Partnership Working Research Report: Social and Economic Partnership Project

Partnership Working Research Report: Social and Economic Partnership Project

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS - CURRENT EXPERIENCE OF PARTNERSHIP WORKING

Introduction

2. A key aim of the study was to evaluate and review some of the current relationships between the Scottish Executive and its partners . External interviews therefore focused on participants' assessments of how well they work with the Executive. Building on these initial impressions, roundtable events and an e-discussion forum provided opportunities for participants to consider the significance and implications of these experiences. Alongside these discussions with external partners, Scottish Executive staff were also asked to talk about their experience of Executive relationships with partners. These views are considered together here. Many participants described specific examples of effective or ineffective partnership experiences. In the main, we refer to these instances in general terms and avoid exposing specific examples in order to avoid misrepresenting experiences through a small sample size.
4. As shown in Chapter 2, understanding and application of the term 'partnership' can vary considerably. It is worth noting that when describing their experience of relationships and partnership working more generally, between them participants referred to a range of types of engagement, both formal and informal. These include:

• Time-limited or one-off engagement (working groups, meetings etc) over specific issues.
• Ongoing bilateral relationships between an Executive Division and a single sector.
• Medium to longer-term formal multilateral forums and taskforces.
• Regular informal links or contacts between external and Executive interests.

2. The findings of this Chapter refer to engagements and relationships in a general way. However, where specific points are made by participants about the different types of engagement, these are highlighted in the text where appropriate.

3. An Increase in Partnership Working

4. External partners participating in the research were quick to report a much greater range of relationships with the Executive since devolution, with more opportunities for involvement in policy development. The nature of engagement was also reported to be different, with many indicating that engagement is " less formal and stuffy" and relationships more personal.

5. "I think we have seen attitudes change because of the opportunity to have more personal relationships - that wouldn't have been practical with the old style of government."
   (External participant)

6. Some external participants talked about dramatic increases in engagement since devolution, with greater access to both officials and Ministers. Reporting a move towards a more open style of government, many felt that the Executive is - to a greater or lesser extent - making serious attempts to improve partnership working.

7. "I think the Scottish Executive is genuinely embracing the questions around how to do partnership better."
   (External participant)

8. In a similar vein, Scottish Executive staff who participated in the research signalled the emergence of new and more positive ways of working with partners. These changes were felt to bring significant benefits both to relationships and to policy and legislative development. It was recognised that there have been significant changes in the way the Executive works, which has led to notable growth in experience of partnership working and involving others.

9. "We have become much more open, more prepared to work with others."
   (Internal participant)

10. However, despite recognition of the recent growth of partnership working, effective partnership approaches were not always perceived to be an exclusively recent phenomenon, as one participant pointed out:

11. "I can think of some very good collaborative work that was happening 25 years ago."
    (Internal participant)

    Changes Since Devolution

12. Discussion around general experiences of working together tended to be fairly positive and participants identified a number of striking changes observed in relationships. The changes identified, which were noticeably similar between internal and external participants, fell into the following main categories.

Quality of Engagement

• More opportunities for proactive involvement earlier on.
• More experience of developing innovative and meaningful ways of engaging stakeholders and partners in the work of the Executive.
• More opportunities for open dialogue between partners and officials (and Ministers).

Quality of Relationships

• Relationships which are less guarded, more open, informal and constructive.
• Scottish Executive officials being more supportive and encouraging, and actively communicating about policy processes.
• Relationships which are less partisan in nature.

Scottish Executive Culture

• Improved attitudes to engagement, with more willingness to engage partners in the work of the Executive than before.
• A recognition of the benefits of working together for the greater good in Scotland.
• A recognition of the role and benefits of partnership working in development of policy.
• Openness to outcomes being affected by partnership process.
• An internal commitment to fostering and developing better relationships (for example the internal change programme 'Changing to Deliver').

Partners

2. While most of the changes observed related to the Executive, both internal and external participants were encouraged by corresponding positive developments occurring within partner organisations. Participants noted:

• Willingness and commitment from partners to work together for the greater good.
• Commitment of time and resources to engaging with others, including the Executive.

