Joining Forces: imbalances and inequalities
Summary of key points
The theme of the discussion was ‘Imbalances and inequalities: How can we recognise the imbalances and inequalities that exist in collaborations and agree standards for behaviour that enable participation by all?’
The main points which emerged from the discussion were:
Organisations operate in a highly competitive funding environment and this can exacerbate imbalances and inequalities within partnerships.
Dominant partners can sometimes abuse their power, and in the worst cases this needs to be called out more, and mobilised against.
On the other hand it is possible to recognise and embrace disagreement and conflict, in ways that allow this to become a stimulant to innovation.
And things often work best when we start by assuming the best, rather than the worst, in others.
Furthermore, there are techniques and tactics which can be used to help everyone appreciate better what each partner brings, and skilled connectors can also play a useful role.
Above all, establishing a common purpose, and seeing the bigger picture, especially when this is done together with those who are beneficiaries, and those working at the front line, can encourage more generous and less self-interested behaviours.
In more detail
Steve Wyler, co-convenor introduced the model of change set out in the recent Better Way publication Time for a Change, which some have called the Better Way ‘beachball’:
In this cell we are exploring the ‘joining forces’ element of this model while noting that there are connections between all four elements, and indeed that applying them in combination makes each more effective.
Our focus this time was ‘How can we recognise the imbalances and inequalities that exist in collaborations and agree standards for behaviour that enable participation by all’.
As Cate Newnes Smith, thought-leader for this cell, pointed out, lives are complex, and public services generally try to compartmentalise needs, but this leaves may gaps, and that’s one of the main reasons we need to join forces. ‘Joining forces’ is a helpful concept she felt, because it implies combining the power of organisations, rather than them doing their own things.
Cate has found it difficult to find instances where inequalities in partnerships have truly been successfully addressed. She shared an example of a service ‘alliance’ between an NHS Trust and 12 charities where the NHS England commissioners of the service made deliberate attempts to address inherent inequalities in the partnership, e.g. by requiring that £4.5m of the £24m available needed to be distributed to the charities. But despite this, the standard top-down contract management model which NHS England has applied has not been helpful for alliance building and sharing of power.
We also had a presentation from Arvinda Gohil, CEO of Central YMCA. She pointed out that in partnerships between organisations there is often an inherent inequality, where one is dominant, adopts the leadership role and is the gateway to the money. This can be aggravated by funders and commissioners who want the reach that comes from partnerships but prefer to deal with just one organisation, because this keeps things simple for themselves.
Contractual relationships can be constructed to create an ‘upper hand’ for a larger, more powerful partner, over a smaller, less experienced organisation. Arvinda spoke of her experience when she ran a housing association in the North, newly set up to improve access to housing for the Black community, and partnered with another much larger asset-rich housing association, to be the developer of new housing. The contract stipulated that the developer would retain profits over an agreed pricing level and in the event the scheme was highly profitable. In this case Arvinda was eventually able, but only with the help of a third party, to negotiate a profit-share agreement.
More recently, Arvinda was leading a smaller organisation which merged with a larger one because it was not financially viable on its own, in order to safeguard services for a poor community in London. However, following the merger, the dominant partner asserted its authority and ability to overrule, repeatedly saying ‘we own you’. This led to a difficult relationship, one that Arvinda eventually felt she had no option but to leave.
More positively, Arvinda has now found herself in the role of running a larger organisation which has offered its sports and exercise facilities as well as staffing support to a small youth club working with young Black and Asian men, in exchange for a small affiliation fee. This is working well, said Arvinda, and she believes that it is indeed possible to live the positive values of collaboration, but this requires determination and commitment from those in leadership roles, especially where they are the stronger partner.
Steve shared a further example, where some years ago Groundswell, a small homelessness charity, which was struggling financially at the time, was transferred into the ownership of Thames Reach, a much larger charity, to ensure its survival. Groundswell subsequently thrived, and when it reached the point where it could once again operate independently, Thames Reach allowed this to happen, without requiring anything in return. This, Steve felt, was an outstanding example of selfless behaviour by a larger organisation, but one that is unfortunately uncommon.
