The Key Obstacles in Getting Agencies to Work Together - Coursework Example

Discuss some of the key obstacles in getting agencies to work together Introduction The process of different public service agencies working together towards the realization of certain target goals has been termed as fundamental in enabling a government realize a shared goal. There are certain public issues that can only be successfully resolved, if the different public sector agencies come together and collaborate towards realizing an integrated intergovernmental response (Schrapel, 2004). The collaboration of the different public service sectors towards the realization of a common goal can take different forms. First, the collaboration may take the form of the different public sector agencies participation in a common policy development process, which then ensures that a shared policy is developed towards addressing an issue facing the public. The collaboration can also take the form of shared project management, where different public sector agencies come together to sponsor and manage a certain project that is meant to benefit the public, most especially where the resource requirements and the management skills demanded by the project touches on cross-boundary portfolios (Wilson, 1989). The third form in which collaboration between the different public agencies within government can occur is through collaboration in service delivery, where multiple agencies participate in delivering certain services that are essential to the public, but which a single agency cannot be able to deliver effectively. Finally, multi-agency collaboration can be achieved in the form of different professionals from different public service agencies and portfolios coming together to discuss issues and arrive at certain collaborated interagency decisions, through the process of group decision-making. Thus, while there are different opportunities and forms through which interagency collaboration can be achieved; there are various key obstacles that hinder effective collaboration. The focus of this discussion is to unearth the key obstacles hindering effective interagency collaboration. Discussion The challenges facing the modern world are increasingly complex, requiring that some form of interagency collaboration is inevitable, if such challenges are to be resolved effectively. The threat of security and terrorism, major catastrophes that face the world once in a while and the problem of tackling social challenges such as drug abuse and drug dependency are issues that cannot simply be accomplished through a single public service agency effort (Bardach, 1998). Thus, such challenges call for the collaboration of different agencies in order to have the challenges resolved amicably. Collaboration has been defined as the “mutually beneficial and well defined partnership between two or more organizations, seeking to accomplish a common goal” (Townsend & Shelly, 2008:102). Various factors have always hindered the effective realization of collaboration between government agencies, resulting in the failure to have the different agencies achieve mutual benefit from the collaboration. The key obstacles to interagency collaboration may include: Lack of shared vision It is not just enough to bring different agencies to collaborate and work together towards the realization of a certain public service goal. Collaboration with a clear vision between the agencies is the key to the success of the objectives and goals that the different agencies have set to achieve (Bertelli, 2007). A shared vision between the agencies collaborating towards a certain course creates common understanding of the problem and the ways through which the problem can be resolved. Shared vision is essential to enable the partnering agencies focus their activities towards a common goal and at the same time keep focused on the ultimate goal, even when circumstances and conditions surrounding the realization of the objective change (Ervin, 2004). The major challenge to effective collaboration between agencies has been the lack of shared vision, which then means that each of the partnering agencies has its own ideas, focus and strategies on how to achieve the target goal. The application of different ideas and strategies towards realization of the shared goals always results in conflicts between the agencies, resulting in the collapse of the interagency partnership. New rules might be formulated in the course of the realization of the common goal, while different ideas and strategies might be formulated in the course of realizing the target goal, but it is only the shared vision that keeps the group on track, and minimizes distractions (Fawcett et al, 2010). Shared vision keeps the group reminded why the partnering agencies came together in the first place, and thus acts as the source of motivation and energy, where the realization of the set objectives seems to be difficult. Therefore, lack of partner ‘ownership’ of the vision can mean that it is increasingly difficult for the interagency collaboration to be achieved. Shared vision helps to ensure that none of the partner agencies determine the course of action on their own, through helping the partnering agencies to set parameters that are often referred to, when making a course of action by a partner agency (Rousso & Fawcett, 2000). Thus, despite the fact that each of the partnering agencies might be given different mandates related to the implementation of the course of action necessary to realize the common goal set by the collaborating agencies, shared vision still keeps the agencies working together. Therefore, the major obstacle to the realization of the common goal as set by the partnering agencies mostly has to do with the failure to communicate the shared vision right from the beginning of the partnership. Before funding and implementation of the target project or service delivery can be sought, it is essential that the partnering agencies define their vision for the project in their own terms and communicate their targets and goals to the rest of the partners, so that a common and shared vision can be formulated from the beginning. The fact that interagency collaboration entails the participation of different agencies or departments in a single project means that different understanding and interpretation of the objectives is possible (Krsevan, Dwyer & Young, 2004). To overcome the challenge of differences in understanding and interpretation of the aim of the partnership between agencies, formulation and communication of the common vision must be achieved right from the start. This way, even the funding and sharing of mandates between the different agencies is informed by the shared vision. Lack of effective leadership Effective leadership in multiple-agency collaboration is the key towards building trust among the partnering agencies (Townsend & Shelley, 2008). Due to the fact that interagency collaboration entails the participation of different agencies with their different interests in the partnership, effective leadership is essential towards making all the partners feel that their diverse interests are catered for. The fundamental of