Success Stories

2. Throughout the discussions, participants referred to specific examples of positive relationships and effective partnerships. These covered a range of partnership experiences described by Executive staff and external participants, both formal and informal, from one-off engagements to regular involvement in, for example, working groups, forums and taskforces. In discussions about the nature of these 'success stories', participants identified several key features which characterised such engagements. Unsurprisingly, these resonate with some of the general principles - described in Chapter 2 - which participants felt should underpin relationships and effective partnership processes. Positive examples were where:

• There is trust and respect between partners.
• There is a defined purpose, remit and life-span.
• All partners are clear about their roles and responsibilities.
• There is a focus on achieving outcomes and, where appropriate, discipline about timescales for achieving outcomes.
• There is a mutual recognition of each other's roles.
• There is shared ownership, where partners take responsibility for actions and contributions.
• Partners are involved early on.
• There is meaningful dialogue - all partners are taken seriously, feel listened to and there are opportunities to exchange views and differences of opinion.
• Those on all sides of the partnership demonstrate appropriate partnership behaviours.
• There is equality among partners.

2. If priority was given to any of the above, it was the behaviours of partners which were felt to influence relationships and the likely success of any partnership mechanisms most - almost all of those interviewed spontaneously mentioned the importance of partnership behaviours. Importantly, these attributes were felt to lead to other successful features of partnership working, such as meaningful dialogue, trust and respect, and ultimately better outcomes.

3. "[There should be] a willingness to be honest… a meaningful exchange, a willing exchange because the value of that is six times that of a formalised mechanised exchange which is just a question of coming to a meeting, shaking hands and then walking away two hours later ."
   (External participant)

4. A common view was that it is not the structures that are important, but the people involved. As one participant stated:

5. "You can set up all the infrastructure but in the end it depends on the Minister or the person involved."
   (External participant)

6. Positive experiences were often felt to depend on the people involved, both within the Executive and among partners. Pre-existing, established relationships were also felt to be important.

7. "We got some pretty high powered people… you had some big players so I think they were lucky in getting the quality inputs that they did... The other thing was that we met frequently but not too frequently… I think also the help from the Executive was good, the people in the Executive were real enthusiasts for the topic and that shone through."
   (External participant)

   "It depends on the person involved. Some people are better at listening than others… Some people want to listen and others are resentful of contrary opinion."
   (External participant)

8. Other important factors included the clarity of purpose and roles. There were numerous examples cited where partnership working was seen to be successful in achieving its aims because there had been overall clarity about the function of the partnership. There were also many examples of positive relationships and engagements provided by both sets of participants which signal positive changes in the way partners engage and interact with each other. Speaking about a particular taskforce, one participant outlined some of the key factors of its perceived success:
10. Some partners commented on the effectiveness of formal bilateral agreements. Participants from the relevant sectors which have implemented a partnership agreement felt that these have undoubtedly brought significant benefits and have improved relationships. For example, it was felt that they formally recognise the role particular organisations or sectors have in the work of the Executive which, for some, has allowed the development of new engagements with different areas of the Executive.

11. "This ['contract' ] helps us make our pitch for why we should be involved."
    (External participant)

    "We have further developed relationships with [particular Executive Departments] that maybe [we] didn't have before."
    (External participant)

    Disappointments

12. While finding accounts of general improvement in engagement and relationships with the Executive, many external participants expressed considerable disappointment with some of their experiences of partnership working. For example, one participant commented that despite an increase in relationships, there was a lack of meaningful engagement in some areas.

13. "There is a much greater range in relationships but a disappointing lack of depth to most."
    (External participant)

14. Executive staff also stressed the need for more progress in the way the organisation works with and involves others, and while there are constructive guiding frameworks in place, it was felt that there is room for improvement:

15. "The messages from the outside is that it is mixed. The message is that the Executive has got better but is has a long way to go… We haven't gone far enough in implementing the CSG principles."
    (Internal participant)

16. Although there was an overwhelming sense by both sets of participants that the Executive has made considerable progress in how it involves others, the majority felt there were still substantial improvements required.

