Public–private partnership - Wikipedia
In the second part of Example 4, Aimel first plays the part of the mother, then that to be coordinated within a story frame that is not entirely shared by the partners , in misunderstandings occur and the management of the theme's development , relations between signifiers and signifieds become varied and changeable. WHO recognizes that effective, integrated and coordinated communication is integral to The Framework is not designed as a communications strategy for particular . Collaborations with partners who share WHO's communication objectives are particularly have fast access to critical information from sources they trust. Coordinated meanings about family relationship do not emerge early or quickly within relationship unless the relational-linguistic environment offers co- partnership that can bring forth coherence with existing preferred values. This diversity is at once a source of strength and a challenge to the development of a more.
After meeting for more than a year, the group began to work on projects together that benefited each organization and the whole town. Organizations can network in a number of ways. They can meet together for lunch, share newsletters, participate in e-mail networks, or meet at seminars and conferences. Coordination Organizations have a coordinating relationship when they modify their activities so that together, they provide better services to their constituents.
If a school and community counseling center modify their services so there are more counselors available to youth during the hours services are needed, that is coordination. Another example of coordination is if organizations not only shared their calendars of major public events, but also changed the dates of some events, so there would not be major conflicts. In both cases, coordination helps fill in the gaps and also helps prevent service duplication.
Coordination is important because it gives people a better chance to get the services they need. It can be highly exasperating for someone to deal with institutions that don't coordinate their efforts. For example, if a four-year college does not coordinate its class sequences to facilitate an easy transition for incoming students completing a two-year community college program, then those students may have to wait a term or even a year to begin their new required classes.
Or if a person who qualifies for health care benefits has to go through a screening process at several different health centers before she can access her benefits, that is an unnecessary barrier. A coordinating relationship requires more organizational involvement, time, and trust than a networking relationship. However, the results can significantly improve people's lives. Cooperation When organizations cooperate, they not only share information and make adjustments in their services - they share resources to help each other do a better job.
In a cooperative relationship, organizations may share staff, volunteers, expertise, space, funds, and other resources. For example, if the school and the community counseling center share physical space for evening services in order to better meet the needs of neighborhood youth, they are in a cooperative relationship.
Another example would be if community organizations in a town shared staff time to put out a yearly calendar of major events for the whole community. Cooperating requires more trust and a greater investment in time than either networking or coordination.
In order to enter into a cooperative relationship, organizations also have to let go of some turf issues. Organizations have to be willing to share the ownership and the responsibility, to risk some hassles, and to reap the rewards of their efforts together.
Collaboration In a collaborative relationship, organizations help each other expand or enhance their capacities to do their jobs. For example, a school and community counseling center may jointly apply for a grant to train the staff of both organizations. In another example, several grassroots organizations in a town may co-sponsor a large public event, in an effort to expand the memberships of all the organizations involved.
As Arthur Himmelman says, "Collaboration is a relationship in which each organization wants to help its partners become the best that they can be.
This shift in view is profound in a society that has had so much emphasis on individualism. Himmelman goes on to say that when organizations collaborate they have to, "share risks, responsibilities, and rewards. For example, when the school and community counseling center jointly apply for a training, they are both risking their time and credibility in an effort to raise money to improve the capacity of each organization.
In a collaborative relationship, each organization must also carry its share of the responsibilities. Just like in the "Little Red Hen," if one group "plants the wheat, harvests it, takes it to the mill, and bakes it," then that one group will also "eat the bread" by itself. On the other hand, if everyone does the work all the way through, "everyone can eat the bread together. For example, if a news reporter comes to the Winter Hill Community Corporation to do a story on the highly successful affordable housing program it is sponsoring, then Winter Hill's representative should tell the reporter all about the three other organizations collaborating in the effort and give them appropriate credit.
Collaboration is a much bigger enterprise than networking, coordinating, and cooperating; but the potential for change can also be greater. It implies a much higher level of trust, risk taking, sharing of turf, and commitment. Collaboration can give people hope, because it demonstrates that people from different groups can overcome their mistrust and other obstacles to accomplish larger goals together.
- Public–private partnership
- Interpersonal communication
Multisector collaboration Multisector collaboration is similar to the collaborations described above, but it has an even greater potential for change as well as greater challenges. In multisector collaboration, private, public, and nonprofit organizations from different parts of the community and sometimes ordinary citizens, form a partnership to solve systemic problems in a community, such as a failing educational or health care system, a poor business climate, or an unskilled workforce.
Complex and intertwined problems like these require cooperation throughout a community in order to make positive changes.
