CHAPTER 6
Partnership
The Critical Mind-Set to Overcome Power Gaps
Is it really possible to form a partnership with a powerful or antagonistic person? Yes, it is! And we’ll tell you how. First, it will help if we explain just what we mean by partnership, why it is important, and how it can improve your influence attempts.
The Gaps That Make Influence Necessary
Organizations have power differentials built into their structure. Roles come with varying levels of formal authority and varying access to resources, support, and information; these differentials are necessary for organizations to function. Nevertheless, large power differentials can frustrate those in the lower positions.
This is the case in most subordinate-boss relationships. The parties are supposed to work together, but that often becomes problematic. Though specifics vary from one organization to the next, there are a variety of ways to overcome these issues. The best way by far is to aim for a true partnership with the higher-power person. Whether or not this partnership actually happens, it is important to at least try. If successful, you can build for the future and set the tone for influencing others.
The Meaning of Partnership
An experience of one of the authors presents a good example to use in defining “partnership.” Years ago, a medium-sized law firm hired him to address some internal conflict. He began the intervention by conducting individual interviews, and he was struck by the way the lawyers said the word partner as if it was in quotation marks and italicized. The word was not simply the name of a title commonly used in law firms; it obviously had deep emotional significance to everyone. As frustrated as they were with each other, the lawyers had a special feeling about their partners—an almost sacred set of expectations—that became a lever for solution.
“Partnership” does not necessarily imply equality, nor does it discount organizational hierarchy. It may mean that you have to see yourself as a junior partner, allowing the senior partner to overrule when he or she feels obligated to do so. He or she still has the ability to fire, promote, allocate tasks, award bonuses—or even ignore you if you aren’t a direct report. But a junior-partner/senior partner relationship has some critical components, which we discuss in the following section.
The Characteristics and Expectations of True Partnership
- Both partners are committed to the organization’s overall goals (or to the mutual benefit of each other’s organizations) and to the success of the other. This means that a junior partner must look beyond his or her subarea to include the senior partner’s concerns as well. This is a belief that “We are in this boat together; I am concerned with your success as well as my own.”
- Your motives must be to (1) help the partner, (2) help the organization, and as a by-product, (3) help you take on and succeed at challenging jobs or projects. Personal advancement can’t be your primary or dominant goal.
- Junior partners must be proactive; you can’t just wait to be told what to do or how to do it. You must care about your potential partner’s success so much that you can be honest with him or her—in a collaborative way, of course. It changes the definition of loyalty from “telling the boss what s/he wants to hear” to telling the boss what s/he needs to hear to be effective. It allows you to be on the other’s side, even though it can be a bit uncomfortable.
- In turn, you encourage the partner to be honest with you, and do not manipulate or communicate by hinting or speaking indirectly. It’s always best to be specific, and assume that the partner wants to know what is necessary to be effective.
- This requires transparency, because your (possibly) new behaviors—including communicating more directly—might make the other person question your motives.
- You do not move away from the potential partner, even when there are difficulties or tensions; you always move toward, thus recognizing the interdependence between manager and employee. You need your boss, and she needs you. You always want to improve your relationship, moving toward collaboration and mutual benefit, even when addressing specific problems.
- In response to your helping the boss, bosses give honest feedback. They help the junior partner learn and develop—not just judge. And, as a junior partner, you are open to your own learning and not seeing it as a sign of inadequacy.
- You must accept that the partner is human and therefore flawed, so give him or her the benefit of the doubt. You cannot write-off a partner after his or her first mistake or mystifying behavior. When you automatically label the other person as defective, stop, step back, and diagnose further. Many people initially cast a powerful person as impossible—the person may turn out not to be.
- You must also be open to discussing the nature of the relationship. Address what each person wants it to be, and what is or isn’t working.
- Both partners accept that there are differences between senior and junior partners. After the junior partners have had their say, the senior retains the right to make final decisions and expect full commitment. Juniors work hard to make the right decisions and not hold back on unpopular views; however, they have to accept the senior’s right to override.