17. Common Problems and Challenges

18. A number of common frustrations and challenges were highlighted by both external and internal participants during the course of the study which, it was felt, undermined progress towards better partnership working. These disappointments and challenges can be grouped by the following themes:

• Achieving consistency in relationships.
• The limits of involvement.
• The composition of partnerships.
• The need for feedback.
• The need for clarity over purpose and roles.
• Resource issues.

Achieving Consistency in Relationships

2. Despite reported progress in many areas, external participants highlighted variations in relationships with Divisions and individuals across the Scottish Executive. While there was a strong sense that there is more openness among Executive staff, this was not seen to be universal. Experience of what was described as an 'old style' civil service were not uncommon. Typified by an approach which is closed and where comments are not felt to be listened to, many internal and external participants felt that a lack of willingness to make relationships work still exists across areas of the Executive. Participants described experience of attitudes and behaviours that undermine commitment to partnership working, and can damage trust and respect amongst partners.

3. "You can have brilliant partnerships with one Executive department and you can go along the road and have the most dreadful, patronising sort of '20 years ago' experience with another one."
   (External participant)

   "The Executive can't talk with one voice about partnership. Some parts of the organisation have forged effective relations with partners but there is a lack of consistency… The Executive seems to talk about partnership between others. It doesn't tend to think of itself as a partner unless in a symbolic way."
   (Internal participant)

4. Formal bilateral agreements were referred to earlier in the context of improvements in relationships. While it was felt that their development has to some extent brought both benefits and improved relationships, a number of common problems were highlighted. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, but the main concern expressed was that formal agreements are not being delivered with the same enthusiasm across all areas of the Executive.
6. Rapid staff turnover, or 'churn', has been highlighted as a problem through the Executive's initial analysis for its internal change programme 'Changing to Deliver'. This may be one reason for the lack of consistency and continuity, particularly within existing relationships. Interestingly, only a few external participants highlighted this as a particular difficulty, referring to turnover of both Ministers and Executive staff. More emphasis tended to be given to the importance of consistency of approach and robust hand-over strategies, which were felt to be able limit any difficulties arising from the movement of staff. In addition, a few external participants noted an advantage of staff moving in that it was perceived to give 'friendly contacts' in other, potentially 'uncharted' areas.
8. While Executive staff were attuned to the perceived problem of staff churn for partners and recognised this as a difficulty, we might also note from the Executive's perspective that turnover among stakeholders is potentially equally problematic, although it did not specifically arise in discussions with staff who participated.
10. An overall strategic commitment to partnership within an organisation was felt to help limit inconsistencies. Although many external participants believed that such an Executive commitment to better partnership probably exists, many were unaware of any such thing, and felt that if it does exist it is expressed in vague terms. One individual questioned why the Executive has never made a public statement about its commitment to partnership working. The Executive's internal change programme 'Changing to Deliver', in which developing a greater 'outward focus' is a central aim, attracted some comment from external participants whose knowledge of the programme was relatively limited. While the concept was welcomed, several questioned why it has not been shared more widely with external partners and additionally has not involved partners in a more strategic way.
12. Recognising that lack of consistency is problematic for partner organisations, Executive staff were encouraged that positive steps are being taken to address some of the issues. Interestingly, it was the more senior Executive participants who placed greater emphasis on the role of such initiatives. Importantly, staff felt that there is a general undercurrent of commitment to improvement throughout the organisation. In addition, many were hopeful about internal change initiatives which, it was perceived, would build on progress.

13. "With Changing to Deliver, you know, there's a new kind of impetus in looking at the way we work with others, our customer focus, our culture, our attitudes… If you're being more customer focused and more stakeholder focused, then you are much more likely to be a more effective partner and to be developing partnership attributes."
    (Internal participant)

    "I think Changing to Deliver, if effectively implemented and adopted, could probably take us a good deal further on."
    (Internal participant)

    The Limits of Involvement

14. At the same time as acknowledging increased opportunities for involvement, most external participants expressed concern that their involvement tends to be limited. The main concern to feature was the belief that the Executive tends to consult partners too late in the process of developing policy, with a focus on operational matters rather than creating room for partners to shape policy.

