'Partnership' is one of those words that everyone agrees with and nobody defines. Without fail, it crops up at professional roundtables, arts conferences, board meetings, foundation strategy meetings, grant review panels, and thinking sessions by managers in the arts. In spite or because of that popularity, the word 'partnership' has become one of the biggest blinders to clear and responsive management in nonprofit arts and culture.

On the face of it, it seems a powerful and persuasive word. We can't change the world alone. There's safety and strength in numbers. Funders love partnerships. Working together, we can double our reach. All true.

But the dark side of the word is the worldview it promotes: that we are somehow separate and individual to begin with. In the context of these many conversations, 'partnership' implies that we have to make an active choice to influence and be influenced by other organizations, and that we can avoid that influence by choosing not to partner. You can see it in the active verbs we use in 'building', 'forging', or 'forming' a partnership.

Listen in on almost any leadership conversation on an impending partnership opportunity, and you'll hear more proof of that individual bias: 'How will this affect our individual identity?', 'Is there a way we can achieve this goal without the hassle of working with another organization?', 'Don't we both compete for the same audience and patrons?'

The assumption of sovereignty has stalled, blocked, exploded, or left unseen many potential connections. There are countless stories about arts groups refusing to share mailing lists, patron lists (except for the ones they print for all to see in every newsletter, program, wall plaque, and event brochure), or even non-core administrative services like purchasing, payroll, or media buys. To do so would threaten identity, control, and authority. So, instead, many organizations 'build,' 'forge,' or 'form' only a few careful connections, figuring that the status quo is better than the risk.

Here's the rub: we have no choice but to be interconnected. The decisions and actions of one organization affect the decisions and actions of another, whether or not they talk about it or make a conscious plan. We share board members, audiences, funders, communities, artists, musicians, geographic space, and virtual space. We can't give up sovereignty, control, or identity when we have so little to begin with.

The real choice here is whether or not we recognize and inform the connections that already exist--with peer organizations, real estate developers, city councils, public schools, local business owners, and countless others. The connections are there whether we choose to look or not. They affect us whether we understand them or not.

In a complex, interconnected world, we can't choose to be separate. Even if that nasty word--partnership--lulls us into thinking we can.