Managing Complex Kingdom Partnerships

by Karsten van Riezen and Tom Steffen

Partnering is something we all do, but many of us know little about. Partnering in a cross-cultural setting can get very complicated, particularly when multiple organizations are involved. What can we do to help such partnerships work more friction-free? Through interviewing nearly thirty leaders involved in broad-based mission partnerships, a partnering model evolved that is presented here in story format.

Partnering is something we all do, but many of us know little about. Partnering in a cross-cultural setting can get very complicated, particularly when multiple organizations are involved. What can we do to help such partnerships work more friction-free? Through interviewing nearly thirty leaders involved in broad-based mission partnerships, a partnering model evolved that is presented here in story format.

It was a dream come true! For years, Sophie had heard about the great group-hiking opportunities in Pahariland and now she was here. A small group of missions leaders was going on a four-day team-building exercise and she had been invited to join them. To be honest, her excitement was mixed with anxiety. How would her four teammates respond to her as a young researcher, even though they all had a strong interest in working in partnerships? They had only met through email, Skype calls, and WhatsApp as they prepared for the trip, but now they were gathering in person.

Ashok, the founder and director of a major missions organization in Pahariland, called the group together. As the senior member of the team, he welcomed and introduced everyone, then spoke enthusiastically about the destination of their hike—the Valley of Flowers. He described the beauty of the valley, the variety of flowers growing there, and the river flowing through the valley. Ms. Globe, the other expatriate woman on the team, said that she had seen on the Internet that they might also see snow peaks on the other side of the valley. Excitement grew. “Let’s go!” someone shouted.

Sophie was encouraged by Ashok’s pep-talk. It not only gave her the much-needed energy for the hike, but also reminded her of one of the main findings of her research on partnering. She had interviewed twenty-eight partnership stakeholders and twenty-five of them had mentioned the value of having an appealing vision. When people embark together on a partnering journey, they want to know where they are going and to be excited about their destination. Sophie remembered that one interviewee said, “People are joining because they believe in what we are doing.”

The team picked up their gear to start hiking and Sophie decided to explore a bit more with Ashok. After casual conversation about the scenery, she found an opportunity to ask him about what he’d said: “Did you intentionally start the hike by pointing out our destination?”

“Yes!” Ashok responded, obviously liking the question. “As a former mountain guide, I can testify that the best hikes are not necessarily the easiest, but rather those that have a good team spirit with a leader who keeps everyone’s focus on the destination. This hike might not be easy,” he warned, “so I thought I’d inspire you all with a picture of the destination from the start. Jesus did that too by regularly talking with his disciples about the Kingdom of God, the goal they were aiming for!”

Their conversation naturally turned to partnering, as that had been a topic of their Skype conversations as they prepared for the trip. Ashok reminded Sophie of Henry Minzberg’s (see Westley and Mintzberg 1989, 17-32) thoughts on the three stages of the visioning process: the painting of a desired state, a clear articulation of that vision, and an empowering of the followers so they can enact the vision.

Ashok then continued, “But a vision is not just about the destination; it is also about who you are as a partnership—your identity.” Sophie replied that this reminded her of the dual concept Jim Collins and Jerry Porras introduced (1996, 65). They described a vision as a combination of a core ideology and an envisioned future in a yin-yang fashion. Ashok nodded and pulled out his notebook and pencil from his pocket and drew a little diagram.

Then, he added:

It obviously takes time for a group of partners to find out where they overlap in their core ideology and then they further shape their vision based on that. Our hiking team can do a similar thing: by having fun, hanging out together, praying, and going through hardships together, we will discover what really matters to each of us. This will influence which paths we take and if and where we will end up in the Valley of Flowers.

The next morning was quite cold. They stood outside to catch the first beams of sunlight. One of their guides started chatting with Ashok and Vinod, the other Pahari national on the team, in a language Sophie could not understand. When she saw them pointing at different trails, she realized they were discussing possible routes. Sophie would have liked to tell them that she would prefer the path by the stream in the valley as she loved water. However, she was not asked for her opinion. The men decided on a path along the ridge. Unfortunately, they would see no valley streams today.

