Does Partnering Still Work?

Reflecting On 25 Years In The Trenches

Robert Shearer, JD
University of South Alabama
Jeanne D. Maes, PhD
University of South Alabama

Bob Shearer serves as Professor of

Management at the University of South
Alabama in Mobile. A member of
the Florida (full) and Virginia (associate)
state bars, he is a certified state and federal
court mediator and is on the mediation
and arbitrator rosters of the Dispute
Resolution Centers of Alabama and Florida. He has presented
numerous programs at conferences sponsored by organizations
such as the American Bar Association Dispute Resolution
Section, the Florida Dispute Resolution Center, the Florida
Academy of Professional Mediators, the Alabama Governors
Task Force on State Agency ADR, and the Society of
Professionals in Dispute Resolution in the areas of mediation,
arbitration, conflict management, interest-based negotiation,
team-building, and workplace legal issues. In addition, he
conducts executive training sessions on these topics and
has chaired public employee grievance hearing panels.
As a partnering consultant and facilitator, he has
worked throughout the United States for more than 20 years
with private contractors and government agencies and the
military on large-scale, complex, multi-party projects. He
served as a co-facilitator/trainer for the Governors Task Force
on State Agency ADR, leading representatives from multiple
state agencies in public policy consensus-building related to
the Alabama Scrap Tire Environmental Quality Act. He also
facilitated a Community Advisory Panel concerned with the
impact of a chemical plant in Mobile County.

Abstract
For a number of years, partnering has been
used as a management strategy for building
collaborative relationships between and among
diverse organizations to achieve specific business
objectives. When stakeholders sincerely commit
to the partnering process, the results can be
outstanding. However, there are a number of
things that can weaken or destroy the process.
This article is a reflection of those types of issues
that we have witnessed in working with hundreds
of clients over a twenty-five-year span.
Key words: partnering, relationship-building
_______________

Jeanne D. Maes is Professor of

Management at the Mitchell College of
Business, University of South Alabama.
She is an experienced facilitator,
executive trainer, and consultant.

Shearer & Maes

75

She has worked as a partnering consultant and

facilitator in both the private and public sectors on various
complex, multi-party projects. As a sample: military
construction (Chem-Demil Facility at Toole, Utah,), general
facilities construction (the Labor Department, GSA),
the Central Artery Tunnel (MDT), highway construction
(California DOT, Texas DOT, Nevada DOT, Federal
Highway Administration), flood control (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Department of Natural and Environmental
Resources of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, & private
contractors), facility maintenance (Naval Engineering,
Johnson Controls Worldwide), base construction (Army,
Navy, Air Force, contractors -Turner, Sundt, Granite, Roger
Kennedy), environmental (EPA, and various state agencies),
detention facilities construction (Krome Service Processing),
design-build, and numerous others since 1989.

Introduction

The term partnering is commonly

thought of in its adjectival form, as describing

a process; however, it also has a more active
meaningas a verb. In its verbal form, it is
used to indicate bringing individuals together
as partners as well as working or performing as
partners.

In practice, partnering is an innovative

management strategy for building cooperative,

collaborative relationships between and among

Author Contact Information:

diverse organizations to achieve specific business

Robert Shearer, JD
(251) 377-0042

objectives (Shearer, Maes & Moore, 1995). Since

University of South Alabama

Mitchell College of Business
rshearer@southalabama.edu
_____
Jeanne D. Maes, PhD
University of South Alabama
Mitchell College of Business
jmaes@southalabama.edu

the 1980s when partnering was originally adopted

in the public arena as a dispute management tool
for construction project management (Voyton
& Siddiqi, 2004), it has been categorized as a
process designed to blend key personnel from
each stakeholder organization into an effective,
high-performance, problem-solving team with
common goals along with a commitment to
resolving issues expeditiously and seeking
mutually beneficial outcomes (Maes & Slagle,
1993).

The overarching goal, therefore, is to

forge a single team culture with a common or

compatible set of goals and objectives (see
Figure 1 below). While partnering focuses on
producing relationships that can deal well with
individual and organizational differences, merely
knowing the goal is not sufficient to the task of
actually building those relationships.

