Understanding Successful Partnerships and Collaborations - thoughts on forming alliances, partnerships, and collaborations

As budgets continue to tighten, there have been many calls for collaborations and partnerships in a variety of recreation and leisure services ranging from tourism development (Clements, Schultz & Lime, 1993; Jamal & Getz, 1995) to preservation of natural resources (LaPage, 1995) to promoting greater diversity in staff and clientele (Edginton & Martin, 1998) to developing programs for youth at risk (Hultsman & Little, 1995; Montiel, Hultsman & Martin, 1996) and people with disabilities (Germ & Schleien, 1997). Several articles have outlined the accomplishments of alliances (Burde, Kraft & Beck, 1998; King, Valerius & Collins, 1998; Kunstler, 1995; LaPage, Vaske & Donnelly, 1995; Roggenbuck, Williams & Bobinski, 1992). For partnerships or collaborations to be most effective, those involved -- the stakeholders -- should not only understand the issues that generated the formation of their alliance but also the dynamics of partnerships and collaborations themselves. With that in mind, this research review will summarize literature that addresses factors critical to implementing and sustaining these alliances.

This review will begin by examining expectations for the processes and outcomes that can be identified by looking at how partnerships and collaborations are defined. The precondition to establishing a partnership, a step-wise discussion of the partnership process, the phases of collaboration, and the pitfalls one can anticipate within an alliance will then be discussed. Throughout this review, the term alliance refers to both partnerships and collaborations.

Partnership vs. Collaboration

Stakeholders enter into an alliance with conscious and unconscious expectations of the process and its outcomes. Understanding distinctions between partnerships and collaborations can help to identify some of these expectations. By reviewing the literature, it is evident that researchers have not reached consensus in defining these terms; some use them interchangeably. However, the definitions presented for the purposes of this review are consistent with the terms used by many researchers, and help to highlight distinctions in expectations.

With this in mind, a partnership is "an on-going arrangement between two or more parties, based upon satisfying specifically identified, mutual needs" (Uhlik, 1995, p. 14). A collaboration is "a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible" (Gray, 1989, p. 5). There are two notable distinctions between these terms. In a partnership, the needs are identifiable and readily understood, such as a partnership to sponsor a special event. In a collaboration, none of the stakeholders has a full understanding of the issues that generate the alliance, and each hopes that "two heads will be better than one." For example, collaborations to address youth at risk often rely upon the unique perspectives that each stockholder (recreation professionals, educators, police officers, social workers) brings to the alliance. In seeking solutions to a problem that none of the stakeholders fully comprehends, a collaboration must be flexible regarding the intended outcome. A partnership addresses very specific needs, and can therefore identify predetermined outcomes.

The importance of these distinctions becomes clear when the two are combined in one alliance. If one stakeholder sees an alliance as a partnership while another sees it as a collaboration, the partner will be frustrated with the collaborator's inability to see the obvious goals for the alliance, and the collaborator will be frustrated at the partner's unwillingness to see the perspectives of others. Assessing the level of understanding and flexibility of outcomes would help these stakeholders quickly clarify their expectations for the alliance.

Preconditions

Researchers have identified a set of preconditions that must exist for partnerships and collaborations to form. Effective alliances are formed when all stakeholders perceive the stakes to be high and the interdependence with other stakeholders to be strong (Logsdon, 1991). If all stakeholders do not share this perception, the alliance will be plagued by stakeholders who will not commit resources (when a cost-benefits analysis indicates the stakes are not high enough to justify this commitment or by one party doing little or no work (due to a perception of low interdependence).

Researchers have identified several motivators that can generate a perception of high stakes and interdependence. These include competitive and institutional forces (Sharfman et al., 1991), the need to maximize efficiency and reduce transactional costs (Fleisher, 1991), a desire to protect interests in commonly shared resources (Golich, 1991), the need to achieve shared understanding of and a collective response to a problem (Nathan & Mitroff, 1991), or a shared purpose to produce change (Roberts & Bradley, 1991). It is conceivable that each stakeholder within a collaboration may be driven by a different motivator. When this occurs, the collaboration faces a greater challenge in identifying mutual goals supported by all stakeholders. It is also possible that within a single alliance, the forces motivating the formation of an alliance and those perpetuating the alliances may be different (Sharfman, Gray & Yan, 1991). Understanding these forces may increase one's ability to form and maintain alliances.

The final precondition is that there must be a convener who identifies and brings together stakeholders. The authority with which the convener has to do this can come through mandate, persuasion, legitimation, or facilitation (Wood & Gray, 1991), depending upon whether the influence of the convener is formal or informal and whether the alliance is formed by the convener or by the stakeholders. When the convener is powerful, he or she can formally mandate an alliance. This often is the case when the convener controls specific resources other stakeholders wish to be able to access.

