Conservation partnerships between Zoos and Aquariums, federal

16 Pages·2007·0.16 MB·English

ZooBiology 26:471–486(2007)
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Conservation Partnerships between
Zoos and Aquariums, Federal and State
Agencies, and Nongovernmental
Organizations
Kathleen N. Smith,1,2(cid:1) James H. Shaw,3 Tammie Bettinger,2 Beth Caniglia,4
and Tracy Carter1
1Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
2Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Lake Buena Vista, Florida
3Department of Natural Resources, Ecology, and Management, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
4Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Partnerships are essential for the success of conservation organizations as they
strivetoachievetheultimategoalofrestoringandpreservingbiodiversity.Nowis
a particularly crucial time to develop partnerships owing to increasing financial
constraints on all organizations and the urgent need for species recovery and
habitat preservation. This study identified characteristics of successful conserva-
tionpartnershipsbetweenAssociationofZoosandAquariums(AZA)accredited
institutions and related facilities, US and international governmental agencies,
andnongovernmentalorganizations.OnehundredandfiveAZAaccreditedzoos
andaquariumsorrelatedfacilitiesparticipatedinthepreliminarysurvey.Staffat
75 of those zoos and aquariums were interviewed by telephone for a follow-up
survey. Respondents were asked which characteristics most contributed to the
successoftheirpastandcurrentconservationpartnerships.Datawereanalyzedin
two ways: descriptive statistics and principal component analysis. Descriptive
statistics showed that effective leadership, clear and consistent communication,
and trust between partners were the top three characteristics that led to
partnership success. Ineffective leadership by those in charge, lack of clear,
consistentcommunicationbetweenpartners,andunreliableorinsufficientsources
of funding were the top three characteristics that inhibited partnership success.
Grantsponsor:Disney’sAnimalKingdom.
(cid:1)
Correspondenceto:KathleenN.Smith,Disney’sAnimalKingdom,P.O.Box10000,LakeBuenaVista,
FL32830.E-mail:[email protected]
Received5October2006;Revised23January2007;Accepted4May2007
DOI10.1002/zoo.20142
Publishedonline12September2007inWileyInterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com).
rr2007Wiley-Liss, Inc.
472 Smithet al.
Using principal component analysis, the variables for each question on the
questionnaire were reduced to a smaller subset of categories. Structure,
personalities, process, and commitment were the four principal components of
successful conservation partnerships. The three principal components that
inhibitedconservationpartnershipswere:communication,partnershippersonnel,
andpartnerinequality.Resultsgainedfromthisresearcharesuretoincreasethe
probabilityofsuccessbothforconservationpartnershipsthathavealreadybeen
established and for those that may develop in the future. Zoo Biol 26:471–486,
2007. (cid:1)c 2007Wiley-Liss,Inc.
Keywords: evaluating; structure; personalities; commitment; process
INTRODUCTION
The current status of our imperiled environment combined with limited
resources within any single organization has necessitated the creation of conserva-
tion partnerships. Partnerships with zoos and aquariums have become prevalent
increasingly over the past 30 years, providing crucial understanding, data, and
programing [Clark and Brunner, 2002]. Although partnerships play an important
role in conservation programs, there have been few published reports evaluating
their effectiveness. Now is a particularly crucial time to undertake such evaluation
owingtoincreasingfinancialconstraintsonallorganizationsandtheurgentneedfor
species recovery and habitat preservation. Details of what constitutes a successful
partnership could increase the probability of success both for partnerships that are
established and for those that have yet to develop. The goal of this study was to
identify factors that contributed to successful conservation partnerships. Successful
partnerships are characterized by attaining partnership objectives and establishing
and maintaining amicable relationships within the partnership.
Evaluating Conservation Partnerships
For decades, governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
zoos and aquariums have worked independently toward similar conservation goals
but did not combine efforts. This trend is changing. Organizational exclusivity has
been exchanged for cooperation, as international, national, and local initiatives are
paving the way for the formation of partnerships.
Mallinson [1991] explored the requirements of conservation partnerships in
1981statingthatsuccessfulconservationpartnershipsandprogramscanbeeffective
only if they are adopted and supported by local people living in the regions where
species are endemic. He found that success depends on the technical quality of the
proposal, the strength of political support, commitment from all stakeholders
involved,aproperhumanbalance,personalrelationships,andtheexistenceofpolicy
framework for the conservation effort [Mallinson, 1991].