- Partners adapt to the degree of closeness each wants, but they are not totally unwilling to be more vulnerable with one another.
The one thing a junior partner must never do is add to the senior’s work or concerns. Rather, they should do everything they can to lighten the manager’s load, all the while assuring them that they’re committed to helping the organization operate as effectively as possible.
Operating from these assumptions can truly make a partnership productive and freeing to both parties. However, this isn’t a guarantee that all powerful people immediately will welcome this approach. Your challenge will be to win the reciprocal partnerlike behavior from them.
This example not only illustrates the difference between acting like a partner and acting like a contractor; it also reveals how hard it can be for employees who’ve been conditioned to keep arm’s-length to think in terms of partnerships. When you’re dealing with someone who resists forming a partnership, your mind-set ought to be: “We are going to be partners even though you don’t yet know it. But I am going to show you how this will benefit you and your organization.”
Example of the Difference between a Partner and an Arm’s-Length Provider of Services
After independent consultant Liam Fahey agreed to do a major project with a large company, he received a 17-page contract (obviously written by the purchasing department with major input from legal) that used the term vendor. Liam crossed out vendor and replaced it with partner, and the legal department asked him what the difference is. He replied, “Vendors try to screw you whenever possible. Partners are interested in working together to solve problems.” The legal people reverted to type and said, “Keep the term vendor.” (Eventually, senior executive friends of Liam’s at the company overruled legal and wrote the word partner into the contract.)
Why Partnership Is Needed
We are working according to the premise that the old subordinate-superior model is dead—or at least should be. This type of highly constrained and hierarchical supervision inhibits direct reports who need greater latitude to contribute what bosses need. Leaders need to hear all relevant information, even when it goes against their beliefs. They must be able to count on those below to constantly find new ways to do things. Similarly, direct reports must challenge their managers when they’re beginning to err.
A partnership relationship is of benefit to the boss, even though he or she may not always realize or accept this. This mind-set requires a transition for some managers—and part of a junior partner’s job is to aid in that transition. And although few employees want their boss to tell them what to do all the time, some are ambivalent about taking up the responsibilities that are the outgrowth of true partnership with the boss. They long for autonomy, where they can do what they want and not just what they’re told. Being an actual junior partner requires moving to interdependence—a situation in which both people have influence, and thus the size of the “power pie” is increased. This can provide considerable autonomy while allowing the junior partner to have more impact on the overall tasks, goals, and outcomes of the wider unit.
Both boss and subordinate benefit from partnership, because they will make better decisions, generate more ideas, and implement more plans collectively than alone. This prompts those below to voice their wish for more challenging work, autonomy, support, and coaching—whatever will let them excel. It is much easier to share these desires with a boss who’s a partner than with one who is merely playing a prescribed hierarchical role.
Of course, subordinates still have to meet expectations; you may even have to complete tasks assigned by your manager that aren’t exactly “your job.” Yet solely meeting these expectations may not be enough to establish partnership with your boss—even if you meet them well.
Although some senior managers resist partnerships, they all need them. No one can fully predict what an organization might require, and employees should use every available process to accomplish the organization’s goals. When managers don’t know the full scope of the problem or can’t come up with solutions, they need collaborative partnership from below or outside.
What Does Partnership Require from You?
First of all, partnership requires a change in mind-set. Some people become rather comfortable in the role as deferential subordinate. They can avoid responsibility, “delegate” the difficult problems upward, and then blame their superior when things go wrong. However, true partners do not act so passively, but instead take initiative to solve problems and seize opportunities when they see things not working. To paraphrase a top naval officer’s words to a new sailor on his ship: “Son, I don’t ever want to hear you say that the ship sank because sailors on the other side screwed up.”
Junior partners must also be open to learning, receiving feedback, and thinking broadly with the organization in mind. They know they’re never finished products, but organisms in a continuous state of learning. And they must of course see their partners in the same way.