Discussion
Breakout sessions were then held to consider the question: ’What standards of behaviour in collaborations would enable participation by all?’ In the feedback and further discussion participants made the following points:
What gets in the way
Many organisations operate in a highly competitive environment and leaders are programmed to protect their own organisation first and foremost. Unless we can change this, and encourage leaders to think less about their own organisation and more about the shared impact they can achieve with others, the harmful inequalities and imbalances will persist.
We cannot assume that positive and generous motivations will always be present, and some people and organisations are driven by a need to dominate.
Even when people are willing to work together for a common aim, their own behaviour can get in the way, for example, if someone asserts that their favoured solution is the only one that will work, and is unwilling to make space for other possibilities to emerge.
Where funding depends on the partnership, and one partner holds the purse strings, there is an inevitable inequality and imbalance.
In service delivery partnerships, the imposition of predetermined targets can become a means of control and this can reinforce power imbalances.
How to generate positive behaviours
A shared common aim, where shared investment leads to shared success, is more likely to drive positive behaviour than a set of standards.
A focus on what can be done that actually makes a difference to people’s lives, with co-production as a guiding principle, including involvement of recipients of a service and of people at the front line of delivery, developing priorities together, can generate a shift away from organisations positioning themselves for their own advantage.
In the best partnerships everyone is respected for whatever they bring, whether that is resources, or connections, or expertise, regardless of the size or strength of the organisation.
A state of mind that starts with assuming the best of everyone else in the partnership can help a great deal to bring out good behaviours in the group.
There are techniques and tactics which can be deployed where there are imbalances, for example different forms of meetings that enable greater participation and encouraged shared solutions.
Restorative practice can help to shift organisational culture in favour of better collaboration, for example being non-judgmental, person-centred, and empathic. Appreciative inquiry can help people understand what everyone wants to achieve and what everyone can bring to the shared task.
Leadership needs to be flexible, agile, and adaptive, using evaluation to learn and improve impacts, which can help to build a culture of collaboration, rather than seeking to prove impact, which can make collaboration more difficult.
Collaboration in a competitive environment
In the commercial world, companies which are engaging in fierce competition for customers can nevertheless sometimes find themselves able to collaborate, for example by sharing best practice, or by establishing buying clubs, to get better deals.
Organisations tackling complex and wicked social problems will need to collaborate, to achieve any worthwhile impact, even though they are at the same time in competition for funds. This is a tension that they need to understand and manage.
It is sometime possible to push back against commissioners in a concerted way, and encourage them to adopt commissioning models that will lead to more collaborative and less competitive practices.
The role of connectors
Connectors (trusted people who are skilled in identifying common interests, and can make introductions and encourage co-operation) can play a big part in establishing and maintaining productive and well-balanced partnerships, and investing in the connector role can be very worthwhile.
Embracing conflict
Positive collaborations need to be willing to recognise and embrace disagreement and conflict, not least where there are complex ‘wicked’ problems that don’t lend themselves to simple solutions.
If something is not working well it is better to address this openly and have the difficult conversation, rather than allowing things to fester. Conflict should, it was suggested, become normalised, making it a stimulant to innovation rather than a stimulant to divisiveness.
It can be helpful to make potential disagreements and conflicts explicit at the outset of any collaboration.
Shifting power
Sticking together in a partnership requires team work and discipline, but when that is achieved and sustained through thick and thin, it is possible to shift power imbalances.
The most powerful thing is the truth, it was said. Those who have small amounts of money or other resources, but have the truth (especially when connected to a social injustice) can find themselves able to influence others and win allies.
The need to call out abuses of power
Sharing power is really hard for many individuals and institutions, including local government and the civil service, who have a tendency to accumulate and hoard and sometimes abuse power.
There is a need sometimes to call this out, mobilise to challenge abuses of power, and stand by those who are treated unfairly.
And finally…
In partnerships there is a need to make a deliberate effort to stand back and appreciate the whole in order to ‘see the elephant’, otherwise people are likely to have very different and narrow perspectives, and fail to appreciate the wider task:
Future meetings
21st September, 3.00pm-4.30. Joining forces across sectors, including with the private sector: How can we build alliances not just between the voluntary and public sectors but also with the business sector?
19th October, 3.00pm-4.30. Joining forces to inspire, rather than to control: If, in our collaborations, we seek to control the actions of others we may be preventing the growth of something bigger, a wider social movement. So, can we ‘let go’ when we collaborate, without losing our way?