Miller et al. [1994] investigated common organizational problems associated
with the inadequate planning and implementation process of endangered species
recovery. They proposed the following recommendations for improving the initial
planningstagesoftherecoveryefforts:(1)theformationofatask-orientedrecovery
team of experienced leaders; (2) the incorporation of species-specific experts to
addresscriticalissues;(3)laterintherecoveryprocess,theleadagency,whereasstill
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
EvaluatingConservationPartnerships 473
maintaining supervision of the project, should impart most of its implementing
obligations to other partners.
Clark and Brunner [2002] suggested that the decision-making process is also
critical to partnerships for endangered species recovery. They warn against ‘‘goal-
substitution,’’ or ulterior motives, from partnership participants that can distract
from the true goal of the partnerships. From their perspective, a better under-
standing of the decision-making process in endangered species recovery would lead
to more successful partnerships.
Rocha and Jacobson [1998] analyzed three new partnerships formed among
agencies responsible for protected areas and nongovernmental organizations in
Brazil to understand the phenomenon of conservation partnerships. They
determined four major characteristics that make conservation partnerships success-
ful: (1) structure, (2) procedure, (3) community involvement, and (4) qualities/
characteristics of partners.
Kleiman et al. [2000] emphasized the need for internal and external reviews.
Internalreviewsconsistofparticipantsreviewingallorsomeaspectsoftheprogram,
allowing partners to evaluate their activities as new knowledge and understanding
areacquired.Externalreviewsarelessfrequentthaninternalreviews,butarehighly
structuredandbroaderinfocus,andconductedbyhigh-qualityexternalreviewersof
conservation programs. To improve conservation programs, Kleiman et al.
recommend flexibility with decentralization of organizational structure, less
hierarchy, and a strong, task-oriented, quick, and effective communication process
among organizations.
In the interdisciplinary approach of evaluating partnerships among organiza-
tions, the idea of researching the human dimensions of partnerships was finally
applied to endangered species recovery efforts [Moosbruker and Kleiman, 2001]. In
their study, 22 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(AZA) Species Survival Plan (SSP) coordinators, and other field leaders were
interviewed by phone and asked about the structure, process, and recognition/
evaluation of the programs. Respondents suggested providing a master Memor-
andumofUnderstandingtemplatetoarticulatetherolesandresponsibilitiesofeach
partner as well as improve distribution and increase the amount of funding. From
their parent organizations, US Fish and Wildlife Service team members desired
decentralizationandmoreautonomy,andAZAmemberssoughtlessadministrative
workandmoresupportfromAZA.Telephoneinterviewrespondentsrecommended
creating more in situ collaborations, attending training courses and holding
workshops, developing procedures for long-term internal and external reviews,
planning for and replacement of project coordinators, and developing a set of
criteria for success or progress on the way to delisting a species.
Indeed,empiricalstudiesprovidepragmaticinformationaboutimprovingand
modifying conservation and recovery programs. Real life partnership experiences
create a strong foundation for success, but additional scientific research into the
structure, functioning, and processes of conservation partnerships can greatly
enhance the often unrealized internal workings of a partnership. The above studies
are important pieces of the overall conservation partnership puzzle, but more must
be uncovered to truly understand partnerships. There has been little research
regarding characteristics of successful structure and process in functional zoo and
