Partnership Literature

Christian development as meaningful partnership

A literature review by Victor Cheung, December 2004

Introduction

As faithful stewards of all that God has entrusted to us in His Kingdom, we endeavour to serve others through a relationship platform that encourages community, inclusiveness and equality. Over the past 10 years NGOs have advocated partnership as the choice delivery vehicle of relief and aid to the developing world. The partnership relationship however, means many different things to different people.

In 2002, Fowler noted that "to its detriment, multiple and diverse users mean that the original idea and premise of partnership has been stretched in many directions and interpreted in many ways. In this respect it has become a 'something nothing' word."

Similarly Vicky Brehm of Intrac suggested in 2000 that "partnership has undoubtedly become the victim of its own success; the term has been overused and applied to a whole range of organisational relationships..."

Additional references in relation to the difficulties with partnership, and the gap between action and rhetoric, are common throughout development literature.

This literature review explores the key values of partnership and their relevant Biblical principles and seeks to reveal how these ideals ought to shape and influence the processes and protocols of partnership.

Partnership values

What do people mean by partnership? There appears to be no single agreed definition throughout the literature, with little consensus among practitioners as to what partnership entails. As was articulated at a recent Bond/Exchange workshop in the UK - "Partnerships differ in terms of both depth and breadth, with some suggesting a better vocabulary is needed to describe partnerships to better reflect the power differences."

Turning to the biblical foundations of partnership, the New Testament provides insights into the early partnership principles as practiced by the early Christian community in Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 4:32-37. These biblical examples highlight an early focus on community, financial stewardship and particularly fellowship as a foundation for effective partnerships.

The apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 8 also cites the example of the Macedonian churches who gave beyond their power.

In 1 Corinthians 12, the description given of bodily unity and interdependence is perhaps the closest representation we have of true Christian partnership.

Despite the differences between action and principles today, there are many development practitioners who remain committed to the principles and values of meaningful partnership. Tearfund UK, while recognising partnership as hard work, remains committed to the partnership relationship model as one that best serves to develop the capacity of local partner resources and as one that best reflects their faith based origins - "Partnership for us is an expression of our oneness in Christ but is also strategically important because of insights and benefits which we gain through working with others." Furthermore, in terms of partnership values Tearfund espouses the relationship should "...always involve a sense of mutual accountability as well as mutual support..."

The experience of TEAR Australia provides another example of a relief and development agency committed to meaningful partnership. Indeed its values statement asserts a commitment to relationship values, in particular the group testifies "we are committed to partnership based on good relationships with our partners, supporters and colleagues, showing humility and integrity in our dealings with others."

Based on a series of discussions with their program officers, I was able to gain insight into their approach to partnership and their thoughts on best practice.

From the outset, partnership was recognised as being tough work, involving, on one hand, the delivery of often difficult messages, and on the other hand the development of lasting honest friendships within a context of funding and power differentials. The program officers all recognised the gap between action and partnership rhetoric, and the difficulties and inequalities brought about by funding.

It was within this context that TEAR Australia looks to equalise the perceived power differential between itself and its partner organisations.

This motivation is driven, in turn, by the organisation's attitude of "stewardship". That is, rather than seeing itself as "donors" and "distributors of our constituents money", TEAR views the funds as belonging to the collective community. This is consistent with the biblical view of stewardship as the joint ownership of resources held in trust by each member for the common good (1 Cor 12:7).

Furthermore, the organisation is driven by the recognition that the implementing partner is ultimately leading the on-field development on a day-to-day basis. TEAR recognises it is these partners who endure the risk, make the sacrifice and ultimately further God's kingdom. It is these attitudes that underlie TEAR's view of itself as more of a service based group, rather than a relief fund. TEAR's program office identified this attitude as a strength of the organisation and one that forms the foundation of mutual trust between itself and its partners.

TEAR suggested other key principles to effective partnership to include firstly the recognition that authentic partnerships are ultimately organisational relationships mediated by people. As such, strong governance and reporting structures were critical. Secondly honesty and transparency was the key to developing a sense of trust between partners. Finally two-way learning between organisations ensured mutuality and sustainability. In order to foster this two-way learning and understanding, program office staff suggested exchanging of resources, in the form of NNGO and SNGO staff exchanges and best practice transfer, occur, in addition to the provision of funds.

