Share Discretion

The deliberate allocation of decision-making authority according to area of expertise

 

WHY IT MATTERS: Assigning authority based on partners’ sector- or issue-specific knowledge allows the collaboration to benefit from the unique expertise of each partner and gives each partner a distinct stake in the collaboration.

Differences in expertise among collaboration partners.

By virtue of working in different sectors, collaboration partners will possess differing levels of expertise in the design, delivery, and assessment of products, programs, and services related to the issue to be addressed by the collaboration. By facilitating a process through which each partner can develop an understanding of other partners’ strengths and recognize the importance of their contributions, the collaboration increases the likelihood that partners will be willing to share decision-making authority. This process also decreases the risk that partners will perceive that others in the collaboration do not recognize the importance of their own contributions, a mindset that may lead partners to disinvest resources or withdraw entirely.

Expertise needed at each stage of the collaboration.

A collaboration will require different expertise at each stage. Examples might include surveying expertise required from a non-profit-sector partner during the diagnosis stage, legal expertise required from a business-sector partner
during the design stage, or logistical expertise required from a government-sector partner during the implementation stage. By assessing and communicating the distinct collaboration stages during which each partner’s expertise will be needed, the collaboration allows partners to plan for the efficient use of their time and resources and helps partners avoid stretching resources between collaboration commitments and their own standard operating activities. If the collaboration fails to communicate its needs to partners, the risk that partners will be unable to fulfill their commitments to the collaboration increases.

“Preparing Students for STEM Jobs in New York City”

In 2010, the unemployment rate in the United States was 9.6 percent, with almost 15 million people out of work. At the same time, companies like IBM observed a lack of qualified candidates for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) positions. Stanley Litow, IBM’s Vice President of Corporate Citizenship & Corporate Affairs and President of the IBM International Foundation, recognized the skills mismatch in the labor market for STEM-driven companies. He worked across sectors with the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and The City University of New York (CUNY) to create the Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH), a six-year, grades 9-14 school program with the goal to graduate students with a high school degree, an Associate’s in Applied Science, and workplace experience to put them on track to enter jobs in the STEM field upon graduation. This innovative model called for close coordination among partners and effective allocation of decision-making authority to ensure that the school was up and running by the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Due to its expertise in district regulations for the acquisition of school space and the hiring of qualified school staff, the DOE took responsibility for identifying a location for the school, hiring key, qualified staff such as the principal and teachers, and also outlined requirements for passing New York State high school diploma qualifying exams. As a leader in information management and technology, IBM was responsible for the mapping of industry-specific hard and soft skills that students needed to develop and for ensuring the seamless integration of workplace experiences within the school curriculum by providing students with IBM mentors and access to paid summer internships. CUNY provided key expertise during the curriculum development phase on what standards constituted college readiness, opened up their curriculum to high school students for them to access college-level courses on campus, and provided City Tech professors to teach college- level classes at P-TECH.

  • What are the different types of expertise we should consider when assigning authority?
  • What different expertise does each partner bring to the collaboration? And how will we ensure that we consider this when assigning decision-making authority?
  • What will we do when there is overlap in expertise among partners?
  • How will we handle disagreements among partners over how to assign decision-making authority?
  • How will we handle disagreements that may arise on decisions after our decision-making model is in place?

“Tools for Complex Decision-Making” from Spark Policy Institute

Especially see the Designing a Decision-Making Process tab for guidance on how to thoughtfully construct a decision-making structure that is the best fit for a collaboration’s context and needs. This resource provides options that collaboration partners may consider for decision-making — ranging from absolute consensus to majority rule to gradients of agreement — and provides troubleshooting advice for gridlock situations.

“A Short Guide to Consensus Building” from The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement

This methodical, detailed resource offers guidance for consensus-oriented decision-making in multi-stakeholder contexts. This resource presents itself as an alternative to Robert’s Rules of Order/ parliamentary procedure because of its emphasis on cooperation and consensus. It offers helpful instructions for deliberating, deciding, recording decisions, handling conflict, and more.

