Partnership Working is Easier in Theory than in Practice - Research Proposal Example

Partnership Working is Easier in Theory than in Practice Introduction Working partnerships are one of the most important aspects of organisational cooperation. They allow different entities to join hands to further similar causes and advance their goals and objectives. Partnerships can occur within or outside an organisation’s industry, and can involve considerable amounts of time and resources (Acton, 2012:21). In theory, partnership working can seem easy, but it is much more challenging in practice. Many differences have to be ironed out and a lot of flexibility is required to make them work. Theoretical understanding of partnerships is much easier than implementing it in real-world situations. Factors That Promote or Hinder Partnership Working The factors hindering or promoting partnership working can be divided into two categories: organisational issues, contextual issues, and cultural and professional issues. Positive Factors Organisational Issues Organisations and practitioners involved in new programs must understand the goals and objectives and information concerning referral processes and qualification criteria. The extent of this understanding is critical to the success of any working partnership. An effective way of nurturing common understanding is to involve all stakeholders in the development of protocols, policies and procedures that define the partnership (Clarke, 2014:24). Moreover, practitioners, who are not part of the main partnership, must understand the qualification criteria if the partnership is to succeed. The leaders of the partnerships should develop induction and continuous training, which is a constructive way of ensuring the existence of shared goals in the initiative. A history of sound and supportive joint working is an important element in the success of partnerships. For instance, in the UK, a past history of collaboration between doctors, mental health professionals, and mental health administrators created a new initiative to capitalise on existing informal communication processes and exploit the goodwill that that past experiences had nurtured (Elder, Evans, and Nizette, 2012:19). In many countries, positive strategic cooperation in the past, that may have occurred between various entities (e.g., welfare and private health agencies), have also been identified as supportive of working partnerships. Effective information sharing systems, including shared records and shared or common IT systems are factors that have been identified as enhancing working partnerships by facilitating faster and timelier evaluations of need. Effective communication has also been identified as supportive of priority management (Francis, 2014:12). Many researches have demonstrated the importance of having enough finances to support working partnerships. For instance, in healthcare partnerships it is important to have enough resources to offer vacation or sickness cover for internship programs (e.g., in situations where social workers operate from general practitioners’ surgeries). This is a vital aspect of their success. Collaboration can mean that institutions have access to more resources to facilitate initiatives (Ginter and Duncan, 2013:29). For instance, it can maximise opportunities for collaborative training or improve access to many facilities. The availability of a common budget has been frequently cited as a factor that facilitates working partnerships. Cultural and Professional Issues Frequent team-building sessions have been identified as enablers of the creation of novel multidisciplinary health and social care units. Teambuilding and weekly follow-up meetings can be used to nurture a shared sense of purpose, assign and discuss cases and create avenues for sharing information that enhance group operations (Phillips, Sandford, and Johnston, 2012:24). Frequent team meetings have also been identified as a medium for promoting understanding about various professional duties, surmount professional challenges and nurture cordiality and trust between various groups. Negative Factors Organisational Issues Strategically, competing organisational objectives about the group vision and a lack of consensus on which entity should control which functions seem to hinder the success of efforts aimed at linking initiatives on a systems-wide platform. Lack of a pooled budget has also been found to have the same effect. For instance, variations in resource and spending approaches between local agencies and NHS partners are perceived to undermine the objectives of working collaboration (Thurston, 2014:48). It is extremely difficult to turn different organisational goals into a holistic operational reality. Operationally, variations in partners’ policies hinder working collaborations. For instance, contrasting approaches towards risk management that are pertinent between social workers and doctors lead to wrong recommendations to residential care. On the other hand, variations in health and safety systems created obstacles for frontline workers specialising in intermediate care. More challenges were encountered by practitioners balancing parent and team organisation