Far North Rambles #37: Bad Words Part 2 - Partnership
In Part 1 of “Bad Words”, I described the excitement of discovering a bad word that you can’t use on radio when trying to learn a language. I this note, I share some thoughts about the word “partnership”. “Partnership is not a bad word, but it is a word that I tried to avoid when working in the Far North because it has a very different meaning to First Nation people.
I do not mean partnership in the legal sense, although that is a good reason to avoid using the word because it can create legal confusion. I mean “partnership” in the sense of “working together to achieve a common interest”. My attitude may seem odd, because “partnership” is a word commonly used by Governments. Let me explain.
I learned that many Fist Nation people interpret the word “partnership” to mean “meaningfully working together”, which required: joint planning, joint decision-making, shared risk, and shared reward. Now, let’s think about that. Did I have the authority enter into an agreement, formal or informal, that would bind the Government to joint planning, joint decision-making, shared risk and shared reward? No, my scope of authority was not that broad. If I was provocative, I might suggest that the Westminster system of Government has a decision-making and approval process that does not easily accommodate “joint decision-making”, but that is a much deeper discussion.
As a Government Branch Director, I ensured the Branch program was aligned with Government-set priorities. Joint planning and joint decision-making with collaborator could run the risk of contravening the Government’s priorities. So, at one level, I could not commit to nation-to-nation “joint decision-making” because that was outside my authority and not a commitment I could deliver.
But, all was not lost! At a nation-to-nation level, we did enter into cooperation agreements, signed by a Minister or a Ministry Executive. But, at our geoscience program level, we had a lot of freedom related to technical projects, so long as we were aligned with Government priorities. So, I could, and did, seek out collaborations that advanced a technical project objective. Now, to have a meaningful collaboration, there had to be “something in it” for the collaborator. So, we worked with each First Nation to find a shared interest that we would jointly frame into a collaborative technical project and that would embrace joint planning, joint decision-making, shared risk and shared reward.
I confess, during our early days of joint project collaborations, I received calls from Chiefs and Councils about joint project items requiring a decision. Together, we would discuss and make a decision. After, I would say to myself “that decision did not require all 5 to 10 people on the call. It was a decision that someone could make by them self”. BUT, as I learned, the First Nation was “walking the talk” and teaching me how to work in a meaningful collaboration. I soon learned that meaningful collaboration also meant "shared ownership". Shared ownership meant reduced risk for all. Revelation!
Not all engagements culminated in a collaborative project. There were times, after several months, or years, of discussion, both parties agreed to walk away because it was not the “right time” or there were issues beyond our respective control. Sometimes we “got ahead of the community”, and that (almost) always created big issues.
But, it was a time when I learned that the phrase “meaningful joint collaboration” had a much more powerful meaning than the word “partnership”.
Andy Fyon, Nov 27, 2020 (Facebook, Oct 9, 2020)