aquarium conservation partnerships (Table 1). This study surveyed AZA zoo and
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
474 Smithet al.
d
n
a
s
P
n S X XX XXX XX X
a S
Kleimetal.[2000] AZAFWS
8] s
9 a
d[19 dare
anon aned X X
ochacobs GOsotect
RJa Npr
ClarkandBrunner[2002] ExamplesofNGOs,agencies,universities,andAZAinstitutions XXX
e
s Miller[1994] Applicabltoallrecoveryprograms X XX XX
e
di
reviousstu Mallinson[1991] ExamplesfromWPT XXX XX XX X
p
n
i s
ABLE1.Characteristicsofsuccessfulpartnershipsfound ypeofparticipantsineachstudy haracteristicsofpartnershipsuccessStructureInvokinganinterdisciplinaryapproachtoconservationEnsuringtechnicalqualityoftheproposalEstablishingoverallconservationpolicyframeworkInternalandexternalreviewsofgoalsandprocessDecentralizingorganizationalstructure,strong,andtask-orientedCreatingaquickandeffectivecommunicationprocessIncreasingtheamountoffundingEstablishingMOUstoarticulaterolesandresponsibilitieIncorporatingspecies-specificexpertsFormationoftask-orientedrecoveryteamofleadersProcedures/processAllowforflexibilitywithinstructureandprocessAllowingforaconsensusdecision-makingprocessDeterrenceofgoal-substitutionImprovingdistributionoffundingGainingacceptanceandsupportfromlocalcommunityGainingstrongpoliticalsupportPersonalitiesFormingpersonalrelationshipsCreatingtheproperhumanbalanceCommitmentEnsuringcommitmentfromallstakeholders
T T C
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
EvaluatingConservationPartnerships 475
aquarium experts to examine what has made their partnerships successful. Then,
those findings were incorporated with past and present organizational literature to
design an integrated approach that allows partners to achieve their conservation
goals and build strong, lasting relationships with the stakeholders.
METHODS
Research Definitions
For this study, a conservation partnershipwas defined as‘‘a committed,long-
term relationship’’ [Rabb, 1995] between institutions with a common objective,
allowing each side to dedicate time, money, and personnel to the partnership to
accomplish a task neither institution could do alone. In this research, partnership
successwasdefinedasattainingpartnershipobjectives.Eachrespondentdetermined
if their partnership was successful according to this definition.
Subjects
FromJune2004throughDecember2004,preliminarysurveysweredistributed
systematically by phone, fax, or electronic mail to one representative from all 230
AZA accredited institutions and related facilities to determine if the institution was
involved currently in conservation partnerships. Initial contact with the zoo/
aquariumintervieweewasmadebasedonjobtitleateachinstitution,selectedinthe
following order: (1) Director of Conservation, Science, or Research; (2) General
Curator or Director of Education (whomever was deemed appropriate by the
institution); (3) Assistant Director (was chosen if neither of the other positions
existed or was currently being held). If the zoo or aquarium staff member did not
have adequate partnership experience, as determined by them or the primary
investigator of this study, another institutional staff member with more partnership
experience was recommended and interviewed.
Onehundredandfiveindividualscompletedthepreliminarysurvey,75ofthese
individualswere determinedto be involved inconservation partnerships and agreed
toparticipateinatelephoneinterview.Theseindividualseachrepresentedadifferent
AZA accredited institution or related facility (as of March 2004) and were
interviewed by telephone between August 2004 and January 2005. Confidentiality
and anonymity was promised to all participants throughout the study to increase
candidness and comprehensiveness of responses [Fink, 2003].
Telephone Interviews
The results of an intensive literature review were combined with information
gathered during two separate focus groups with AZA institutions to develop the
telephone interview questionnaire [see Smith, 2005]. This questionnaire was
administered to a representative from each of the 75 institutions. From their
personal experiences, each telephone interviewee was asked to rank the most
important characteristics of past and current partnership success and rank
characteristics that most inhibited past and current partnership success using a 5-
point Likertscale,where 5wasthemost important ormost inhibitingcharacteristic
(Appendixes 1 and 2). Respondents were also given an opportunity to provide
additional information for each of the questions. Positively and negatively stated
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
476 Smithet al.
questions were placed in succession and given an equal number of choices to avoid
bias. Interviews lasted between 10 and 90min depending on how much the
interviewee was willing to elaborate.
Analysis
SPSS11.0wasusedtoanalyzethedata.Datawereanalyzedintwoseparateways
(1) descriptive statistics of Likert scale rankings were summarized, and (2) principal
componentanalysis(PCA)wasusedtoconstructbroadercategoriesoftheLikertscale
choices. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses of the 75 survey
respondents. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was usedto reduce
thelargernumberofobservedvariablesinthesurveytoasmallernumberofsummary
variables [SPSS, 2003; Landau and Everitt, 2004]. Each question on the survey was
analyzed separately using exploratory factor analysis based on the assumption that
each question was searching for a distinct underlying factor [Hofstee et al., 1998].