Finally, partners must be willing to take risks—prudent risks rather than reckless ones, but risks nonetheless. Responsible partners must be ready to share bad news, raise uncomfortable business problems for which they have no solutions to offer, and tell the boss when his or her actions are causing problems. In fact, pointing out the very issues that threaten a relationship is what partners must do to preserve the partnership relationship. This makes “playing it safe” one of the greatest barriers to partnership—failing to discuss things is what keeps a true partnership from developing.
We’ve already cited some managers’ preference to recoil from interdependence—which only guarantees that partnership will not develop. An example of this involves three nonprofit boards we have served on, whose presidents actively avoided contact with the board chair and other members. Even when they had to interact, these individuals did everything they could to keep the chair at arm’s length; they withheld information, refused to seek advice, discouraged expression of expertise, and just seemed to hope that they would “go away.”
Partners have to realize all the sources of power at their disposal. People frequently (and erroneously) think of power in terms of hire, fire, reward, punish or promote. However, the senior partner needs many things from the junior partner—as we discussed in Chapter 4—and those currencies that the senior partner needs are the key source of the junior partner’s power and influence.
Whose Responsibility Is It?
Finally, the lower-power person has to accept that the responsibility for changing the relationship to partnership is his—a fact that can be hard to swallow. After all, the senior person has more power; isn’t it his responsibility to establish an effective work relationship? The answer is yes, but it isn’t exclusively the supervisor’s responsibility. This question presumes the attitude that subordinates have traditionally taken: “I will wait to see what my manager does, and I will respond if he or she comes through.”
One of the many problems with this mind-set is that it actually increases the power gap. The lower-level person is giving the higher-up all the power to determine the nature of the relationship. When junior partners own their responsibility for defining the relationship, power gaps diminish. If they take the wait-and-see approach, their managers are likely to assume that the junior partners have little to add.
This approach misses another important point: the senior person may be too busy to spend time building a beautiful relationship with you. After all, you are not the only person below your boss; and managers are concerned about the relationship with their bosses as well. Any partnership your boss builds alone would be done according to his or her style, without necessarily taking your needs into account.
What Does an Elusive Boss Look Like?
It is all too common (albeit unfortunate) for a subordinate to want feedback and coaching from a boss who simply isn’t interested in—or available to—give this support. This is especially widespread in the overloaded, thinly staffed organizations that have emerged in the last several years.
Many employees ask in a rather generic way for time to receive feedback and coaching from their managers. They may say something vague like, “I’d like to know how I’m doing” or “Can we talk about my career plans?” It’s highly unlikely that an overloaded boss—one with other subordinates, projects, and issues—will clear time, prepare, and give detailed, constructive feedback and advice. Even if doing so is part of their job, they still may not have or take the time.
This is why it is critical for an eager subordinate to do some focused thinking and preparation first. What are their passions and their values about work? Can they assess their own competencies and areas for potential growth? Do they have plans to develop lacking or absent skills? Do they know the requirements for more senior positions or roles to which they might aspire? On what particular areas/performance/skills do they especially want feedback? What specific help do they want from the boss?
Subordinates who take the time to answer these questions are often pleasantly surprised at how their seemingly uninterested bosses respond. Evaluation of themselves, revealing what they’ve found and demonstrating their interest in learning, reduces the boss’s discomfort about how they might respond to feedback. In addition, self-analysis gives the boss a chance to cite specific examples that support or counter what employees think of themselves—thereby prompting ideas for learning and growing.
Of course, some bosses fail to act like partners—for a variety of reasons. Some can think only about meeting their numbers. Others believe that they had to make their way without this kind of help, so why should they make it any easier for those who report to them? Some feel threatened in the presence of a smart, high-potential person who knows or can do things that the boss can’t. Some aren’t patient and don’t listen very well; they leap right to giving advice based on their own experience and prejudices without connecting to the specific subordinate and his or her desires. And there is the occasional boss who is just sadistic and mean, and won’t help anyone unless he or she can gain an immediate payoff. Of course, employees must be careful about assuming nasty motives. There are often many other reasons that drive observable behavior, most of which are not deliberate desire to inflict pain. If the boss seems to not want partnership, that can become a source of inquiry, even with a boss who tries to force you back into an inferior position. Any such response can be met with a response such as, “Yes, that’s your right; can you tell me more about what that means for how I should be loyal and help you when I see a problem?” Accept the currencies and work to understand how to meet them, which starts immediately to put you on a better footing.
