INTRODUCTION

There are many synonyms for Partnership with very, very subtle differences and I will use the terms interchangeably - words like partnership, coalition, collaboration, alliance, confederation, consortium, etc.

The Western Galilee Partnership with the Central Area Consortium is a partnership within a partnership.

It would be difficult enough if we were a single city in the states partnering with a single city in Israel, given cultural differences and biases, language barriers, time differences, political realities, etc. 

Even a cluster of communities linked by geography would be challenging, but given modern technology and travel and regional similarities would be manageable.

But add to that...14 American cities ranging all the way from Ohio through Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, Kentucky all the way south to Texas paired up with a region on the periphery of Israel, a katyusha rocket away from the Lebanese border that includes a city, a municipality and a regional connection and you have a formula for disaster.

It isn't enough to define a partnership in technical terms - Individuals or organizations working together in a side-by-side effort to accomplish a common goal with a shared sense of purpose and a shared responsibility for the outcome because many of us know from experience that just because you have common goals or shared responsibilities success is not guaranteed.

The definition is a good place to begin, but it's only a starting point.  To truly move forward as a cohesive unit takes certain key elements.  Those include:

• The right leadership
• The right structure
• A setting aside of any and all turf issues.

LEADERSHIP

In terms of leadership, you need both the lay and professional components to work hand-in-hand. 

Our Partnership is blessed to have a Jewish Agency regional director in Damon Rose with a forward thinking vision, a keen strategic sense and an unassuming demeanor that makes it "safe" for everyone to come to the table.

I can't minimize the importance of also having an independent professional on the ground in Israel, even a few hours a week, who represents the interests of the American communities as an "employee" of the consortium. 
That person must share the same qualities as I've described above.  The two must complement one another, respect one another's roles and feel confident that each has the interests of the other in all aspects of the operation.

Of course, the American professionals are key as well, the difference is in most cases Partnership is but one element of a very heavy workload.  That is why shared responsibilities and cooperation are so critical.

Of course, the lay element is an important factor.  When I speak about structure in a moment, I will emphasize how important it is to have lay leaders on BOTH sides of the ocean who have a stake in the success of the partnership and appreciate what each has to offer the other.

STRUCTURE

Our Partnership did begin with the typical structure of mayors as leaders and project cards as the means by which programs were introduced and operationalized.

It soon became apparent that this created an atmosphere of territoriality and disharmony amongst the various elements of the coalition.

A steering committee meeting in Dallas in December of 2003 was transformational in terms of creating a structure and a framework within which we operate.

It included development of the following elements:

• a mission statement;
• a description of the group’s membership;
• how the group is configured, how often it meets, and how it is chaired and staffed;
• topic areas included within the group’s mandate;
• anticipated or expected outcomes;
• how decisions and recommendations will be made and ratified; and
• how the group issues reports and recommendations and to whom the group is accountable

I do not want to waste precious time describing our structure.  I will be happy to get anyone who wants them materials and I am always happy to have a conversation with anyone who would be interested in finding out more about how we function structurally.

TURF

The main area I wanted to discuss is really the issue of turf and territoriality.  I see examples of this within my own federation and I realize what an impediment it is to our success and our ability to work with one another as true partners in any endeavor. 

If we are to do more than just pay lip service to the notion of building coalitions, the barriers we ourselves put up must first be torn down.  Only then can we truly work together toward a shared goal and common interests.

So just what is "Turf-ism"?

"Turf-ism" can be defined as the non-cooperation or conflict between people or organizations with seemingly common goals or interests who would normally be expected to work together in a given situation.

The term "turf issues" is borrowed from street gang terminology. Every gang has its neighborhood or "turf" in which it operates, and it defends this area against other gangs (usually violently).

This idea has its parallel in animal behavior in the idea of "territoriality." In this version, individual animals have their "home base" around their mating, feeding or nesting grounds that they defend against other animals, even those of the same species.

In theory, each organization has its "domain" or field of operation. It also has human and material resources, goals and tasks related to the goals.

When relationships are formed by community organizations, they agree to exchange resources. This is often called the "exchange theory" of organizational relations.

In the effort to secure needed resources and reach goals, organizations often develop overlapping "domains." This may make them unexpectedly reluctant to enter the expected exchange. When this happens, a "turf battle" can take place.

Why Does It Happen?

Conflict usually involves perceptions of incompatible goals or threats to relationships. These perceptions lead to "turf protection" as organizations decide to "defend" their domain rather than share with another organization.

Every time two organizations interact, they establish boundaries through "exchange" relationships. The basic factor in triggering a "turf battle" is the degree of power surrendered or gained by the organizations involved.

"Power" as used here is the ability to control or manage resources to accomplish a goal. If both organizations feel they will gain by working together or having access to an equal degree of power, cooperation continues.
But if one organization feels it has too much to lose by continued cooperation, it begins to defend its "turf."

