Partnership Working Research Report: Social and Economic Partnership Project

Partnership Working Research Report: Social and Economic Partnership Project

CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS - THE MEANING, ROLE & PRINCIPLES OF PARTNERSHIP WORKING

1. Introduction

2. A key aim of the study was to identify and consider the fundamental principles of partnership working. During the interview stage external partners and internal Scottish Executive staff were asked how they define partnership, what characterises good and bad partnerships and which principles they consider should underpin partnership working. The roundtable events and focus groups allowed for further consideration of some of these issues. This chapter outlines and considers responses to these questions.

3. The Meaning of Partnership

4. There can be a wide range of interpretations of the term 'partnership', which may explain why participants were in general more inclined to discuss their practical experiences of partnership working rather than the underlying abstract concept. However, when asked what the term implied there were a number of common threads evident:

• Partnership is seen to most accurately describe ways of working together in long-term, on-going relationships.
• The extent of partnership working can be limited when contact is ad-hoc, one-off or around issues where partners argue from entrenched positions.
• Partnership can be informal or formalised, but it is the quality rather than the form that determine success.
• A founding concept would be that, in partnership, different interests working together become more than the sum of their parts.
• Partnerships need a sense of shared aims and objectives.
• Partnerships need to recognise and provide space for difference and disagreement.

" I think the reality is that partnership should be about people having a common goal or interest and working together to achieve that goal".
(External participant)

" Partnership implies a long-term relationship in which you don't turn the tap on and off and just go out and consult people now and again and then come back. It actually involves engagement, preferably engagement written up in advance. It doesn't just happen and it requires resources to support it."
(Internal participant)

"We all necessarily don't sing at the same time from the same hymn sheet and that's the nature of partners… It's about a constructive moving forward and at times it's important for partners to be critical of each other because then it means that you're either reinforcing agreed objectives or you're beginning to change objectives as you get more information or you see what's happening."
(External participant)

2. Despite differing perceptions of what it is, there was a strong commitment to partnership working found throughout the research process. However, some participants were careful to point out that their commitment had definite limits and that they would take a confrontational approach when they envisaged benefits from doing so.
4. Views around partnership can often be somewhat contradictory. For instance some participants (both external and internal) argued in general for a very informal approach, while at the same time demanding for other instances that the remit, roles and responsibilities should be formalised in writing. Understanding of the application of the term partnership varied within as well as between sectors, however common themes did emerge on the principles applying to good partnership working.
6. Interestingly, internal participants were very open to discussing what they understood partnership to mean, perhaps indicating the Executive's increasing focus on engaging with external partners. While internal participants recognised that there remains a lack of clarity around aspects of partnership working, they offered the following sorts of views on the concept in relation to the Executive:

• It is important that the Executive develops partnership behaviours in the way it does its business.
• The Executive needs to view partnership as a spectrum - there isn't one simple model.
• The Executive should have a listening and facilitating role - helping facilitate dialogue with and between partners.
• Ministers make final decisions, but whenever possible these must be informed by prior engagement with the main stakeholders.

2. It was sometimes easier for participants to define what they think partnership is not. Some common views emerged from both external and internal participants over what partnership is not:

• Negotiation: It was considered important to distinguish when negotiation - seen as bargaining between interests for settlement of a particular issue - not partnership is the appropriate method of engagement.
• A power of veto: Partnership may offer partners influence in, and access to, the policy development process, but the importance of recognising that it is Ministers who have the final say and that are accountable for decisions was highlighted.

How the Executive and Partners view each Other

2. External participants were asked what they understood the Executive to mean by partnership working. It was generally understood that the Executive regards partnership as a useful, pragmatic response to certain situations. Many did not regard partnership as a fundamental guiding principle of the way the Executive conducts its business, and identified instances where they believed the Executive's commitment to partnership has been lukewarm. A common example would be of the Executive only involving partners late in a policy process, meaning that they have limited opportunity to affect outcomes. Participants generally did not feel that the Executive has articulated a clear overall commitment to enhancing its relationships with partner organisations.
4. Asked the same questions of their external partners, Executive participants expressed the view that although there is much experience of effective and constructive partnership working, sometimes partnership can be used less as a constructive policy-making or delivery tool and more as a lobbying device or a route to securing undue influence. Participants' comments highlighted the fact that there can be significant differences in how the role of partnership is perceived.

5. The Role of Partnership Working

6. All participants expressed some degree of commitment to partnership working, with a clear majority expressing a very strong commitment. Some of the benefits of partnership working in general were identified as follows:

• It can act as a source for new ideas.
• It leads to better policy-making.
• It adds credibility to policy.
• It assists with implementation.
• It knits networks together.