constraints. For instance, contrasting funding channels impeded efforts to create joint evaluation mechanisms (Wilmsen et al., 2012:63). Service fragmentation and nonuniformity concerning their location implies that in some cases referral processes are challenging, and practitioners struggle to react regularly and organise individual care programmes. Remarkably, while most researches that show the effect of co-location support this approach, this perspective is not uniform. Co-location can sometimes create more informality, which can in turn hinder working partnerships. Studies show that social workers are worried that the existence of co-location in health facilities hinders their ability to prioritise the operations of their employers. Cultural and Professional Issues Cultural differences between collaborating organisations can affect working partnerships both operationally and strategically. Studies researching intermediate care reveal an imbalance between local and mainstream sectors, implying that new services could be littered with the needs of mainstream services to the detriment of their partners (Smith, 2014:59). Cultural differences can hinder partnerships and in the presence of ambiguity of control, strong and weak stakeholders can emerge. By their very nature, working partnerships unite professionals with various styles and philosophies as well as different professional cultures. Unsurprisingly, these variations can act as obstacles to effective working partnerships. For instance, a notion that social work cultures, especially the social model, are not respected by health practitioners, could lead to a lack of recognition of their role in multi-disciplinary partnerships (Smith, 2014:62). Social workers operating in such teams face greater role conflict and stress than their co-workers. This is mainly due to a notion that their professional culture and ideals are threatened when employed in a health-oriented setting. Variations in professional culture are also thought to impede the introduction of holistic frameworks, with some professional entities appearing to disregard the objectives of integration. Contextual Issues The relationship between collaborating organisations is always important to the success of working partnerships. Composite interrelationships between the different organisations involved in the provision of intermediate care hinder the effectiveness of cooperation. There is a notion that intermediate care goals are being swayed by the needs of mainstream health care to the detriment of social care, health, and community services. Financial uncertainty regarding working partnerships is a major challenge (Clarke, 2014:31). For instance, a lack of allocated financing for mental health care services associated with the short-term essence of financing is detrimental to the creation of integrated services. Some experts argue that the financial pressures plaguing all health and social care groups imply that some working partnerships are underfunded. Central Concepts of Partnership and how to Apply to Practice Context Many differences can be prevented before they emerge by communicating effectively, thinking ahead, and expressing goals and objectives clearly. It is important to recognise that partnerships include people with different personalities and attributes, and all of them have to be managed effectively to avoid conflict that might derail the partnership by clouding goals and objectives (Youde, 2013:26). Differences often emerge because people lack all the facts or are operating with different hypotheses. Starting with a clear set of objectives, a method of measuring progress and obstacles that should be cleared as goals are achieved, it will be easier to determine the real challenges and minimise confusion. Communication is usually more difficult between partnerships than it is within them (Clarke, 2014:16). Participants can assume a lot when communicating with others within the partnership because they already have a good grasp of the intricacies involved, the goals, the specific jargon relating to the goals, and the modus operandi. Jargons and other specialised terms and phrases must be removed from communication mediums (e-mails, phone conversations, and meetings). Communication between partners should be regularly organised and probably more official than it is within the partnership. It is also vital to hold regular meetings to limit the amount of differences that can emerge in the partnership. It is also crucial to make wise use of communication media like e-mails and telephones because while they can enhance the communication process, they can also create feelings of blatant misunderstanding, isolation, and lack of privacy (Clarke, 2014:41). Partners should create time for “face time” every week or every month depending on their schedule, so that the key players can express and address any concerns they have. Any communication strategy should include three different parties: From the beneficiaries to the partnership; from the partnership to the beneficiaries; and within the partnership. Effective management of conflict in a partnership reduces hitches and gets the most out of the partnership process. It is also vital to acknowledge