The Partnership Approach Can Work with Senior Powerful People
Powerful senior people might resist attempts to partner merely because they don’t think it’s important to partner with people who have less power. They worry that they’re wasting time, making themselves vulnerable, or losing some of the power “mystique” they may think necessary for leadership. They don’t want to be overwhelmed with requests or demands that will be hard to turn down, or have others think they play favorites.
Nevertheless, approaching these people with the partnership mind-set and letting them know you want to collaborate with them might be just enough to distinguish you from others. A simple conversation could arouse enough curiosity to merit a second look, or raise the possibility that engaging with you could turn out to be beneficial and not just a giant nuisance.
More and more organizational arrangements—such as alliances, mergers, acquisitions, and consortia—require that partnerships be formed, seldom between people of identical power. People must cultivate this trust over time. The following interview with John Maraganore—chief executive officer (CEO) of the start-up Alnylam—provides insight into his company’s success with partnership relationships.
Alnylam is a pharmaceutical/biomedical company with great potential scientific value due to some recent advances they’ve made. A series of partnerships with 10 major pharmaceutical firms, aimed at developing treatments for genetically caused diseases, is at the heart of the company’s business model. This focus prompted us to ask Maraganore to talk about how they manage the long-term partnerships—some with companies that are bitter rivals with each other. As John explains:
We are in an industry that takes $1 billion to $2 billion of investment and 10 to 20 years to get to cash flow positive. The cost of clinical trials has gone up recently. Vertex—with a drug that’s about to get permission to market—has spent over $5 billion and taken 20-plus years. That’s a very long feedback loop! We are in our ninth year, have raised about $1 billion, and have invested about $600 million so far. We have a lot more to invest, and are still years from profitability. We are positive about our potential results, but there is no certainty. We know the science is really good, Nobel Prize winning, with the best minds we can assemble, and we think we are in a good time, probability, and cost scenario. We’re aware of how long and how much capital it will take, and which clinical trials are likely to succeed.
Raising capital is my number one job. Pharmaceutical companies are the senior partner; we’re junior. It goes beyond a transactional agreement; it’s about the nature of relationships, common goals, and alignment of interest. This is the only way to make them work.
Partnership Requirements
You have to earn belief and trust to form a partnership. Though reputation is vital, so is the quality of the science you bring, as well as honesty and transparency. It is impossible to bamboozle this group of people; they know what valuable partnerships require—a quality interface, science integrity, openness and honesty around data, and humility regarding the potential results. Excessive hubris never works. The soft side is amazingly key. A high-quality social interface is very important. They enjoy interacting with you. While science is the price of admission, what matters is the relationships, and the way you explain the value proposition.
Learning about Potential Partners
You learn early on what makes each potential partner unique, the first of which is knowledge of the industry and being aware of who the critical person is; it’s different with Novartis than Biogen, for example. You get this information from being on boards, hearsay, and just general communication. There are various ways to find out about companies; sometimes you do formal homework, calling colleagues, asking them questions about potential partnerships—what worked, who the key people are, who has to buy into the science, what business terms they prefer. It’s a very small community, so you can gather information quickly.
We quickly learned that Roche was very anxious about our other partnership with Novartis, since the companies don’t like each other. It was critical for me to interface with the CEO at the time, Franz Humer, and reassure him; that kind of issue was only resolvable CEO to CEO. Our head of corporate communication received a request from her Roche counterpart for me to speak with Humer. We immediately talked about a possible partnership, the potential of conflict with our existing partnership with Novartis, and after, he said he wanted to get together again. So we met at his apartment in New York City for 90 minutes, and we committed to do a partnership—all of which was completed in five weeks. We said, “Look, we are in business with multiple partners; we have to be able to separate one set of info and objectives from another.” Humer needed the reassurance that came with looking me in the eye, and knowing he had my word.