When a convener is able to bring stakeholders together through less formal channels, the convener's persuasive authority rests in his or her credibility. An alliance can also be formed by stakeholders, who then select a convener. When this is done formally, it is because of perceptions of the convener as fair (convener legitimation). When stakeholders give the authority of the convener informally, it is because of perceptions of the convener as trusted (convener facilitation).

When these preconditions are met, conditions are conducive for implementing a partnership or collaboration. Differences in stakeholders' knowledge of the issues generating the alliance, and their subsequent ability to identify the intended outcomes of the alliance from the outset, lead to differences in the implementation process for partnerships and collaborations.

Steps to Implementation

The aspect of partnerships and collaborations least understood by researchers is the process itself. Uhlik (1995) has identified a step-wise process for implementing partnerships in recreation.

The first step is to invite involvement by educating oneself. This includes educating oneself on the nature of partnerships and collaborations as well as learning about the needs and resources of others. Second, conduct a needs assessment and resources inventory. To do this, consider two open-ended questions:

If I (or my organization) only had [fill in the blank], I (we) could ...

and

What do I (or my organization) have to offer a partner? (Uhlik, 1995, p. 19).

Asking these questions helps to identify win-win solutions that are mutually beneficial to all stakeholders in the alliance.

Next, identify prospective partners. In doing so, one needs to investigate not only the needs and resources a potential stakeholder might bring to an alliance, but also the mission and accountability of the stakeholder's organization. This will enable a convener to identify the appropriate level within the organization when creating a partnership. According to some research, failure to include all key stakeholders may be a significant factor leading to the downfall of some collaborations (Wood & Gray, 1991).

The fourth step is to compare and contrast the needs and resources of potential stakeholders. Ideally, each member of the alliance will perceive the alliance to be not only mutually beneficial but also relatively equal in terms of the level of benefit gained by each member of the alliance.

Based on the information gathered in the previous steps, a partnership proposal can be developed. The proposal should describe the "objectives, intentions and outcomes, while emphasizing mutual benefits and shared resources" (Uhlik, 1995, p. 21). If this proposal is accepted, one should be prepared to be a persuasive convener, facilitating the partnership process. At this stage in the partnership, stakeholders must also reach agreement about how the partnership will operate. This should include the rules that bind stakeholders to the alliance, the process for revising these rules, and the conditions under which the rules will be ignored or enforced (Pasquero, 1991).

Uhlik (1995) recommends that this partnership agreement be drafted into a written document. This document may be a source of stability for the partnership. Whether or not the partnership requires a formal, legally binding agreement is left to the discretion of the partners.

Decker and Mattfeld (1995) identify one additional step in the partnership process: evaluation of the partnership itself for continued development and improvement. Changes in the environment and conditions that fostered the partnership, and internal changes within the partnership, will necessitate intermittent adjustments if an ongoing partnership is to survive (Sharfman, Gray & Yan, 1991).

The collaborative process is more amorphous, but phases for this process have been identified (Gray, 1989). In the initial problem-setting phase, the collaboration must reach agreement in defining the problem the collaboration will address, commit to the collaboration, identify the stakeholders and the contributions each brings to the collaboration that legitimize their participation, identify the resources to which the collaboration has access, and reach agreement in identifying a convener for the collaboration.

When these tasks have been accomplished, the collaboration moves into the direction-setting phase. In this second phase, the collaboration must establish its ground rules, set its agenda, and organize subgroups as needed. This phase also includes a joint search for information. The stakeholder who formed the collaboration has some awareness and a full understanding of the mutual problem, and can reach an informed agreement on how the collaboration will proceed.

The third phase of collaboration is to implement this agreement. Included in this is ensuring that the organizations and constituencies understand and support the compromises made to reach a collaborative agreement. Failure to do this will lead to a loss of support for the stakeholders by their constituents. Related to this is the need to build external support for the agreement, thereby minimizing the potential for external barriers to prevent the collaboration from attaining its goals. At times the structure required to implement an agreement is different from the collaborative structure that generated the agreement. In these instances, implementation must include creating a structure for implementation complete with ground rules, an agenda, and subgroups. Implementation of collaborations must also include monitoring the agreement and ensuring compliance.

Key Components

Several researchers have identified key components required to ensure that alliances are productive and efficient. Selin and Chavez (1994) categorized these as personal, interpersonal, organizational, and operational factors. The personal factors identified by Selin and Chavez include specific personality traits that must be characteristics of each member of the partnership: the propensity for risk taking, and a community spirit. Within the partnership there needs to be strong leadership; yet, at the same time, a partnership composed solely of strong leaders will be fraught with problems. Individual participants within the partnership must be carefully matched to the partnership task. One key point in making this match may be the salience of the issue to the individual (Waddock, 1991); personal as well as professional commitment will increase the likelihood that the partnership will be successful.