15. "There's not much point in being consulted on things when the thinking process is so well developed that, at best you'll make changes round the margin, and at worst you'll have absolutely no impact whatsoever."
    (External participant)

16. A number of external participants focused on the reasons for partners not being involved early on and a small number were sceptical:

17. "I think that comes from a fear within the civil service… they are not happy about exposing their thinking to outsiders for fear they might be contradicted and the public might not like what they're doing. So the best way then is to develop it to such a stage that it is almost a completed body and 'now we'll open the door too late so that you can't really change it because we've decided anyway'."
    (External participant)

18. Many Executive staff who participated recognised this as a problem requiring addressing and were supportive of some of the ways in which the Executive could broaden involvement of partners. However, a number of staff stressed that expectations of the extent of stakeholder involvement can sometimes be an area of tension. For instance, partners are sometimes perceived to have unrealistic expectations about how much involvement is possible in the decision making process: according to some, partners sometimes expect more involvement and influence in setting the agenda than is possible.

19. "In my experience partners can add to the agenda but they can't set it."
    (Internal participant)

20. Some participants said that there is a need for clarity at the outset about what is open for negotiation as part of the partnership process and what is not.

21. " Defining the parameters of that partnership that you're having [is important], whether it is a genuine everything's up for grabs, we're starting a new policy, you can say anything you like and if it's good, hopefully it will be taken into account. Or…this is going to happen, let's try and do it as best we can."
    (Internal participant)

22. A number commented that partners need to see the legitimate role of government in decision making. This was highlighted in the context of accountability, in that decision making ultimately rests with government. The rights of Ministers, having been elected, to take forward what they were elected to do, was emphasised.

23. "The politicians will decide what they want to do - to take forward some cherished thing."
    (Internal participant)

24. That there can be fundamental differences in expectations appears to represent a significant challenge to partnership processes. The importance of being realistic at the outset about processes was highlighted.
26. Linked to the perception that involvement was often too late in routine consultation exercises, a number of external participants felt that there were limited opportunities to contribute to wider strategic policy development. For instance, some felt that partners could usefully contribute to strategic thinking on the big, longer-term issues facing Scotland, discussions which were considered to be largely absent in the context of the policy agenda.

27. "…what should the issues be in terms of consultation…not just for the next four years but the four years beyond that?… We've always got a difficulty in separating out strategy from operational aspects. We're consulted on how things should be working rather than the principles and the issues at the beginning…"
    (External participant)

    "[I have] the aspiration that there would be some sort of vision for the future of Scotland which would be articulated having had some consultation at a local and national level… The biggest criticism …[is that there is] this plethora of initiatives and priorities and a lack of a focus in terms of what it is that the government intend to do."
    (External participant)

28. Alongside views about the timing of involvement and the need for input into strategic challenges, a number of other concerns about involvement, particularly in relation to Scottish Executive consultations, were highlighted. These included:

• Lack of time to respond: Deadlines were often not felt to be realistic, especially if people are to be involved in an informed way. This concern was expressed by many external partners and some internal participants.
• Overload: Despite emphasising the need for continuous involvement, participants were mindful of consultation overload. It was felt that the lack of a co-ordinated approach to many different Executive consultations was a key contributing factor. It was felt that often separate initiatives cover similar ground, implying a lack of overview or prioritisation from the Executive.
• Focus on paper-based consultation: The limits of paper-based consultation were highlighted and consequently it was felt that there is a need for more creative methods in consulting partners.

The Composition of Partnerships

2. A number of internal and external participants expressed concern about the lack of engagement beyond a relatively limited group (sometimes referred to as the 'usual suspects'), in other words looking beyond those with loud and influential voices. In addition, there were difficulties expressed about achieving the involvement a wide range of interests. Concerns were expressed in a number of ways:

• There tends to be a reliance on a small number of larger organisations.
• Representative organisations may not be totally representative.
• Communities and the wider public are not necessarily involved.
• There are difficulties and tensions around parity of esteem.

Reliance on larger organisations

2. Some participants, particularly Executive staff, were cautious about relying too heavily on larger organisations or the 'big players'. It was felt that this could lead to potential distortion of agendas or privileging of certain interests, which could threaten to cut across principles of democracy and accountability. The need for a diverse approach to involvement was emphasised. However, a number of Executive staff suggested there are major practical difficulties in getting the right people round the table and in trying to go beyond the traditional partners every time.