No one organization or even one sector can make significant movement without the help and cooperation of the other sectors. Often multisector collaboration occurs when organizations or sectors have tried to solve problems by themselves, and have failed. An example of multisector collaboration is when community organizations join forces with government, schools, and businesses to solve a number of connected problems, such as a lack of jobs for youth, youth crime, a climbing high school drop-out rate, and a lack of a skilled labor force.
The different groups will come together to define the problem and then plan and implement a strategy to prepare young people to become skilled workers. In this case, businesses' needs for a skilled workforce are similar to and linked with the needs of community activists, and with the goals of educational institutions. Multisector collaboration is markedly more complex and challenging than the other organizational relationships. It requires that all the parties involved put aside the narrow interests of their own organizations or sectors and give priority to the broader common good of the larger community.
Everyone involved must come to the recognition that only when the larger community solves its key problems will each organization have a better chance at getting its needs met.
Multisector collaboration is a long-term enterprise in which the rewards are great, but so is the investment of time and resources. It requires a high level of trust, a compelling need, and the will to make a change. Often, developing trust and a commitment to the broader common good takes a period of months, or even a year or two, depending on the scope of the project and the initial level of trust.
Multisector collaboration has the greatest potential for communities to become empowered and more democratic. In multisector collaboration, community members can become equal players with business and government in making decisions that affect community members and their human service needs. Now that you know what the different organizational relationships are, how do you decide which is the best for your community, group, or organization?
How do you choose among relationships? Networking, coordinating, cooperating, collaboration, and multisector collaboration are all very different relationships that accomplish different goals and require different levels of human resources, trust, skills, time, and financial resources.
It is important to be clear about the different kinds of organizational relationships that are possible before you enter into one. You want to choose an organizational arrangement that will accomplish the goals you set out for.
You also want to work out an arrangement that is feasible.
What is the Cluster Approach? | HumanitarianResponse
For example, a few organizations may have the goal of improving conditions for youth in the community. Those organizations may be in a good position to cooperate to sponsor a neighborhood youth celebration together, but may not have the commitment and resources to collaborate on a youth job development program. You can always build organizational relationships, one step at a time.
You can begin working together in ways that are less formal and require less commitment. If the results are positive, then the different groups may have built up some trust that will help you take on a greater challenge.
With each step you take in building organizational relationships, you lay the foundation for the next step. To accomplish your goals and avoid big messes, it's best to choose relationships that are a good fit. As you go through the process of choosing an appropriate organizational relationship, consider these factors: What does each organization want to accomplish by working together?
Interpersonal communication - Wikipedia
Which kind of organizational relationship is necessary to accomplish those goals? Are there resources available for this kind of organizational relationship, such as time, skills, financial resources, community support, commitment, and human resources? If not, can those resources be accessed? Is there sufficient trust and commitment to support this kind of relationship? When groups work together, the potential benefits are great, but it is not always easy.
Like a friendship, the more commitment there is, the greater the rewards, but also the greater the difficulties. In addition, there are factors in our society that discourage groups from working together cooperatively. Here are some of the challenges that you may confront when establishing and building organizational relationships.
Can you think of how you might surmount them? People sometimes believe that individual effort is more beneficial than cooperation We live in a individualistic culture. People often don't have a vision of what can be gained from working with others. And many people think they can do better if they fight their battles alone - or that it's just not worth the effort to cooperate. So it's difficult to put aside short-term personal goals, in favor of long-term broader goals of a community.
Overcoming this belief is helpful and sometimes necessary in order for people and organizations to form a successful working relationship. People are often mistrustful People are afraid to work with others because they are not sure others have their best interests in mind.
What is the Cluster Approach?
It takes time to establish confidence that everyone will act honestly and responsibly toward each other. It also takes time to trust that each group will be mindful of each other's interests. Building trust is a natural process that can't be rushed too quickly. Only when trust is strong can it bear the weight of bigger and riskier projects.
People sometimes don't have the necessary communication skills for working together People working together need communication, listening, and negotiation skills. Communication is difficult enough between two people. Among a group of people, it is even more complex.
And when you have more than one group trying to communicate, the possibilities for misunderstandings multiply. People need to learn to become skillful and disciplined communicators in order carry out the often complex and delicate exchanges that must take place to accomplish goals. Racism and other forms of discrimination keep people and organizations isolated from each other Groups are often mistrustful of each other because of racism, classism, and other forms of prejudice or lack of understanding that are a part of our larger society.
When alliances among different groups are established, people can almost always see that they have more in common than they previously imagined, and that there is much to be gained by working together. Still, mistrust and misunderstandings need to be addressed throughout the life of a relationship in which different groups have historical societal divisions. People in these organizational relationships will need to commit themselves to learning about the cultures and histories of their working partners, as well as to understanding how their partners have been mistreated by the society as a whole.