2. Most external participants described partnership as their preferred way of working, although some admitted to being selective about when to get involved:

3. "We are generally willing to participate in partnerships but we are becoming more discerning about when to get involved. We have to believe that participation will achieve tangible benefits for our members". (External participant)

4. Most believed that, by following a partnership approach, they were able to exert a greater degree of influence over policy development therefore obtaining tangible benefits for their constituency. It was noted that participants were sometimes inconsistent in their views, showing up certain tensions in their individual experiences of partnership. For example, whilst explicitly professing an overall commitment to partnership per se, over and above specific policy outcomes, participants across the different groupings were still inclined to be explicitly partisan when it came to securing outcomes for their members or constituency.

5. Risks of Partnership Working

6. Participants recognised that partnership working brings with it a number of risks. Some possible risks of partnership working were identified as follows:

• It can create unrealistic expectations among partners.
• It can create 'unhealthy consensus' among partners - where most partners are signed up to a solution or policy but it is widely felt to be unsatisfactory, and key areas of tension remain unsurfaced.
• It tends to suit producers rather than customers of public services, who are usually absent from the process.
• It maintains an 'established' way of doing things - if partnerships always involve the same participants then there may be little space for radical ideas.
• It may be likely to confer status and authority on partners who are not truly representative of their constituency.

Guiding Principles and Characteristics of Good Partnerships

2. Participants were asked which characteristics are associated with effective partnerships, or which principles should guide partnership working.

3. "I think that principles should be about: where we agree, we work together to achieve common aims; where we disagree, don't throw our rattles out of the pram and walk away but we continue to have dialogue".
   (External participant)

4. The majority view was that success in partnership working very much depends on individuals, and on organisational culture. Success was considered to occur when all people in a partnership relationship feel empowered, failure when people are defensive and fail to behave in ways that encourage partners to relate well and often with each other.

5. "You can have paper partnerships when people sign up to something and then no-one does anything, but you end up saying that you're in partnership anyway. Or you can have effective partnership in which like minded people see a common goal and all contribute something towards achieving that goal"
   (External participant )

   Basic Building Blocks of a Partnership Relationship

6. There were some key features that participants felt could help build strong partnerships and these are set out below:

• Trust: Trust was taken to be a fundamental necessity of good partnership working, and was mentioned by all participants who offered a view.
• Mutual respect: Participants considered respect between partners - and acknowledgement of the fact that they bring different things to the table - as another fundamental principle. This included listening properly to different points of view and recognising the value of a diverse range of opinions.
• Openness: Some participants described a need for there to be a "willingness to be affected by the process", by all partners. This meant partners being less attached to fixed outcomes, and more open to new ideas or approaches.
• Tolerance: There was general agreement that effective, healthy partnerships must be able to withstand robust exchanges of view, and allow space for disagreement.
• Continuity: Getting to know each other as individuals was considered key to building effective relationships, therefore continuity of members was identified as an important factor.

The Framework for Working in Partnership

• Shared vision: The clear view among participants was that common overall aims and objectives need to be identified, otherwise there is little rationale for a partnership to exist.
• Agreement of remit, roles and responsibilities: These were all identified as crucial to effective partnership working, so time allocated at the outset for discussion of them was considered a vital investment, as well as regular review or re-focusing as necessary. The scope as well as the limits of the partnership both need to be clearly understood by all.
• Clear terms of engagement: Terms for operating the partnership need to be agreed amongst partners to avoid misunderstandings and to set out what can reasonably be expected. For example, some participants preferred informality while others were more comfortable with defined rules for operating and engaging with each other.
• Appropriate life-span: Participants involved in more specifically focused partnerships emphasised the need for these arrangements to be time-limited. Others felt wider partnerships need time to grow and establish themselves. Some emphasised the need for more formal review and/or wind-up procedures for partnerships was necessary.
• Management of change: For established partnerships, some emphasised the need to ensure continuity, through for example having appropriate induction procedures for new members. According to some, it was difficult to find examples where this currently happens.

Adopting the Right Partnership Behaviours

• Effective co-ordination and chairing: All partners should have the opportunity to contribute and be made to feel that they are being listened to.
• Interpersonal skills and personal qualities: Along with good listening and clear communication, honesty, patience and enthusiasm were also identified as being important factors in success.
• Responsible behaviour outwith the partnership: Some participants noted that inconsistency in partners' behaviours could lead to the partnership being undermined.

2. Generally, the characteristics of ineffective partnerships were given as the opposites of those listed above e.g. lack of trust, lack of clarity over roles etc. However, the following were also identified in particular:

• Posturing by partners: It was suggested that often people who do not share a partnership's aims and objectives continue to participate because they do not wish to lose their symbolic place at the table. Participants reported instances of negative behaviour where partners had not had the best interests of the partnership at heart.
• Past their sell-by date: There was a view, particularly but not exclusively among internal participants, that many partnership mechanisms outlive their usefulness and no longer concern Executive priorities. However, it was thought that it can be difficult for Ministers to wind up processes that have been successful in the past. Since policy priorities change, it was felt that this should be reflected in the allocation of the resources used to support partnerships.

2. The characteristics and principles of effective partnerships outlined above reflect the accumulated experience of a diverse set of participants. The following chapter considers participants' experience of working in partnership in more detail.