On Partnership
On Partnership Working
Over the years, we have tried a variety of approaches to encourage and support our partners’ organisational development; some were more successful than others. We have described below some of the challenges we faced and the lessons we have learned in the process. How far one succeeds in building successful and effective partnerships and making an impact depends not only on your choice of partner but on your knowledge of the situation on the ground and your emotional intelligence, communication skills and patience.
The material and analysis provided below is primarily about what you can expect if you choose to go into international development. Inevitably it focuses on the kind of problems that you may have to confront when managing projects or working in the field. We sincerely hope that this does not come across as negative, it is not meant to. Please also bear in mind that people who go into development can expect to get a great deal out of the experience/profession — new friends, deeply memorable experiences, and a great deal of personal satisfaction from helping to make a difference in the world (see About). Please note too that the discussion is not
about disaster relief, which is a very different discipline.
a) On Partnership
It goes without saying that to run effective projects (anywhere) you need good people with a wide range of skills, an open mind, and the willingness to learn and take initiative (ie run risks). If they can plan and think strategically that’s an added bonus. People with such qualities are rare. So you need to choose your partners carefully, and you shouldn’t hesitate to bid goodbye to a group if it turns out that it simply doesn’t have what it takes. It may be painful and embarrassing, but it will be a blessing in the long run.
It goes without saying that to run effective projects (anywhere) you need good people with a wide range of skills, an open mind, and the willingness to learn and take initiative (ie run risks). If they can plan and think strategically that’s an added bonus. People with such qualities are rare. So you need to choose your partners carefully, and you shouldn’t hesitate to bid goodbye to a group if it turns out that it simply doesn’t have what it takes. It may be painful and embarrassing, but it will be a blessing in the long run.
Trust is essential, especially when misunderstandings arise (as they always do). When something unexpected happens, you should be able to give your partner the benefit of the doubt (and they you). All too often we found the explanation of what had happened when something went wrong did not turn out to be what we had thought or feared.
Some partners are not particularly good at managing people or sharing information — information is power, so why give it to others? Things can get compartmentalised, with no one taking overall responsibility for ‘joining up the dots’. But be wary of interfering: recognise that your partner’s attitude or approach may be because of their assessment of the capabilities and limitations of their staff or colleagues, and their judgement as to what is possible/achievable.
It can be difficult to get the balance right between coaching/providing advice and appearing to be trying to direct or control what partners do or how they work. This can become especially problematic when things you are contracted to deliver are do not appear to be happening, or happening as planned; and partners may not appreciate the pressures that you are under or understand the interests, priorities and requirements of the funder.
Try to lead by example and take due account of the difficult and often insecure circumstances that your partners are working under, otherwise your views and posturing will be ignored. If you try to control what partners do they will never become independent and their operation, sustainable. And they won’t thank you for it! Community development is not easy at the best of times, and local circumstances can be difficult, so be careful not to sound too critical. It won't go down well.
Some partners are not particularly good at managing people or sharing information — information is power, so why give it to others? Things can get compartmentalised, with no one taking overall responsibility for ‘joining up the dots’. But be wary of interfering: recognise that your partner’s attitude or approach may be because of their assessment of the capabilities and limitations of their staff or colleagues, and their judgement as to what is possible/achievable.
It can be difficult to get the balance right between coaching/providing advice and appearing to be trying to direct or control what partners do or how they work. This can become especially problematic when things you are contracted to deliver are do not appear to be happening, or happening as planned; and partners may not appreciate the pressures that you are under or understand the interests, priorities and requirements of the funder.
Try to lead by example and take due account of the difficult and often insecure circumstances that your partners are working under, otherwise your views and posturing will be ignored. If you try to control what partners do they will never become independent and their operation, sustainable. And they won’t thank you for it! Community development is not easy at the best of times, and local circumstances can be difficult, so be careful not to sound too critical. It won't go down well.
b) Expectations & Understandings
Don’t expect your partners to be particularly accomplished at preparing clear, well-argued action plans or project proposals — or even reporting articulately on what they have done and the impact it has had. If they are, you’re in luck. Your partners’ main strengths may lie elsewhere, with their language skills, contacts and local knowledge; or their ability to counsel or communicate with and influence your beneficiaries, and all the other skills needed simply to ‘get things done’. Good communication requires much more than words. In Africa it requires repetition and gesticulation and patience!
