Creating Strategic Partnerships

A Guide for Educational Institutions and Their Partners

Marilyn J. Amey, Pamela L. Eddy

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781579227579
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

What are the characteristics and conditions that lead to successful educational partnerships?What can we learn from partnerships that fail, cannot be sustained over time, or cease to benefit their partners? This book serves as a guide to the successful implementation of partnerships. It provides the context and tools for readers who are responding to the increasing demands of policy makers, funders and institutional leaders to use partnerships to address local, state and federal issues, achieve external mandates, meet public or internal agendas, or pursue international collaborations. This guide provides an evidence-based framework for institutional and organizational leaders to develop the vision, shared values and norms to achieve the "partnership capital" that will sustain an enduring relationship. It offers a three-phase model of the development process of collaboration, together with a tool box for those charged with partnering and leading organizational change, and includes a template for both creating new partnerships and sustaining existing ones.The authors start by differentiating between "traditional, " often ad-hoc, partnerships and "strategic partnerships" that align organizational strategy with partnership actions; and by identifying the importance of moving beyond incremental or surface "first order" change to develop deep "second order change" through which underlying structures and operations are questioned and new processes emerge due to the partnership. They offer analyses and understandings of seven key components for success: exploring motivations; developing partner relationships; communicating and framing purpose; creating collaborative structures and resources; leading various partnership stages; generating partnership capital; and implementing strategies for sustaining partnerships. Each chapter concludes with a case study to provide more understanding of the ideas presented, and for use in training or classes. This guide is addressed to policy makers and educational leaders, college administrators, and their non-profit and business partners, to enable them to lead and create strategic partnerships and facilitate organizational change.

1

CREATING A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

Partnerships are in the news, topics of conversations for policymakers looking to save costs, and the focus of college leaders trying to leverage influence. Yet, a source of confusion in discussing partnerships is definitions. Various terms are often used interchangeably when considering partnerships. Indeed, Clifford and Millar (2008) note that an issue with research on partnerships is that partnerships is commonly not defined. Collaborations, alliances, consortia, joint ventures, teams, and partnerships all describe situations in which individuals and organizations join together for some purpose. Thus, it is important to be clear on how we use terms to describe partnerships. Here, we make the distinction between traditional partnerships and strategic partnerships. We argue that traditional partnerships are often the outcome of individual efforts, pursuing singular interests that eventually involve others (Amey, 2010), or are formed to meet a targeted outcome (Johnson, 2007), likely as a result of meeting a mandate that either emerges from a top-down decision or a policy requirement. Strategic partnerships instead are formed based on a sense of purpose and for what they contribute in helping leaders meet institutional goals and objectives.

A central feature of traditional partnerships is the happenstance origins of these pairings. The resulting partnership typically is not integrated into organizational operations; rather, it is person-centric and peripheral to campus operations. Strategic partnerships, on the other hand, originate in a different context and for different purposes. Strategic partnerships are intentionally formed based on goal alignment among partners that helps create more staying power. Like traditional partnerships emerging out of individual interests, individuals may initiate strategic partnerships. But the difference is that in strategic partnerships individuals pursue connections based on how the partnership helps meet institutional strategic goals.

Traditional partnerships form by happenstance, whereas strategic partnerships are intentional.

Individual motivations behind pursuing a partnership matter. On the one hand, individuals may become involved in or start a partnership due to self-centered motivating interests (traditional partnership). On the other hand, individuals may be aware of their institutions’ strategic goals and seek out partners that can help obtain these goals. In this case, self-interests may also be fulfilled because contributions at the individual level are rewarded as a result of helping to meet strategic initiatives. Strategic partnerships intentionally engage institutional members in critical examination of priorities and organizational strategies that often lead to real change rather than collaborating to reinforce the status quo. Adaptive or second-order change (Argyris & Schön, 1992; Heifetz, 1994) requires institutions to question their current operations and actions, ultimately deciding what they must do differently for deep changes to occur. Strategic partnerships build on deeper rationales for partnering than individual self-interest or happenstance and are not based on whims or fads (Birnbaum, 2000). In contrast, traditional partnerships create first-order change; they make only incremental adjustments and do not question underlying systemic assumptions associated with operations. Also, traditional partnerships do not propose new goals or outcomes for the individual organizations involved.