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics of Conservation Partnerships
DescriptivestatisticsfromLikertscaleswerecomputedforeachvariableonthe
questionnaire. Respondents determined that the top three most successful
characteristics of partnership success were effective leadership by those in charge
(x(cid:1) ¼4:57, SD50.643), trust between partners (x(cid:1) ¼4:52, SD50.777), and clear and
consistent communication between partners (x(cid:1) ¼4:52, SD50.665) (Table 2).
The top three characteristics that inhibit partnership success were ineffective
leadership by those in charge (x(cid:1) ¼4:17, SD51.088), lack of clear, consistent
communicationbetweenpartners(x(cid:1) ¼4:00,SD51.108),andunreliableorinsufficient
sources of funding (x(cid:1) ¼3:94, SD50.944) (Table 2).
Principal Component Analysis
Four factors emerged as the principal components of successful partnerships,
accounting for 57% of the sample variance. These factors were named structure,
personalities,process,andcommitment.Factorloadingsforthefourfactorsappearin
Table 3. Cronbach’s a (describing how well the variables measure a single
unidimensional latent construct) were calculated for each of the four factors and
were 0.652, 0.934, 0.737, and 0.659, respectively.
Three factors emerged as the principal components that inhibit partnership
success, accounting for 67% of the sample variance. These factors were named
communication,partnershippersonnel,andpartnerinequality(Table4).Cronbach’sa
were 0.865, 0.781, and 0.703, respectively.
DISCUSSION
Conservationists are often professionals who are highly skilled in the
management of species, habitats, and resources, but may not be as skilled
as in the area of human relations [Miller et al., 1994]. Yet every partnership,
recovery program, or conservation effort requires the use of personal interaction,
decision-making, consensus-building, and many other elements crucial to human
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
EvaluatingConservationPartnerships 477
n
o
ati
vi
e 88 4 6 1 8 1 2 7 0 1 2 82 5 9 6 1
d 80 4 5 2 2 6 7 5 0 4 6 49 0 9 3 5
rd 1.01.1 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.01.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1
a
d
n
a
St
Mean 4.174.00 3.94 3.90 3.84 3.74 3.62 3.62 3.42 3.39 3.34 3.31 3.273.24 3.23 3.18 3.03 2.62
csthatinhibitconservationpartnerships Characteristicsthatinhibitpartnerships IneffectiveleadershipbythoseinchargeLackofclearconsistentcommunicationbetweenpartnersUnreliableorinsufficientsourcesoffunding ObjectivesofthepartnershipwereneverdefinedclearlyInsufficienttrustbetweenpartners LackofclearlydefinedrolesforpartnerswithinthepartnershipInsufficientcommitmentfromzoo/aquariumstaff(otherthanfinancial)Ineffectivepartnershipplanning/design Insufficientcommitmentfromotherpartner’sstaff(otherthanfinancial)ChangesinrolesnotagreeduponbymostinvolvedGoaldisplacement(someindividualspossesssecondaryobjectives)NotmutuallybeneficialforallpartnersinvolvedInsufficientflexibilitybetweenpartnersPersonalitiesofindividualsinvolveddirectlyfromotherpartner(s)ChangesinproceduresnotagreeduponbymostinvolvedLackofconsensusdecision-makingbymostinvolvedPersonalitiesofindividualsinvolveddirectlyfromzoos/aquariumUnequalownershipwithinpartnership
characteristi rddeviation 0.6430.777 0.665 0.623 0.723 0.865 0.777 0.820 0.884 0.822 0.888 0.903 0.9230.852 0.874 0.874 0.880 1.062
and anda
ss St
e
succ Mean 4.574.52 4.52 4.49 4.33 4.19 4.16 4.11 4.05 4.00 3.92 3.88 3.683.67 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.09
of
stics st m m olved
TABLE2.Descriptivestatisticsforcharacteri Characteristicsofsuccessfulpartnerships EffectiveleadershipbythoseinchargeTrustbetweenpartners ClearandconsistentcommunicationbetweenpartnersClearlydefinedobjectives ClearlydefinedrolesforthepartnerswithinthepartnershipCommitmentfromzoo/aquariumstafftothepartnership(otherthanfinancial)Partners’abilitytofocusonprimaryobjectives Commitmentfromotherpartner’sstafftothepartnership(otherthanfinancial)Mutuallybeneficialforpartnersinvolved Secureidentifiablesource(s)offunding AllowingflexibilitytoenhancegrowthofpartnershipEffectivepartnershipplanning/design Consensusdecision-makingfrommostinvolvedChangesinrolesofpartnersagreeduponbymoinvolvedPersonalitiesofindividualsinvolveddirectlyfrootherpartner(s)Personalitiesofindividualsdirectlyinvolvedfrozoos/aquariumsChangesinproceduresagreeduponbymostinv Equalownershipwithinpartnership
