High-Performance Partnerships - National Academy of Public ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE chapter nine MCCP celebrates each year with a gala. At that event, a partner from each sector is honored for its contributions. In addition to being a celebration, the gala is a major fund raising event, attended by the partners, key community and political leaders, client representatives, and supporting members of the community. Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) DEVELOPING A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT The Challenge An effective partnership must have a conducive internal and external environment. Member trust is paramount. Partners must be willing to collaborate, subjugate some of their decisionmaking authority, and be a part of a team. Turf wars are very detrimental to performance outcomes and sustained collaborative efforts. Developing a trusting environment cannot be rushed, as it occurs only after partners work together and enjoy some level of success. Cultures, even terminology, vary from organization-to-organization and sector-to-sector. Building bridges is essential to the process. The external environment also must embrace a partnership structure and performance orientation. Stakeholder support is critical. Yet for some of the same reasons cited above, support may be absent. Political endorsement could be tentative for fear of voter backlash if planned results do not materialize. Funders may have resource requirements that work against collaboration. Diverse community opinion may work as a barrier to reaching consensus on mission and goals. The Strategies 1. Keep an eye on the prize. The partnership must constantly keep the mission in front of external and internal stakeholders. As part of updating the annual strategic plan, every partner and key stakeholder should recommit to the partnership’s purpose. 2. Create partnership norms that guide activities and build trust. A common set of values is the cornerstone of a partnership’s organizational foundation, especially when encountering adversity. In addition to operative norms, the partnership should develop a common language and glossary of terms. Misunderstandings based on semantics can lead to irreparable internal rifts. This can be mitigated if there is clear language that defines what is to be accomplished, by whom, and when. Another operative norm should be to listen when partners and other stakeholders have concerns. A trusting, collegial environment supports winning results for the community, partnership, and individual partners. Indeed, the reciprocal benefits may be improved community outcomes, visibility, credit, access, and return on investment. To avoid excessive competition and distrust, credit for successes should be equally shared among the partners. 3. Invest in team building. Partnerships require a great deal of member trust. Trust can only be built with positive interactions over time. At the same time, investing in team building can facilitate and speed the process. This takes time and money, but the investment will pay substantial dividends by enabling the partnership to produce more, and faster. The “cost of mistrust” is considerable. 112 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships
The PODER Project was a six-year initiative.The first three years focused on capacity building and the last three on implementation. The biggest challenge was to create a resident-driven advisory council that included all stakeholders. Initially, there was a great deal of conflict concerning which resident would control the council. This prolonged the time frame and created difficulties with existing and potential funders. During this period, the real leadership emerged to develop the capacity of the council. PODER/PATCH Project (Denver) 4. Demonstrate that high-performance partnerships produce. Nothing generates support like success. Partners, stakeholders, and the community at large are more likely to back a winner than a partnership that has yet to produce. Widely communicating the partnership’s results is one way to encourage future support. STRUCTURING A PARTNERSHIP TO ACHIEVE RESULTS The Challenge An effective governance structure is critical for a high-performance partnership. There must be a mechanism to make decisions, allocate resources, and resolve conflicts. Yet it is difficult to implement one that accommodates both collective and individual needs. It is possible for a detached party to participate in the governance structure, but it generally has “stakeholders.” Stakeholders have an interest in the partnership’s enterprise and usually are an investor or beneficiary. Investors are individuals or organizations that contribute resources. Investors ultimately have the power to make decisions because they control the resources to act. They can make things happen or even veto the use of their resources if the partnership moves in a contrary direction. Investors are not necessarily involved in the partnership’s day-to-day activities, but provide the wherewithal for the activities to occur. Smart investors listen to and value the client’s input, but not necessarily include it in the decision-making structure. This does not mean that an investor-controlled partnership is ineffective in meeting customer expectations or service needs. At the same time, the approach runs the risk of appearing exclusionary or insensitive to some stakeholder interests. Beneficiaries are the subset of stakeholders that the partnership’s results affect. They can be direct customers or indirect beneficiaries, such as the community at large. They can influence the partnership’s decisions, but not independently control them. Certainly, a high-performance partnership must be customer-focused and routinely seek input and feedback. However, a customer service orientation is not synonymous with partnership governance. A partnership’s decision-making structure can be composed solely of investors or a combination of investors and other stakeholders. The former can facilitate action and results because key decision-makers and resource providers are in charge. But, an investor-only model must guard against disenfranchisement and lost support from other stakeholders. The federally-mandated Advisory Panel on Medicare Education is a governance structure that relies primarily on the stakeholder model. While CMS is the investor, the stakeholders make decisions and recommendations to guide the agency. The panel’s chair is from the stakeholder body. CMS is represented at the table but the panel works independently as a group, offering critical guidance to the agency. Lovell Brigham, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 113 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships
Page 1 and 2:
Powering the FUTURE: High-Performan
Page 3 and 4:
A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.........
