Sharing Power or Just Getting Along?

1. Sharing Power or Just Getting Along? Byron P. White, Ed.D. “Engage to Learn, Learn to Engage” Institute for Teaching and Learning University of Akron October 30, 2009

2. Authentic community partnerships Essential components Quality processes Relationship-focused Commitment to learning Meaningful outcomes Specific Significant to all partners Transformation Individual Institutional Societal -- A Guide to Reciprocal Community-Campus PartnershipsPortland State University, 2008

3. Authentic community partnerships Quality Processes Meaningful Outcomes Transformation

4. Quality processes Asset-based orientation toward each other Dialogue among partners Relationship-building strategies Understanding of each other’s culture Two-way problem-framing & problem-solving Recognition of needs and expectations Self assessment and reflection Constant negotiation and modification -- A Guide to Reciprocal Community-Campus PartnershipsPortland State University, 2008

5. True collaboration Shared responsibility Shared accountability Shared authority (or power) -- Collaboration: What Makes It Work, Mattessich, Monsey, & Murray-Close, 2001

6.  University-Community Engagement

7. Institutes Administrators Divisions Students Offices Centers Trustees Faculty Departments

8. Anatomy of a community External institutions

9. Anatomy of a community External institutions

10. Anatomy of a partnership Community University Byron P. White, 2008

11. Anatomy of a partnership Community   Brokering Organization Agent Brokering Organization Agent University Byron P. White, 2009

12. Triangles & tambourines Institutions Hierarchical authority Seek alignment Leadership is assigned through credentials Decisions are driven by degree of strategy Expertise is validated externally Power is granted Communities Circular authority Seek loyalty Leadership is earned through relationships Decisions are driven by level of passion Expertise is validated internally Power is seized Byron P. White, 2009

13. Institutional resistance Deliberation is too risky Planning is more comfortable Can’t compromise our point of view Deliberation clouds the waters Conflict will reflect poorly on us More work, but no funding to make it worthwhile Concerns about community orientation Is engagement within our responsibilities? Do we have credibility? Who will lead this work internally? Where is the “community” to engage? Where the proof that this will work? -- The Organization-First Approach, Harwood & Creighton, 2009

14. Anatomy of a partnership Community   Brokering Organization Agent Brokering Organization Agent University Byron P. White, 2009

15. Community’s dual perspectives Micro-level engagement Individuals come to be seen as peers “Personalized power” is exerted to influence decisions High potential for authentic collaboration Essential for “quality processes” Macro-level engagement Institution seen as dominant and a potential threat “Formalized power” is exerted to influence decisions High potential for conflict Essential for “transformation” Byron P. White, 2009

16. Sheltered partnership Community   Brokering Organization Agent Brokering Organization University Byron P. White, 2009

17. Freelance partnership Community   Brokering Organization Agent Brokering Organization University Byron P. White, 2009

18. Balanced partnership Community   Brokering Organization Agent Brokering Organization Agent University Byron P. White, 2009

19. Balanced partnership University agent is free to fully engage the community at an interpersonal level. Agent is also fully empowered to act on the institution’s behalf. Personalized power is generated. Formalized power can be effectively leveraged. Byron P. White, 2009

20. Four shifts to achieve balance From university representatives to university agents From community trustto community ownership From honest dialogue to institutional transparency From developing leadership to liberating leadership Byron P. White, 2009

21. References Harwood, R. C., & Creighton, J. A., (2009). The organization-first approach: How programs crowd out community. Bethesda, MD: The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Portland State University. (2008). A guide to reciprocal community-campus partnerships: Proceedings from Portland State University’s Partnership Forum. Portland, OR: Author. White, B. P. (2008). Bridging the High Street divide: Community power and the pursuit of democratic partnerships between Ohio State University and Weinland Park. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3311543)