The contributions in the outer circle, however, can still influence the group’s actions. These ideas are discussed and considered again, with clarifications sort as necessary.

As a result of this process some ideas will be put back into the central circle and some ideas may be adopted in part, certain of their aspects proving of value. Other ideas may not be adopted, but they will influence the overall scope and direction of the discussions and perhaps raise interesting aspects that might prove important to the group at a later date. In this way all ideas will, to a greater or lesser extent, influence the group’s discussions and decision making.

Edward de Bono’s six hat thinking

Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats technique encourages individuals within a group to hold differing ideas and perceptions in parallel (to fly together but along their own paths). This helps ensure that all contributions are examined, appreciated and woven into the discussions of a group. For this reason it is particularly suited to the development of flock thinking.

Each of the six thinking hats represents a specific type of thinking:

• The Blue hat is about being purposeful and structuring and organising thinking and discussions.
• The white hat is about asking questions and collecting facts.
• The green hat is about generating new ideas and different ways of looking at things. 
• The Yellow hat is about identifying positive aspects.
• The black hat is about identifying negative aspects.
• The red hat is about expressing feelings and hunches.

A group uses the six hats by systematically applying the thinking associated with each hat to the problem before it.

The group applies each hat in turn: 

• It may start by thinking about what it wants to achieve and the order in which it wants to use the hats (Blue Hat).
• Then it may ask questions to gain more information about the problem (White Hat).
• Once the group has all the information it needs it may ask itself if there are any other ways of looking at or dealing with the problem (Green Hat).
• It may then look at the pluses and minuses of the differing ideas it has identified (Yellow Hat followed by Black Hat).
• Next, it may explore how it feels about the process it has gone through and the ideas it has explored (Red Hat).
• Finally, it will need to return to Blue Hat thinking and make some decisions based upon the discussions it had whilst working through the fore-mentioned process.

As the group thinks about the problem before it in the ways dictated by the various hats, differing and opposing viewpoints and ideas will emerge. It is important that these are acknowledged and explored in parallel and that the temptation to debate their relative strengths and weaknesses is resisted.

This is because when the group nears the end of the process and revisits Blue Hat thinking it will need to be able to look back along the entire journey of its discussions, so giving all the ideas and opinions it explored the opportunity to influence its final decisions. In this way, each person within the group will have had a chance to influence its final direction of travel.

 

End note

 

I used a version of two-circle thinking recently with a client.  It worked very well, encouraging discussion, mutual interest in each participant's ideas and a real sense of meaningful involvement in the group's decision-making process.

     

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition

Partnerships need flock thinking

 

Click Here to see a short introductory video about this post.  

 

Flock thinking occurs when:

‘Every individual within a group is influential and can have an effect upon decisions reached, but (for various and variable reasons) certain individuals are more influential than others and the rest of those present accept this.’ 

Flock thinking can also be likened to the formation and flight of a flock of birds. Recent research indicates that when birds flock and fly together they do so using a decision-making process that is not exactly democratic but, then again, not exactly autocratic either. Each bird has an influence upon the direction of flight of the rest of the flock, but some birds (perhaps because they possess greater motivation and skill) have more influence than others.

 

Why flock thinking is important for partnership working

Flock thinking is important for partnership working because it offers an effective way of managing less hierarchical and more flexible ways of working that rely upon influencing and persuading rather than command and control.

 

An example of flock thinking

A good example of flock thinking can be found within the collaboration that took place to create the computer socket into which we all plug our memory sticks: the ubiquitous USB port that enables easy connectivity between differing IT devices.

One influential company (Intel) decided that a USB initiative was necessary, but they knew that they could not make it happen alone. For the initiative to be successful others would need to join in and have an influence upon developments.

Intel therefore decided to consult with the rest of the IT industry, ensuring that those with a significant interest in a USB initiative were encouraged to air their views and influence its direction of travel.

These consultations were done in a methodical and unhurried way that gave each individual involved the opportunity to reflect upon the wider context of IT development and, importantly, their position and influence within it relative to the others being consulted.

This type of consultation was central to the group’s (or flock’s) effective formation. Some people, finding themselves at the fringes of the flock, realised that they had much more to gain from being associated with its direction of travel than from following their own flight paths. They therefore became willing to accept having less influence than some others had within the flock.

Other people began to appreciate that they possessed more influence than they had previously assumed, finding themselves nearer to the heart of the flock’s purpose than they had expected. They therefore proceeded, usually with the acceptance of the rest of those involved, to place themselves towards the front of the flock where they could more easily point out the direction that they felt it should take.

Hence through a partly intuitive, partly rational process the flock formed and decided upon a final direction of travel that culminated in the creation of the USB port. Each individual within the flock having more or less influence, but always some influence, dependent upon the needs of the flock and what was required for it to survive and thrive.       

 

How to encourage flock thinking 

Flock thinking can be encouraged in the following ways: 

• By providing each individual with a ‘perch’ upon which they can place their ideas in full view of the rest of the flock.
• By providing each individual with ‘flying space’ within which they can explain, explore and develop their ideas.
• ‘Dovetailing’ individual ideas into discussions and/or future actions.

Click Here for specific techniques that will help you apply flock thinking to

partnership discussions.