These "turf battles" can take place for three fundamental reasons, all related to the perceived effect on power:

If one organization perceives the other as a direct and regular competitor for resources that are not likely to be shared;

If one organization perceives a "marginal cost" to the proposed cooperation in money, time or energy greater than perceived benefits of collaboration;

The degree of which the organization feels it is flexible to change its current goals, tasks and philosophy to adopt the course of action being proposed.

Another reason for turf battles is the lack of knowledge or mistrust of the other organizations
.
If the target group or constituencies of two groups seem to overlap to a high degree, there is more likely to be cooperation. If one organization feels it does not have much in common with the proposed partner, it is less likely to feel the mutual benefits of the proposed action.

Turf battles also can result if one party in a proposed relationship feels the exchange will be unequal.

This could happen in one of two ways.

One organization may feel the proposed course of action is unilateral, that they have no real voice in deciding what or how it will happen.

An organization also can feel the exchange would be unequal. It might feel that it would cost them too much in resources compared with the proposed benefit, or that another party stands to gain more resources than other partners.

When Does It Happen?

The "domains" of organizations can overlap in several major ways:

Over Goals- Although general goals of participating organizations seem mutually dependent, a particular proposal for joint action is perceived to work against the interest of one of the intended partners or against another limited goal.
 

Over Resources- Proposals, requests for public or private funds, shared staff, supplies, facilities, etc. from other organizations, etc. may be competing. Sometimes one intended party is denied totally. Sometimes distribution is to both parties, but on an unequal basis. In other situations, conflict over resources might result from how many resources should be put in to the joint effort, not from which gets more from a collaborative effort. 

Over Geography- One organization feels they provide some service to or represent interests of an area exclusively. To allow another organization to operate in the area may suggest that the first organization is not doing an adequate job. It also may be perceived as a duplication of effort, or a source of potential confusion to target audiences.

Over Methods- Organizations have a general agreement on goals, but one feels the approach proposed to reach goals would be ineffective or counterproductive to other interests of organization. In another form, one organization may feel a degree of "ownership" over an activity or technique that another organization plans to use.

Over Identity or Public Perception- An organization feels that proposed cooperation would change how their organization is viewed by public (less powerful, more or less conservative, feels threatened by potential success of other partner).

Over Personalities- A representative of one organization is personally disliked by staff of another or represents a political or organizational the other does not embrace.

How To Avoid "Turf Baffles"

Long term it is better to avoid turf battles than to have to deal with them. There are certain things to remember:

A group's goals are never 100 percent compatible with the goals of each organization or person involved. The "domains" are not likely to overlap totally. Accordingly, each member must be prepared to compromise or modify his or her commitment to specific goals and to help other members adjust as necessary.

Enough time should be spent at first to clarify coalition goals and develop each member's commitment to them. The group should establish a consensus on the "domain" of action for the coalition, and how the resources of members might relate.
The higher the sense of common purpose, the higher the probability of harmonious relations between members.

Clearly relating the needs discussed to the potential available resources can help build early momentum and cooperation. It can avoid tackling a large, vague problem and create a positive climate by being capacity-centered or resource-centered rather than problem-centered.

Knowing the relationship between the members' personal goals and the group's goals can suggest potential sources of agreement and disagreement and show results.

Organizations should think twice about affiliating with groups that have only a partial or marginal relationship to the coalition mission to join the group. 

Large groups usually have an advantage in the information giving and "brainstorming" phases of problem solving. Still, they can be a potential disadvantage when consensus needs to be reached. Between- meeting communication before a proposed action with major parties helps avoid surprises and helps make meetings more productive.

Structured subgroups may eliminate the disadvantage of limited interaction time between members of large groups who might need more clarification of points.

Negative feedback (whether verbal, nonverbal, a combination of both or silence) should not be permissible, especially when there is no attempt to compromise or come to consensus. Effective listening and speaking skills will eliminate misunderstandings.

Raising questions versus stating one's opinion(s) will help reduce disagreements.
 
Organizational relationships are complex. We can almost never know all we need to know at the time a decision must be made. When working in coalitions or collaborations, differences in the goals, resources or fields of activity may arise between members.

In a well-planned effort, the clarity of goals and benefits, open communication and a forum for discussion of differences can be the glue that holds things together and keeps momentum going.

How to Solve a "Turf Battle"

Group conflict has two basic dimensions- substantive and affective.

Substantive refers to conflicts primarily related to task.  "Turf battles" related to goals, methods, resources and geography would fall in this category.

Affective conflicts relate to socio-emotional or interpersonal relations.   Turf battles related to identity or personality are conflicts of this type. Affective disagreements may arise over preferences and nuisances, values, beliefs and the nature of relationships.

The first step in deciding how to best handle the disagreement within a coalition is to identify whether it is a substantive or affective conflict.

If the dispute is task-related, the coalition should use an orderly problem-solving process to focus and structure its efforts toward a solution. Incorrect or incomplete information is often a major part of a turf dispute.