Don’t expect your partners to be particularly accomplished at preparing clear, well-argued action plans or project proposals — or even reporting articulately on what they have done and the impact it has had. If they are, you’re in luck. Your partners’ main strengths may lie elsewhere, with their language skills, contacts and local knowledge; or their ability to counsel or communicate with and influence your beneficiaries, and all the other skills needed simply to ‘get things done’. Good communication requires much more than words. In Africa it requires repetition and gesticulation and patience!
You are likely to have to seek clarification of what is written in progress reports and tease out information over email or Skype — things that are important or significant to you may be very different from what your partner sees as relevant or worth reporting on. And be aware that there’s always room for misunderstanding: some words or phrases (yours and theirs) may have different meanings. We sometimes found it difficult to tell from a report whether something was planned or had actually happened!
An added complication is that you may be told something that you later find out to be incorrect. It would be a mistake to put this down to lying, it may be due to people’s understanding of events, or their inability to express themselves or explain things clearly in English (perhaps their second or third language). On one occasion we were told that someone had been monitoring the use made of a resource centre, but it later turned out that they had only asked the teacher in charge to monitor usage; they had not checked that this was actually happening. As it turned out, the teacher concerned had not considered it important to keep a register… The moral: check, check and check again, and if still in doubt, go and see for yourself on your next visit, when you can also crosscheck your understanding of events with other parties.
An added complication is that you may be told something that you later find out to be incorrect. It would be a mistake to put this down to lying, it may be due to people’s understanding of events, or their inability to express themselves or explain things clearly in English (perhaps their second or third language). On one occasion we were told that someone had been monitoring the use made of a resource centre, but it later turned out that they had only asked the teacher in charge to monitor usage; they had not checked that this was actually happening. As it turned out, the teacher concerned had not considered it important to keep a register… The moral: check, check and check again, and if still in doubt, go and see for yourself on your next visit, when you can also crosscheck your understanding of events with other parties.
c) Culture, Attitudes & Practices
In many African cultures status and appearances are very important. What the boss says, goes, so staff don’t tend to question them, at least to their face. So you shouldn’t expect those employed on projects to be particularly creative and take initiative as it could get them into trouble. Safer for them to lie low. It may also be that individual staff members are slow learners, or not particularly gifted, or lacking training; and there may be social or cultural restraints on what they can or feel able to do.
You may be surprised by people’s short working day (at least by your standards) and their low expectations of what is possible (again, compared with yours). Bad time-keeping is also a fact of life in many cultures.This can mean meetings and workshops rarely start on time.
It can be difficult to progress some people’s skills in computing and information management, and not just in relation to using basic packages like MS Word and Excel, but also in getting them to name and date files and keep them in clearly marked folders. You can’t make people follow good practice, only advise… We would often find, months later, that files were again being saved to the desktop (alongside a forest of equally anonymous-looking or and badly labelled files).
Despite our repeated protestations, very few of our partners seemed to appreciate that virus-checkers (and other software) had to be regularly updated. We found computer viruses everywhere — or rather, they found us. Unreliable internet connection and poor download speeds were no doubt a factor in this, but so too was forgetfulness or failure to take responsibility for doing the updates. People didn’t seem to recognise the enormous amount of time and effort that went into generating and storing files and images, and the potential consequences if these materials were to be lost because of malware or hard disc failure or computer theft.
It was our strong impression that poor record keeping, and people’s reluctance to share information and experience, meant that much institutional learning was lost. Initiatives to tackle this problem deserve support.
In many African cultures status and appearances are very important. What the boss says, goes, so staff don’t tend to question them, at least to their face. So you shouldn’t expect those employed on projects to be particularly creative and take initiative as it could get them into trouble. Safer for them to lie low. It may also be that individual staff members are slow learners, or not particularly gifted, or lacking training; and there may be social or cultural restraints on what they can or feel able to do.
You may be surprised by people’s short working day (at least by your standards) and their low expectations of what is possible (again, compared with yours). Bad time-keeping is also a fact of life in many cultures.This can mean meetings and workshops rarely start on time.
It can be difficult to progress some people’s skills in computing and information management, and not just in relation to using basic packages like MS Word and Excel, but also in getting them to name and date files and keep them in clearly marked folders. You can’t make people follow good practice, only advise… We would often find, months later, that files were again being saved to the desktop (alongside a forest of equally anonymous-looking or and badly labelled files).