Page 7 and 8:
CHAPTER 12: MANAGEMENT APPROACHES A
Page 9 and 10:
Public Business High Performance Pa
Page 11 and 12:
Medicare and Medicaid health progra
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
FIGURE 1-1 CONTINUUM OF ORGANIZATIO
Page 17 and 18:
Coexistence: Cooperative: Contractu
Page 19 and 20:
Business FIGURE 1-3 HIGH-PERFORMANC
Page 21 and 22:
“Creating a partnership takes tim
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
FIGURE 2-2 NONPROFIT SECTOR REVENUE
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 2-1 SECTOR DIFFERENCES Public
Page 29 and 30:
eform to establish some form of res
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
FIGURE 3-1 DESIGN LAB PARTNERSHIPS:
Page 35 and 36:
TABLE 3-2 DESIGN LAB — PARTNERSHI
Page 37 and 38:
dren. Nine MCCP case managers made
Page 39 and 40:
FIGURE 3-5 MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDRE
Page 41 and 42:
“The Healthy Families Partnership
Page 43 and 44:
HFP is an excellent model of growin
Page 45 and 46:
identifying specific goals and outc
Page 47 and 48:
5 A DAY FOR BETTER HEALTH PROGRAM N
Page 49 and 50:
FIGURE 3-8 PUBLIC AWARENESS Percent
Page 51 and 52:
esponsible for developing specific
Page 53 and 54:
FAMILY STRENGTHENING COALITION INDI
Page 55 and 56:
Challenges Despite its solid track
Page 57 and 58:
Challenges NBSD encountered some ba
Page 59 and 60:
early intervention; and an early ch
Page 61 and 62:
CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROJECT CENTERS
Page 63 and 64: Medicare insurer, CMS was the ultim
Page 65 and 66: A 1996 survey of La Alma/Lincoln Pa
Page 67 and 68: Public Business High Performance Pa
Page 69 and 70: and establishing performance manage
Page 71 and 72: PROGRAM AREA TABLE 4-2 SAMPLE PERFO
Page 73 and 74: The Lapham Park Venture originally
Page 75 and 76: THE DATA TRAP No partnership can cl
Page 79 and 80: FIGURE 5-1 THE 5 C’S OF EFFECTIVE
Page 81 and 82: SURVIVING TRANSITIONS IN LEADERSHIP
Page 85 and 86: Without a well-documented mission s
Page 87 and 88: FIGURE 6-4 CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROGR
Page 89 and 90: FIGURE 6-6 STRATEGIC PLANNING CYCLE
Page 91 and 92: BALANCING FOCUS AND FLEXIBILITY The
Page 95 and 96: Asset mapping is key to determining
Page 97 and 98: 8. Use third-party payment opportun
Page 99 and 100: partners agree that redirection is
Page 101 and 102: Individual governmental units, foun
Page 105 and 106: dedicate resources to effective ong
Page 107 and 108: The business community does not imm
Page 109 and 110: TABLE 8-3 FAMILY STRENGTHENING COAL
Page 113: Organizations may feel that a partn
Page 117 and 118: Neighborhoods in Bloom operates in
Page 121 and 122: Results Characteristics • Derive
Page 123 and 124: FIGURE 10-2 PHASES OF LEADERSHIP Ma
Page 127 and 128: The CMS Employer/Caregiver Workgrou
Page 129 and 130: Informal communications strategies
Page 131 and 132: Management Approaches and Attribute
Page 133 and 134: Public managers tend to be risk ave
Page 135 and 136: Putting It All Together Chapter13 H
Page 137 and 138: FIGURE 13-2 ROWING TOGETHER FOR A H
Page 139 and 140: Appendix A Panel Member Biographies
Page 141 and 142: Appendix B Selected Bibliography
Page 143 and 144: National League of Cities. “City
Page 145 and 146: Appendix C Performance Management G
Page 147 and 148: Outcomes: The quantified result, or
Page 149 and 150: Appendix D Design Lab Participants
Page 151 and 152: Heidi Veltman Reston Kaiser Permane
Page 153 and 154: America’s Promise Gregg Petersmey
Page 155 and 156: Appendix E Excerpt from Lapham Park
Page 157 and 158: LAPHAM PARK VENTURE STRATEGIC PLAN,
Page 159 and 160: 2. Venture Operations Committee PUR
Page 161 and 162: Appendix F Memorandum of Understand
Page 163 and 164: ARTICLE I - HIGHLAND PARK SOUTHERN
Page 166:
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINIST
show all

High-Performance Partnerships - National Academy of Public ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?