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
478 Smithet al.
TABLE 3. SummaryofitemsandfactorloadingsforVarimaxorthogonalfour-factorsolution
forcharacteristics that lead tosuccessful conservation partnerships
Components
Variables C1 C2 C3 C4 Communalities
Characteristics ofsuccessful conservation
partnerships
Clearlydefinedobjectives 0.670 (cid:2)0.364 0.094 0.106 0.602
Clearlydefinedroles for the partners 0.629 (cid:2)0.156 0.043 0.075 0.428
withinthe partnership
Effectiveleadership bythosein charge 0.615 0.402 (cid:2)0.051 (cid:2)0.065 0.546
Partners’ abilityto focusonprimary 0.573 (cid:2)0.259 0.021 0.029 0.396
objectives
Effectivepartnership planning/design 0.545 0.123 (cid:2)0.341 0.283 0.508
Clearandconsistent communication 0.541 0.001 0.183 (cid:2)0.003 0.326
betweenpartners
Changesinrolesofpartnersagreedupon 0.440 0.183 0.364 (cid:2)0.192 0.397
bymost involved
Personalities of individuals directly (cid:2)0.139 0.927 0.071 0.027 0.885
involvedfrom otherpartner(s)
Personalities of individuals directly (cid:2)0.113 0.904 0.181 0.124 0.877
involvedfrom zoos/aquariums
Mutuallybeneficialforpartnersinvolved (cid:2)0.060 0.002 0.806 0.145 0.675
Equalownership withinpartnership 0.151 0.083 0.742 0.067 0.584
Consensusdecision-making from most 0.107 0.121 0.662 0.299 0.554
involved
Commitmentfromzoo/aquariumstaffto 0.012 0.118 0.216 0.865 0.809
the partnership(other thanfinancial)
Commitmentfrom otherpartner’s staff 0.096 (cid:2)0.022 0.148 0.857 0.766
tothepartnership(otherthanfinancial)
Salientcharacteristiccoefficients(Z.40)areinbold(seeGrice,2001).
relationships. There is a vital need for individuals involved in partnerships to gain
stronger interpersonal skills, a greater understanding of the organizational process,
and the knowledge to apply these skills within their partnerships. This study is the
largest examination of conservation partnership success in the zoo and aquarium
world.Therefore,theresultsandrecommendationsofthisresearchcanbeappliedto
a wider audience than previous studies of similar context.
The following recommendations may lead to a better understanding of
partnershipinteractionsandorganizationsasawhole,whereasfosteringthecreation
of more successful partnerships. This study provides the reader with recommenda-
tions taken from peers within AZA and experts in the field of conservation. These
recommendations represent a summary of the quantitative data gathered from the
surveyresponses.Interpretationoftheseresponseswasaidedbyrespondent’sverbal
commentary on several of the survey questions.
Improving Organizational Structure of a Partnership
Partnershipstructureisessentiallyhowtheorganizationsagreetointeractand
what they hope to accomplish. Critical elements to structure are identifying goals
(long-term and short-term), roles, responsibilities, expectations, lines of commu-
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
EvaluatingConservationPartnerships 479
TABLE 4. SummaryofitemsandfactorloadingsforVarimaxorthogonalthree-factorsolution
forcharacteristics that inhibit conservation partnerships
Components
Variables C1 C2 C3 Communalities
Characteristicsthatinhibitsuccessful
conservationpartnerships
Lackofconsensusdecision-making 0.809 0.140 0.229 0.726
bymost involved
Lackof clearly definedroles for 0.707 0.377 0.261 0.710
partnerswithinthe partnership
Objectives ofthe partnership were 0.654 0.532 0.207 0.754
neverdefinedclearly
Changesin roles notagreedupon 0.648 0.255 0.493 0.727
bymost involved
Lackof clear, consistent 0.517 0.267 0.485 0.574
communicationbetweenpartners
Insufficientcommitment from 0.095 0.748 0.464 0.784
otherpartner’s staff (other than
financial)
Insufficientcommitmentfromzoo/ 0.138 0.742 0.347 0.691
aquariumstaff (other than
financial)
Ineffectiveleadership bythosein 0.266 0.724 (cid:2)0.052 0.598
charge
Ineffectivepartnership planning/ 0.417 0.664 0.071 0.620
design
Unequal ownershipwithin 0.359 (cid:2)0.009 0.747 0.687
partnership
Goaldisplacement(some 0.076 0.260 0.734 0.612
individualspossesssecondary
objectives)
Not mutuallybeneficial for 0.395 0.148 0.672 0.629
allpartnersinvolved
Salientcharacteristiccoefficients(Z.40)areinbold(seeGrice,2001).