Interpersonal factors include communication, trust, a shared vision, and mutual adjustment through compromise (Selin & Chavez, 1994). Formal evaluations of partnership may clarify communication, especially in addressing difficult or sensitive topics (Decker & Mattfeld, 1995). There also must be a balance of power among the partners, with each recognizing his or her interdependence for a resolution, individual contribution to the partnership, and benefits to the partnership (Waddock, 1991).

Organizational factors required for an effective alliance are administrative support, staff continuity, a partner who fulfills the mediator role, and flexible protocols (Selin & Chavez, 1994). Administrative support has been found to be the factor rated as most crucial to success (Selin & Meyers, 1995). This support can be demonstrated through incentive programs and awards. Partner representatives need to have adequate power to make decisions for their organization, yet they also need administrative support to ensure that their organization can commit adequate "time, talent and funds" to the partnership (Decker & Mattfeld, 1995). Organizational protocols must be flexible enough to allow each organization represented in the partnership to readily act on the partnership's agreements.

Operational factors include a written plan identifying a tangible goal, and a cooperative agreement detailing each partner's role in achieving these goals (Selin & Chavez, 1994). Adequate feedback within and among the partners is critical. The convener should also ensure that the partnership meetings occur in an environment matching the character of the partnership.

There is one more key condition that must be interwoven into the personal, interpersonal, organizational and operational factors: a "perception that decisions arrived at will be implemented" (Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 197). An alliance will dissolve when stakeholders no longer believe the alliance can act on its decisions, whether that inability is because of individual personalities within the partnership, a breakdown in communication among partners, lack of support from partnering organizations, or cooperative agreements and goals that overreach the capacities of the partnership.

Partner Satisfaction

The success of an ongoing partnership may be dependent upon the satisfaction of individual partners. Selin and Myers (1995) identified the requirements that most strongly influence partner satisfaction as the importance of the issues addressed, the leadership of the partnership, the level of trust within the partnership, strong administrative support, a sense among the partners that they belong in the partnership, inclusion of all key stakeholders in the partnership, and negligible red tape involved in implementing the partnership's objectives.

Uhlik (1995) identified four categories of pitfalls that must be avoided to ensure partnership success: slippage, discord, disjuncture, and inertia. Slippage is disagreement regarding implementation of the partnership objectives. One of the most common causes of slippage is "turf wars." Disagreement over the problem to be addressed in a collaboration creates discord. This can include disagreement over the definition of, causes of, or remedies for the problem. Disjuncture is poor policy or model design caused by inadequate or inaccurate information. Finally inertia is the common tendency to resist change even if the change might lead to improvements.

The climate and stability of the organizations represented in a partnership may also influence the effectiveness of the partnership. The strongest organizational support may be found among organizations that take an integrated approach to partnership development rather than see partnerships as related to just one program or resource area (Selin & Chavez, 1993). At the other extreme, it may be counterproductive for an organization to use a partnership as a vehicle for implementing internal changes; establishing a partnership and implementing innovations within an organization need to be distinct (Decker & Mattfeld, 1995).

One challenge that can become a pitfall if it is not clearly recognized is the potential need for different measures of accomplishment among the partners. Each agency within the partnership may have different criteria for justifying ongoing support of the partnership. For example, recreation services may seek alliances that improve their ability to meet altruistic goals (Kunstler, 1997), and businesses may join into partnerships with recreation to improve the community and thereby improve business (Crompton, 1997). However, it is also important to recognize that creating product trials, improving public relations, and enhancing employee development and morale may also be motivating businesses' involvement in a partnership (Crompton, 1997). These differences can either be recognized and accommodated within the goals of the partnership, or they can be the impetus for the dissolution of the partnership. A mature partnership evolves to a point of accepting different measures of accomplishment among the partners while collaborating to achieve the joint goals of the partnership (Decker & Mattfeld, 1995). The final pitfall that must be recognized is the timeline. Partnerships require time to "evolve on both personal and professional continua" (Decker & Mattfeld, 1995, p. 34). Rushing this process increases the likelihood that the partnership will dissolve.

Points of Agreement

Without consensus about the definitions, it is not surprising that researchers readily acknowledge they have not found a fail-proof approach to collaborations or partnerships. However, the critical components outlined above have been identified repeatedly by researchers studying a wide variety of alliances. The appropriate combination of processes and components will vary depending upon the issues addressed by the alliance, the stakeholders involved, and the environment within which the alliance occurs. Sustained alliances require intermittent adjustments in response to internal and external changes. Understanding the dynamics of collaborations and partnerships should assist stakeholders in determining when to enter into an alliance, their role within the alliance, and the appropriate times to evaluate and readjust the alliance. Improving our ability to work together in this way can enhance the work we are able to accomplish.