effective leadership is appropriate communication. When a leader is able to communicate effectively with all the partnering agencies, it becomes much easier for all the partners to be drawn into a common a course. The challenge of effective leadership in a multi-agency program or project draws from the fact that there are certain incentives that might be enjoyed by the leaders of such initiatives, which are not available to the rest. This means that leadership wrangles are likely to be experienced within the framework of the partnership constituting different agencies (Witt & Wilburn, 2007). The leadership wrangles may then create mistrust amongst the partnering agencies, which in turn influence the effective collaboration between the partners. The nature of leadership guiding an interagency partnership highly determines the chances of success or failure of such partnerships. More importantly, the fact that different agencies have different work and ethical cultures might make it difficult for the agencies to partner effectively towards a certain course. However, with effective leadership, it becomes possible for the agencies to collaborate effectively despite their differences in cultures (Schrapel, 2004). Strong and transparent leadership is desirable towards moving the interagency collaboration towards success. While firm and strong leadership is necessary to ensure that the partnering agencies are able to move towards the attainment of the set objectives, a more informal leadership approach is desirable, as a way of making the leadership appear accommodative and easily approachable by the partnering agencies. The best persons to lead an interagency collaboration are the persons who exercise influence by acting in the best interest of the partnering agencies and inspiring the partnership to keep the momentum (Fawcett et al, 2010). Further, the establishment of clear structures of leadership is essential, if effective collaboration between different partner organizations is to be achieved. The formulation of the leadership structure must entail the determination of the lead agency whose function is primarily being targeted by the collaborative process, so that the other agencies might work under the umbrella of the lead agency. However, when defining which agency has the primary function of executing the objectives that are set by the partnering agencies, it is essential that an independent and separate legal entity is formed as the umbrella under which the partnering agencies will operate (Jones, Crook & Webb, 2007). The formation of the separate and independent legal entity is necessary to ensure that no single agency clams the ownership of the initiative or the project for which the partnering agencies have come together to execute. This strategy is necessary to ensure that the leadership of the separate and independent entity is formulated differently from the leadership of the agencies involved in the collaboration. This way, the leadership can remain effective and separate from the influence of the interests of any particular agency, thus addressing the problem of possible leadership wrangles (Ervin, 2004). This in turn makes the achievement of the project goals easier. Inadequate resources The success of interagency collaboration highly depends on sufficient and sustained resources throughout the course of the program implementation (Rousso & Fawcett, 2000). The adequacy of the human resources, material and financial resources highly determines how successful the collaboration between multiple agencies is likely to be. The partnership between agencies cannot simply work, if there lacks sufficient resources to enable the partnering agencies execute the activities necessary to achieve the target objective. The major problem associated with inadequate resources is that competition for resources is stiff when multiple agencies are trying to utilize resources such as finances and human labor to achieve their mandates, yet such resources are inadequate (Townsend & Shelley, 2008). Thus, inadequate resources can increase conflict between the partnering agencies, while at the same time causing the mistrust level between the agencies rise to levels that might make it difficult for the agencies to work together. The challenge of resources for the partnering agencies occurs both in the form of accessing it and sustaining it. Where the resources threatens to lack sufficiency, or on the event that the resources required to execute the mandates of the different agencies lacks sustainability, implementing the common objective becomes increasingly hard. Ironically, the budgetary process that involves interagency programs has often been strained, such that the resources involved are scarce. This tends to increase the level of competition for resources between the agencies, eventually resulting in the common objectives being pursued by the multiple agencies collapsing (Fawcett et al, 2010). Shortage of resources does not only affect the accomplishment of the set common objective, but also the quality of the project that is being implemented by the multiple agencies. The other major problem associated with resource shortage for implementing multiple-agency partnerships is that most of the funding agencies do not favor the securing of group or pooled funding (Witt & Wilburn, 2007). This then means that it increasingly becomes difficult for interagency partnerships to secure the necessary funding to execute the target objectives, meaning that such agencies are forced to operate under strained budgets. With strained budgets, then comes the challenge of competition for resources between the agencies, which in turn breeds conflict of interests, and diverts the interagency commitment towards pursuing the set common objective. Additionally, the funding of interagency programs is associated with pressure from the funders of the partnering agencies, which is associated with influencing the leadership of the agency, or influencing interests that eventually result in the interagency operations bowing to external pressures, instead of focusing fully on the common objectives. Therefore, unless there is adequate funding and resources associated with human resources, material and financial resources for an interagency project, there is high likelihood that such projects will not be accomplished effectively. Shortage of resources creates opportunities for unhealthy competition between the agencies, as well as increasing the conflict associated with the management of the common project (Schrapel, 2004). Thus, to ensure that an interagency partnership works effectively, supplying adequate resources for the partnered project or program is essential. Interagency collaboration structure Structure refers to the mechanisms, policies and institutional framework that are involved in the execution of a collaborated project or program between multiple agencies. The structure also includes the organizations and institutions that legitimize and fund the interagency operations. The structure involved in the multiple agency operations can highly determine the nature of the communication, as well as the integration of services between the partners (Krsevan, Dwyer & Young, 2004). The formulation of an appropriate structure that enhances the communication process between the multiple agencies involved in the program collaboration is essential to guarantee the success of a collaborated project. The determinants of the appropriate structure for any collaborated project or program between different public service agencies is the institutional framework that is involved in pursuing the project, as well as the nature of the project that is being pursued. Recognizing the multiple needs of the different agencies when formulating the program or project structure is essential, since it ensures that the agencies are grouped together in efficient operational model (Jones, Crook & Webb, 2007). Defining all the mandates of the different agencies involved in the collaborative partnership between the agencies, and then grouping the mandates in efficient models such that collaborated resources can easily be utilized to enhance the success of the project. Structure does not only affect the manner in which the project is executed, but also the manner in which the resources are utilized (Ervin, 2004). The structure in which the programs fund is utilized is as important as the amount of the resources that is dedicated to the program itself. Therefore, the partnering structure between the multiple agencies plays the role of determining how well the resources are utilized, while at the same time determining the mandates and activities that are executed by each partnering agency within the partnership. Thus, the poor formulation of the program structure can influence the achievement of the common objective set by the agencies negatively, resulting in the ultimate failure of the project. Further, the program structure also defines the prioritization of the project activities. The presence of multiple agencies collaborating to achieve a common goal means that the project has multiple accountabilities, which can be often complex and cumbersome (Fawcett et al, 2010). Additionally, the outcome of the work performed through multiple agency collaboration can be difficult to measure. This then requires that an elaborate structure, which defines how the outcome of each mandate and activity associated with the collaborated project is measured, should be established right from the onset of the project. The success of a collaborated project between public service agencies is highly determined by how well each agency understands and executes its mandates, which then combines to form the wholesome project success. Therefore, structuring the project in a way that each agency understands its role well, and also works closely with the other agencies in the execution of the project is essential for the success of a multiple-agency project (Ervin, 2004). Thus, the nature of formulation of the program structure can either hinder or enhance the success of an interagency initiative. Lack of trust Trust is the fundamental determinant of the success of interagency collaboration (Jones, Crook, & Webb, 2007). Trust has always been a significant issue in the implementation of a collaborated project, owing to the fact that most agencies perceive each other with a cautionary eye when it comes to the implementation of a common project. Thus, it is only when the level of trust is build to the highest levels that such agencies can begin to work together effectively. Open and transparent communication is one of the important factors in building trust between the agencies, and thus fostering productive collaboration (Ervin, 2004). This means that once communication is not effective between the partnering agencies right from the beginning, making it work during the implementation of the program is very difficult. Lack of trust between the partnering agencies that are collaborating in the achievement of a common goal highly increases especially under circumstances where the leadership of the collaborated project is ineffective, the shared resources are constrained, or communication of the shared vision is lacking (Fawcett et al, 2010). However, even when the project starts with the right footing and trust is build from the beginning, it is also essential to ensure that trust is sustained throughout the collaborated project implementation period. Therefore, caution may be lowered slowly as trust is built in stages, until the collaborating agencies are in a position to work freely with each other, without cautionary approaches or mistrust. This in turn helps to ensure that the levels of interagency conflict involved in the collaborated project implementation process are low. Until issues of caution and mistrust between the collaborating agencies are fully dealt with, the effective working together of the agencies towards a common goal may become a major challenge (Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). Conclusion The collaboration between public service agencies is essential, if resolving certain complex social problems such as insecurity and the threat or terrorism, drug and substance use, and major catastrophes are to be addressed effectively. However, there are certain key obstacles that hinder the effective interagency collaboration. Mistrust between the agencies, lack of effective leadership and communication, inadequacy of resources and lack of a shared vision between the agencies can prevent the agencies from collaborating effectively. It is only through overcoming such obstacles that the public service agencies can be able to cooperate and collaborate. This can in turn enhance the implementation and execution of programs and projects that can help address the public issues that cannot be easily addressed by the single departments of a government. References Bardach, E. (1998). Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Bertelli, A. (2007). “Credible Governance? Transparency, Political Control, the Personal Vote and British Quangos,” Political Studies, 56 (December): 807-829. Ervin, N. (2004). Assessing interagency collaboration through perceptions of families. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 21(1), 49-60. Fawcett, S., Schultz, J., Watson-Thompson, J., Fox, M., & Bremby, R. 2010. Building multisector­al partnerships for population health and health equity. Preventing Chronic Disease, 1,1-10. Jones, J. M., Crook, W. P., & Webb, J. (2007). Collaboration for the provision of services: A review of the literature. Journal of Community Practice, 15(4), 41-71. Krsevan, K., Dwyer, A. M., & Young, J. (2004). Interagency collaboration: A reflection from Families First. Developing Practice, Autumn, 8-14. Roussos, S. & Fawcett, S. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369-402. Schrapel, S. (2004). Interagency collaboration: Beyond the mantra. Developing Practice, Autumn, 5-7. Townsend, A., & Shelley, K. (2008). Validating an instrument for assessing workforce collaboration. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 101-112. Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books. Witt, S. D., & Wilburn, V. R. (2007). "Were all winners here": The impact of collaborative efforts among social service agencies. Education and Society, 25(3), 69-81. Read More