nication,financialobligationsofeachparty,integratedevaluationprocedures,anda
partnership timeline to accomplish agreed on goals. A democratic, autonomous,
flexible structure seems to work most effectively with conservation partnerships.
Structure and leadership must be flexible enough to account for changes in
methodology and process because partnerships can be unpredictable and highly
dynamic. Other significant structural actions include gaining governing board/
leadershipsupport,lobbyingforlocalgovernmentsupport,andidentifyingrequired
technology and infrastructure. Finally, understanding and accounting for social,
political, and economic instability as well as language barriers and cultural
differences in international partnerships are important decisively.
Leadership
Identifyingstrongeffectiveleadershipiscriticalandalsoinfluencesstronglythe
structure of the partnership. One of the primary responsibilities of a leader is
establishing a sense of shared purpose and value for all partners. A charismatic
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo
480 Smithet al.
leader with good interpersonal and motivational skills, plus fair judgment and
decision-makingcapabilitiesproduceshighmoraleamongpartners,whichmanifests
into increased effort, commitment, and productivity [Perrow, 1986]. A democratic
creation of structure, partnership goals, roles, and expectations will be more
respectedandadheredtothroughoutthepartnershipthanonecreatedbydictatorial
means. The leader must also establish clear and consistent lines of communication
fromtheoutsetandprovidearealistictimelineforpartnershipgoalstobeachieved.
Formal Agreements
The majority of respondents believe formal agreements allow for articulation
of goals, roles, expectations, and financial obligations and establish all salient
elements of structure. Especially in international partnerships, formal agreements
confirmcommitmenttothepartnership,whichcanbevitallyimportantinsituations
where you have limited personal interactions and potentially unreliable lines of
communication. Formal agreements establish a basis for trust and, in some cases,
legal dimension within the partnership.
Communication
The ability to communicate well with others is also important in building and
maintaining trust. Every dimension of a partnership requires a timely and accurate
transfer of information. The candor, frequency, and scope of communication are
fundamental elements of a partnership that must be established at the outset.
Consistency of communication leads to partnership success by deterring misunder-
standings. When the foundation of communication is strong, all partners know the
objectives and share a sense of responsibility and ownership that evokes mutual
commitment. To achieve the goals of a partnership, every step relies on thorough,
accurate, and honest communication between partners. Communication must
always focus on the actions needed to be taken to achieve the partnership goals.
Partnership Personnel
Theinvolvementofqualifiedindividualswithstronginterpersonalskillsisvital
to the partnership. All partnerships involve human dimensions, cooperation, and
coalition, which cannot be successful if partner interactions become strained.
Personalitiesofindividualsinvolvedinthepartnershipcannotalwaysbechosen,but
can be used most effectively through strong leadership, clear communication
avenues, clearly defined structure, and flexible process.
Identifying at least one contact person in each organization who is organized,
trustworthy, and possesses excellent interpersonal and communication skills to
champion partnership efforts can be particularly effective. Many respondents saw
such a person as a decisive component to partnership success, especially with
international partnerships.
Improving Conservation Partnership Processes
Partnerships are open systems consisting of dynamic processes where partners
must be prepared for victories and setbacks. Processes are sequences of events or
operationsthatyieldaparticularoutcome.Theseinclude,butarenotlimitedtohow
the group dynamics work, how the individuals interact, how the participants
communicate, and how decisions are made [Moosbruker and Kleiman, 2001].
ZooBiologyDOI10.1002/zoo