When it comes to business Bob Parsons, the founder of possibly the world’s largest domain-name registry, believes that “the best partner is no partner”. The belief is based on that time-honoured Napoleonic phrase which we all utter, or mutter, from time to time “if you want a job doing well, do it yourself”.
But if you can’t do it yourself then you will need a partner in some sought of guise. The optimists among us can believe that in doing so a problem shared is a problem solved. The pessimists, on the flip side, consider that if there must be a partner then there’ll be somebody else to blame (or claim against) if a problem isn’t solved. For the pragmatists, partnerships, if required, should be forged based on risk and the principle that risks should be allocated to the (contracting) party best able to handle them.
Simple, in theory, but in practice, and for all the advantages of partnerships, the disadvantages are often overlooked during the establishment of a partnership. Partners can find that rather than an arrangement made in heaven, and after the initial honeymoon period when partners really get to know each other, their relationship can become a living hell unless something is done to rectify it, or better, mitigate it ab initio.
Partnerships can take many forms with both individuals and companies. The partners (should) take on those risks which are part of their specialisation and considered business-as-usual or which they can readily transfer to their other partners in their supply chain. Other risks are, well, theoretically…shared through their partnering agreement, but are they?
Heaven
Partnerships, be they joint ventures where each party shares ownership or a consortium where obligations are limited under an agreement, are established to form a relationship whereby their combined efforts will meet with some business success. Sayings such as “two heads are better than one”, and “many hands make light work” reinforce the prospect of partners being mutually supportive of each other and able to make their business venture more beneficial to both. This allows larger or more complex and profitable opportunities to be embarked upon without the burden of larger degree of risk.
The perfect partnership, that one made in heaven, requires a completely symbiotic relationship and partners cooperate fully with no conflict. Perfect symbiosis is almost impossible and conflicting views or approaches by one partner may well cause another to be aggrieved. In order to resolve such grievances any agreement must address who is empowered to deal with grievances and how.
Typically, this is done through a steering committee made up from the partner’s principals. The steering committee provides the governance for the project and act as stewards to ensure that there is leadership of the project team. This leadership requires that the project leader has the formal authority and appropriate support. However, partners, in trying to retain control, can find that any and every slightly controversial item must be escalated, and any meaningful delegation is obviated. This stultifies the project and embroils the steering committee and the project in potential trivia which is far from heavenly; sometimes it’s better to live and let live rather than fight every corner.
In any partnership there will interfaces which include not only physical scope but also managerial, cultural and personal. Risk accumulates at interfaces and partners can spend a lot of time looking at scope but it’s the interfaces that cause the problems. Oft times seemingly insignificant matters can become unsurmountable and inversely proportional to their actual value. In heaven these could become minor transgressions and be forgiven, but as to err is to be human, subsequent problems with interfaces can become purgatory.
Disagreements and even arguments can and do occur but if parties work together their relationship can be made to work. This may not be quite heaven, but the relationship can, for the most part be made to be harmonious. Any counterpoint may punctuate a harmonious relationship but will be in the form of constructive criticism rather than destructive condemnation, however this requires knowing your partner.
Honeymoons
Most relationships start off with period of harmony. This harmony results from a combination of initial polite respect and possibly well-disguised nervousness. Efforts are usually made to work out how their partner(s) operates. This is not only applicable to the organisations themselves who may have worked together before but just as importantly the individuals who will have to work together; we have ourselves the ‘honeymoon’.
The word “honeymoon” comes from the Scandinavian practice of drinking mead (honey fermented to make an alcoholic brew) during the first month of a marriage. This was thought to improve the likelihood of conception. Although associated with matrimonial partners the ‘honeymoon period’ in any relationship is a most important initial stage in establishing the execution plan for the partnership and forging the relationship.
Honeymoons can be short, long or even extended. When short the partners can get on with business relatively quickly. However, the longer the honeymoon the longer it takes to climb the learning curve of bonding so that execution may begin in earnest. In the case of an extended honeymoon and the outward appearance of harmony, or at least no conflict, this veneer disguises the fact that the partnership hasn’t engaged gear and is merely idling with the partners are left to their own devices or even devises.