First-order change creates incremental, surface changes. Second-order change questions underlying assumptions, ultimately resulting in deep change.

The role of leaders in strategic partnerships is to create meaning for campus members that underscores why the partnership is important and how it supports organizational strategy. The creation of a shared understanding of the partnership helps everyone involved realize why it is important to support. In some cases, newly formed partners begin their first meetings by defining expectations and creating common language or terms (Eddy, 2010b); in other cases leaders create more conceptual understandings about the new partnership. As with other forms of institutional actions, organizational leaders may frame to followers the work under way as strategic alignment after the fact. Irrespective of the timing of the framing, leaders create a vision of the future with the partnership for institutional members (Smircich & Morgan, 1982). How leaders help campus members make sense of the partnership influences reactions to campus commitment to the project and use of scarce resources.

How leaders frame the partnership creates ownership and buy-in for people beyond senior leaders, especially when leaders use communication networks that invite participation and are inclusive (Hickman, 2010). Typically, the type of communication found in traditional partnerships remains distinct for each partner. For example, a school partner may use the term student, whereas a business partner may refer to employees. Even though individuals may have multiple roles and be both a student and an employee, the language conveys different intentions. A strategic partnership may think instead of the student/employee as a key end user or client, which conveys a very different shared meaning.

Leaders frame change for stakeholders and create meaning for institutional staff.

The types of relationships involved in the two forms of partnerships also differ. Traditional partnerships, given their emergent nature, typically involve dyads and small groups and draw on social networks only peripherally invested in the partnership. This type of loose coupling (Weick, 1976) benefits the embryonic phase of partnership development as groups have more latitude because they are not tightly connected to organizational operations. Strategic partnership relationships include connections that are more central to organizational operations. Here the partnership goals are tied to the mission and vision of the partner organizations.

Partnership capital (Amey et al., 2010) can emerge from both traditional and strategic forms of partnerships. The creation of partnership capital occurs when the partners develop a set of shared norms, shared beliefs, and networking that aligns processes among individual collaborators. In the case of traditional partnerships, once created, this type of capital remains static and is easily diminished if partners change. Much like a bank account, once the partnership’s capital is used up, no resources remain because nothing is being added. For strategic partnerships, however, partnership capital is dynamic and changes over time due to deepening relationships, ties to organizational operations, and a strong foundation of shared norms. In this case, continuous additions are deposited into the partnership bank account. Table 1.1 outlines a typology for the definitions we ascribe to traditional partnerships and strategic partnerships. The numbers in brackets correspond with the chapter in this book that reviews the concept.

TABLE 1.1

Typology of Partnership Definitions

Traditional Partnership	Strategic Partnership
•Individually driven [3] or top-down leadership [6] •Organizationally circumstantial [2] •Creates first-order change [5] •Builds on status quo [5] •Discrete and static partnership capital [7] •Technical communication; distinct [4] •Loose and small social networks not always tied to the partnership [3]	•Intentional leadership actions [6] •Tied to institutional goals or strategies [2] •Creates second-order change [5] •Capacity building [5] •Dynamic and blended partnership capital [7] •Multidisciplinary vocabulary [4] •Dense and central networks tied to partnership; thinking community [3]

In this book, we established this typology to reflect central characteristics of collaborative work, though we recognize that these definitions exist on a continuum. We draw distinctions between traditional and strategic partnerships that represent the opposite end points of the range of factors. At the same time, we acknowledge that at any point, a partnership may or may not include all of these characteristics; as well, the characteristic may fall in various places across the continuum, and all members of the partnership may not view it similarly. We recognize the evolving nature of partnerships from traditional to strategic, and that some partnerships fall predominantly in one category or the other almost from the start.