As they set off, Ms. Globe joined Sophie. “Are you all right?” she asked. Sophie responded with a polite yes, but Ms. Globe was not satisfied. Soon, Sophie found herself sharing her disappointment that she had not been included in the decision on the route chosen. It had seemed such a minor thing that she was surprised Ms. Globe had picked up on her disappointment.

As they chatted, they reflected on the values of joint decision-making. Sophie shared that this was one of the main features she had encountered in her research: leaders of organizations consider it important to be included in relevant decision-making processes. Ms. Globe shared,

The organization I am a part of learned firsthand that this is easier said than done. As westerners, we tend to have many ideas that we present written-out to our partners for approval. We learned the hard way, however, that linear, well-documented processes do not work in all cultures. In some cultures, plans need to grow organically through multiple conversations with a variety of persons in diverse settings before people embrace them as their own. After extensive Western-style processing, one of our partners finally told us, “If we could have somehow thought through the big ideas, directions, questions, and needs together, without anything on paper, it may have felt much more like it was an ‘us’ not a ‘you’ kind of plan.” Sadly, we lost that partner.

Being very interested in the cultural aspects of partnering, Sophie asked, “Ms. Globe, what do you think of Ernie Addicott’s statement that joint decision-making is often a challenge for hierarchical cultures?”

Ms. Globe smiled and replied, “Oh, yes, he’s right. In many cultures, leaders make decisions on their own or by consulting a few close confidants. That might work well when leading their own organizations, but not when leading a partnership.”

Citing Atticott’s advice (2005, 150), Sophie thought for a moment and said, “The simpler the structure and the more participative the decision-making, the easier it is to keep everyone involved.” Ms. Globe agreed and continued,

Still, from my experience, it remains a challenge in cross-cultural partnerships as westerners often fail to understand the power dynamics in partnerships. Larry Jones’ article on soft and hard power opened my eyes to the fact that westerners often bring a lot of hard power to the table by representing the channel of resources such as money and knowledge (2009, 404-410). This means that even if they speak lightly into a decision-making process, their words still carry a lot of weight. Since I realized that, I have become more careful about speaking up in meetings. Instead, I talk informally with those I know in the partnership, listening to them, sharing my thoughts outside of formal meetings, and leaving the official speaking to them. That’s worked well, and I have seen a growing ownership among national agencies.

Sophie took out her tablet and made a note to herself to read up about hard and soft powers. It sounded interesting!

As they walked along the ridge, Sophie realized the choice to take this route was not all that bad. The scenery was beautiful and the path quite smooth. However, she still felt that she would have enjoyed it more if she had participated in the decision-making process.

Sophie had so far avoided her last teammate, Ian. He seemed friendly enough with everybody else, but she couldn’t help sensing that he had reservations about her. During the Skype calls, a couple of times she had referred to him as a donor. He had always curtly corrected her, saying, “I am not a donor; I am an investor.”

---

“It’s a struggle to make Skype calls work; having discussions without
knowing each other feels awkward,” Sophie concluded.

---

Was he perhaps still upset about that? Maybe she should walk beside him for a bit. But Vinod came alongside and saved her from making the decision. “Hey, Sophie, how is it going?” Being shy, he didn’t have much else to say at first, but Sophie told him a bit about herself and asked him a few questions.

Soon, they were laughing about the many virtual bloopers during the team’s Skype conversations when people talked with muted microphones and participants dropped off at awkward moments. “It’s a struggle to make Skype calls work; having discussions without knowing each other feels awkward,” Sophie concluded. She mentioned a quote from her research, “I think that everything that happens in the kingdom happens out of relationships, so you should always make time for meeting together.”

Vinod affirmed this. He had read that on the National Culture Dimensions Scale (Geert, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010), his culture rates high on collectivism, valuing groups, and relationships. He attributed his own struggles during the Skype calls to this feature of collectivism.

They soon went on to talk about an important outcome of strong relations: trust. Sophie recalled an interviewee saying, “We will be able to come closer in relationship, so we will be able to trust each other and we will not be afraid to share our resources.”

Vinod thought that this applied not only to sharing resources, but also to dealing with conflicts. Only if there is a strong relationship and an adequate level of trust can conflicts be dealt with. Does Vinod know about my tension with Ian? Sophie thought. Vinod noticed her hesitation and asked, “Did I say something wrong?”