The honeymoon is not a passive exercise where the parties just come together, attend ritualistic status or progress meetings or even cohabit a shared office. It’s about active team building, ensuring that the organisational structure and mutual processes and procedures are established. Neglecting this stage is akin to skimping on the foundations of a building; the building may fail at worst but, at best there will be a need for expensive and disruptive underpinning and structural repairs in the future. Either extreme is hellish resulting in either out-and-out failure or ineffective and inefficient execution.
Hell
Contrary to the idioms related to heaven those pertaining to hell include the 16th century proverb “Too many cooks spoil the broth”. Similarly, there can be “too many chiefs and not enough braves’. Although not related to the partners themselves this is related to the management of the partnership or its representation. All organisations need some structure and, inevitably partners need to be represented and have their mutual as well as individual interests supported; each partner wants their say.
Partners may agree relatively quickly on which aspects of the physical scope of works which form the reason for the partnership. But when it comes to power and control this is another story. Even when there is an obvious ‘lead’ holding the lions’ share of the scope any decisions regarding the ‘partnership’ are unlikely to be allowed by only one entity and one entity alone no matter what their share.
A ‘loose’ partnering agreement that fails to address the management and reporting structure, as well as communication channels along and protocols for escalation, reconciliation and resolution are of little value. Forms of agreement and contract conditions abound but the devil in any agreement is in the detail. Without such detail the expected harmony from partners can easily result in a cacophony.
Without partnering conditions that are both enforced and enforceable then success is unlikely. The lack of a project agenda or an agreed ‘project execution plan’ will cause the partners to establish their own individual plans out of necessity. Sometimes partners may just ‘drift’ without any focus and, as ‘idle minds are a devil’s playground’ issues become politicised. Differences of opinion on issues result in debate and disagreements rather than their resolution and reconciliation. This creates friction and factionalisation rather than the cooperation and collaboration which partnerships require.
Conclusions
Partnerships are a necessary part of life. Nobody is an island, and we all depend upon others for something or another at some time. Business is no different and even though partnerships may be formed under a contract or other agreement the partners depend on each other including their mutual performance and the relationship they form.
Any partnership can be difficult and difficulties that arise must be dealt with by either one or all of them. Differing opinions, cultures and processes will inevitably get in the way of finding a mutually agreeable solution. Focusing on the problem will not resolve it and partners needs to be guided. Any steering committee must focus on establishing solutions rather than propagating discord. Some common ground will exist somewhere, or at least there can be a cease-fire and peace-talks while an agreement is negotiated.
It can be difficult to put differences to one side in the light, or rather shadow, of disagreement and both partners may go hungry in the hell of disagreement. In a situation where everybody wants to take, and nobody wants to give we could remember Buddha’s parable about heaven and hell:
In hell the dining tables are occupied by angry, thin and hungry people all holding 6 feet long chopsticks. Every time they tried to feed themselves the food falls off the chopsticks. In heaven it’s the same arrangement but the people are well fed and happy. The difference is that in heaven the people feed each other rather than try, repeatedly and unsuccessfully, to feed themselves
Similarly, for partners in a heavenly relationship they all have their slice of a project’s commercial pie. However, it can quickly become hell if, or when they fight over crumbs and are distracted from the pie itself.
Cooperation, collaboration and communication are essential to all relationships. In the world of business partnerships, where there is a fiduciary relationship, a breakdown in these components can lead to a partnering match that, while not necessarily being made in heaven, won’t be a honeymoon forever, and could very well end up in hell.
Bio:
Malcolm Peart is an UK Chartered Engineer & Chartered Geologist with over thirty-five years’ international experience in multicultural environments on large multidisciplinary infrastructure projects including rail, metro, hydro, airports, tunnels, roads and bridges. Skills include project management, contract administration & procurement, and design & construction management skills as Client, Consultant, and Contractor.