These principles were reflected in a relationship ideal identified as firstly being viewed by partner organisations as more than a mere donor, and secondly as colleagues and friends being able to openly and honestly debate issues and concerns with no sense of ill feeling. The organisation recognised this took time, commitment and was very difficult given the power imbalance resulting from the donor-recipient relationship.

The experience and successes of TEAR Australia demonstrate a number of key organisational elements critical to delivering meaningful partnership. These are:

The variations in partnership practices amongst development agencies, and the resultant confusion it has caused amongst the developing world has led Alan Fowler to distinguish and articulate what he sees as best practice partnership principles. He aptly calls this "new" form of partnership "authentic partnership". Fowler (1997) argues that while overuse and abuse of the partnership term has led many organisations to abandon the principle and embrace the more contractual relationships with SNGOs, the need and case for a "new style" of "authentic" partnership remains. Fowler states that for reasons of "social capital" development and economics, authentic partnerships cannot be ignored. He postulates such a relationship is characterised by "mutually enabling, interdependent interaction with shared intentions" with "a joint commitment to long-term interaction, shared responsibility for achievement, reciprocal obligation, equality, mutuality and balance of power". Fowler argues the delivery of authentic partnership is related to the organisational capability of the NGO. In his paper Fowler lists 12 organisational features that influence the probability of attaining authentic partnership, he summarises by stating "when sufficient congruence and grounds for compromise exist, partnerships can arise which are authentic - for example, premised on solidarity than contracting".

In 2002 Fowler further investigated the partnership trend and found the development industry to have applied the rhetoric, at least "for everyone, everything and everywhere..." Fowler explains the prevalence of partnership is principally driven by the need to develop social contracts, the need for a practical solution to inadequate aid performance and as an instrument "for deeper, wider and more effective penetration into a country's development choices and path." In summary Fowler sees the prevalence of the partnership operating model as a struggle by participants to change the way the aid system operates and to improve its credibility. He emphasises the need to be more careful when using the term citing authentic partnership as not always appropriate, realistic or desirable in all situations. Along a more practical dimension, Fowler gives the following suggestions for the development of authentic partnerships:

• Be clear about why the relationship exists
• Apply the principle of interdependence
• Adopt a contextual, systems approach and perspective
• Adopt an organisational not project focus
• Create a process for local validation and shared control
• Invest in your own reform
• Employ the achievement of downward accountability as a proxy for partnership

In contrast to Fowler's more technical discussion on the mechanics, appropriateness and make-up of "authentic" partnership, Trish Bartley emphasises the importance of focusing on the individual actor as a means to advance development. Her people-centred approach looks at quality individual participation as central to improved partnerships, however she also emphasises caution about oversimplify the concept, indeed she reasons - "participatory development results in the creation of new elites, who become more powerful it is true, but then in turn exclude those they leave behind, in the same way that they were once marginalised and excluded by others."

As part of her approach, Bartley recommends five "signposts" to watch out for when practising effective "people centred" development. These are:

1. Ensuring local people are the focus - "local people...are the only ones with personal and intimate knowledge of an area. It is only they, who have the capacity to transform their experience from feeling excluded, dependent or marginalised to feeling confident and positively creative."

2. Building a connection and developing trust - a community is more than a geographical area, it is an organic body, which shares interests, values, history and experiences. Its sum is more than its parts. To enact lasting change practitioners have to connect, build trust and work together within the community.

3. Being present - being present and aware as practitioners is ultimately about being authentic. A solid grounding can overcome obstacles.

4. Recognising that learning is mutual - "Learning is the key focus of people-centred development...", it creates sustainability and should involve the practitioner as much as the local people. Development learning is focused predominantly on experience rather than on fact or theories it involves people sharing lives. Furthermore learning can open doors and remove obstacles to personal dignity - "A mutually shared learning process can be rich - and has a potency that can dramatically nurture personal development. Without mutuality in this process, the learning can easily be seen as one person doing something for other..."