that differences do not imply failure. Objectives and purpose are what should drive any partnership, and passion often elicits differences (Youde, 2013:45). If addressed effectively - in a setting that promotes compromise and listening – conflict can highlight a problem and help partners develop better ways of operation. Some people are aggressive while others try as much as possible to maintain consensus. Both perspectives can be effective when looking to do things, and both can be negative if uncontrolled; balance is the key. If the partnership is spending too much time debating how to operate, who should do what and schedules then it is probably necessary (re)establish the ground rules (Laverack, 2013:18). All stakeholders must be reminded of the purpose of the partnership and why it is critical that they stick to it. The partnership should determine sources of conflicts and urge stakeholders to show restraint and willingness to compromise. This means utilising available time in a productive and fulfilling way. The concept of effective priority management is that people generally spend as much time as possible on the truly important tasks. The challenge is not limited time, it is how well the available time is used and how priorities are defined. Time is just like any other resource, meaning it can be used well or mismanaged. Time is the most crucial resource in partnership working, especially when parties are trying to balance various schedules and levels of participation (Clarke, 2014:23). Partnerships are compromised when parties feel that their time is not being used properly, the partnership is not accorded the time it requires to grow, or people do not respect commitments and schedules. This is one of the most vital areas of control assigned in any partnership. Operating within the budget and managing resources efficiently is often the clearest sign of a successful partnership. Even if the partnership has met or exceeded its goals and objectives, the notion that resources are poorly or well managed may undermine backing for it (Laverack, 2013:59). Partnerships have a duty to prepare budgets, stick to them, and show that resources are being used well. The guidelines to effective financial management in any partnership include: Seeking the best value for money; creating a budget and operating within it; addressing any accounting or reporting needs required in the partnership; and being able to explicitly show where and how money has been used (Clarke, 2014:43). Many partnerships have a mix of salaried personnel and volunteers. Understanding how to hire, support and work with unpaid members is a crucial skill set needed in partnerships. Some of the ubiquitous skills are the ability to recognise skills acquired outside the partnership, value for various motivations and skills associated with responding and maintaining interest and enthusiasm, awareness of time, and sensitivity (Laverack, 2013:74). Applying these Concepts to Practice Context Health partnerships are some of the most common working partnerships in the world. Various healthcare fields like mental health and nursing require strong and stable partnerships that facilitate the attainment of goals and objectives. In mental health, for instance, partnerships occur between private and public mental health institutions, the government, research agencies, and practitioners to develop the best mental health practices and standardize operations (Wise, 2014:27). Effective communication, conflict resolution, management of participants, priority management and financial management can be the difference between success and failure of mental health partnerships (Wise, 2014:34). For instance, government officials can work with practitioners to harmonise their communication strategies – since they are likely to be different – and reduce misunderstandings created by poor communication. Harmonisation can include implementing a top-down communication structure that ensures seamless sharing of information at all levels. Mental health partnerships can also develop holistic financial management systems and budgets that incorporate the best of what each partner has to offer (Taub and DaSilva, 2014:46). Governments, private entities and practitioners can contribute towards creating a financial management approach that promotes the attainment of set goals and objectives and reduces wastage of resources. Impact of Different Professional Codes and Organisational Frameworks Professional codes are the operational blueprints for practitioners in various fields. They define how professionals should conduct themselves about different aspects like ethics, social responsibility, and financial standards (Rosenburg and Weissman, 2012:69). When it comes to working partnerships, professional codes create obstacles because they can be so different to the extent that effective collaboration requires all stakeholders to make huge compromises that most may not be willing to do (Taub and DaSilva, 2014:37). This is often common in situations where working partnerships involve entities from different sectors. For instance, mental health institutions might want to collaborate with financial planners to develop effective and efficient financial