3. Representativeness of external organisations

4. The issue of how much 'reach' is achieved by representative organisations in consulting their members or those in their sector was questioned by a minority of external participants and Executive staff. Interestingly, a number of external participants highlighted difficulties for them, both in consulting and involving members appropriately and in broadening links to the grassroots level within their sectors. To ensure appropriate representation of members takes place, a number of organisations have developed sophisticated surveying techniques to capture the views of members accurately. One participant suggested that the Executive needs to be aware of the methods organisations use to involve and consult members since different techniques are used by different organisations and there may be a risk of relying on the views of a minority rather than the full membership.

5. Involvement of communities

6. The issue of wider participation was raised by a number of Executive staff and several external participants. Concern was expressed that community networks and citizens have largely been neglected in favour of the larger institutions:

7. "[It's] the big partner organisations like the unions and the churches and business just grabbing power with the Executive themselves and creating a so called 'social partnership'."
   (External participant)

   "Partnerships tend to emphasise the views of services or providers above those of public or customers."
   (Internal participant)

8. Many participants felt that it is incumbent on all partners to be more proactive in seeking the views of those who are traditionally less involved. The difficulties of engaging communities and reaching the 'silent voices' were perceived to be major challenges for both partners and Executive alike.

9. "It's a huge area of weakness for us. As an organisation we understand astonishingly little about customer views."
   (Internal participant)

   "I think we need to ask ourselves how we can build structures that will give us, as it were, unfiltered understanding of views in society of a variety of issues."
   (Internal participant)

   Parity of esteem

10. During discussions about inclusiveness, the issue of parity of esteem was highlighted. Several external participants expressed concern about some stakeholders being more equal in practice than others. For example:

11. "On the parity of esteem question, sometimes it is those who are better at getting the media headlines who appear to be better at influencing the ultimate policy outcome…"
    (External participant)

12. The concept of equality of status attracted much discussion among Executive partners and there were differing views about whether there could be equality of status among partners. For some, attaching equal status to partners created difficulties and tensions, with the particular requirements of the role of government in decision making being seen as being contrary to equality of status.

13. "There is a difficulty in delivering equality of status - it is back to the point about leadership and accountability. Ministers are pretty clear that the buck stops with them, and that's the difference."
    (Internal participant)

14. Although these participants were not suggesting a hierarchical approach to partnership, they highlighted potential dangers of endorsing parity of esteem, such as unrealistic expectations among partners about roles and involvement. In contrast, others preferred to adopt a more egalitarian approach, which saw partners' involvement as more of a level playing field. This egalitarian view resonated with many external participants in particular, but not exclusively.

15. "It would be much better if we had a partnership of equals, with the Executive contributing as an equal partner."
    (External participant)

    "I prefer a model where we're talking about a team. People have particular roles, particular

    skills and particular needs and requirements. I don't think we should start from the viewpoint of putting ourselves in the middle because that's not the way to create a true partnership."
    (Internal participant)

    The Need for Feedback

16. A number of partners reported frustration at the lack of feedback provided following contributions to Executive consultations or partnership processes. A number of examples were cited where partner organisations and their members had contributed in some way but were left frustrated in the absence of quality feedback. They wanted to hear back about how their input had been used and considered, and whether it had made a difference.

17. "[There] needs to be a lot of effort put into making the process conducive to people giving their views, and feeling they have gained something by participating."
    (Internal participant)

18. While participants recognised that policy processes require government to demonstrate leadership and be able to account for its decisions, it was felt that engagement has an important role yet this role is not being communicated. In particular, it was felt that the Executive needs to be more transparent, providing better explanations for how and why policy decisions are made.

