Relationships between partners are difficult to manage and take time to develop. The different assets of each organisational sector that forms the rationale for partnering come with other differences that are also sources of potential conflict. It is critical that these differences should not be eliminated or somehow suppressed, since once they disappear the rationale for partnering also disappears. Rather, the differences must be coordinated and integrated to work together.
Achieving a good working relationship requires addressing stereotypes. NGOs are assumed by others to be difficult to work with because of the importance they place upon core community values; the private sector is often thought of as being concerned only with profit; and municipalities, as governing agents, are often considered to be inflexible and bound by 'red tape'. These stereotypes, while having some truth, tend to emphasise negative characteristics observed by external parties to the exclusion of positive ones.
Conflicts arise in partnerships when there is a chronic imbalance in the capacities and powers of the partners, and when there is little recognition of the contribution each partner makes. Conflict may arise from the sheer scale and competency of a private sector organisation in relation to a municipality, or simply from the different power bases and competencies of organisations. For example, the private sector's self-confidence and technical expertise can often intimidate others. Its superiority in particular aspects can lead it to act arrogantly. Imbalance creates fear, and fear can lead to conflict. Level playing fields must be created. In Stutterheim (see Box 6.1), the newly elected councillors perceived this imbalance in a partnership, and their relative incapacity in the face of a strong private sector partner led to a weakening of communication channels and ultimately to a breakdown in trust and confidence between the private sector operator and the council.
Another critical element of relationships between sectoral organisations is the role of individuals. Individuals can make or break relationships. At least at the beginning, most successful partnerships are built around the drive and effectiveness of key individuals, and many falter when these individuals depart. Alternatively, some individuals may be the reason that projects do not progress. For example, corrupt municipal officials can colour the perception of a municipality. In such circumstances, primary motives/interests are not political, but personal; the primary form of power is not the law, but status; the municipality is not concerned with legality, but levels of personal compensation for leading officials; and the primary goal is not development, but maintaining existing hierarchies and the social status of officials.
The other important characteristic of relationships between partners is that they are dynamic. As capacity increases, partnering capacity improves and mutual recognition emerges, the nature of the partnership, and the various relationships within it, will develop. Such change may create effective sustainable partnering, or it may be resisted, or it may result in the dissolution of the partnership.