5. Aligning your actions with your intention and working with congruence - this involves "working in ways that are aligned to our intention to benefit others..." Furthermore these intentions are to be calibrated with our personal values and ultimately action - "our intention and personal values form the core of our practice, which radiate out, affecting every aspect of how we work - influencing all our interactions, behaviours, and learning."

By recognising and practising the above, Bartley suggests individual actors and their respective NGOs may begin to achieve more genuine and honest partnerships with their implementing organisations and in turn influence and effect meaningful change to the lives of the ultimate beneficiaries.

As highlighted in point 4 above, another critical aspect of meaningful partnership, and one that has become topical in the development agenda, is that of learning and its links to partnerships. In a two part paper, Ailish Byrne and Robin Vincent of Bond/Exchange examines the issue of learning, its critical role in capacity development and its link to partnership. Their paper draws on the outcomes of a March 2003 workshop run by Bond/Exchange and wider literature.

Byrne and Vincent outline the central role learning plays in the development process itself, but at the same time, highlight a range of areas for improvement. Their paper emphasises while learning is wholly consistent with the values and principles to which NGOs aspire, including - appreciation of different perceptions and experiences, of power inequalities, and of the need to create space for the disempowered - much learning is experimental and thus requires flexibility in how the outcomes of projects and "lessons learned" are documented and shared. To that end, the authors suggest a range of ideas to improve the learning capability of NGOs:

1. Make funding available to support learning
2. Design projects to explicitly facilitate learning
3. Build on existing opportunities for learning
4. Create safe spaces for learning
5. Develop appropriate systems of measurement and accountability
6. Build trust and look longer term
7. Address internal factors of organisational culture
8. Recognise and attempt to address power differentials

In part two of the paper, the authors explore the partnership aspects of learning. In particular they highlight the difficulties associated with funding and the innate inequality funding introduces to the NNGO and SNGO relationship. These power differentials, the authors suggest present enormous challenges to those who seek partnership environments which are conducive to learning. They put forward five ways of addressing this:

1. The purposes and principles of partnership need to be explicitly negotiated
2. Expectations, rights and responsibilities need to be clearly defined
3. The range of accountability demands and how they will be met need to be articulated
4. There is a need for long term engagement processes with partners, so that trust can be built and learning nourished
5. Look beyond partnerships to networks and communities of practice

Another core issue of partnership is that of relationship development. Indeed some argue that the relationships are what development is all about. James Taylor in his paper titled "The Poverty of Partnerships" states - "If we have learned anything it is that development is something that can not be delivered...development is ultimately about relationships and how they evolve over time".

In his article Taylor perceives "true partnership" as the only indicator of meaningful development. In this respect Taylor sees partnership as the "end" of development rather than its means. Based on this premise, he claims the greatest challenge for practitioners is not so much the efficient delivery of goods and services to the poor, but to change the way humans relate to each other. In order to achieve this he argues the first step is to change the development vocabulary to become more honest, to account for power imbalances and to recognise the dominance and dependency between parties as they arise.

Furthermore in another paper titled "Establishing Development Relationships" Taylor examines the personal qualities necessary for meaningful relationship, and determines it takes the "right" person - who is "psychologically mature" - to develop meaningful lasting relationships. To this end, he concludes "...the degree to which I can create relationships which facilitate the growth of others as separate persons is a measure of the growth I have achieved in myself."

So far we have only sought the perspective of northern agencies. Do their southern counterparts share their views on partnership values and principles? Ahmed Mohiddin provides an African perspective.

Mohiddin acknowledges the term partnership as being many things and rather than recognising a single definition, he sees the relationship as a continuum. At one end of the spectrum he postulates there are partnerships where parties are free to deliberate their objectives based on common interests - alternatively at the other end there are partnerships where values are imposed by one party onto another, with very little common ground.

In terms of principles he argues common objectives are not enough for a meaningful partnership and its creation and sustainability. He suggests trust, respect, ownership and equality are also needed.

Ultimately he claims within the African context, partnership should not be another buzz-word but a real world response to the poor and suffering in the face of increasing globalisation. Indeed he argues partnerships becomes a necessity when one considers the economic challenges facing the continent, the struggles for human rights, freedom, good governance and the extent to which Africans are dependent on aid and foreign investment.

