A PARTNERING ORGANIZATION

If you conclude that your current organization is not going to get you where you want to go, we suggest that a partnering organization will. Table 1 illustrates examples of behavioral differences between a traditional organization and a partnering organization. By traditional organization we mean an enterprise governed principally according to a hierarchical, postindustrial—predominantly military—management model: command and control.

Table 1: Characteristics of a Partnering Organization

TRADITIONAL ORGANIZATION	PARTNERING ORGANIZATION
Keeps information close to the vest and dodges chances to give colleagues feedback	Self-discloses information freely and gives feedback straightforwardly
"Silence is golden."	"Give it to me straight"
Solves problems based on self-interest and wins by creating losers	Solves problems creatively and resolves conflicts collaboratively, creating winners, not losers
"Winning is everything."	"We both benefit from this."
Expresses and demonstrates low trust in others	Builds trust through both words and actions
"Trust but verify."	"I know you'll do the right thing"
Relies mainly on past history in making decisions	Embraces the future with a clear vision
"Let's get back to basics."	"The future belongs to us"
Clings to status quo and fights change	Encourages, welcomes, and leverages change
"The more things change,the more they stay the same."	"This way is so much better!"
Promotes self-reliance:	Champions interreliance with others for key results:
"I'd rather do it myself."	"Can you believe what we accomplished together?"

The "Traditional Organization" column in Table 1 includes clichés emphasizing how values contrary to partnering exist in many current business communities. Language shapes how we look at things, and how we look at things influences our behaviors. Leaders thus must avoid such clichés and begin to link the commonsense language of partnering with consistent behavior that reinforces their words to achieve the desired results. Behaviors such as those included in Table 1 are not in and of themselves necessarily good or bad, valuable or worthless, productive or counterproductive. The same behavior that produces desired results in one kind of organization might trigger catastrophe in another. Colonel Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a World War II marine fighter pilot with twenty-eight shootdowns, recaps what distinguishes an ace from an average fighter pilot in Baa Baa Black Sheep (1977):

There is just a split second where everything is right, for the target is going to remain anything but stationary. During this split second the range has to be just right, the deflection has to be accurate, and the first squeeze of the trigger has to be as smooth and perfect as humanly possible. In other words months of preparation, one of those few opportunities, and the judgment of a split second are what makes some pilot an ace, while others think back on what they could have done. (141)

Compare Colonel Boyington's appraisal of the importance of decisiveness for a fighter pilot with that of M. R. D. Foot in describing the recruitment of British secret agents in SOE; An Outline History of the Special Operations Executive, 1940—1946 (1999):

There was one character trait in particular that he found he had to watch out for, and avoid: impulsiveness. Prudence, after courage, was probably an agent's most useful quality. Brisk, decisive types, inclined to make up their minds promptly, were all very well in fast traffic or a destroyer action, but were not what was needed in the secret war. There the need was for reflective men and women, people who could look several moves ahead. (72)

The behaviors that enable aces to shoot down enemy planes would get secret agents killed. The behaviors that enable secret agents to cause disarray behind enemy lines would get fighter pilots killed. Same behaviors, dissimilar situations, the difference between success and failure.

Traditional organizations in large part adopt systems, processes, and rules intended to safeguard the enterprise's assets and minimize risks. In the marketplace, they usually operate more defensively than offensively. Not making mistakes is more highly valued than "going for it." Avoiding risk is a more dominant business driver than is seeking opportunities. Let's hold on to what we have. Thus, traditional organizations as a rule constrain accountability (through authorization tables), divide labor (through detailed job descriptions), compartmentalize functions (by physically insulating departments and people from each other), and control accomplishment of tasks (through multiple layers of management and narrow spans of control).

A traditional organization invests enormous resources in watchers: watchers to watch watchers who are watching watchers watching people who are actually doing work—inventing products and services, making and delivering products and services, marketing and selling products and services. The simplistic presumption is that more watchers equals less risk. Members of a traditional organization are recognized and rewarded for displaying behaviors that reinforce these protective systems. People might get mad if they knew what salary their colleagues really make, so payroll information is kept tightly under wraps; employees traveling on company business might abuse their expense accounts, so their meal expenses are capped at $50 a day; promotions are touted as "competitive," so employees sense that they might be undercutting their own advancement opportunities if they pitch in to help a colleague who has found himself in a pinch. Many of these behaviors stem from a view of organizations as being a "zero-sum game": for me to win, someone else must lose.

In a partnering organization, behavior is not driven by such a scarcity mentality, but rather by an abundance mentality If we partner, we get our personal, professional, and organizational needs met—at levels not possible in a competitive environment, not to mention organization cultures that actively encourage cutthroat behavior among their leaders and employees. A partnering organization tends to attack the marketplace more offensively than will a traditional organization, seeing changes—whether economic, social, political, financial, or otherwise—primarily as opportunities for growth and expansion, rather than as threats. Not that a partnering organization chucks internal financial controls overboard or does not conduct ongoing analyses of business risks. However, once the leaders of a partnering organization have weighed both the opportunities and the risks, they are much more likely to "go for it" than their more risk-averse counterparts in a traditional organization.

In a partnering organization, the catchphrase "together we can get more for everybody" guides behavior more often than the "let's hold on to what we've got" mantra repeated in traditional organizations. Thus, partnering organizations give people a broad range of accountabilities (through strategic directives), connect people (through partnering charters), unify functions (by physically positioning departments and people close to each other), and delegate accomplishment of tasks (through fewer layers of management and broad spans of control). A partnering organization invests enormous resources in finding, keeping, and developing smart partners: doers—not watchers—who appreciate the potency of partnering and who take personal accountability for delivering on commitments by collaborating, internally and externally, with whomever it makes sense to do so. The members of a partnering organization are recognized and rewarded for displaying the partnering behaviors that deliver results for everyone involved. Partnering organizations replace the zero-sum game rule book with guidelines anchored by a "we all win" outlook. Smart partners win not only because of what they do, but also because of how they do it.