How to find the ideal project partner? For Valentine’s Day, semi-serious tips on how to handle design “affairs of the heart.”
Love is in the Grant…
Valentine’s Day is not only a time for lovers to exchange chocolates, but also for designers and organizations looking for the ideal Project Partner.
The European Union loves … long-distance relationships: every European project is based on creating a partnership of organizations from different countries working toward a common goal. Building a consortium for a European call for proposals is not much different from looking for the ideal partner. It takes chemistry, a common vision and the ability to endure during “crises.”
On EUknow.co.uk we offer many articles on partnership: the preparatory work to build it, a list of questions to ask ourselves to see if we have identified the right partner, where to find partners, and how to manage the collaboration.
Here’s a list of partner profiles you might meet (and fall in love with) during your search, the “red flags” to watch out for, and some tips for bringing out the best in your partnership.
The Beautiful and Impossible (the prestigious partner)
It is the partner everyone dreams of having in their consortium. He has international prestige, a stunning website and a list of European projects 5 pages long. He gives instant credibility to the consortium but is too caught up in his own charm to be operationally reliable. He is friendly but distant and gives you the impression that he is doing you an immense favor. Especially if you are a small organization, you risk feeling like one number among many in his immense “harem” of projects.
On the first date: He “gives” you 15 minutes of video call between a conference and an international conference. You feel lucky if only because he responded to your e-mail.
Why you might fall in love: his presence lends credibility to the Consortium. It brings a number of elements of excellence that can be critical in evaluation.
Red flags:
At the writing stage, he sends 10-page CVs but struggles to write 10 lines of job descriptions, does not use your templates, and shares information with uneditable PDFs that force you to endlessly copy-paste;
- He feels disturbed by administrative demands, which distract him from his True Mission;
- It tends to delegate everything downward, handing over management responsibilities to interns or junior profiles who are catapulted into meetings without the necessary experience;
- He has a “diva” attitude and expects others to do the dirty work of reporting. Her deliverables arrive embarrassingly late and are often recycled versions of documents already seen, convinced that her “brand” will be enough to make them acceptable.
Our recommendations:
- Make sure that you have the contact in the organization of the people who will be in charge of the concrete activities, without accepting the “General Manager” as the only contact;
- Leverages the Beautiful and Impossible for what it does best: appear. Enhance his prestige in events and deliverables, but limit possible damage from an operational perspective. Do not give him central roles in activities of critical importance to the project;
- Don’t just look for the “Beautiful and Impossible”-everyone wants the prestigious partner, but those who are too in demand often don’t have much time to devote to you. Smaller organizations or those rooted in less “glamorous” local organisations often have a hunger for growth and a dedication that can make them much more involved partners, responsive and ready to roll up their sleeves with you.
The Romantic (the visionary partner)
After just one cognitive call he already knows that you are made for each other: he considers you his favorite strategic partner for the next ten years and has already envisioned your picture together at the first project meeting. He agrees on everything and is in love with the project idea, but hates the reality of management and reporting.
On the first appointment: showering you with compliments and already talking about “us.” He sends you a thank-you e-mail right after the call and, the next morning, an e-mail with a draft budget attached.
Why you might fall in love: in a sea of ghost partners who don’t respond to emails, he is a constant presence. He floods you with drafts, charts, and mission statements. He is the partner who tells you exactly what you want to hear.
Red flags:
In project writing, he writes long, poetic contributions (which strictly exceed the character limit), but leaves the cost tables and technical sections blank;
- He has the easy “yes” vote: he accepts every criticism of the project enthusiastically, but never proposes concrete solutions, leaving you to make everything “fit together.” Critical confrontation is totally absent;
- Caught up in enthusiasm, he tends to promise impossible results-which will obviously have to be achieved on time and with project resources;
- He is at the forefront of sharing text and photos for the project’s social channels, but he fades away in the most difficult moments of reporting and accountability.
Our recommendations:
- It identifies a pragmatic partner who can work alongside it to ensure that visions are translated into concrete, measurable activities;
- He channels his inspirational energy into activities, such as dissemination and communication, where his visionary ability and passion can add value;
- Demand a partnership agreement (the Partnership Agreement) before the start of the project and verify that behind the “sweet words” there is a solid budget and real expertise (profiles of the staff involved);
- Ensure that the results of its activities (e.g., people trained, audiences reached) are measurable, credible, and feasible.
The Scary (the commitment-phobic partner)
He is the partner who wants all the benefits of the project (budget, prestige, networking) but is terrified of any form of official responsibility or long-term commitment. His reluctance may be mistaken for “seriousness” or “over-scrupulousness,” but it is often related to an unwillingness to take care of project operations. The Scary One is a master of bureaucratic ghosting: he mysteriously disappears within 48 hours of the call deadline, leaving you with blank mandatory fields in the EU portal, and with a sense of existential emptiness.