He postulates the rise of the WTO has meant greater equality, transparency and accountability for development aid across countries, which in turn has driven the need for more partnerships. Furthermore "alarmed with aid fatigue and the pervasive cynicism about the effectiveness of aid, donor countries in general have been compelled to reduce development assistance budgets and reassess their ... priorities. Appropriately structured partnerships appear to have emerged from this exercise as the most efficient means of effectuating development assistance".

In response to the assertions of Ahmed Mohiddin, P.Anyang' Nyong'O offers another perspective on African partnership development in a globalised world. In his response he considers the question "what is our common purpose, if any, in being partners in the world that we face in the 21st century?" He agrees with Mohiddin that partnerships are a necessity and suggests that on a global scale they enable the following:

1. Continued emphasis on the concept of global citizenship - "to speak of global partnership we must...speak of global social democracy."
2. Advancement of human rights - "The struggle for human rights ... is itself a struggle for this global citizenship"
3. Knowledge and technology of advanced nations being brought to the Third world
4. Addressing of environmental abuses occurring in Third world
5. Rethink of the Third world indebtedness issue

Partnership processes and protocols

So how is meaningful partnership achieved? What controls have to be in place to ensure the values and principles of authentic and real partnership are achieved?

In seeking to answer these questions, Roland Hoksbergen (2002) examines how NNGOs and SNGOs actually work together, how the funding elements impact the relationship and how this changes over time. He uses the work of the Christian Reform World Relief Committee (CRWRC) as a case in point.

In his review, Hoksbergen contends while there are difficulties with partnership, and while the word has been overused, it is "authentic" partnership which will help development organisations resolve the dilemmas and tensions they experience - "Authentic partnerships unite organizations that have a common identity in worldview and values, a common sense of mission, a strong desire to work together in a mutually supportive and respectful relationship, a focus on achievements, and a willingness to change and grow as circumstances around them change".

He points out organizations need to work harder to develop these authentic partnerships, and identifies how the overwhelming need for results can often jeopardise relationships through undermining local ownership. As well as funding practices, narrower visions of development, neglect of the importance of global community, infrequent contact, expectations that SNGOs will become financially sustainable and assumptions that NNGOs should phase out the relationship can all negatively impact the partnership.

Through examining the work of the CRWRC - an organisation who is committed to partnership as it contributes to the process of building the community of Christ's Kingdom - Hoksbergen is able to draw out some key themes as to what constitutes authentic partnership.

"CRWRC's partners make clear in their comments on the purpose of partnership that partnership is not just a strategy, for there is something good about partnership in and of itself. It is not only the impacts we can achieve, or the problems we can solve, but the relationship itself that has value."

Firstly the CRWRC recognises the influence of funding and its tendency to drive imbalances in partnership:

• The CRWRC recognises that the development community can be in two minds about aid - on one hand funds lead to additional resources, but it also contributes to loss of independence - "The problem for NGOs is that the impulse to charitable giving among donors conflicts with the establishment of a locally generated and owned process. Yet it is to the donors, not the communities, to whom NGOs are primarily accountable."
• The corrupting nature of funding is apparent in the unrealistic desire by donors to aim for SNGO sustainability as an end point
• The conflicting nature of funding is also evident in unrealistic donor demands for their partners to achieve sustainability by developing their own donor/membership base

Secondly the case study reveals an authentic partnership relationship can overcome some of the undignified aspects of funding and achieve equality:

• The nature of the relationship agreement between CRWRC and its partners is one of a covenant rather than a contract. As such their agreements share a common identity, beliefs, values and commitment with their partners.
• The CRWRC working relationship with its partners is characterised more by friendship. This is only achievable after considerable time and commitment.
• The CRWRC is careful to orientate priority setting around the partner organisation, this often means reporting processes are not onerously formal and written more to SNGO requirements
• CRWRC invests in mutual learning through spending time with and listening to its partners

As part of its commitment to authentic partnership the CRWRC generally enters into open-ended relationships. As such the organisation does not practice the concept of funding "phase out":

• The CRWRC values partnership for reasons beyond mere program effectiveness - "...NNGO-SNGO relationships have been so heavily based on funding that phase out is generally understood to be synonymous with an end to the funding. In this traditional model, it is the funding that drives the rest of the relationship. Joint work revolves around what is to be done with the funds, and how the funded activities are going to be implemented, monitored, reported and evaluated. It is funds that require the SNGO to respond to the NNGO and funds that give the NNGO a right to be there."
• In addition to meeting local needs, the CRWRC also addresses national and global issues. Within this framework, a "phase out" is not appropriate and is often construed as "unauthentic"
• CRWRC believes the concept of self reliance as being unrealistic. Their approach assumes a mutual reliance held by all and recognises authentic partnership as a relationship which grows, changes and which does not presuppose an end before a beginning.

