BLOG: Purposeful Partnerships:  Building Trusted Relationships Among Collaborating Organizations

/in , , , , /by

Purposeful Partnerships:  Building Trusted Relationships Among Collaborating Organizations
by Robin Schell, APR, Fellow PRSA

“Trust is key to having successful collaborations”: that was a major takeaway from the powerful Yankee Chapter PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) Lunch & Learn session on Aug. 15th. Special thanks to moderator Jill Kimball, APR, Marketing Manager at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital and panelists Kate Luczko, Sr. Director of HealthForce NH and Peter Wright, President & CEO of Northwestern Medical Center, for sharing your insights.

VIEW LUNCH & LEARN SESSION HERE

 

Other Key Takeaways Included:

 

  1. Collaboration works when the participating organizations understand what they are going to get out of the collaboration. It’s very important to listen and not make assumptions – take the time to understand, what are their needs?  What are their concerns?
  2. Trust is the foundation for effective collaboration. Everything comes back to trust – what is the history of trust?  What are the psycho-social dynamics of trust?  How do I build trust?  “The more you are able to ‘let go’ to your partners, the more likely you are to get to that level of trust early in the relationship.”
  3. Define your shared vision and your objectives. “Take a step back and look at the big picture – where are we all trying to get to?”  Define your goals and objectives – start with the low-hanging fruit to get some early wins.  Use those goals and objectives to measure success.
  4. Be clear when you set expectations. This applies when working with all the collaborating organizations, but also when you are reporting back to your own organization – they may be looking for a “return on investment” sooner than is realistically possible.  Communication about that is key.  Sometimes the arrangements are more informal (e.g. feedback from an advisory board) and sometimes more formal (a signed Memorandum of Understanding)
  5. You need both accountability and flexibility. It’s important to have basic systems in place for clarity on how the organizations will share information, communicate between meetings, complete tasks etc.  Meeting minutes will capture who is responsible and what deadlines are involved.  Note: collaborations can start to fall apart when these expectations are not met – but sometimes, it is important to be flexible and “give each other some grace”.  Even with a plan, it’s important to be open to what you don’t expect. “Sometimes we have to fix the plane while it’s moving.”
  6. Not everything will go smoothly – expect that and make time to discuss “lessons learned” as intel for moving forward.
  7. Find the common ground. What will be beneficial for both sides?  Start with what is most easily acceptable and move forward.  “For example, people may not want to give away all their trade secrets when it comes to recruiting … but they can rally behind a goal of, ‘What can we do collectively to make healthcare more attractive’?”
  8. Get the right people in the room for decision-making. It is difficult to control which representatives an organization sends to the meetings of the collaborating partners – and if they don’t have decision-making power, they need to go back to get organization’s blessing and that doesn’t always work well.  “It’s best to define for the representatives what decision-making power they have, so they know that going in.”
  9. Renew and refresh. Specific partnerships may align for a certain period of time and in pursuit of a certain objective or audience. As organizational goals, priorities or circumstances shift, understand that partnerships – even long-serving relationships – may have to shift as well. Accept and embrace the opportunity, because it is a terrific way to align with new ways of thinking and foster additional beneficial relationships in your industry or community.

When asked what HealthForce is most proud of, Luczko talked about identifying barriers for hiring more respiratory therapists in NH.  “Instead of playing the middleman, we got practicing respiratory therapists in a room together with members of NH OPLC (Office of Professional Licensure and Certification), the NH Hospital Association, and River Valley Community College (who offers the Respiratory Therapy program) and facilitated a discussion on how to solve the problem – while an informal collaboration for now, this felt like a big win.”

According to Wright, the New England Collaborative is working well, with some early group purchasing wins and they have established themselves as a legal entity, hired an Executive Director and reached agreement on how they would be funded.  They are well-positioned for future progress. “Relationships are a marathon, not a sprint,” he said.

 

Robin Schell, APR, Fellow PRSA is Senior Counsel and Partner at Jackson Jackson & Wagner, a behavioral public relations and management consulting firm in the Seacoast of NH.  She is currently serving as President of the Yankee Chapter of PRSA.

Tracy Sweet

Making a Statement On Societal Issues: When It Is (And Is Not) Warranted

/in , /by

Making a Statement On Societal Issues:

Andover’s Principles Clarify When A Response To World Events Is (And Is Not) Warranted

By Tracy M. Sweet, Chief Communications Officer, Phillips Academy

Yankee Chapter PRSA member

Reprinted with permission from Currents magazine (May/June 2024), published by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

Phillips Academy is an independent co-educational boarding school. As its CCO, Tracy Sweet takes to heart her role in providing communications that enrich, inform, and protect the school community. When pressures to respond to an increasing number of political and societal events began taking her away from that mission, she, and the school’s leadership team, took action by developing guidelines for responding to world events.

What prompted the need for guidelines that establish when to address societal issues?

In the span of two years, we issued eight statements on societal events, such as the war in Ukraine, the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The process was reactive and, further, it felt presumptuous to think that a school statement would have some profound effect. We questioned whether putting out such statements aligned with our mission. We took a moment to pause and really think about that.

The guidelines start by asking what the campus community needs from Andover. This includes things like informational resources and support, a place for fellowship, or an educational forum.

Once our campus community is taken care of, we address the need for a public statement by asking: Is the matter relevant to education? Does it directly impact our mission? Does Andover have expertise to advance a deeper understanding of the issue?

If we answer “yes” to any of those questions, the guidelines lead us through a discussion that helps us consider the potential effects of issuing a statement such as, “Would some students, faculty, or staff feel ignored or silenced, their opinions unwelcome?”

How do the guidelines for societal issues differ from those that guide communication surrounding a crisis directly affecting your campus community?

The guidelines are an addendum to our crisis communication plan. The fundamental question no matter the issue is: “How are we responding to the needs of our campus community?”  That’s the start for both; then the processes are entirely different. We recently revamped our crisis communications plan in the form of scenarios. We’ve designed 10 different possible scenarios, which we’ll keep adding to; they include a cyber-attack, a student tragedy, an environmental disaster, an active shooter—all the things that keep us up at night.

You revisited the new guidelines last fall. Why?

When war broke out in the Middle East, Andover’s response did not include a statement. It did include immediate support and resources as the crisis escalated. Our Head of School addressed a campus-wide assembly, and education programming came a few weeks later when a guest scholar explored the history of the conflict and the current political and religious climate. Our challenge, from a communications stance, was that students recalled previous global events when Andover did speak out and wanted to know why we did not issue a statement this time.

We quickly realized we had not done a good enough job to broadly share that our approach to statements had evolved. To increase awareness, we emailed our “Andover Principles” campus-wide and posted them online.

For instance, one of the principles states:

Andover’s mission is to educate high school students. We teach students how to think, not what to think. And we teach them to analyze societal issues through a wide range of perspectives. We are not policymakers or experts in global affairs. Therefore, it is rare that Andover will issue a statement on societal events that do not directly impact the school’s mission.

Why are these guidelines so important?

Having guiding principles helps to create clarity when emotions are running high. Without a framework, you risk making an unanchored ethical decision by weighing the importance of one tragedy against another. In some cases, you are placing value on one group’s needs over another. That’s not sustainable, and it’s certainly not a best practice.

If you develop a pattern of issuing performative statements, you could erode your institution’s reputation. As a strategic communications professional, I see that as an affront to the profession. We are not vending machines for generic quotes. We must offer substance. It is not the statement, but the action that signals care and empathy and compassion.