This week's readings touched on all aspects of creating alliances, from the strategic goals that foster the collaboration to the inevitable road blocks that can deter the partnership. But what happens when the alliance is already formed? How do we maintain it and make sure the partnership does not become stagnant? Author Rob Shaff touched on this topic in his article, Preserving Business Partnerships, written in 2003 for The Practicing CPA.
Shaff touches on several strategies for preserving a business partnership, from meeting over your morning coffee each day (obviously not applicable in an international alliance) to agreeing to disagree on certain issues you feel strongly about. He also urges partners to pick your battles, and understand the difference between what's worth fighting for, and what you can let go in the best interest of the union.
But perhaps Shaff's most important point of all is the one he doesn't explicitly make. All of these strategies for handling an alliance's relationship between the parties involved simply accentuates the importance of this crucial bond. As Rosabeth Moss Kanter highlights in Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances, a partnership between companies is strikingly similar to a romantic relationship between two people. It is a living, breathing thing, needing constant care and maintenance and open lines of communication.
It is this relationship that, in my opinion, is the determining factor in whether or not an alliance comes to fruition. A partnership can meet all your strategic goals, be logical for both parties, and gain your organization market positioning or corporate knowledge. But if you do not like the people on the other side of the board room, if you cannot relate to them as people, the alliance more then likely will never truly succeed.
So what can we do as communications professionals to ensure we can create solid bonds with our potential partners? Take the time to learn about their company, and learn about them as a person. What are their hopes and dreams for their organization? What are their philosophies on how to run a company, or how to handle certain types of disputes? Learning this information can give you powerful insight into what makes this company - and the person you're dealing with - tick.
But don't stop there. Learn about the people you want to be come partners with on a personal level, aside from the business aspect of their lives. Do they like sports? Do they like a particular type of music? Do they like art, architecture or have a particular favorite hobby? Take the time to learn about the man or woman that lives outside Corporate America, and find some common ground. This will create a general rapport between all parties involved, and create a more lasting bond then a meeting over budgets and proposals.
Most importantly, doing these things and going the extra mile to get to know your counterparts shows them that you care - not only about the business at hand, but about truly creating a bond that will be able to withstand adversity, and the test of time. Just like in a romantic relationship, it's nice to become partners with the best-looking company, but a long-lasting relationship only works if you truly know the people behind that company. Take the time to get to know the people you'll be partners with, because they are the lifeblood of their organization, and the lifeblood of your union. The result will be a union that, while it may not reach your organization's goals in the end, will certainly stand a much better chance for survival.
References
Shaff, R. (2003). Preserving Business Partnerships. The Practicing CPA, 27 (7).
Andrew, when you mention getting to know the values and principles of the potential partner, what type of trust would you be building (see Barney & Hansen, 1994)? You are right that Kanter (1993) echoes your idea that good chemistry at the executive level can be extremely important as these people will be interacting the most. Kanter (1993) also explains, however, that once you are setting up house, the other levels of the organization are important, too. What challenges are there during this stage (p. 103-104)?
ReplyDeleteGreat points Andrew. Your comment about learning more about the business partner than just the business is echoed in Kanter's (1994) article. When discussing a partnership between Northern Telecom and Matra Hachette of France, the CEO of Northern said the following about the partnership: "Our views on business were similar: speed disdain for bureaucracy, a willingness to make decisions. We hit it off socially; we share an interest in the arts and fast cars" (Kanter, 1994, p. 101). Obviously, the need to relate on a personal level is important in the development of a successful alliance.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how you brought in how the communication professional can have a seat at the table and assist with these interactions, building and fostering the communication and trust that will assist the partnership. Sometimes these things may be overlooked as the companies focus solely on how the partnership will benefit the other. Cultivating and maintaining the partnership requires a conscious effort to continue to keep the lines of communication open.
You've made some excellent observations and points Andrew. I especially like the fact that you have "married" the alliance concepts with the social concepts of relationships. I, too, think that alliances' success or failure depends on the interpersonal relationships that are built out of the need for alliance building and the maintaining of that relationship over time. Humans, after all, are designed from a physiological perspective, with an innate need for successful, rewarding and satisfying interaction with other humans. If the people involved in Organization A do not get along with the people who make up Organization B, the organizational relationships would most likely have a hard time flourishing as a result.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Brenda's point about bringing communications professionals to the table the help foster both the interpersonal and inter-organizational relationships. We are trained and educated communications professionals. We can understand the intricate elements of communication flows that would be extremely helpful for people, as well as companies. We are not just "PR pushers," and I think the fact that our abilities extend far beyond that stereotypical image is often lost, or ignored.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI was drawn to your post because you utilized Kantor's (1994) point that alliances are good when there is a human factor considered. I witnessed this while working in Congress during the hearings on the FCC approval of the Comcast merger with NBC Universal. While at the executive evils, they ensured they had a "romantic" type relationship, then communication stopped at that level. they no longer focused on the human factor at lower evils within both organizations. This is when several members of Congress demanded they retain a communication infrastructure across both organizations. And the diversity and non profit media consideration issue emerged. So Comcast & NBC Universal " failed to develop their com pan's collaborative advantage and thereby neglected a key resource." To the extent that Congress stepped in to ensure people not just profits fit into the partnerships equation in the future.
Really enjoyed your post.
~LaVenia