In chapter 5 of his development manual style paper, Mike Crooke (2003), presents the pitfalls of partnership and outlines an approach for program managers, within the context of stakeholder management, to deliver more effective development.

At the outset he articulates the difficulties associated with development - "Relationships in development work are often ambiguous and they are always loaded with issues of power and control and potentially conflicting agendas." Furthermore he isolates funding as the key driver of the imbalance - "The reality is that few working relationships in development are true partnerships. Usually one member has control over the money and decision as to whether funds will continue to flow. Equality is therefore the first casualty..."

Crooke claims the inequalities often go unrecognised and unacknowledged by donor organisations, with many SNGOs going along with the relationship to humour those who control the funds. He comments how the confusion is corrosive and dangerous.

To minimise the confusion, Crooke suggests the upfront recognition of the following three factors by development agencies:

• The recognition of many stakeholders in any given development context
• The recognition that goals should be discussed and negotiated
• The recognition that solidarity through "shared religious faith or denomination makes it possible to conceptualise the relationship at an higher level, overriding the 'development agenda'"

From the perspective of the program manager, Crooke proposes the key for successful relationship as the effective management of and communication to stakeholders. Crooke highlights the diverse set of skills needed to manage these relationship webs - listening, story-telling, negotiation, empathy, direction etc.

In terms of relationship negotiation, Crooke notes it is critical for practitioners to understand relationships are not all the same, are dynamic and evolving. Crooke here draws on the work of Fowler (2001) to distinguish between different types of relationships, for example, a project funding as compared to a true partner relationship - and identifies that to label all as 'partnership' is misleading. Furthermore relationships evolve over time in stages. For example the relationship between a managing agency and implementing organisation may go through the following stages - Initial contact, first work; person to person understanding; project management; organisation to organisation understanding.

Crooke identifies two further drivers of effective partnerships as being:

• effective capacity assessment of your own and any other agency. This enables the better strategic planning for programs.
• purposeful communication to articulate a shared vision of development, to integrate the efforts of different resources, to sustain healthy relationships and to make intelligent decisions (communication upwards)

Moving from a program manager perspective to an organisational viewpoint, Chambers, Pettit and Scott-Villiers highlight the importance of having the appropriate organisational structures and processes in place to deliver true partnership.

Chambers, Pettit and Scott-Villiers reinforce the widening gap between partnership rhetoric and practice by postulating that existing organisational structures and hierarchies inhibit rather than enable meaningful change process to occur. The authors recognise while there is a growing focus on improving governance practices, old structures remain with their traditions, behaviours and hierarchies. For example the push to disburse funds by deadlines and to spend within fixed periods, compromise meaningful partnership. Furthermore they mention how the present practice of reporting, especially to several donors, can leave field staff disempowered and uninspired.

They argue existing hierarchical and control orientated processes are inappropriate for meaningful and lasting development success. The authors mention to improve the partnership concept and promote greater trust and accountability, organisational processes should at each step promote congruence and consistency between personal behaviour, organisational norms and development objectives. The authors identify this process to be long term and requiring work on multiple organisational levels. They identify five process improvement opportunities for achieving this change:

• Personal development needs to be recognised, valued and calibrated to the organisation.
• Organisational norms, rewards, incentives and procedures are adopted which promote and support two-way relationships within and between organisations. To adjust the norms so as to foster organisational learning and to promote innovation and feedback.
• To acknowledge power relationships, while at the same time recognising the reciprocal and interdependent nature of aid. To promote autonomy within recipient organisations and to strengthen their capacity building competency.
• To introduce mutual accountability and transparency at all levels of the organisation.
• To build relationships on the basis of agreed values, objectives and processes to be followed rather than results.