19. "There is a need to provide feedback so that people can feel confident that the process isn't escaping into secret tunnels."
    (Internal participant)

    "We expect them to carry the argument. That is what they fail to do. They decide but they don't carry the argument. They duck [it]…"
    (External participant)

    The Need for Clarity Over Purpose and Roles

20. Clarity of purpose and roles was singled out earlier as an important feature of successful partnership mechanisms which, it was felt, leads to a shared understanding and minimises confusion and differing expectations. It is likely that in its absence, there may be disappointment and frustration resulting from differing perceptions amongst partners of what the partnership can undertake, and of each other's roles on it.
22. Another area of ambiguity identified by a few external participants was the role of the Executive in partnership processes. Difficulties in determining the role of Executive staff were highlighted. For instance, one person expressed concern that Executive officials often seem indifferent and tend not to contribute:

23. "I go to lots of meetings where the Executive are there in mass ranks and who never say anything.. I find that they are all sound people but it is a dampener when you are faced with a line of grey suits who don't tend to say anything. They are observing and presumably reporting back to their Departments."
    (External participant)

24. Another external participant suggested that the Executive is confused as to its role since there are inconsistencies, with some officials appearing willing to contribute to meetings while others are less so. This theme was one which was picked up by Executive staff and a number confirmed this view, suggesting that the Executive does not always see itself as a partner.
26. Equally it was suggested by a minority that the Executive can be confused about the role of particular external organisations or sectors during partnership processes. For example some suggested that the Executive does not understand organisations' legitimate wider role in being able to comment on government actions, and partners described difficulties resulting from them doing so. Interestingly, a number of Executive staff described problems they had encountered as a result of organisations who were part of a partnership process levying criticisms about the partnership independently in the press.

27. "It tends to destroy the trust and confidence on which partnership depends."
    (Internal participant)

28. Again the importance of establishing an understanding of respective roles and additionally the need for 'ground rules' was emphasised.

29. "There should be ground rules and once you have those I think it works quite well. But if they're then broken … I think you go back to a much more defensive sort of mode."
    (Internal participant)

    Resource Issues

30. A substantial barrier identified by the majority of external participants was the resource implications of partnership working. Many spoke of the increase in partnership activity since devolution and the strain it places on their resources. Although broadly welcoming the increase in access and opportunities for involvement, many found it difficult to cope with increasing demands and described ways in which they have had to reprioritise activities at the expense of, for example, maintaining links with Westminster. As well as re-prioritising organisational activities and deploying existing resources to meet the demands of further engagement, many also reported having to limit and streamline engagements with the Executive (and other partners) to ensure that mainstream services or activities are maintained. Some participants felt that the Executive could do more to assist partners in engaging with government. The lack of a joined up approach to Executive consultation activity was felt to be a significant factor contributing to the resource difficulties external organisations faced in being involved.
32. Partners were not alone in voicing concerns about the need for considerable resources for effective partnership. Executive staff too indicated that the increased commitment to partnership working required more in terms of their time, resources and business planning processes.

33. "it [involving others] requires a very substantial commitment of time and resources to make it work."
    (Internal participant)

34. This chapter has focused mainly on the experiences (both good and bad) of partnership working. At the same time as describing these, both partners and Executive staff identified possible ways in which partnership working could be enhanced and improved. In some ways it is artificial to isolate these ideas from the challenges described by participants. Nonetheless, for emphasis we consider these separately in the next chapter.

SUMMARY Participants reported significant increases in engagement and relationships between the Executive and partners, and described many success stories. However, many partners were disappointed with some of their experiences of working with the Executive. A number of common frustrations were highlighted which were felt to undermine effective partnership working. Common problems and challenges identified were achieving consistency in relationships, the limits of partners' involvement, getting the composition of partnerships right, the need for feedback, the need for clarity over purpose and roles, and finally the resource issues that increased partnership raises. The perception that a partnership approach is not fully embedded across the Executive was seen to be a real problem by partners and Executive staff alike. There was optimism among Executive staff about how current internal change initiatives will improve the way the Executive relates to and works with its partners. This optimism was not shared by all partners, partly because such initiatives are not visible externally. While organisations welcomed increased access and opportunities for involvement many find it difficult to cope with the increasing demands on them. Since most engagement with government is likely to be a fundamental core business activity of those organisations taking part in this research, it is fair to assume that other partners, and mainstream delivery organisations, are equally if not more likely to struggle with engaging while at the same time managing core business.