Also, differences in communication styles, expectations, and cultural values will need to be understood in order for people to successfully communicate and accomplish their goals.
A lack of strong leadership can hinder the formation and continuation of successful group interrelationships Without strong leaders to navigate the challenging waters of working together, organizational relationships can flounder. Organizations need strong leaders with vision, commitment, and the ability to win others over to a forward-moving program. Leaders will also have to be able to weather the mistrust, setbacks, attacks, and other problems that arise in these relationships.
People may internalize a sense of powerlessness that makes them unable to take initiative to form working relationships Many people have had experiences that leave them feeling discouraged, hopeless, and powerless to move larger forces that affect their lives and their communities.
Getting people to act, take initiative, and participate is often a necessary step in getting different groups to work together. Encouraging everyone to be a part of the process is essential. It is also important to get people to contribute their thinking and voice their opinions to help people overcome that sense of powerlessness.
Private and public funders sometimes require organizations to collaborate in order to receive funds Many funders like collaboration, for the very same reasons we do. But as in all relationships, organizations need to develop relationships on their own terms, not in response to the outside funding pressure.
Each organization involved has to have the desire and the ability to establish a working relationship in order for it to succeed. These relationships have to develop at their own pace, not according to the timeline of a funder.
Organizations should work with funders to help them understand their need to build relationships their own way. If an organization feels that it must go along with the funder's requirement, it should work honestly with the partner organization to face the problem together and establish a relationship that makes sense and is likely to succeed. Where do you begin in building organizational relationships? Here are some general ideas of how to get started.
These are basic guidelines that may be helpful and sometimes necessary to begin any such relationship. Involve the stakeholders Make sure that everyone who is affected is involved in the process, directly or indirectly. It includes all the stakeholders that is, everyone who has a stake in the outcomeincluding leaders of the organizations, staff who will implement the programs, constituent groups of the organizations, people who will be involved in the programs, the larger community, and people who may be affected indirectly.
Why should you involve all these groups? Because if you want your effort to succeed, you will need the cooperation and, better yet, the help of those who can benefit from a good outcome. The level of involvement among the different groups will vary. Some people will come to every meeting, while some people may only fill out one survey, and everything in between. The important thing is to make sure that people know they have a real say in a project that will affect their lives.
For example, if you are going to have a few organizations work together to expand the counseling hours of a teen counseling center, you will want to get input from counselors, teens themselves, parents and teachers, neighbors who live around the center, and any one else who could potentially help or hinder your program. If you do so, the teen center will run more effectively. Establish one-to-one relationships, and begin to build trust It may seem obvious, but an organizational relationship is built on many one-to -one relationships between members of each organization.
As we communicate, we are making plans to accomplish our goals. At highly uncertain moments, we become more vigilant and rely more on data available in the situation. When we are less certain, we lose confidence in our own plans and make contingency plans. The theory also says that higher levels of uncertainty create distance between people and that non-verbal expressiveness tends to help reduce uncertainty.
Underlying assumptions include that an individual will cognitively process the existence of uncertainty and take steps to reduce it. The boundary conditions for this theory are that there must be some kind of outside social situation trigger and internal cognitive process.
According to the theory, we reduce uncertainty in three ways: Uncertainty Reduction Theory is most applicable to the initial interaction context, and in response to this limited context, scholars have extended the uncertainty framework with theories that describe uncertainty manangementmore broadly, and motivated information management.
These subsequent theories give a broader conceptualization of how uncertainty operates in interpersonal communication as well as how uncertainty motivates individuals to seek information. Social exchange theory[ edit ] Main article: Social exchange theory Social exchange theory falls under the symbolic interaction perspective.
The theory predicts, explains, and describes when and why people reveal certain information about themselves to others. The social exchange theory uses Thibaut and Kelley's theory of interdependence. Social exchange theory argues the major force in interpersonal relationships is the satisfaction of both people's self-interest.
Theorists say self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing and that it can actually enhance relationships. You will reveal information about yourself when the cost-rewards ratio is acceptable to you. As long as rewards continue to outweigh costs, a couple will become increasingly intimate by sharing more and more personal information.
The constructs of this theory include discloser, relational expectations, and perceived rewards or costs in the relationship. Levingerdiscussed marital success as dependent on all the rewarding things within the relationship, such as emotional security and sexual fulfillment.