76

Organization Development Journal l Spring 2014

over a twenty-five-year span.

Partnering Success:
The Five Important Questions

In our opinion, answers to the following

five questions can predict how successful

partnering will be.

Each question will be

discussed in detail:
1.

How was the decision to engage in

partnering reached?

When stakeholders sincerely commit to

2.

the process, the results can be outstanding. Over

Are the top decision-makers in each

stakeholder

the years of dealing with many clients, we have

organization

fully

committed the partnering success?

compiled a list of the characteristics of partnering

3. Is there an elephant in the room that is

when it is truly effective (see Figure 2 below).

not addressed in the partnering session?

4. Are the stakeholders serious about

Those characteristics have remained unchanged

assessment and follow-up?

over time.

5. Do

personal

conflicts

threaten

to

undermine the partnering effort?

Question 1.

How was the decision to engage

in partnering reached?

In general, the decision to implement

partnering

Because of its relationship-focus, the

process is hardly prescriptive. While there are

definite steps in building the team, there are no
hard-and-fast rules to developing relationships;
however, there are a number of things that
can weaken or destroy them. This article is a
reflection of those types of issues that we have
witnessed in working with hundreds of clients

on

construction

or

facilities

management project is either voluntary by the

key stakeholders or mandated by a contract.
Initially, many partnering efforts stemmed
from the parties inability to resolve critical
problems without resorting to adversarial dispute
resolution processes such as claims, litigation,
and arbitration. Dispute management was one of
the drivers for adoption of the process in the U.S.

Shearer & Maes

77

Army Corps of Engineers, and in 1988 one of the

that period, 1,788 projects were completed,

first partnering relationships was forged between

and, according to Eriksen (2009), partnering

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FRUCON

was credited with 24,677 contract days saved,

while constructing the Oliver Lock and Dam

$20.3 million saved in civil engineering, and

near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. News of its success

$9.4 million saved in value engineering. During

quickly spread and other U.S. Army Corps of

this time there were only six claims valued at

Engineers projects soon adopted the process.

$1,275,808 that required mediation or arbitration

According to Eriksen (2009) the news was so

on completed projects which were valued at $5.5

positive that by 1991, the Associated General

billion.

Contractors of America (AGCA) even released

training materials regarding partnering for its

a victim of its own success.

members. Throughout the 1990s, organizations

organizations, in particular, have begun to

such as the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, NASA,

include a requirement for partnering in contract

the Arizona Department of Transportation,

documents,

the California Department of Transportation,

components and products of the mandated

and the Associated General Contractors of

workshops. While this phenomenon underscores

America continued to publish information about

that partnering is recognized as a valuable project

partnering.

management tool, there is a risk of diluting the

effectiveness of the process.

If the partnering process led to fewer

In some respects, partnering has become

While

even

any

prescribing

Government

the

multi-party

specific

claims and lawsuits, freeing up time and money to

endeavor

focus on quality, safety, and timeliness, the parties

probably would benefit from the application of

tended to agree to adopt partnering on subsequent partnering principles, as a practical matter it is

projects.

The success of partnering spread

not advantageous to engage in formal partnering

exponentially as more agencies, companies, and

without a strategic reason for doing so. Because

key management personnel experienced first-

of its time-consuming processes, partnering

hand the benefits of voluntary partnering that

adds little value to meetings whose primary

fostered early issue identification and agreed-

purpose is to distribute information or discuss

upon methods to resolve disputes within the highly technical problems or interpretations
project management team.

As one example,

of contract specifications.