Despite our repeated protestations, very few of our partners seemed to appreciate that virus-checkers (and other software) had to be regularly updated. We found computer viruses everywhere — or rather, they found us. Unreliable internet connection and poor download speeds were no doubt a factor in this, but so too was forgetfulness or failure to take responsibility for doing the updates. People didn’t seem to recognise the enormous amount of time and effort that went into generating and storing files and images, and the potential consequences if these materials were to be lost because of malware or hard disc failure or computer theft.
It was our strong impression that poor record keeping, and people’s reluctance to share information and experience, meant that much institutional learning was lost. Initiatives to tackle this problem deserve support.
d) Organisational Management
It could be hard work trying to encourage partners to pay attention to governance. Whilst all of our partners had boards, most boards did not meet regularly, and rarely took initiative, or helped the Executive between meetings, let alone oversaw the development of the organisation and ensured good governance (see ‘Building Better Boards’). It was also rare for the Director to prepare and circulate a Director’s Report and cash flow before board meetings. The board might get an agenda at the meeting. These factors can clearly impact on a Boards’ deliberations and inevitably, their effectiveness. (We have already explained that it can be very difficult for partners to find people with the necessary skills willing to sit on boards.)
Another common shortcoming of the executive was failure to delegate powers and resources to staff — indeed, some bosses were even reluctant to provide contracts and job descriptions (see below).We did our best to tackle these problems by organising workshops for board and staff members, and by regularly providing memos and briefings, but the fact that there could be many months between board meetings only meant that momentum was lost and lessons were not put into practice. It is still worth persisting with such encouragemen; and the advice needs to be repeated as often as you feel you can get away with.
e) Feedback & Reporting
For successful projects detailed feedback is essential; it confirms targets are being met and can provide real ‘colour’ when included in a report to the donor. We are talking here, not just about the dates of visits and people seen, or the numbers (and gender split) of people attending meetings, workshops and events (and the issues covered, difficulties confronted) etc. etc. but also information about interesting initiatives that people have taken, or nice things people have said, or examples of how attitudes have changed or individuals or their families have benefitted. It was our experience that people invariably undersold their work.
For successful projects detailed feedback is essential; it confirms targets are being met and can provide real ‘colour’ when included in a report to the donor. We are talking here, not just about the dates of visits and people seen, or the numbers (and gender split) of people attending meetings, workshops and events (and the issues covered, difficulties confronted) etc. etc. but also information about interesting initiatives that people have taken, or nice things people have said, or examples of how attitudes have changed or individuals or their families have benefitted. It was our experience that people invariably undersold their work.
All sorts of things can be indicators of success, for example requests to run workshops in neighbouring villages (you must be doing something right); a chief attending a learning circle and encouraging the women to persevere with their learning (the chief considers the initiative worthwhile); other groups making contact (you have soemthing to offer / you are worth knowing); etc. etc.
When we asked one of our colleagues (in Sierra Leone) how a Graduation Ceremony for adult learners had gone, she replied ‘fine’, but offered no details until pressed. It turned out that the meeting had been chaired by someone from another NGO; it had been attended by 41 graduates from six learning circles (30 women & 11 men) and that they had all received certificates. Six chiefs had attended (one from each of the villages represented) along with a journalist, a photographer, someone from local radio, a local Councillor, and three members of the CBO’s Board!
But none of this had been reported…
But none of this had been reported…
We got used to the fact that many project officers didn’t take notes at meetings or make much of an effort to assess what had been achieved. This often meant that reporting was poor and lacked essential detail. Progress reports invariably started the same way, with a restatement of the group’s objects, mission and modus operandi
(ie things we already knew) followed by broad generalisations, such as: “the learning circles are working well” or “the women are happy with the programme.” And sometimes people would focus on the difficulties they had faced in undertaking the work rather than describing what had actually been achieved. What’s more, they would play down bad news — or fail to mention it at all — which could make later assessment difficult. (Honest reporting and understanding what goes wrong and why is essential as it helps you do things differently in the future.)
We also had to cope with poorly labelled or laid out documents — files would simply say ‘REPORT’ or ‘PICTURES’. They would also include frequent use of capitals, and text would be littered with spelling mistakes, typos and bad grammar, which would make it necessary to relabel and reformat reports to make them easier to read. We also recommend providing training in taking photographs and video, and also manipulating images to reduce file size, not least to minimise transmission problems and costs — some emails we received would be huge, 20+ megabytes and frequently blocked our mailbox!