References

Burde, J., S. Kraft, and R. Beck. 1998. "Partnerships in wetland restoration." Parks & Recreation 33 (2): 34-44.

Clements, C.J., J.H. Schultz, and D.W. Lime. 1993. "Recreation, tourism, and the local residents: Partnership or co-existence?" Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11 (4): 78-91.

Crompton, J. 1997. "Partnering with business: What's it in for them?" Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 15 (4): 38-60.

Decker, D.J. and G.F. Mattfeld. 1995. "Human dimensions of wildlife management in Colorado: A strategy for developing an agency-university partnership." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13 (4): 25-36.

Edginton, C.R. and C.F. Martin. 1998. "Partnering to promote diversity." Camping 71 (1): 32-4.

Fleisher, C.S. 1991. "Using an agency-based approach to analyze collaborative federated interorganizational relationships." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (1): 116-30.

Germ, P.A. and S.J. Schleien. 1997. "Inclusive community leisure services: Responsibilities of key players." Therapeutic Recreation Journal 31 (1): 22-37.

Golich, V.L. 1991. "A multilateral negotiations challenge: International management of the communications commons." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2): 228-50.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Gray, B. and D.J. Wood. 1991. "Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (1): 3-22.

Hultsman, W. and B. Little. 1995. "Recommendations for a youth-at-risk initiative: Comments from the academy." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13 (1): 10-25.

Jamal, T.B. and D. Getz. 1995. "Collaboration theory and community tourism planning." Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1): 186-204.

James, K., K. Kawanami, M. Braunwarth, and D. Griffith. 1999. "Creating Partnerships that Work: The WOW - Wonderful Outdoor World Program." (Presented at the California Parks and Recreation Society Annual Conference). Santa Clara, Calif.

King, T.C., L. Valerius, and J.R. Collins. 1998. "Ground Zero: A Collaborative Substance Abuse Prevention and Intervention Program for At-Risk Adolescents." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 16 (3).

Kunstler, R. 1997. "Matching staff and client characteristics: a public-public partnership as a response to cultural diversity." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 15 (4): 79-91.

Kunstler, R. 1995. "A multicultural, interdisciplinary curriculum model for therapeutic recreation and related fields." SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education 10: 45-56.

LaPage, W.F 1995. "Parklands as paradox: The search for logic in the public's parklands." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13 (4): 1-12.

LaPage, W.F, J.J. Vaske, and M.P. Donnelly. 1995. "Case studies of partnerships in action." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13 (4): 61-74.

Logsdon, J.M. 1991. "Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving collaborations." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (1): 23-37.

Montiel, M., J. Hultsman, and J. Martin. 1996. "A foundation for youth social policy: The implications for parks and recreation of the perspectives of senior administrators of large cities." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 14 (3): 20-40.

Nathan, M.L. and I.I. Mitroff. 1991. "The use of negotiated order theory as a tool for the analysis and development of an interorganizational field." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2): 163-80.

Pasquero, J. 1991. "Supraorganizational collaboration: The Canadian environmental experiment." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (1): 38-64.

Roberts, N.C. and R.T. Bradley. 1991. "Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: a study of public policy initiation at the state level." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2): 209-27.

Roggenbuck, J.W., D.R. Williams, and C.T. Bobinski. 1992. "Public-private partnership to increase commercial tour guides' effectiveness as nature interpreters." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 10 (2): 41-50.

Selin, S. and D. Chavez. 1994. "Characteristics of successful tourism partnerships: a multiple case study design." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 12 (2): 51-61.

--. 1993. "Recreation partnerships and the USDA Forest Service: Managers' perceptions of the impact of the National Recreation Strategy." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11 (1): 1-8.

Selin, S. and N. Myers. 1995. "Correlates of partnership effectiveness: the Coalition for Unified Recreation in the Eastern Sierra." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13 (4): 37-46.

Selsky, J.W. 1991. "Lessons in community development: An activist's approach to stimulating interorganizational collaboration." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (1): 91-115.

Sharfman, M.P., B. Gray and A. Yan. 1991. "The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2): 181-208.

Uhlik, K.S. 1995. "Partnership, step by step: A practical model of partnership formation." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13 (4): 13-24.

Waddock, S.A. 1991. "Correlates of effectiveness and partner satisfaction in social partnerships." Journal of Organizational Change Management 4 (2): 74-89.

Wood, D.J. and B. Gray. 1991. "Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2): 139-62.

COPYRIGHT 1999 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group