Establish Transparency of Viewpoints

The creation of an environment in which partners can communicate openly, allowing the collaboration to address partners’ differing priorities

 

WHY IT MATTERS: By creating channels to hear and respond to partners’ perspectives and concerns, the collaboration acknowledges the conflicting opinions that can arise from the distinct values and goals of each partner, establishes a forum for consensus-building, and nurtures understanding across organizations and sectors.

Characteristics of an open environment in intersector collaboration.

Open environments are critical to nearly every aspect of collaboration design and implementation, particularly those that require partners to come to consensus concerning issues on which they are likely to have differing perspectives. Building a common fact base, agreeing on measures of success, and establishing a governance structure are just a few examples. In an open environment, partners trust each other, have equal opportunities to express their diverse opinions, and perceive that they are able to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. If the collaboration is not able to create this type of environment, partners may feel disenfranchised from the collaboration process and may be less likely to compromise with others.

“Reducing the Risks of Catastrophic Wildfires in Flagstaff”

Years of wildland fire suppression in the Southwest has left many forests with unnaturally high levels of forest fuels, such as dense undergrowth and thick litterfall. In 2010, a wildfire north of Flagstaff, Arizona, caused more than $150 million in combined suppression and recovery costs. Recognizing the need for preventative action, a partnership among the city, county, state, and federal governments, with support from local non-profit and for-profit organizations, resulted in the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP) whose goal is to mitigate the risk of potentially devastating wildfires in Flagstaff’s critical watershed areas. The ability of FWPP managers to actively acknowledge conflicting viewpoints and incorporate community members’ suggestions into the protection plan has been key to the project’s community support and cross-sector buy in. For example, one of FWPP’s tactics for mitigating risks includes thinning out dense forests. Some environmental groups, however, have raised concerns over tree thinning activities and their effect on habitat availability for endangered Mexican spotted owls. Rather than ignore these groups, the FWPP held meetings to hear and respond to their concerns, and to correct any miscommunication and erroneous information that was shared. This open flow of information created a strong interdisciplinary understanding of forest restoration, fostered mutual respect among stakeholders, and encouraged comprehensive restoration policies.

  • What characterizes an environment in which partners feel they can communicate openly? How will we create this type of environment?
  • How will we handle dominant partners or other potential disturbances to an open environment?
  • How will we manage a situation in which one or more partners feel they are unable to communicate openly?
  • How will we balance the desire to create an open environment with the reality that we need to make decisions and progress?
  • Will we consider using a third-party facilitator for some or all of our meetings?
  • How will we assess whether we have successfully developed an environment in which partners feel that they can communicate openly?

“Talking the Walk” from The Partnering Initiative

Especially see Section 3: Communicating Within the Partnership on pp. 22-25 for guidance on best practices for promoting open and honest communication within a collaboration. Also see Section 5: Conversation: The Essential Building Block on pp. 37-44 for guidance related to listening, responsiveness, difficult conversations, and more. “Talking the Walk” is a comprehensive guide for communicating within and beyond partnerships.

“Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships” from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Especially see Section 3 on trust for discussion and exercises related to establishing team norms that encourage an environment of openness and trust. Also see Section 7: Open Communication for guidance on encouraging candidness among partners, managing conflict, and more. “Collaboration Toolkit” is designed to help law enforcement and their partners build effective community policing partnerships but is accessible with minimal adaptation across a wide range of issues.

“The Partnership Toolkit” from Collaboration Roundtable

Especially see Tool 14: Effective Internal Communications on pp. 79-87 for simple, straightforward guidelines and exercises to encourage internal communications that create an atmosphere of trust and effectiveness. “The Partnership Toolkit” is a comprehensive guide to assist organizations in building and sustaining partnerships.

Establish Transparency of Viewpoints

The creation of an environment in which partners can communicate openly, allowing the collaboration to address partners’ differing priorities

 

WHY IT MATTERS: By creating channels to hear and respond to partners’ perspectives and concerns, the collaboration acknowledges the conflicting opinions that can arise from the distinct values and goals of each partner, establishes a forum for consensus-building, and nurtures understanding across organizations and sectors.

Characteristics of an open environment in intersector collaboration.

Open environments are critical to nearly every aspect of collaboration design and implementation, particularly those that require partners to come to consensus concerning issues on which they are likely to have differing perspectives. Building a common fact base, agreeing on measures of success, and establishing a governance structure are just a few examples. In an open environment, partners trust each other, have equal opportunities to express their diverse opinions, and perceive that they are able to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. If the collaboration is not able to create this type of environment, partners may feel disenfranchised from the collaboration process and may be less likely to compromise with others.

“Reducing the Risks of Catastrophic Wildfires in Flagstaff”

Years of wildland fire suppression in the Southwest has left many forests with unnaturally high levels of forest fuels, such as dense undergrowth and thick litterfall. In 2010, a wildfire north of Flagstaff, Arizona, caused more than $150 million in combined suppression and recovery costs. Recognizing the need for preventative action, a partnership among the city, county, state, and federal governments, with support from local non-profit and for-profit organizations, resulted in the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP) whose goal is to mitigate the risk of potentially devastating wildfires in Flagstaff’s critical watershed areas. The ability of FWPP managers to actively acknowledge conflicting viewpoints and incorporate community members’ suggestions into the protection plan has been key to the project’s community support and cross-sector buy in. For example, one of FWPP’s tactics for mitigating risks includes thinning out dense forests. Some environmental groups, however, have raised concerns over tree thinning activities and their effect on habitat availability for endangered Mexican spotted owls. Rather than ignore these groups, the FWPP held meetings to hear and respond to their concerns, and to correct any miscommunication and erroneous information that was shared. This open flow of information created a strong interdisciplinary understanding of forest restoration, fostered mutual respect among stakeholders, and encouraged comprehensive restoration policies.

  • What characterizes an environment in which partners feel they can communicate openly? How will we create this type of environment?
  • How will we handle dominant partners or other potential disturbances to an open environment?
  • How will we manage a situation in which one or more partners feel they are unable to communicate openly?
  • How will we balance the desire to create an open environment with the reality that we need to make decisions and progress?
  • Will we consider using a third-party facilitator for some or all of our meetings?
  • How will we assess whether we have successfully developed an environment in which partners feel that they can communicate openly?

“Talking the Walk” from The Partnering Initiative

Especially see Section 3: Communicating Within the Partnership on pp. 22-25 for guidance on best practices for promoting open and honest communication within a collaboration. Also see Section 5: Conversation: The Essential Building Block on pp. 37-44 for guidance related to listening, responsiveness, difficult conversations, and more. “Talking the Walk” is a comprehensive guide for communicating within and beyond partnerships.

“Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships” from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Especially see Section 3 on trust for discussion and exercises related to establishing team norms that encourage an environment of openness and trust. Also see Section 7: Open Communication for guidance on encouraging candidness among partners, managing conflict, and more. “Collaboration Toolkit” is designed to help law enforcement and their partners build effective community policing partnerships but is accessible with minimal adaptation across a wide range of issues.

“The Partnership Toolkit” from Collaboration Roundtable

Especially see Tool 14: Effective Internal Communications on pp. 79-87 for simple, straightforward guidelines and exercises to encourage internal communications that create an atmosphere of trust and effectiveness. “The Partnership Toolkit” is a comprehensive guide to assist organizations in building and sustaining partnerships.