Does experience from the field reinforce the suggestions of those authors above? As part of research on North-South NGO partnerships, Vicky Brehm of Intrac undertook a four year study into Northern and Southern NGOs to examine ways to develop more genuine, consistent and creative partnerships.

In studying partnership Brehm broadly defines the concept as building on the "notion of a business partnership, with the acceptance of shared goals, obligations and shared risks..." Within a development context, she accepts the idea of partnership as a varying construct dependent on context, with no specific blueprint. She identifies key partnership elements to include trust, mutuality, clearly defined expectations, rights, responsibilities and accountabilities.

Her research draws out a number of trends. Firstly she outlines a wide range of different types of partnerships each with differing levels of power and trust. She notes that generally high trust occurs where partners share similar levels of capacity, while a mismatch in size and capacity can lead to power imbalances and render the 'partnership' to a simple resource distribution relationship. Secondly she identifies funding to be the key motive of partnership for many SNGOs. This, she believes, reflects a reality that while many NNGOs would hope to continue a post funding relationship, often after funding finishes the purpose of the relationship ceases to exist. As one participant in her research work noted "Real partnership means trust in relationships and building it over years - then it works. If partnership started with money and funds, rather than values, it is very hard to change the nature of the relationship to move beyond this over time".

Thirdly Brehm highlights the trend of NNGOs being more results orientated and interpreting partnership as a strategy or a means to an end, while SNGOs focus more on quality of relationships as an indicator of success. She stresses the differences in focus causes tension. Fourthly, her research showed SNGOs desire for greater capacity development input and accountability from NNGOs, and additionally, greater transparency in how decisions are made. Brehm highlights the different interpretations of autonomy, and how NNGOs defined it within the language of organisational independence, while SNGOs saw autonomy as having the flexibility to say no to funding. Brehm finally shows partnerships tend to focus on few individuals, rather than being inter-organisational. She stresses that meaningful and lasting partnership needs to be defined in a broader organisational sense.

She concludes by highlighting while "partnership has undoubtedly become the victim of its own success; the term has been overused and applied to a whole range of organisational relationships..." and even though "...debate on partnership has concentrated on the failure of NGOs - particularly in the North - to live up to aspirations for ideal partnership based on solidarity and mutuality..." it does not necessarily mean the term is to be discarded. She concludes her research by suggesting the partnership ideal is to be encouraged, even though in practice its delivery remains immature.

Given partnership is about relationships and people, how critical is human resource management for development agencies?

People in Aid commissioned Alex Swarbrick to undertake a study on the relationship between NNGOs and their local partners with respect to human resources (HR) management. The research sought to gain a view of the local NGO's attitudes to HR management.

The study found the practice of human resource management within the development field to be susceptible to the perceptions and association of partnership rhetoric. The findings confirm the term 'partnership' to be overused, and growing suspicion among SNGOs about the support offered, or requirements imposed by NNGOs in relation to HR practices.

The study shows while human resource issues rarely feature in partner selection criteria, where they do, the most common elements are concerned with recruitment and selection, equal opportunities, health and safety. The study found in cases where HR issues were included as part of a relationship, the HR intervention had to do with both compliance to NNGO funding and a commitment by donors to develop capacity.

The findings showed the perception of HR among local NGOs to be procedural, bureaucratic and unrelated to development. Swarbrick highlights the need to further develop the link between effective people management practice and service to beneficiaries.

The study finds to achieve sustainability in HR capacity building, local NGOs are to develop HR practices in line with their own goals and vision, rather than those of the donors. This, the research shows, will best serve the interests of beneficiaries.

Another perspective of partnership can be gleaned from the work of corporate institutions. As members of the advisory firm Vantage Partners, Jeff Weiss and Laura Judy Visioni provide a corporate perspective on the required first steps for meaningful partnership. In a white paper the authors show growing recognition by the corporate world of the benefits of true partnership and deeper relationships with stakeholders, in an increasingly globalised and competitive world.

Their paper emphasises, however, that these partnerships require work - different cultures and organisational structures cause strain. The authors recommend investing early in planning, to establish trust and to grow the relationship.