“No, no,” she responded, “What you said was right. You actually gave me good advice. There is someone with whom I need to build a relationship so I can finally address an issue that has been bothering me.” Vinod nodded in relief. Both had read The Speed of Trust (Covey and Merrill 2008) and recalled some of the essentials to building that trust: talk straight, demonstrate respect, create transparency, show loyalty, and listen first. She was determined to talk with Ian.

There was no sunshine the next morning, and a lingering gray fog hid the valley. Not a good day to talk to Ian, Sophie decided. As they started to hike, she discovered another disadvantage of the fog—the rocks were slippery and the leeches had come out. What terrible creatures— small as a needle, but once they land on you and suck your blood, they swell up like fat snails! She shivered even thinking about it and later made a fool of herself by screaming when she discovered one on her leg.

Vinod had a good laugh and flicked the leech off. What a hero! But she saw that she was not the only one struggling. Ian stepped very cautiously on the slippery rocks. Ashok noticed and lent him a hand. Oh boy, thought Sophie, this hike is not only going slow today, but it is also all uphill! Still, with every stream they crossed, every rock they overcame, and every leech she flicked off, she felt better about the team. It was good to help each other through this. To her surprise, she even found herself flicking a leech from Ms. Globe’s leg.

“Nearly there,” she heard Ashok saying. After another thirty minutes trudging uphill, they arrived at what seemed to be a good resting place. There were benches, a snack shop, and clean drinking water. They also had a good view of the path they had taken.

“Look! That’s where we crossed the river.” “That was the point I nearly gave up.” “There is where I had that first leech!” This celebration of team progress reminded Sophie of one of the findings of her research: a need for experiencing tangible progress.

One interviewee had said, “The main reason for partnership is to do the job better and faster.” When Sophie shared this quote with Ashok, he did not fully agree. “Yes, it is important to celebrate progress like we are doing right now, but that is only rewarding in the context of many of the intangibles we have experienced during the hike.”

Sophie looked puzzled. Ashok explained,

What we are doing here is much more than recounting the distance we covered and the hurdles we overcame; we’re also celebrating that we have become a community. Terrance Deal and M.K. Key say, “Celebration is an integral element of culture and…provides the symbolic adhesive that welds a community together.” (1998, 11)

Partnerships need to take time for that, but often they don’t. I have learned that pausing to take time to praise the Lord for progress and learn from the challenges is a very important aspect of partnering.” Ashok took out his cell phone, pressed a few buttons, and said,

Here’s another quote you’ll like: “We all need to believe that our labor is actually contributing to something that matters. When that belief stays firm, progress leads to real satisfaction, strong motivation to continue the work, and positive feelings.” (Amabile and Kramer 2011, 98)

Sophie liked that. She also made a note on her tablet of three important features of partnering that she had discovered during this hike:

At the summit, Sophie noticed there was another hiking team. They had made contact with Vinod, but seemed to avoid the others. Vinod continued to hang around with them even after both teams started hiking again. Sophie was disappointed, thinking, Why doesn’t Vinod stick with us? Ian seemed to pick up on Sophie’s disappointment, “Strange, isn’t it, that Vinod is mingling with the other team?” Sophie was surprised by Ian’s sudden cordiality, but decided to go along with it, “Yeah, it’s strange.” Ian responded:

I recognized that you found it so. When I first started to work with teams and partners, I had the idea that all partners should be united and have the same level of engagement and commitment, using distinguishing labels such as network, alliance, collaboration, and integration (Locke and Christie 2012).When that didn’t work out, I started to read about the concept of movements promoted by Donald McGavran (1955) and David Garrison (2004) and gradually became more relaxed about various levels of engagement.

This reminded Sophie of a conflicting value she had picked up during her research. Leaders she had talked with said they did not want to be controlled by the partnership. They wanted to have space for things that “bubble up naturally,” and not be “administered from the outside” while at the same time wanting clarity and structure. It seemed that what Ian was talking about would give space for both of those values.

