Partner with organizations
(Draft)
Goal: Partner with organizations, with whom we share values and can share power— while recognizing that systems change is complex.
We all draw ethical boundaries and use our purchasing power to divest from or avoid services by organizations that don't align with our values. But most of us must work with organizations that don't share our values, or we have little way of knowing. For example, MJN relies on certain service providers that we pay without agreeing to or deeply understanding their values (example: Zoom). We hope that changes over time as our budget or landscape of options grows.
MJN’s ethical boundaries are narrower with partners: the term we use for organizations with whom we are in deeper relationship as partners on projects with defined time-bound goals and apply decision making processes to share power. We describe individuals representing partner organizations as delegates or partner members.
We gate partnership based on certain considerations; if these conditions aren't met, we don't move forward. From thereon, we collaborate, recognizing that all good relationships are based on compromise, humility, and mutual understanding. If we can't come to agreement, then it means we're not quite ready for partnership.
Gate
Collaborate
Embodying Characteristics
Basic Values
While many organizations may broadly share values, none of us can fully know how values are practiced. We start with open conversations and share as much as we can about what we believe and how we embody it.
Do we agree with one another’s basic values? What do they look like in practice?
Can we collectively name power dynamics and work toward shared power, a cornerstone of all good partnership? If we are paying for services from a potential partner or receiving funding from a potential partner, is there still room for shared power?
While MJN already knows that the broader systems in which we work may require us to compromise how we practice our values, will this particular partnership uniquely compromise MJN’s practice, such as our ability to develop voting charters?
Goals and timeframes
What are we trying to achieve together? What does success look like?
What are the deliverables?
When are they due?
Are we confident that we have or will have the collective capacity and funds to fulfill our goals within the time frame?
Responsibility roles
Delegates should have a standard responsibility role. If a delegate believes their responsibility should be different from described, we welcome the feedback and would plan to incorporate it in our overall framework!
We invite partners to identify partner members who are carrying project responsibilities on their team or represented in their delegate’s vote. MJN also invites partners to use our responsibility matrix to further characterize the individual’s responsibilities as partner advisors, partner collaborators etc.
Voting roles
An organization is an important way to describe and structure a system. But we're all also individual people making unique decisions with unique values. Navigating organizational partnerships involve balancing where an individual ends and an organization begins and how we structure processes that do not erase individual perspectives within MJN and across partners.
Identify delegates
With any organizational partnership, we assume one person will vote in collective decisions as a representative of their organization. In the early stages of partnership, we should:
Identify who the primary and backup delegates are (2 total) for all partners. We recommend having a primary and back-up delegate to ensure that organizations share knowledge and can carry work forward when absences are unforeseen.
Collectively identify a voter role for the delegate according to MJN's standard roles. If a delegate believes their voting role should be different from described, we welcome the feedback and would plan to incorporate it in our overall framework!
Identify if the delegate can or should also vote as an MJN member
Can or should the delegate also be an MJN member, which includes individual voting as an essential part of our project decision making? It is tricky, but we invite conversation on whether or how delegates should represent themselves as members if the following considerations can be met:
Does their organization approve?
Can they wear two different hats, with their individual member hat focused on MJN values and making justice normal? Are they confident they can represent their individual perspectives, rather than the organization's interests when they cast a vote? (For example, would they be willing to vote against their own organization?) This requires trust between individual members, the delegate feeling safe speaking their own mind, and our ability to anonymize votes.
Describe the voting process
There are two methods that we can use to gather and make decisions based on votes. Partners should collectively decide which one to use.
Parallel: Both partners take parallel internal member votes at votable moments, according to their own processes. Delegates from all organizations report on consensus decisions and important context on votes, such as percentages and feedback. Delegates from partner organizations decide on next steps together.
Flat: A partner delegate votes alongside MJN members according to a standard member voting role we all agree to at the project start or when the partnership forms. If the delegate is also an individual member, the delegate vote would be separate from the individual vote. The final vote determines the outcome according to the project charter.
Characterize the power structure
Who votes and how they vote are related to but not equivalent to the power those votes have in ultimate decisions. Currently, we organize three types of power structures in partnerships. But we expect these types to evolve as we learn through the Power Project.
Collaborative power: where both organizations believe they have equal power, while recognizing that no two individuals or organizations are identical on all dimensions of power. Both organizations believe that the two delegates come together with all voting results and collaborate or compromise to come up with the final action.
Complex power: where balance is sought but certain dynamics, like size, funding dynamics, or other nameable dynamics might be an implied factor in how decisions are made. While no two organizations or individuals are identical in all power dimensions, both organizations can name a characteristic of power that causes a pervasive or consistent imbalance.
Unplanned circumstances
Any number of things can go wrong as a project unfolds. We can fall short of funding, we can get sick, team members can move on, venues can fall through, rain can fall, and more. When structuring charters, partners should list major potential unplanned circumstances and what we would do if they come to pass.
Communication
While we think it's generally important to visibilize power dynamics, not all partnerships need to be public. If an organizational partner prefers to remain less public, we seek to be clear about when or how we can communicate the nature of our relationship to 3rd parties.