Formal partnering

the Arizona Department of Transportation kept

is best suited for projects that are particularly

detailed meticulous records from the time of its

complex, time-sensitive, and high-profile, or

adoption of partnering through 2006.

the key stakeholders have little or no experience

78

During

Organization Development Journal l Spring 2014

working together. Under those circumstances,

the persons with authority to commit their

the facilitator has a better opportunity to focus

organizations to a course of action are not

the attention of the participants on the key steps present, the plan cannot be implemented.
in the workshop:

goal-setting, team-building,

communications, issue resolution, assessment,

and follow-up. Unless contractors, owners, and
other stakeholder personnel can see a return on
their investment of time and money in attending
a formal partnering meeting, parties may become
cynical and reluctant to engage in future efforts.
Question Two. Are the top decision-makers
in each stakeholder organization fully

Question Three. Is there an elephant in the

room that is not addressed in the partnering
session?

An elephant in the room, like an

800-pound gorilla, refers to an obvious,

uncomfortable situation that everyone avoids
discussing. In partnering, the elephant may be
a person on the project management team who
has become an obstacle to the teams achieving

committed?

its goals. Or, it could be a problem that is being

Enthusiastic leaders who recognize the

discussed or an issue being decided outside the

value of partnering are critical to making the

partnering framework. As an example, during a

process successful.

Without the visible and

break in a recent follow-up partnering workshop,

consistent support of senior leadership, partnering

a government agencys key representative told

is not likely to be regarded by the next levels of

the contractor that he needed to meet immediately

management as a high priority (Schroer, 1994;

after the partnering session to discuss concerns

Shearer, Maes & Moore, 1995). The presence

related to performance. The ratings, due to

and participation of top decision-makers in each issued within days, would have a significant
stakeholder organization signal the importance impact on the contractors profit. As a result,
accorded to partnering.

very little attention was paid to the operational

issues that were raised during the remainder of

In partnering meetings, a considerable

amount of negotiation occurs.

Once critical the workshop. Consequently, the elephant in the

issues have been identified, action plans must

roomi.e., theretofore unexpressed concerns

be developed to address them. Specific actions,

over the contractors performancenegatively

persons responsible, time frames for beginning

affected the partnering process.

and completing an action, and other details of

Elephants can be addressed within the

the plan require approval by the key stakeholders context of partnering in several ways. If the issue
in each organization.

As with mediation, if

is likely to be sensitive, contentious, or personal,

Shearer & Maes

79

with advance warning the facilitator can frame

be threatening the success of the project.

the discussion in a positive, solution-oriented

manner and ask questions for clarification.

Follow-up meetings should be held at no

less than 6-month intervals, more frequently for

Again, if briefed in advance about potential short duration projects or when conflicts have

hot issues, the facilitator can structure small arisen in the early stages. The follow-up meeting
breakout groups with top leadership in one room

should include a formal assessment exercise

to work through a serious matter that affects the

in which participants rate the effectiveness

success of the project while other groups create

of partnering on several critical factors such

action plans for more routine operational issues.

as:

communications, issue resolution, team

Finally, the issue may be presented to the decision-making, responsiveness to requests for

entire team, but referred to a small planning team

information, safety, trust, and mutual respect. In

for discussion at a later time. Rather than being addition, the parties should be asked to identify
disconnected from the larger partnering process,

those aspects of the project or job that are going

elephants can be resolved using fundamental well and those that need immediate attention, a
partnering strategies.

variation of a lessons learned exercise. The

assessment processes inevitably lead to the

Question Four. Are the stakeholders serious

about assessment and follow-up?

The most effective partnering teams are

committed to regular follow-up meetings and

identification of new and continuing issues for

action planning at the workshop.

assessment of key aspects of the project. The

Question Five. Do personal conflicts threaten

to undermine the partnering effort?

initial partnering session is typically upbeat. It is

characterized by relationship and team-building,

Negotiation as set forth by Ury and Fisher

developing a partnering agreement, becoming

in Getting to Yes, their seminal book on non-

acquainted with each stakeholders organizational

adversarial negotiation processes, is focus on

structure and culture and establishing processes

the problem and not the people. What if one or

One of the elements of Principled

for open communications and timely issue two key people on the partnering team turn out
resolution.

Often, no actual problems of a

serious nature have arisen. At the first followup meeting, however, a very different scenario

to be the problem that prevents the group from

achieving its project goals?

