Leadership Partnerships Research Articles

Food System Makers: Motivational Frames for Catalyzing Agri-Food Development through Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Multi-stakeholder partnerships are indispensable in the tool kit of community economic developers. In this paper, we examine the role of multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for renewing agriculture by using evidence from the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) in Michigan. FSEP represents a unique partnership of diverse - and in many cases, historically antagonistic - stakeholders from local government and universities, agri-business, and civil society. We present individual motivations of actors involved in this multi-stakeholder collaboration and their aspirations for agriculture as well as the collaborative experience. Using interview data from the partnership's leadership team, we examine the ways in which stakeholders frame their support for and involvement in food system collaboration. We identify two frames that explain motivation for participation in FSEP: agrarian fundamentalism and civic agriculture. These frames provide a look at how meaning is constructed around food system collaboration and informs future opportunities for sustainable community and economic development through cooperation. We conclude by identifying future directions for improvement of FSEP.

Exploring Leadership in Multi-sectoral Partnerships

This article explores some critical aspects of leadership in the context of multi-sectoral partnerships. It focuses on leadership in practice and asks the question, `How do managers experience and perceive leadership in such partnerships?' The study contributes to the debate on whether leadership in a multi-sectoral partnership context differs from that within a single organization. It is based on the accounts of practising managers working in complex partnerships. The article highlights a number of leadership challenges faced by those working in multi-sectoral partnerships. Partnership practitioners were clear that leadership in partnerships was more complex than in single organizations. However, it was more difficult for them to agree a consensus on the essential nature of leadership in partnership. We suggest that a first-, second- and third-person approach might be a way of better interpreting leadership in the context of partnerships.

Partnership Management: Working Across Organisational Boundaries

The short paper that follows is fundamentally about evidence-based practice. In Kuruvilla, Mays, Pleasant and Walt's (2006) terms it was an exercise in the application of research to service development and evidence-based practice. In Walter, Nutley, and Davies' (2003) taxonomy it resulted in a professional intervention, the development of which was led by research users seeking evidence to inform practice development. The team emerged out of a social network of individuals interested in partnership development issues (Kalucy, McIntyre, & Jackson-Bowers, 2007). The resulting paper was the foundation for a significant investment, by the Department of Human Services, in building capacity for partnership leadership in Victoria. The team that undertook this research-to-practice project consisted of three Primary Care Partnership (PCP) executive officers/managers, one of whom was also executive officer to the Statewide Chairs and Managers Group, a university researcher, and a final year undergraduate student working as a volunteer. The executive officer to the Statewide Chairs and Managers Group formed the team to explore broad issues of PCP development and to report to the chairs. The Statewide Chairs and Managers Group was the pathway through which the group's work would reach decision-makers. After a series of meetings to clarify the issues to be addressed, a developmental process for working with the chairs and managers was designed. The executive officers/managers were key to clear issue definition and appropriate process; the researcher to linking the issues to the partnership evidence base. The process relied on tapping the tacit knowledge of PCP managers and chairs and relating this to the relevant body of research. In this process implicit learning needs in regard to partnership leadership were articulated within a framework developed out of a complex research project undertaken with similar partnerships elsewhere. The university researcher on the team had a long history of research into partnerships and networks in the field of primary health care. The specific research project in question was a National Health and Medical Research Council-funded study of trust in the relationships between organisations in a Primary Care Partnership. The study of trust in a partnership is necessarily a study of partnership processes more generally. It was the general learning about partnership processes from this and related research that turned out to be so useful for the service system. The report of this work, that follows, was written in a form suitable for decision-making. It is not a research report but it is built on strong research-based frameworks that were "tested" in the local context. The recommendations are specific to PCPs in Victoria but will also be familiar to partnership workers elsewhere. The predicted effects of the recommendations are supported by research evidence.

Managing and Resolving Organizational Conflict in School-University Partnerships Through Sound Planning and Design

Partnerships and collaborative projects among public schools and universities have become increasingly prominent in the educational landscape. Properly structured and carefully managed school–university initiatives can enrich educational opportunities and contribute to simultaneous and continual quality improvement of the partnering entities. In this article, we provide 10 design principles intended to serve as a blueprint for organizational leaders engaged in formation of such school–university ventures. These principles attempt to minimize organizational conflict by ensuring that partnership leaders delineate joint work purposes and expectations, form collaborative work processes, clarify respective financial and logistical obligations, and specify decision responsibilities and job duties. These principles call for development of internal structures and processes that identify potential conflict points and establish measures for resolution when conflicts arise. We describe characteristics of school–university partnerships with discussion of the challenges and implications of implementing the principles to control interorganizational conflict.

Leadership in Collaborative Community Health Partnerships

AbstractThis article examines key leadership issues in community health partnerships. We assert that leadership in a partnership is differentiated from that in a traditional, hierarchical organization in that participation is voluntary and egalitarian and often entails cooperation by organizations with different cultures and agendas. Partnership leaders, accordingly, often lack formal control over members and their actions. Using qualitative analysis of 115 site‐visit interviews of participants in four partnerships in the Community Care Networks demonstration program, we identify and discuss five themes of collaborative leadership: systems thinking, vision‐based leadership, collateral leadership, power sharing, and process‐based leadership. We then discuss the multiple challenges that collaborative leadership faces in a community health partnership.

Performance improvement: making it happen

Performance improvement: making it happen