The paper reveals the multi-dimensional nature of partnership, but concentrates on relationship building - "solid contracts, sound financials and good business strategy alone will not ensure successful partnerships. In fact, poor or damaged working relationships between partners was the foremost cause of alliance failure".

Indeed the authors show leading companies are investing in developing their partner relationship management capability as an organisation wide skill - that is they are building "relationship management infrastructure" - and all the necessary processes, tools and methodologies to ensure effective and meaningful partnership.

The authors identify partnerships as dynamic and evolutionary concepts, with many of the critical relationship "milestones" occurring early in the term. The authors argue in the beginning, new partners face a number of critical tasks and decisions which will determine the longer term nature of the partnership, and forward a "relationship launch framework" as a first step in ensuring successful partnerships. They suggest an 8 step approach.

1. Transfer knowledge internally - initial understanding of goals, cultures, strengths and weaknesses to bring focus on implementation
2. Build joint contract and deal understanding - Development of a common vision of the partnership, its goals and the structure
3. Conduct relationship planning - Articulation of the working relationship and identification of potential hurdles
4. Build relationship management infrastructure: procedural agreement
5. Build relationship management infrastructure: methods and processes
6. Learn relationship management skills and tools
7. Resolve existing tensions
8. Plan for going forward

Obstacles to meaningful partnership

The literature proposes a number of processes to achieve meaningful partnership. Despite these suggestions, gaps remain between the principles and practitioner actions.

The experience of TEAR Australia reveals a number of obstacles to authentic partnership. These include:

• Ineffective communication between donor and partner organisations. Often the language used by donor organisations is not tailored to its audience. TEAR has a range of partnerships with different types of organisations, some large international NGOs, others small locally based churches. Each partner will be accustomed to communicating in different ways. Donor organisations need to be sensitive to these differences. Furthermore, development jargon can easily confuse NGOs and lead to misunderstandings - this is seen to be most evident in monitoring requirements. Moreover, the confusion is heightened when partner organisations are not native English speakers.
• An attitude of superiority by the donor agency further heightens the lack of trust between organisations. Indeed feedback showed that some SNGOs treat the arrival of their "partner" NNGO as clients receiving an auditor arriving on assignment. While some program officers acknowledge that as partners "you are never equal", their experience highlights mutual trust is achievable with the "right" attitude.
• Ineffective governance can also lead to heightened feelings of mistrust among partners. Feedback from TEAR highlighted this was particularly the case where strong leadership within an SNGO dominated its operations over clear and transparent processes. Suggestions of NNGO board representation helped combat this.
• A lack of a quality relationship is often perpetuated by NGOs with inexperienced staff members who are unsympathetic to the cause of many SNGOs. Often the pressures and problems encountered by SNGOs are incorrectly interpreted by NNGOs, culminating in the donor agencies reacting in a blunt and unsympathetic way to partner organisations. An example cited by TEAR program staff involved the cancellation of funding by a donor agency based on the discovery of petty fraud by staff at an SNGO.

A further difficulty identified by Rick James has been the slow recognition by Northern NGOs to acknowledge the power differential between NNGOs and SNGOs. He notes that many Northern NGOs are embarrassed to discuss the imbalance of power, and despite their good intentions NNGOs find it difficult to give up control by moving towards truly shared decision making. This in turn stifles capacity building ability by removing the ownership of such programs to NNGOs. James argues a starting point by NNGOs is to account for the power differentials that exist and to remove the paternalistic attitude, James argues this in turn will lead to improved understanding and improved relationship management.

Another potential obstacle to meaningful development is offered by Robert Chambers. He emphasises the lack of focus on the personal dimension of development and points to the need for personal reflections in all major development issues.

He argues that over the past 5 years the polarisation of power and wealth in the world has become greater and while development ideas, words and concepts continue to evolve, much of the corresponding action and expected change in behaviour of donor nations is yet to be seen. In looking forward, Chambers suggests new lines of thinking namely:

• To complement rights of the poorer and weaker with obligations of the richer and more powerful, worldwide and between all levels
• To recognise power and relationships as a central issue
• To integrate institutional and personal change
• To ground pro-poor policies and practice in realism
• To think for oneself and take responsibility
• To choose words and identify priorities personally.