I’ve never met Novartis’s CEO, Dan Vasella, and our partnership with them took much longer—with 20-plus meetings on the science side alone. Their head of science, Mark Fishman, then made a recommendation because he had a personal interest in our science. We let Novartis know when we had signed an agreement with Roche.
We approach each key person differently. For instance, Franz is Swiss; Mark is not. Franz is a lawyer, older, a legend in the industry, who deeply understands the importance of innovation in a smaller company from the perspective of the needs of a larger company. He is very wise in that way. I was excited about meeting him; I was very aware of his history at Roche, succeeded by their partnership with Genentech.
Mark is American, an amazing scientist, out of academia. He came out of Mass General, brought in by Dan Vasella, to build his scientific institute here in Boston. It is harder to build a close relationship with him; it actually took five years. He can be distant; we always connect around science and data, which are what he cares about. Franz is not a scientist; he’s a businessman who cares deeply about innovation. My contact is less frequent with him because of distance, and his role. Franz is a decision maker, Mark is a scientist.
I think I am the same person both times, but know that I have to approach each man differently. Franz is a very impressive man, more formalistic. Mark is impressive and formal too, but different. I e-mail Mark frequently, which is less appropriate with Franz. Mark, closer to my age, and I talk more about personal matters; Franz and I do so less.
You learn that your partner has certain gods; with Franz it is shareholders and the board, for Mark it is Dan Vasella; it’s about how they look as a result of doing the relationship. They care a lot about not being seen as having done a bad decision. They want everyone to be a hit. They worry at a personal level what they will look like if a partnership decision is not turning out well.
Managing the Relationships: Formal and Informal Mechanisms
Juggling 10 partnerships is fairly difficult, as you might imagine, and requires quality processes to do it. We have a distinct relationship with and a map of each partnership. We give each of our employees the responsibility to do whatever they need to do to nurture a specific relationship—dinners, breakfasts, lunches, whatever—since we are the junior party and they are the senior party. Over time, our counterparts begin to see us as peers; we develop relationships based on mutual scientific, business, and human interests.
We also have an internal head of alliance who is part of our management team; she attends weekly meetings, reports what’s going on, issues, gaps (and about our eight other partnerships too). They are complicated relationships. Roche has evolved dramatically, because they wanted to spin out the unit to deal with cost cutting. Any of them can change dramatically. Plus they are ad hoc all the time.
There is a lot to learn from this scenario. Widespread contacts help identify possible partners, and can be a source of information about specific potential partners. In short, networks matter—and it’s vital to study key players carefully for their interests or currencies. John Maraganore’s observations about Mark Fishman, first and foremost a scientist, in contrast with Franz Humer, a businessman, provide him with a lot of helpful information. Although you don’t want to stereotype, you can make some educated guesses about the other person’s likely interests. Then you have to pay close attention to see what is revealed in the face-to-face interactions that disconfirms, confirms, or extends hypotheses.
Accepting that you are the junior partner is paradoxical; because it acknowledges objective power differences (like the difference between Alnylam, a promising start-up with potential but no profits or products yet, and giant organizations such as Roche and Novartis), trust increases and some of the power differences diminish.
Even if you are only interested in influencing one powerful senior manager for a project, relating with a partnership mind-set can eventually lead to greater influence. You must earn the right to be treated as a partner; however, it is often more possible than it may at first appear.
It should be clear by now how the influence model can help you tackle the problems caused by power differentials. You’ve learned about the various ways to gain cooperation, and the potential for using a partnership mind-set to overcome the obstacles posed by working with people of various levels. The next section of the book will zoom in more closely to the boss–direct report relationship and show you how you can overcome power differences in that relationship.