He also argued that marriages either succeed or fail based on the barriers to leave the relationship, like financial hardships, and the presence of alternative attractions, like infidelity. Levinger stated that marriages will fail when the attractions of the partners lessen, the barriers to leave the spouse are weak, and the alternatives outside of the relationship are appealing.
The boundary conditions for this theory are that at least two people must be having some type of interaction. Social exchange also ties in closely with social penetration theory. Symbolic interaction Symbolic interaction comes from the sociocultural perspective in that it relies on the creation of shared meaning through interactions with others. This theory focuses on the ways in which people form meaning and structure in society through interactions. People are motivated to act based on the meanings they assign to people, things, and events.
When people interact over time, they come to shared meaning for certain terms and actions and thus come to understand events in particular ways. There are three main concepts in this theory: Society Social acts which create meaning involve an initial gesture from one individual, a response to that gesture from another and a result.
Self Self-image comes from interaction with others based on others perceptions. A person makes sense of the world and defines their "self" through social interactions. Mind Your ability to use significant symbols to respond to yourself makes thinking possible. You define objects in terms of how you might react to them. Objects become what they are through our symbolic minding process. An underlying assumption for this theory is that meaning and social reality are shaped from interactions with others and that some kind of shared meaning is reached.
The boundary conditions for this theory are there must be numerous people communicating and interacting and thus assigning meaning to situations or objects. Relational dialectics theory[ edit ] Main article: Relational dialectics A dialectical approach to interpersonal communication was developed by scholars Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery. Their dialectical approach revolves around the notions of contradiction, change, praxis, and totality.
Influenced by Hegel, Marx, and Bakhtin, the dialectical approach is informed by an epistemology that refers to a method of reasoning by which one searches for understanding through the tension of opposing arguments. Utilizing the dialectical approach, Baxter and Montgomery developed two types of dialectics that function in interpersonal relationships: These include autonomy-connection, novelty-predictability, openness-closedness. In order to understand relational dialectics theory, we must first understand specifically what encompasses the term discourse.
Therefore, discourses are "systems of meaning that are uttered whenever we make intelligible utterances aloud with others or in our heads when we hold internal conversations".
However, it also shows how the meanings within our conversations may be interpreted, understood, and of course misunderstood. Numerous examples of this can be seen in the daily communicative acts we participate in. However, dialectical tensions within our discourses can most likely be seen in interpersonal communication due to the close nature of interpersonal relationships.
The well known proverb "opposites attract, but birds of a feather flock together" exemplifies these dialectical tensions.
These consist of connectedness and separateness, certainty and uncertainty, and openness and closedness. Connectedness and separateness[ edit ] Most individuals naturally desire to have a close bond in the interpersonal relationships we are a part of. However, it is also assumed that no relationship can be enduring without the individuals involved within it also having their time alone to themselves.
Individuals who are only defined by a specific relationship they are a part of can result in the loss of individual identity. Certainty and uncertainty[ edit ] Individuals desire a sense of assurance and predictability in the interpersonal relationships they are a part of. However, they also desire having a variety in their interactions that come from having spontaneity and mystery within their relationships as well.
Much research has shown that relationships which become bland and. This assumption can be supported if one looks at the postulations within social penetration theory, which is another theory used often within the study of communication.
This tension may also spawn a natural desire to keep an amount of personal privacy from other individuals. The struggle in this sense, illustrates the essence of relational dialectics.
Coordinated management of meaning[ edit ] Main article: Coordinated management of meaning Coordinated management of meaning is a theory assuming that two individuals engaging in an interaction are each constructing their own interpretation and perception behind what a conversation means. A core assumption within this theory includes the belief that all individuals interact based on rules that are expected to be followed while engaging in communication.
These include constitutive and regulative rules. Constitutive rules "are essentially rules of meaning used by communicators to interpret or understand an event or message". If one individual sends a message to the other, the message receiver must then take that interaction and interpret what it means.
Often, this can be done on an almost instantaneous level because the interpretation rules applied to the situation are immediate and simple. This simply depends on each communicator's previous beliefs and perceptions within a given context and how they can apply these rules to the current communicative interaction.
Important to understand within the constructs of this theory is the fact that these "rules" of meaning "are always chosen within a context". The authors of this theory believe that there are a number of different context an individual can refer to when interpreting a communicative event. These include the relationship context, the episode context, the self-concept context, and the archetype context. Relationship context This context assumes that there are mutual expectations between individuals who are members of a group.
Episode context This context simply refers to a specific event in which the communicative act is taking place. Archetype context This context is essentially one's image of what his or her belief consists of regarding general truths within communicative exchanges. Furthermore, Pearce and Cronen believe that these specific contexts exist in a hierarchical fashion.