Concluding remarks

So what can we learn from the literature? What is evident from both a practitioner and academic perspective is that meaningful authentic partnerships are hard work. This in itself, however, should not deter us from the practice. Indeed, true partnership is the most meaningful expression of solidarity and oneness with Christ, and empirical evidence has shown, at times, an effective outcome of focused development work.

The literature shows the principles of partnership to include, amongst other things, interdependence, equality, shared vision, trust and mutual respect. These values are manifest in the view that partnership is more the "end" rather than the "means" to development. Furthermore, a strong focus on organisational attitudes and on the role of individual actors is prevalent in partnership discussions.

In promoting partnership, development agencies are incorporating processes and procedures to soften the unbalancing influence of funding and that promote equality. Not all partnerships are the same, though, and as relationships change over time, organisational protocols have to adjust to reflect changing stakeholder needs. Some of the more critical processes discussed include having strong governance processes, effective communication, and appropriate and congruent organisational structures.

While obstacles to meaningful partnership remain, and while practice continues to lag behind principles, as a relationship model it is the best and most effective expression of Christian oneness we have for the development field. While some have suggested a new paradigm is needed, endeavours to further advance the notion based on biblical foundations remain the most true to authentic partnership.

References

Balfour, D. Letter from Doug Balfour to partner organizations, Tearfund UK, August 2004.

Bartley, T. Holding up the sky - love, power and learning in the development of a community, Community Links, 2003.

Brehm, V. "Autonomy or Dependence? North-South NGO Partnerships". INTRAC Briefing Paper No. 6, Intrac, July 2004

Brehm, V. "NGO Partnerships: Balancing the Scales". Ontrac No. 15, INTRAC, May 2000

Brehm, V. "NGOs and Partnership". NGO Policy Briefing Paper No. 4. Intrac, April 2001

Byrne, A. and Vincent, R. Learning in Partnerships, BOND/Exchange, May 2004.

Chambers R., Pettit J. and Scott-Villiers P. "The new dynamics of aid: power, procedures and relationships", IDS Policy Briefings, Institute of Development Studies, Issue 15, August 2001

Chambers, R. Ideas for developing: reflecting forwards, IDS Working Paper 238, November 2004

Crooke, M. Beyond the Horizon: a guide to managing development projects from a distance, Australian Council for Overseas Aid, 2003

Fowler, A. Striking a Balance: A Guide to Enhancing the Effectiveness of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Development. Earthscan Publications, 1997

Fowler, A. "Beyond Partnership: Getting real about NGO relationships in the aid system" in Fowler, A. and Edwards M. Eds. The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management. London 2002

Hoksbergen, Roland, Toward authentic partnership: How north-south NGO partnerships contribute to development. November 2002

James, R. "Power, Partnership and Capacity Building", Ontrac No. 15, INTRAC May 2000

Mohiddin, A. "Partnership: A new buzzword or realistic relationship?" Development, Sage Publications. Volume 41, No. 4 December 1998

Nyong'O, P. "Partnership and Government: A response to Ahmed Mohiddin" Development, Sage Publications. Volume 41, No. 4 December 1998

Partnership and Capacity Building, Tearfund, UK

Pateur K. and Scott-Villiers P. Learning about relationships in development, Institute of Development Studies, 2004

Swarbrick, A. People in Partnership: HR in NGO Relationships, People in Aid, 2004.

Target - Partnership, Tear Australia, 2004.3

Taylor, J. Establishing Development Relationships. Community Development Resource Association (CDRA) Nugget, April 2001

Taylor, J. The Poverty of "Partnerships". Community Development Resource Association (CDRA) Nugget, October 2002

Weiss, J. and Visioni, L.J. A First Step in Ensuring Successful Partnerships: The Relationship Launch - A White Paper, Vantage Partners, 2002

Interviews:

Mr Peter Fitzgerald, Projects Co-ordinator, TEAR Australia. 16 December 2004

Ms Lea Davis, Projects Officer, TEAR Australia. 16 December 2004

Mr Philip Wilkerson, Projects Officer, TEAR Australia. 2 December 2004