As we sharpen our strategic focus for the years ahead, one thing has become increasingly clear: partnerships shape much more of our work than we often acknowledge. They influence what we prioritise, what we learn, and which opportunities become possible. And yet, like many organisations working in complex, mission-driven fields, we have not always been explicit about what we expect from them or how we care for them.
This reflection did not start with answers. It started with a sense of discomfort. We had strong relationships, many of them built organically and with good intent, but also a feeling that we were relying too much on intuition and not enough on shared understanding. As colleagues compared experiences and observations, we began to name questions that may feel familiar to others working in similar contexts: Which relationships truly require long-term investment? Where are we stretching ourselves too thin? And what does “partnership” really mean in practice?
Not everything meaningful is a partnership
Most organisations operate with a wide network of relationships, project collaborators, conference contacts, shared networks, helpful introductions. These connections matter. They build trust and help us understand the systems we work in.
At the same time, we have learned that not all relationships require the same level of attention or commitment. Calling everything a partnership can blur priorities rather than strengthen them.
For us, a partnership seems to begin where there is shared intent, some form of mutual investment, and a visible alignment of purpose. It is not simply about goodwill or enthusiasm. It is about recognising that two organisations can move further together on a problem than either could alone.
This distinction is not always easy to make, and we are still learning how to apply it consistently. But even naming it has helped us, and it may help others pause and ask where their own energy is best spent.
A partnership is an exchange, not a transaction
When we examined the relationships that had shaped us, we noticed a pattern that extends far beyond our own work: the strongest partnerships tend to thrive on reciprocity rather than transactions.
They are rarely based on buying or selling services alone. Instead, they involve exchanges of credibility, knowledge, learning, visibility, networks, research insights, introductions, or time. These exchanges are not always symmetrical, but they are intentional. And that intentionality creates space for trust to grow and for new opportunities to surface.
This reflects what many researchers have found in their studies of partnerships (e.g. How Partners Shape Strategy). The real value of working together does not come from the resources each organisation brings, but from the new possibilities that emerge when knowledge and capabilities meet. Partnerships often open doors to learning, innovation, and influence that neither side could access alone. In this way, they can quietly reshape an organisation’s direction, not because of a contract, but because of what becomes possible through the relationship itself.
For anyone navigating collaboration in complex environments, this shift in perspective can change how everyday decisions are made.
Clarity is not bureaucracy, it’s care
If there is one thing that quietly erodes even the most promising partnership, it is unspoken assumptions. We noticed that when partnerships became difficult, it rarely happened because organisations disagreed on the goals. More often, the problem was that expectations were never clearly shared in the first place.
Over time, we learned that clarity is not about limiting a relationship. It is about protecting it. It helps both sides feel respected, invested and understood. It prevents misalignment before it begins and turns good intentions into a structure that can hold up over time.
Clear expectations are not a procedural step. They are an act of care that helps partnerships stay healthy, balanced and resilient.
I should confess that even in my role working on partnerships, I did not always have this clarity myself, which is not exactly ideal and certainly not the kind of thing you admit in a strategy meeting. In that sense, this began as a slightly selfish exercise. But as I reflected on how clarity shows up in our work, I invited others to think along with me, taking advantage of the bright people I work with. What emerged was a shared recognition that our partnerships create different kinds of value, and that seeing those differences more clearly helps us give each relationship the attention it actually needs.
Different partnerships, different value
As we compared experiences and reflected on how our relationships actually function, we began to notice recurring patterns in the kinds of value partnerships tend to bring. This was not about creating categories or labels, but about making sense of what we were already living day to day.
Some of our relationships function as strategic partnerships. These tend to unfold over the long term and shape mission, direction and capabilities in ways that are not always immediately visible. Others work more as visibility partnerships, helping amplify work through shared communication, events or public presence. We also see innovation and funding partnerships, which emerge around curiosity and experimentation, such as joint proposals, research pilots or the exploration of new approaches. And there are community and advocacy partnerships, which connect work to wider movements and networks, making individual contributions part of something larger.
Seeing our ecosystem in this way helped us understand why some relationships need deeper attention while others thrive with a lighter touch. Each type of partnership brings value, but not the same kind of value, and this diversity is what makes our relational landscape so rich.
Partnerships involve trade-offs
One thing we feel confident saying is that partnerships almost always involve trade-offs, even when they are working well. Visibility can require time. Learning can slow delivery. Opportunity can stretch capacity. Often, these trade-offs are not evenly distributed. One side may invest more time, resources or energy at different moments in the relationship.
These imbalances are not automatically a problem. Many partnerships go through phases where effort shifts back and forth. But when they remain unspoken, they can quietly create tension or fatigue. The challenge is not to eliminate trade-offs or imbalance, but to acknowledge them early and revisit them often.
We are still figuring out how to do this well. What helps is asking simple but honest questions: Is this relationship helping us grow or learn in meaningful ways? Are we investing in proportion to the value being created, even if that value shows up differently for each side? Are we still aligned on why this partnership exists?
When the answers are unclear, that is usually a signal to pause and talk, not to push harder.
Partnerships as living relationships
One idea kept resurfacing throughout this reflection: partnerships behave more like living relationships than formal agreements. They grow when there is intention, attention and trust, not when there is simply a piece of paper on file.
Living relationships require presence. They need nurturing, but not through constant meetings or heavy processes. What makes them strong are the small, meaningful moments of connection: a quick check-in, a shared opportunity, a conversation that sparks a new idea, or a moment of visibility offered at the right time.
In practice, this means beginning with clarity so each side knows what the other hopes to gain. It means staying connected and creating opportunities to think together, whether through informal brainstorms, shared communication moments or collaborative events. It also means matching our effort to the value of the relationship, investing more deeply where the long-term potential is real. And it means revisiting partnerships regularly to understand whether they are growing, shifting or naturally reaching a pause.
These habits make partnerships resilient. They keep them grounded in trust rather than assumption. And most importantly, they make them human.
Why this matters now
We are operating in a world where environmental challenges are deeply interconnected, ecologically, socially and technologically. No organisation, no matter how skilled, can navigate this complexity alone. Many of the most meaningful advances are happening at intersections: where science meets design, where communities meet policy and where technology meets justice.
Partnerships are how we reach those intersections.
This matters even more at a time when artificial intelligence is reshaping how we work. AI can accelerate insight and help make sense of large datasets, but research such as Collaborative Intelligence: Humans and AI Are Joining Forces reminds us that technology does not reduce the need for collaboration. It increases the importance of trust, interpretation and shared judgment.
As AI expands what organisations can analyse or build, partnerships expand what organisations can imagine and decide together.
We do not have a finished model for what good partnership practice looks like, and we are not pretending otherwise. What we do have is a growing sense that being more deliberate, more honest and more human in how we collaborate is worth the effort.
If you find yourself navigating similar questions in your own work, we would genuinely welcome the conversation. Not because we have answers to offer, but because making sense of these challenges together may be where the most meaningful partnerships begin.
Further reading:
For those interested in collaboration around complex challenges, Collaborating for Our Future (Gray & Purdy, Oxford University Press) offers a thoughtful exploration of partnerships as evolving, relational work.
For a more strategic perspective on how organisations create value together, Towards a Theory of Ecosystems (Jacobides, Cennamo & Gawer, Strategic Management Journal) explores how coordination and complementary capabilities shape what becomes possible within ecosystems.
For applied insights on collaboration in complex systems, Nesta’s article Impact partnerships: an emerging method to tackle the world’s biggest problems explores how partnerships function as adaptive, learning-oriented responses to uncertainty.