Ian picked up a stick from the trail and drew three circles in the dirt. He then said,

These circles represent three levels of engagement. The inner circle is when partners work closely together on a joint project; let’s call that collaboration. The next wider circle represents the situation where partners connect their projects and seek cross-fertilization; we might call that coordination. The third circle is the widest and gives the most freedom. Partners tell each other about the projects that contribute to the vision, but do not try to make linkages between them; to stick with a C-word, let’s call that communication.

Sophie had taken out her tablet and drawn the three circles labeled: collaboration, coordination, and communication (Peterson 1991, 89-105).

“But doesn’t having different levels of engagement in the partnership get messy?” she asked. Ian responded:

Have you heard about the study of complexity management? Their theories can help as they embrace messiness rather than avoiding it. Such a management style is needed when a partnership welcomes various levels of engagement as being equally acceptable. You might want to read articles by Mark Buchanen (2004, 1-8) or Judith Innes and David Booher (2010) about that.

Sophie quickly noted these and concluded that this approach of embracing different levels of engagement would be an innovative solution to one of the trickiest findings of her research: the conflicting values of freedom and structure.

On the fourth day, after hours of hard hiking, Ian suddenly exclaimed, “Look! That must be the Valley of Flowers!” They all stood and took in the beautiful view. “Hey, Ian,” Sophie said, noticing how tired but satisfied he looked. “I think I understand now. I am glad you didn’t just fund this team-building, but have clearly invested in this hike.”

Ian gave Sophie a hug to confirm her insight. “Great!” he said. “And, do you know what? I not only had a great experience, but also learned a lot about partnerships through listening to your questions and discussions with the others.” That encouraged Sophie to take out her tablet. “Look at this, everyone!”

She drew three concentric circles on one side and the “Valley of Flowers” on the other, with three arrows between. Vinod, Ian, Ms. Globe, and Ashok helped fill in the blanks. With that, the 3C model for partnering was born!

References

Addicott, Ernie. 2005. Body Matters: A Guide to Partnership in Christian Mission. Edmonds, Wash.: Interdev Partnership Associates.

Amabile, Teresa, and Steven Kramer. 2011. The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work. Boston, Mass.: Harvard.

Buchanan, Mark. 2004. “Power Laws and the New Science of Complexity Management.” Strategy and Business 34: 1–8.

Collins, Jim C. and Jerry I. Porras. 1996. “Building Your Company’s Vision.” Harvard Business Review 74(5): 65.

Covey, Stephen M. R., and Rebecca R. Merrill. 2008. The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything. London: Pocket.

Deal, Terrance  E., and M. K. Key. 1998. Corporate Celebration: Play, Purpose, and Profit at Work. San Francisco, Calif.: Berrett-Koehler.

Garrison, David. 2004. Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World. Midlothian, Va.: WIGTake Resources.

Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. New York: Routledge.

Jones, Larry B. 2009. “The Problem of Power in Ministry Relationships.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 45(4): 404–410.

Locke, Bill, and Joel Christie. 2012. A Guide to Collaboration: Working Models of Comprehensive Community Projects. Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse.

McGavran, Donald Anderson. 1955. The Bridges of God: A Study in the Strategy of Missions. London: World Dominion.

Peterson, Nancy L. 1991. “Inter-agency Collaboration under Part H: The Key to Comprehensive, Multidisciplinary, Coordinated Infant/Toddler Intervention Services.” Journal of Early Intervention 15(1): 89–105.

Westley, Francis, and Henry Mintzberg. 1989. “Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal 10(S1), 17–32.

. . . .

Dr. Karsten van Riezen serves with SIL International as associate executive director. He has lived in South Asia for over twenty years and has been involved in networks and partnerships. He holds a Master in Education from the University of Utrecht and a Doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Biola University. Dr. Tom Steffen is emeritus professor of Intercultural Studies at the Cook School of Intercultural Studies, Biola University. He specializes in church multiplication, orality, honor and shame, and business as mission. He and his family spent fifteen years in the Philippines in church planting and consulting. 

EMQ, Vol. 53, No. 2. Copyright  © 2017 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.

Questions for Reflection 1. How can moving towards multilateral partnerships help solve some of the challenges within bilateral partnerships? 2. How would you weigh these features: joint decisions, deep relations, and marked progress? Are there other features missing? 3. How can different levels of engagement strengthen the partnership?