It is also important to note that we see blurred definitions of partnerships often occurring as relationships and contexts change, partnerships develop, and individual leaders and members turn over. A partnership may have started quite by happenstance and over time, but grows into a key contribution (strategic partnership) for current organizational operations as a result of how the partnership helps achieve strategic objectives. Thus, there is a shift from a traditional partnership to a strategic partnership as the group’s goals align with the organizations’ strategies. Another partnership that initially met strategic goals may no longer be needed as organizational plans change; however, if the initial partnership reformats to meet the new organizational strategy needs and vision, it might once again become strategic. Assumed in this scenario is ongoing attention to feedback loops and the partnership’s ability to be nimble enough to accommodate shifting priorities. By now, an obvious point is that partnerships are dynamic in nature. The following cases are examples of both traditional and strategic partnerships to illustrate our definitions.

A Case of Traditional Partnering

An individual faculty member at a research university in the Midwest was a Fulbright scholar in Europe. The time he spent in the host country allowed him to build relationships with institutional leaders at his in-country university and with centrally located policymakers. As a result of these connections, the faculty member was able to reciprocate visits with members of the European university by hosting members on his U.S. campus. As well, he continued to make return trips to the host country to champion outreach activities and was able to bring another departmental faculty member along to help study the organizational and policy environment. Outcomes of this original individual interaction include faculty exchanges, creation of a comparative education course, and publications for the initial faculty member.

The traditional formation of this partnership builds on the initiation by a single faculty member that emphasizes a person-focused research agenda. Beyond the individual faculty member, there are inferred commitments by the faculty member’s department and university. First, there are time demands, both for the individual involved and for coverage of duties in times of absence from the home institution. Second, there are pressures for institutional commitments to establish sister-school relationships, contribute resources for the joint project, and allocate energy to supporting the venture. Decisions like these are often made ad hoc without investigating how they align with the values and mission of the department or college and have long-term ramifications. In addition, because the project is so vested in an individual, when the person stops working in the area due to changes in research focus or retirement, the entire partnership is jeopardized.

Key Points

•This partnership was based predominantly on the social capital of the initial faculty member.

•The emerging partnership was not central to the U.S. university’s departmental or college goals, so resources were not committed within the annual budget and had to be acquired ad hoc to help support the initiative. In addition, adjuncts had to be hired to fill in for the faculty’s absence.

•The partnership outcomes were not central to the vision of the department and took the faculty away from more critical projects.

A Case of Strategic Partnering

The Bologna Process spurred on institutional partnerships and collaborations due to its goal of providing seamless educational opportunities for students based on agreed-upon learning outcomes. This background enabled countries that signed the Bologna agreement to begin to address their systems of higher education and to question traditional patterns of operation. Recently, the Higher Education Authority in Ireland released its National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030 report, commonly referred to as the Hunt Report (Higher Education Authority, 2011). This strategic plan promotes changes in a number of institutional operations, including teaching and learning, research, engagement with the wider society, internationalizing higher education, system governance with a coherent framework, and a sustainable and equitable funding model. In 2011 the Irish higher education system comprised 7 universities, 8 third-level colleges, and 17 institutes of technology (Io Ts). The calls for the creation of a coherent framework of postsecondary education advocate for system-wide collaboration among institutions. In particular, the report points to the IoT sector’s need to consolidate to achieve economies of scale. A new designation of technological university accommodates for these newly created types of institutions.

Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) represents a unique case in the IoT system as this college sought university status in the past and now offers a range of degrees from certificates to doctorates. The push for a cluster model that pulls regional colleges into collaborations would have a newly envisioned technological university located in the Dublin area. The potential for designation as a technological university allows DIT a change of status, while also meeting national goals of consolidation. The other Io Ts in Dublin would gain resources and leverage in a newly configured operation. The Hunt Report (Higher Education Authority, 2011) and subsequent policies from the Higher Education Auth...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copy Right
• Dedication
• Contents
• FOREWORD
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• PROLOGUE
• 1. CREATING A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
• 2. PARTNERSHIP MOTIVATIONS AND ROLES
• 3. RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERS
• 4. COMMUNICATION AND FRAMING
• 5. ORGANIZING PARTNERSHIPS
• 6. LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERING
• 7. PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL
• 8. STRATEGIES FOR CREATING LASTING PARTNERSHIPS
• APPENDIX A
• APPENDIX B
• REFERENCES
• INDEX
• Add Page 1
• Add Page 2
• Back Cover