Share Discretion

The deliberate allocation of decision-making authority according to area of expertise

 

WHY IT MATTERS: Assigning authority based on partners’ sector- or issue-specific knowledge allows the collaboration to benefit from the unique expertise of each partner and gives each partner a distinct stake in the collaboration.

Differences in expertise among collaboration partners.

By virtue of working in different sectors, collaboration partners will possess differing levels of expertise in the design, delivery, and assessment of products, programs, and services related to the issue to be addressed by the collaboration. By facilitating a process through which each partner can develop an understanding of other partners’ strengths and recognize the importance of their contributions, the collaboration increases the likelihood that partners will be willing to share decision-making authority. This process also decreases the risk that partners will perceive that others in the collaboration do not recognize the importance of their own contributions, a mindset that may lead partners to disinvest resources or withdraw entirely.

Expertise needed at each stage of the collaboration.

A collaboration will require different expertise at each stage. Examples might include surveying expertise required from a non-profit-sector partner during the diagnosis stage, legal expertise required from a business-sector partner
during the design stage, or logistical expertise required from a government-sector partner during the implementation stage. By assessing and communicating the distinct collaboration stages during which each partner’s expertise will be needed, the collaboration allows partners to plan for the efficient use of their time and resources and helps partners avoid stretching resources between collaboration commitments and their own standard operating activities. If the collaboration fails to communicate its needs to partners, the risk that partners will be unable to fulfill their commitments to the collaboration increases.

“Preparing Students for STEM Jobs in New York City”

In 2010, the unemployment rate in the United States was 9.6 percent, with almost 15 million people out of work. At the same time, companies like IBM observed a lack of qualified candidates for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) positions. Stanley Litow, IBM’s Vice President of Corporate Citizenship & Corporate Affairs and President of the IBM International Foundation, recognized the skills mismatch in the labor market for STEM-driven companies. He worked across sectors with the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and The City University of New York (CUNY) to create the Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH), a six-year, grades 9-14 school program with the goal to graduate students with a high school degree, an Associate’s in Applied Science, and workplace experience to put them on track to enter jobs in the STEM field upon graduation. This innovative model called for close coordination among partners and effective allocation of decision-making authority to ensure that the school was up and running by the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Due to its expertise in district regulations for the acquisition of school space and the hiring of qualified school staff, the DOE took responsibility for identifying a location for the school, hiring key, qualified staff such as the principal and teachers, and also outlined requirements for passing New York State high school diploma qualifying exams. As a leader in information management and technology, IBM was responsible for the mapping of industry-specific hard and soft skills that students needed to develop and for ensuring the seamless integration of workplace experiences within the school curriculum by providing students with IBM mentors and access to paid summer internships. CUNY provided key expertise during the curriculum development phase on what standards constituted college readiness, opened up their curriculum to high school students for them to access college-level courses on campus, and provided City Tech professors to teach college- level classes at P-TECH.

  • What are the different types of expertise we should consider when assigning authority?
  • What different expertise does each partner bring to the collaboration? And how will we ensure that we consider this when assigning decision-making authority?
  • What will we do when there is overlap in expertise among partners?
  • How will we handle disagreements among partners over how to assign decision-making authority?
  • How will we handle disagreements that may arise on decisions after our decision-making model is in place?

“Tools for Complex Decision-Making” from Spark Policy Institute

Especially see the Designing a Decision-Making Process tab for guidance on how to thoughtfully construct a decision-making structure that is the best fit for a collaboration’s context and needs. This resource provides options that collaboration partners may consider for decision-making — ranging from absolute consensus to majority rule to gradients of agreement — and provides troubleshooting advice for gridlock situations.

“A Short Guide to Consensus Building” from The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement

This methodical, detailed resource offers guidance for consensus-oriented decision-making in multi-stakeholder contexts. This resource presents itself as an alternative to Robert’s Rules of Order/ parliamentary procedure because of its emphasis on cooperation and consensus. It offers helpful instructions for deliberating, deciding, recording decisions, handling conflict, and more.