From transactional to transformative partnerships

We must be weary of partners that are not evaluating their work with each other, for each other, and for the community. Historically, societies which operate with extreme inequality generate more restrictive institutions that uphold existing power dynamics (Nathan Nun). We must prevent our organizations from operating parallel to these oppressive structures, especially when that work is deemed a success - that’s when we must be most conscientious of falling into the complacency of doing ‘enough’. The key impetus for partnership revaluation should be to break down silos and transform individual organizations with a shared mission into innovative coalitions. 

Revisiting partnerships requires resources, including time, energy, and redirection of bandwidth. So how do we revisit the partnership and still empower each partner? How do we plan so that the resource consumption we need to find clarity and establish accountability, is worth the results produced? It requires rethinking and identifying how a partner can best use their knowledge to contribute to the intended impact. A partnership is not a hierarchical framework – it is an intentional co-construction of actions that disrupt inequity. 

Funders must acknowledge that they tip the balance of power in their favor, shaping the field through the current distribution of resources deemed acceptable through the title of ‘best practices’. The responsibility of that power dynamic is to proactively change the terms of the debate. Understanding that, as a funder, providing wrap-around resources including partnerships, services, and access to networks is key. Sharing resources that exist within the funders’ toolkit would shape the field in a positive way, rather than becoming a reflection of the current process. Following the status quo tends to create winners and losers in the field rather than helping to build towards a collective vision.

How do we co-construct?

We have to practice relationship-building with each other through every step of the process, no matter how new or seasoned the partnership is. Intentional action to continuously build authentic and equitable collaboration on projects (Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2017) comes through accountability, clarity, and understanding how to position our respective organizations in the best way to serve each other in pursuit of a shared goal.

A fundamental aspect of relationship-building within a partnership is accountability, requiring each partner to look inward. Building movements not only requires flexibility to shift our approach; it also requires the ability to share what didn’t work. Acknowledging our failures and making space for them involves listening without judgment and understanding that if struggles cannot be shared then there will be a loss of data and trust. 

Two-way support structures come from creating resource maps for our respective partners during moments of failure. Who in our networks can be plugged into the conversation when we didn’t make the right choice? What organization can join the review process to engage the development of new ideas? What does it look like to create an active response that uplifts each partner when an error occurs? Capacity-building and accountability go hand-in-hand, ultimately building a knowledge map that others can follow and expand on.

Partnerships are complex, intersectional movements which work off the principles reflected in each partner’s identity, language, and values - all things that influence our definition of success (Gulati-PArtee & Potapchuk, 2017). Clarity of the intended impact and specific goals is necessary, along with the awareness of varying implementations that each partner can utilize and the recognition that each partner should have full agency over their approach. In this exchange, a lack of transparency can negatively impact the effectiveness of shared work, and we must reflect on whether our actions are draining capacity from our partners.

The reporting should also reflect these strategic implementations and clearly highlight not only what the approach was, but how the overall partners convened. We have to reflect on what equitable assessments and benchmarking look like. While there is a silent desire from some privileged funders to stay within their comfort zones and utilize a universal reporting language, a rigid outline like this can prevent the growth and innovation necessary to enact change. 

When formalized structures hold a partner accountable to predetermined initiatives rather than measuring agility and impact, we institutionalize silos which uphold systemic exclusionary practices. A success benchmark needs to be how successful partners are supporting each other, and the evaluation process must identify operational patterns which are hindering equity (Burbank, Romanillos, & Williams, 2021). Think of equity in partnership evaluation as both a practice and context builder of innovation: through this perspective, the definitions to catalog success will consider the value of intentional relationship-building within partners and communities. We have to build-in benchmarks that are equitable, attainable, and adjustable throughout the relationship-building process.

Partnerships should mirror everyday life, where the unexpected happens and tends to exacerbate overlapping systemic issues. So why don’t our partnerships operate the same way? Focusing on cross-sectoral responses through unifying efforts and affording operational flexibility can compound the overall impact. This leads to collaborative leadership structures with defined accountability measures that promote and track progress, even amid a necessary (and potentially unexpected) pivot.