On the first date: he is charming and knowledgeable, but as soon as he mentions that he will have to drive a Work Package or sign the Declaration on Honor, he starts to break a cold sweat and change the subject.
Why you might fall in love: he is the dark intellectual by design: his lack of availability makes him incredibly attractive and convinces you that if only you could “win him over” and get him to sign, success would be guaranteed.
Red flags:
- At the writing stage he is enthusiastic but when you send him the link to the EU portal, he claims to have login problems for weeks;
- Instead of writing his own part, he corrects the commas of others’ parts to give the impression that he is there, without producing the technical content of his own;
- He feels uncomfortable and disputes having to provide accurate information, such as the number of person hours;
- In management he is often very vague: he does not say “I don’t” but uses phrases such as “we are evaluating internally.”
Our recommendations:
- To manage a Scary partner you need to take away from him any excuses and, most importantly, any “heavy” responsibilities. Avoid assigning him activities such as coordinating Work Packages and rather include him as a participant in activities led by others: the less responsibility he feels on himself, the more cooperative he will be;
- When writing, try to lighten him up: he will probably be more productive if you ask him to fill out a simplified excel or word than if you put him in front of an entire section of the form;
- Give him very early deadlines, justifying them by inescapable internal needs. The Fearful One needs external pressure to act, but if he understands that pressure comes from you, he will run away, whereas if it comes from “higher regulations,” he will comply.
The Ghoster (the ghost partner)
It seemed like the perfect match. During the first call he was enthusiastic, promised groundbreaking contributions to the proposal, and even sent the Partner Profile in record time, only to vanish into thin air at the moment of need. The Ghoster is a master of disappearance, and can turn your project into a full-blown psychological thriller. It suffers from superficial enthusiasm and an inability to handle the real workload. It can be an organization that participates in 10 consortia at once for a call for proposals hoping that some will pass, without being able to follow them all.
On the first date: it’s sparks. Big visions and promises. He assures you that he is ready to go and that budget is not an issue.
Why you might fall in love: It gives you the illusion of simplicity. He is the partner who raises no objections, who accepts your every proposal, and who seems to have a solution ready for everything. His initial speed makes you let your guard down, convincing you that writing the project will be a piece of cake.
Red flags:
- At the beginning of project writing he is the most active partner, but as the writing becomes more technical, his responses are more and more like monosyllables : “okay,” “go ahead.”
- Three days before the project submission, when the EU platform reports errors in its administrative data and needs technical details for its Work Package, staffing tables and missing administrative data, silence falls and it is unreachable;
- In management, he always has a creative excuse to justify delays in his activities;
- In interpersonal relationships, he is the one who keeps the camera off at all times and the microphone mutated during project calls, responding with vague messages in chat or saying he has connection problems when spoken to.
Our recommendations:
- There is no other remedy, with the Ghoster you need man-marking. As early as halfway through the writing phase, ask him for a contribution that requires effort. If he fails the test, consider scaling back his role in the project;
- Ask him for a second contact and, where possible, have him give you editing permissions in the EU portal so that you can enter the data directly, if there is no alternative, subject to consent;
- Ad hoc deadline: the deadline for delivery should be well before the project submission deadline, to allow you time and leeway to deal with its possible disappearance;
- Keep a “plan B” in the drawer: a backup partner ready to take over or a version of the project where their absence is not problematic. And remember: if a partner is too quiet during the creative phase, they are likely to hold a similar attitude during project management.
The “Bad Boy/Girl” (the rebel partner)
He is arrogant, does not like to “follow the rules,” hates templates and European bureaucracy. It usually manifests three hallmarks: institutional arrogance, financial opacity, and anarchy in deadlines. It is that partner who has great technical expertise or a prestigious reputation, but systematically ignores the shared rules of the game. Managing it is an ongoing struggle, with real reputational risks for the entire project.
On the first appointment: arrives late (or logs in from a coworking space no one knows where), snubbing the presentation template and without even having read the project summary.
Why you might fall in love: it exudes an irresistible aura of modernity and boldness typical of those who know they have “the idea of the century.” Including him in the consortium lends an avant-garde tone to the proposal. With him among the partners, the project is “out of the box” and seems poised to climb the social and economic impact charts.
Red Flags:
- At the writing stage, he sends contributions at the last second (or late), filling out the budget in spans with round, unjustified figures;
- He does not respond to emails from the coordinator, only to complain if his role in the project is downsized;
- In the management phase, it treats deliverables as “creative suggestions” and delivers poor quality reports, forcing the coordinator to do extra editing work to meet the quality requirements of the European Commission;
- It can be a loose cannon for reporting, inserting borderline costs (unauthorized travel, dubious equipment) that risk triggering audits for the entire consortium.