systems to facilitate better revenue collection and management. Both groups have their professional codes that they feel compelled to adhere to at all times, but which also compromise the potential and success of any collaborative efforts. This creates a situation where harmonisation of their codes must be done so that neither party feels aggrieved during the collaboration process (Rosenburg and Weissman, 2012:28). Depending on how established an organisation is (large organisations tend to have very detailed and complex professional codes), harmonisation can be time, labor, and capital-intensive (Wise, 2014:52). This can be a huge stumbling block when well-established institutions want to collaborate. Studies show that professional codes concerning ethics and financial management are the most troublesome when organisations from different sectors are collaborating or working towards collaboration. However, the impacts of professional codes are not all negative (Taub and DaSilva, 2014:24). In some situations, especially when potential collaborators share many aspects of their professional codes, working partnerships can be built and managed rapidly and very successfully (Moss, 2012:39). This is often common when partnerships are between organisations from the same sectors (e.g., mental health institutions and affiliated groups in the mental health segment). In such scenarios, harmonisation of codes and various aspects is less detailed and expensive, and sometimes may not even be needed. Organisational frameworks have a huge influence on working partnerships because, just like professional codes, they can vary greatly. Different organisations have different organisational structures (functional, divisional, or matrix) and different operational procedures that guide their activities and functions (Laverack, 2013:25). Unlike professional codes, organisational frameworks are not affected by industry affiliation. For instance, two organisations from the same industry may be looking to collaborate but their organisational frameworks differ so much that they have to harmonise them before any partnerships can be formed. Differences in organisational frameworks can affect factors like roles and responsibilities, control, and resource allocation and financial management (Rosenburg and Weissman, 2012:34). The size of the organisations also has a huge influence on the effectiveness of working partnerships. Large organisations have highly complex organisational frameworks that require time to understand and merge before collaboration can occur. Conclusion Partnership working is easier in theory than in practice. The development of effective working partnerships requires more efforts and time than is assumed by theoretical concepts. In addition, situations can change at any time (Glasby, Dickinson, Perkins, and Hunter, 2014:36). Aspects like financial management and roles and responsibilities are not often what they are portrayed to be in theory. Successful practical implementation of working partnerships requires a high degree of flexibility, compromise and quick thinking that theorists and theoretical understanding cannot muster. References Acton, A. (2012) Issues in healthcare management, economics, and education (2011 ed.), Cambridge, ScholarlyEditions. Clarke, L. (2014) Public-private partnerships and responsibility under international law: a global health perspective, Collompton, Routledge. Elder, R., Evans, K. & Nizette, D. (2012) Psychiatric and mental health nursing (Revised ed.), Marrickville, N.S.W., Elsevier Australia. Francis, A. (2014) Social work in mental health contexts and theories for practice, (Illustrated ed.), New York, SAGE Publications. Ginter, P. & Duncan, W. (2013) Strategic management of health care organizations (Seventh Ed.) New York, John Wiley & Sons. Glasby, J., Dickinson, H., Perkins, N. & Hunter, D. (2014) Partnership working in health and social care, Bristol, England, Policy Press. Laverack, G. (2013) Health activism: foundations and strategies, Los Angeles, SAGE. Moss, B. (2012) Communication skills in health and social care (2nd ed.), London, SAGE. Phillips, P., Sandford, T. & Johnston, C. (2012) Working in mental health: practice and policy in a changing environment (Illustrated ed.), Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge. Rosenburg, G. & Weissman, A. (2012) International social health care policy, program, and Studies, Hoboken, Taylor and Francis. Smith, C. (2014) Working at a distance: a global business model for virtual team collaboration (Illustrated, Revised ed.), Cambridge, Ashgate Publishing. Taub, A. & DaSilva, E. (2014) Pitching & closing: everything you need to know about business development, partnerships, and making deals that matter, New York, McGraw Hill Professional. Thurston, M. (2014) Key themes in public health, London, Routledge. Wilmsen, C., Fisher, L., Wells, G., Sarathy, B., Elmendorf, W. & Ross, J. (2012) Partnerships for empowerment: participatory research for community-based natural resource management, Chicago, Routledge. Wise, P. (2014) Leading and managing in nursing (5th ed.), St. Louis, Mo., Elsevier Mosby. Youde, J. (2013) Global health governance, Cambridge, John Wiley & Sons. Read More