To minimize or make amends for these gaps or misunderstandings, coalition leadership can use several techniques. Discussion at group meetings can include one or more information-seeking techniques built into agenda activities.

Group leaders also should be sensitive to improving communication and active listening during and between meetings. These could include questions from the chair, summary statements of what other members have just said and attempts to make sure questions from the floor are properly answered.

Leadership might find it necessary to recommend certain items be clarified and reported on by the next meeting. Sometimes an ad hoc committee may be needed to recommend a course of action or work out a compromise.

For resolving psychological or affective disputes,  coalitions have several avenues to attempt. The group should look for some way to translate or relate the conflict to a task issue. This diffuses much of the emotional element. The coalition should try to keep the focus on the whole group arena rather than on organizations involved in the disagreement.

Leaders should encourage members to remain tolerant and restrain emotions and language.
Coalitions should have a conflict management procedure developed just in case.

Factors Which Inhibit Coalitions are:

• Competitiveness.
• Dominating rather than shared leadership that discourages group decision making.
• Inflexibility in scheduling meetings and activities.
• Lack of understanding about how the various member entities operate.
• Hidden agenda for personal advancement.
• Cynicism about the advantage of information sharing.
• Time constraints and pressure to "push things through" without giving adequate time for discussion to work through conflicts .
• More emphasis on talking than listening.
• Preferring to do things alone rather than spending time negotiating.
• Prescribing actions for a partnership (coalition) from the top down.
• Lack of procedure for making decisions and solving disagreements when they emerge.

Key Elements for Success:

Common Goals-What is the expressed need (or "problem equals . . .") the group agrees is a priority.

What is the desired outcome? These need to be understood by all involved.

Communication-Use common language that everyone can understand and I don't mean Hebrew vs. English, although the language/cultural barrier is important to keep in mind.

Each member needs to know what is taking place and what is expected. For example, minutes of meetings should be distributed to all members.

Each Member is Important to the Coalition-Each participant should he able to perceive themselves
as an important part of the whole, contributing to its success.

Opportunity to Participate-Each member should have input into goals, methods and decisions, as well as discussion.

Ownership-Feeling a part of the coalition and responsiblity for some action is an important result
of participating in the decision-making process.

Delegation-Delegate to each entity a part they can control. That provides an opportunity for
individual accomplishments as well as contributes to the overall success of the coalition.

Efficient, Effective Meetings- Keep the meetings moving toward the agreed goals. Each should show progress
toward the overall target(s) and participants should recognize this progress when they leave.

Process and Pattern-Establish a format for conduct of meetings and decision-making early in the development of the coalition.

Shared or Situational Leadership -It is important that many persons or groups share leadership responsibilities.

While attention to group goals and objectives is essential, developing and maintaining committees and
coalitions is also an interpersonal process. This requires close attention to group process and skills.

I cannot emphasize enough how important personal relationships are in this process.  I believe that those of us who are involved in the Western Galilee Region Central Area Consortium have a genuine affection for one another.  We have allowed ourselves to be somewhat vulnerable and to know one another on a personal level not just as colleagues.  We really care about what happens in one anothers lives, in one another's communities.  That is as true across the water as it is with and among each of the communities in our own country. 

If you don't like one another, you won't play well together.

Your Road Map to Success

Before you start a trip, you may need a road map to tell you how to get to your destination.
A coalition also should have a plan for how they want to meet their goals.

Characteristics of Goals

It is important that members of the coalition keep certain characteristics in mind as they develop goals.
As each is developed, put it to the test. Does it include the following characteristics? Goals must be:

Believable-They should describe situations or conditions that the coalition believes can he achieved.
Avoid the "pie-the-sky" goals that members do not believe nor find possible to do.
 
Attainable-It should he possible to do the goals in the designated time.
 
Tangible-The goals should he capable of being understood or realized.

On a Timetable-A completion date should he included in the goal statement.
 
Win-Win-The goals must allow all members of the coalition to be successful.

After the goals have been established, allow the members to review them before they are written in final form.
Input and acceptance is a vital ingredient to successfully accomplishing the group's goals.

Establishing Coalition Goals

It is also important for all coalition members to:

Allow each group member to keep their identity and specialties. Draw on each other's strengths.
 
Not allow hidden agendas to jeopardize the work of the coalition. Members should be honest, up-front
and willing to modify their ideas for the goals of the coalition.

Recognize everyone for their involvement. A coalition is a cooperative effort and the
same is true for the recognition.

Turning Goals Into Action

It is vital for the coalition members to write the group's goals. Goals that are in
one's head are merely dreams, but written goals are a commitment.

Goals are turned into action by working from the long term to the short term. Decide what must be done
and in what order.

Next decide what will be done during a specific period. Design small specific bite-size programs and
activities that support the short-term goals. If order is important decide a sequence for your activities.

These questions will help:

Where does the group want to be in one year? Six months?
 
What "bite-size" programs or activities will move the coalition toward this position?

What program or activity should be done at the next meeting?