Our recommendations:
- The Bad Boy/Girl may have a positive appeal for the project, but must be controlled as a rebellious teenager. The Consortium Agreement must include clauses with clear consequences for chronic administrative and management failures;
- Always prefer written and tracked communication, avoiding verbal agreements, so you can document every decision in case of disputes;
- Assign him independent tasks, avoiding putting him as the leader of a Work Package on which all other partners depend, to avoid a “domino effect” of problems and delays;
- Enjoy his disruptive charge, but be prepared for his reactions when you tell him he has to keep his low-cost flight receipts–for the next five years.
The Best Friend (the comfort-zone partner)
He has your cell phone number bookmarked, knows your strengths, your flaws and, yes, even your “skeletons in the closet.” He is your safety net who never leaves your side and can give you unfiltered advice. There is trust, there is history, there is instant understanding. He seems like the safest choice in the world, but that very confidence is in danger of becoming his weakness.
The First Date: There is no first date, it is an established partnership. You understand each other with a look (or an emoji).
Why you might fall in love: he is reliable, you know from day one what role to give him in the project, and he will never make you spend a sleepless night in front of the form. Your administrative offices exchange documents without even going through you, making everything easier. His presence in the project is a sign of continuity and mutual trust.
Red Flags:
Because you have known each other for a lifetime, you tend to ignore formal channels and structured processes, going through informal phone calls and messages on WhatsApp instead of going through official emails;
At the writing stage, he may take comments on the project as personal criticism, considering divergence as a lack of esteem;
In consortium meetings, the two of you tend to talk past each other, using internal quotes or references to past projects. This creates a climate of exclusion that irritates the other partners and damages group cohesion;
He believes that because you are friends, you will be more tolerant if he delivers a deliverable three days late or sends incomplete data, asking for waivers and favors that he would never ask of another partner.
Our recommendations:
- To avoid a lack of freshness in the project, maintain a good proportion in the Consortium between “established” and new partners: always include at least one or more “third wheel,” completely new or geographically distant partners who can bring elements of innovation;
- To avoid the “closed group” image, alternate with the Best Friend in the role of coordinator. If you led this year, next year let him lead the proposal;
- Do not just attend the same networks, but share events to gather new contacts and exchange them;
- Do not accept each other’s contributions “out of sympathy” or blind trust, but subject texts to rigorous internal peer-review, as if you were outsiders.
The Heavy Ex (the partner of the forced return)
We close the circle with the most feared partner. It’s that partner with whom you’ve shared a project before, but the experience ended amid recriminations, overrun budgets or, worse, a European Commission audit that didn’t end well. For some reason, you find yourself having to include him again in a consortium. It’s like trying again with an old flame, already knowing that he has a habit of not washing dishes.
The First Date: The air is electric, but not in a good way. It greets you with icy courtesy as if nothing has happened, as you walk on eggshells to find ways to “get off on the right foot.”
Because you might fall in love (again): despite all that has happened, it gives you some security. Besides, looking for new partners takes time, while he is there with all the right skills to answer the call.
Red Flags:
- Instead of focusing on the new project, each meeting becomes an opportunity to rehash problems from years before, using old frictions as an excuse;
- It refuses to adopt new management tools or new methodologies proposed by the coordinator because it has remained anchored to the processes of the previous project together;
- Mindful of old discussions about reporting, he questions every single comma of the budget. He disputes the distribution of resources not on the basis of activities, but as a supposed “compensation” for wrongs suffered;
- He performs tasks, but with an attitude of complacency. Does not actively participate and throws barbs during plenary calls, undermining the coordinator’s authority in front of new partners.
Our recommendations:
- To prevent the new collaboration from turning into a sequel to an ugly soap opera, it is important to make a “clean-up and reset” call before restarting, to acknowledge what did not work and overcome old grudges;
- Use the lessons learned to sweep away any ambiguity that brought problems in the previous collaboration by clearly and punctually defining workflows, responsibilities and deadlines: the less room you leave for interpretation, the less room you leave for controversy;
- If the relationship is strained, assign Ex activities to a Work Package leader other than yourself. A neutral “third party” can manage the working relationship without it becoming a possible emotional battleground, with the risk of reopening old wounds;
- Maintain detailed tracking of each exchange, via e-mail, to create an objective history and ensure that everyone has access to the same information.
Epilogue: partnerships, good relationships and true love
Having come to the end, we can say that as in European projects, as in private life, the perfect relationship does not exist, but there is one that works. Whether you have been enchanted by the rebellious charm of the Bad Boy or have taken refuge in the safety of the Best Friend, the secret of a successful consortium lies not in the absence of flaws, but in the ability to manage them.
Good relationships, and even more so good partnerships, are not only based on similarities but also, and more importantly, on diversity and complementarity. A visionary partner will be able to balance the excessive caution of the Fearful, while the Beautiful and Impossible will be able to allow new doors to open.
So this year, for Valentine’s Day, instead of the usual chocolates give your partners clarity, confidence and a spirit of adjustment. Keep your fingers crossed and bet on a future full of long-term plans.