Getting information on expenditure was always a struggle — dates when trips were made would be missing, receipt numbers would not be entered in any recognisable order; and we would find basic accounting errors. This made bookkeeping something of a nightmare, often requiring a table or spreadsheet to be rebuilt. Moreover, people would sign for money, say for a visit, thinking that this was a valid receipt. How often did we have to explain that receipts provide proof of purchasing goods or services?
We also had to cope with poorly labelled or laid out documents — files would simply say ‘REPORT’ or ‘PICTURES’. They would also include frequent use of capitals, and text would be littered with spelling mistakes, typos and bad grammar, which would make it necessary to relabel and reformat reports to make them easier to read. We also recommend providing training in taking photographs and video, and also manipulating images to reduce file size, not least to minimise transmission problems and costs — some emails we received would be huge, 20+ megabytes and frequently blocked our mailbox!
Getting information on expenditure was always a struggle — dates when trips were made would be missing, receipt numbers would not be entered in any recognisable order; and we would find basic accounting errors. This made bookkeeping something of a nightmare, often requiring a table or spreadsheet to be rebuilt. Moreover, people would sign for money, say for a visit, thinking that this was a valid receipt. How often did we have to explain that receipts provide proof of purchasing goods or services?
When progress reports were late and or badly written, or failed to satisfactorily cover/discuss what people were contracted to deliver, it inevitably meant lots of follow-up questions by email and (expensive) Skype calls. It also put us in a difficult position — when exactly should one accept work that is below standard and doesn’t fulfil contractual requirements, when holding out for more information could not only endanger the project (staff need to be paid), but also one’s relationship with the partner?
f) Difficult Issues
It was sometimes difficult to find out the exact status of people employed by partners on joint projects. This was often the case when it was for short periods or one-off jobs. We insisted on people being given written job descriptions and contracts, but whether this was done was not always clear, and pressing the point could risk charges of interference in a group’s internal affairs. In the end we left it up to our partners but made sure that there was a clause in our contracts which made it clear that partners were responsible for local tax and national insurance.
It was not uncommon to find items listed in expenditure reports that were not mentioned in a narrative report — someone might have gone to a conference or workshop, but there would be no explanation of why they thought this worthwhile or what they learned, and what relevance it bore to our project. This would cause us real headaches. We wanted people to make decisions for themselves, but they needed to justify the commitment of project money (preferably in advance, so that we can work out which budget line to include them under). Many funders do not allow you to include a contingency in your bids (which is understandable, but shortsighted).
It was sometimes difficult to find out the exact status of people employed by partners on joint projects. This was often the case when it was for short periods or one-off jobs. We insisted on people being given written job descriptions and contracts, but whether this was done was not always clear, and pressing the point could risk charges of interference in a group’s internal affairs. In the end we left it up to our partners but made sure that there was a clause in our contracts which made it clear that partners were responsible for local tax and national insurance.
It was not uncommon to find items listed in expenditure reports that were not mentioned in a narrative report — someone might have gone to a conference or workshop, but there would be no explanation of why they thought this worthwhile or what they learned, and what relevance it bore to our project. This would cause us real headaches. We wanted people to make decisions for themselves, but they needed to justify the commitment of project money (preferably in advance, so that we can work out which budget line to include them under). Many funders do not allow you to include a contingency in your bids (which is understandable, but shortsighted).
Writing is a skill that does not come easily to most people — especially when writing in a foreign language; but we did on occasion have the feeling that partners felt that it wasn’t worth putting in the effort because we would only rewrite their work.
We faced a similar problem when trying to get feedback on project proposals: partners were happy to leave it up to us and only rarely sent comments. It was a concern to us that sharing a well-crafted proposal with some partners could be quite disempowering, so we didn’t always do this. It was the same with reports to funders. The last thing we wanted to do was to disempower people!
We faced a similar problem when trying to get feedback on project proposals: partners were happy to leave it up to us and only rarely sent comments. It was a concern to us that sharing a well-crafted proposal with some partners could be quite disempowering, so we didn’t always do this. It was the same with reports to funders. The last thing we wanted to do was to disempower people!
To apply to most major donors these days requires filling in an application form on line and preparing and uploading a plethora of other documents. This requires a basic level of competence in using the internet, and knowledge of the field. We occasionally received draft bids for comment and it would be immediately apparent that our partner had completely misunderstood the donor’s interests or the funding rounds’ priorities, and that they had not checked whether they were eligible to apply. It was also sadly the case that the standard of analysis, explanation and justification required for funding proposals was very far removed from what many CBOs were capable of. This was not the case with some partners who did rise to the challenge and submit successful bids without assistance.
