What is an appropriate organisational form will also change over time. Marks & Spencer’s work with Business in the Community in the UK to develop its volunteering was in its early stages very informal. As it grew across more UK stores and then extended across Europe, the initiative became increasingly formalised, not least because it involved more institutions and public resources. There are clearly advantages in formalising the organisational and legal underpinnings of new social partnerships, particularly where significant resources are involved and increasingly to clarify multiple-levels and directions of accountability. Against this must be set the significant disadvantages of overformalisation, which include the additional costs of taking this route and its possible effect in slowing down decision-making and constraining innovation. Most ironic, perhaps, is that too much structure and formality can have the effect of reseparating the various participants, reducing the partnership back to its constituent parts and as a result, losing the alchemical element that is so central to their success.
PATHWAY 7: TRANSPARENCY, REPRESENTATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY both within the partnership and externally.
b. Governance As with organisational and legal structure, the nature of governance is likely to vary, from an open and flexible process of consensual dialogue at one end of the spectrum to a formal elected board at the other. Several factors are key in determining the most appropriate approach to partnership governance: ➲ What are the rights and responsibilities of each participant? Are these equal across the partnership, or are they dependent on the source of resources and other critical competencies and contributions? ➲ What are the most appropriate means of participating in decision-making? Is a formal representative board-type structure the most appropriate, or is direct participation through a more open, consensual based dialogue more likely to achieve the needed commitment? ➲ How are the ‘intended beneficiaries’ participating in decision-making? Is this only through the professional representation of, for example, local authorities or large welfare organisations, or is it more appropriate for a more direct style of citizen participation to build directly into the governance process? ➲ Who is accountable for the partnership’s behaviour, for example use of resources? Ultimately who is responsible for the partnership’s success or failure? Clearly how the structure and process of governance copes with the almost inevitable imbalance of power is key in determining the legitimacy and success of the partnership. People who have been unemployed for long periods of time are rarely present in the formal governance structures of partnerships designed to assist to them. Businesses that commit significant resources often demand commensurate control over their use, even where the principal operational actors come from civil society organisations.
44
PARTNERSHIP ALCHEMY