Personality conflicts, disruptive behavior,

may exist. Unanticipated problems, personality

lack of flexibility, and fear of retaliation are

conflicts, and organizational culture clashes may

among the greatest challenges that partnering

80

Organization Development Journal l Spring 2014

facilitators

and

stakeholder

leaders

face.

partnering and other non-adversarial resolution

Unmanaged personality conflicts, especially

processes. Engaging in arguments with persons

between team members who work together on a

who are entrenched in their positions typically

regular basis, distract the group from focusing on

does not result in progress toward a mutual

finding solutions to real issues. Senior leadership

understanding.

must recognize this threat to the partnering effort

creative options rather that attacking the other

Focusing on interests and

and take the responsibility for resolving the persons position is more likely to produce a
conflict or removing the parties from the project

mutually beneficial result.

management team.

Disruptive behavior in a group setting

session fear retaliation for expressing their

can range from carrying on side conversations

opinions, the team loses the opportunity to take

to reading a newspaper.

advantage of their experience and subject matter

While these actions

If lower level participants in a partnering

are annoying, usually they can be controlled by expertise. Because open communication is a key
the facilitator and the offenders peers. More

element of partnering, it should be made clear

serious actions, however, such as dominating all

by senior leadership at the outset of the meeting

discussion, shouting others down, and refusing

that everyone should speak freely. Facilitators

to listen to different points of view undermine a

should carefully observe meeting dynamics,

groups ability to reach consensus on important

noting those participants who seem reticent to

issues. If the offender is a decision-maker for one

join the conversation and offer their insights.

of the stakeholder organizations, the problem is

Conclusions

more delicate. In such situations, as facilitators

we have had off-line conversations with top

In spite of some of the negativity or

management of both organizations, offering apathy of stakeholders who continually attend

objective input on the negative impact of such partnering meetings as a result of mandated
behavior on effective partnering.

contractual partnering, we have seen that

partnering does indeed still work.

When negotiating over difficult issues,

flexibility

within

legal

and

contractual

However,

the questions discussed in this article need to be

constraints - is essential. Failure to recognize honestly addressed by the stakeholders before

that others on the project management team in

scheduled follow-up meetings.

If there are

good faith can perceive and interpret situations

changes or issues pertaining to these questions,

differently limits the teams ability to reach these need to be shared with the partnering
the all-win outcomes that are the essence of

consultant prior to the next scheduled follow-up

Shearer & Maes

81

References

meeting. Such action by the stakeholders and the

partnering consultant give the partnering process
the best chance of success.

There is still a demand for effective

Center for the Advancement of Collaborative

Strategies in Health. (2013, November).

project-team building processes (Eriksen, 2009)

Partnership assessment tool.

and partnering has proven to be sustainable for

from

those who closely adhere to partnering principles.

node/190.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Retrieved

http://www.lmgforhealth.org/

Eriksen, D. (2009, Fall). Partnering: is it time

to put it on the shelf?

Construction

Management Association of America,

California Chapter.
http://www.ati-

Retrieved from

sys.com/atisys/CMAA_

SC_Feature2_091125a.pdf
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes.
New York: Random House
Maes, J.D. (1994). Conflict management: critical
ingredient

for

successful

partnering.

Organization Development Journal, 12

(4), 25- 30
Maes, J. & Sla gle, M. (1993). Partnering: a
strategic management tool for change.
Organization Development Journal, 11
(3), 61-68.
Schroer, C. R. (1994).

Corps of Engineers

Perspective on Partnering.

The Use

of Partnering in the Facilities Design

Process:

Summary of a Symposium.

Retrieved

from

http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=9227.
Shearer, R. A., Maes, J.D. & Moore, C.C. (1995,
April).

Partnering:

common goals.

82

Organization Development Journal l Spring 2014

a commitment to
Dispute Resolution

Journal, 30-32.
Voyton, V. & Siddiqi, K. (2004). Partnering:
tool for construction claims reduction.
Journal of Architectural Engineering, 10
(1), 2-4.

c ld

Shearer & Maes

83

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.