Many funders require that grantees have specific policies in place and adopted by their boards — Equal Opportunities, Health & Safely, Safeguards for Children & Vulnerable Adults, etc. — and we made sure that our partners had drafts to customise to their local situation. But we were never sure what this actually meant in practice and to what extent local staff and consultants understood these pledges and would abide by them.
Negotiating rates of pay for partners can be a minefield. Some felt that they should be paid more (even though rates had been included in proposals and had been agreed with them in advance). Sometimes they would quote western rates (or rates paid by the UN or other international bodies) without appreciating the enormous difference in the cost of living and the higher expected work rate and output. The level of effort and skill that went it into preparing bids and winning grants never seemed to feature in the discussion. (For the record, PI staff salaries were very modest, and had to be forgone on more than one occasion because of cash-flow problems.)
Many funders require that grantees have specific policies in place and adopted by their boards — Equal Opportunities, Health & Safely, Safeguards for Children & Vulnerable Adults, etc. — and we made sure that our partners had drafts to customise to their local situation. But we were never sure what this actually meant in practice and to what extent local staff and consultants understood these pledges and would abide by them.
Negotiating rates of pay for partners can be a minefield. Some felt that they should be paid more (even though rates had been included in proposals and had been agreed with them in advance). Sometimes they would quote western rates (or rates paid by the UN or other international bodies) without appreciating the enormous difference in the cost of living and the higher expected work rate and output. The level of effort and skill that went it into preparing bids and winning grants never seemed to feature in the discussion. (For the record, PI staff salaries were very modest, and had to be forgone on more than one occasion because of cash-flow problems.)
Another potentially difficult area was negotiating mileage rates for private cars: some partners would argue that we should pay commercial rates, ignoring the fact that these included company overheads and usually a driver; or people would complain about the bad roads and potholes (which meant low gear/inefficient motoring), or being sold short at the pumps. There was also the issue of how to take account of maintenance and breakdowns — add in unnecessary journeys (because of poor planning), or dual-purpose journeys, and things can get quite complicated! Getting colleagues to record dates of trips and milometer reading can be easier said than done.
g) Training
We would train partners and their staff by working with them on specific project tasks rather than organising formal training workshops. We would talk through what needed to be done, leave people to have a go, and then when they had produced something, work with them to improve it. We sometimes did this over Skype, but it was always preferable to work face-to-face during monitoring visits.
We would train partners and their staff by working with them on specific project tasks rather than organising formal training workshops. We would talk through what needed to be done, leave people to have a go, and then when they had produced something, work with them to improve it. We sometimes did this over Skype, but it was always preferable to work face-to-face during monitoring visits.
As already noted, we found Theory of Change diagrams very useful, especially when coaching new staff on what projects were all about and how the different elements fitted together. We would provide a template and encourage them to fill in the (empty) boxes and then talk with them about how best to link the various activities together and how we might monitor or measure progress (i.e. performance indicators). We adopted the same approach with computer training: we would get people using a computer straight away and work with them on something that was relevant to them (e.g. preparing an email, memo or spreadsheet); and we would gradually introduce them to using style sheets, formatting and labelling files, and developing suitable filing systems, where they could find the information they needed quickly. This way the knowledge and understanding was more likely to stick.
So these are some of issues and practical problems that you can come across when setting up and managing projects with community based organisation and small indigenous NGOs in low-income countries. Finding practical ways to deal with and overcome them is one of the challenges for the development worker; but when you are successful, and you see people flourishing and achieving their potential, the pride, pleasure and satisfaction can be very considerable.
Captions
a Jill with Aminata (DCFW) in Makeni.
b John (MAND -- Men’s Agenda for National Development) was a consultant to GEDeW.
c Ammish with NETRICE's Team of Agricultural Extension Officers.
d Local chief awarding a graduation certificate to oneof EFW's learners.
e NETRICE's car loses a back wheel. Fortunately, it wasn't going fast at the time.
f Abu Bakarr helping Fatmata in the VFB Offices in Makeni.
a Jill with Aminata (DCFW) in Makeni.
b John (MAND -- Men’s Agenda for National Development) was a consultant to GEDeW.
c Ammish with NETRICE's Team of Agricultural Extension Officers.
d Local chief awarding a graduation certificate to oneof EFW's learners.
e NETRICE's car loses a back wheel. Fortunately, it wasn't going fast at the time.
f Abu Bakarr helping Fatmata in the VFB Offices in Makeni.
