Lviv Media Forum: Effective Partnerships Require Shared Values and Operational Processes

Lviv Media Forum (LMF) is one of the largest media conferences in Central and Eastern Europe organized by the LMF team. Every year, the event brings together journalists, media communications specialists, public intellectuals, and experts in the humanities. Over more than 10 years of work, they have managed to form a full-fledged ecosystem of people, organizations, and projects that supports the media, develops comprehensive solutions for them, and promotes the best media practices in Ukraine and around the world. The main goal of the Lviv Media Forum is to form an effective and democratic society united by healthy communications.

In a conversation with Olga Myrovych, head of Lviv Media Forum, we discuss how they select partners and build effective projects, how a lack of communication skills can hinder cooperation, what red flags they pay attention to, and what shortcomings they are willing to overlook.

Lviv Media Forum is a well-known and influential organization. Tell us, why do you need partners?

Partnerships are necessary to implement the social changes we are striving for on a larger scale. Besides, we strongly believe in synergy. I believe that the best solutions exist at the intersection of different experiences and approaches. That is where you can find the kind of innovation that a closed organization cannot offer.

How do you look for partners? And how do you evaluate incoming requests for cooperation?

We only work with those who share our values and goals. For me, every partnership should create added value. So, we always want to understand how the collaboration will benefit us, our partner, and our beneficiaries. If the solution that comes out of the partnership improves the lives of our beneficiaries or helps us make the change we want to see, we are in. We have a detailed strategy that is quite specific but also broad enough for us not to limit ourselves. It also lays out our goals, and any partnership has to meet them.

With the goals clear, what else is important?

The next important point is to align our work approaches. This is no longer a strategic level but an operational one, and, frankly speaking, there are often difficulties here, because differences in corporate cultures are very noticeable.

For example, we state that the person dealing with the project on our side cannot shift responsibility to their manager or our partner. We clearly divide areas of cooperation, with everyone being responsible for performing their tasks. At the same time, they respond flexibly if circumstances change and something cannot be done.

However, there are cases — we call them “performer excesses” — when our partner’s corporate culture is good, but the person responsible for the processes is emotionally immature.

How do you act in such cases to ensure that the partnership still works? And what should the parties do to avoid similar situations in the future?

I think it is very important to have a mechanism for sharing experience, so that we are asked: “Hey guys, what was your experience in this partnership?” or “What do you feel like about your current partnership?” If I were asked to share feedback, it would be very honest and constructive. However, I hardly ever see situations where a partner is interested in how we worked with them at the operational level. This is quite weird.

We often ask our donors and international partner organizations about the things that could be changed in our interaction. We then draw conclusions, but generally, this approach is not very widespread, not only in Ukraine but globally.

Thus, differences often arise at the operational level. While we can quickly determine whether we are on the same page in terms of strategy, the operational level, unfortunately, can only be assessed through experience. This sometimes causes disappointment.

Can you give an example of a case involving communication problems at the operational level?

In the past, we faced a situation where a partner shifted all responsibility onto us. At the negotiation stage, everything seemed perfect, including the social component of the project and the distribution of responsibilities. However, due to external circumstances, the partner was unable to fulfill their tasks. The problem was that we were not informed about this in a timely and honest manner. We did not terminate our cooperation due to social responsibility. As a result, our team had to urgently and in force majeure mode complete these tasks on its own, as the final result of our long-term work was at risk.

What element was lacking to make you feel better about this collaboration?

The first thing I missed in our communication was for the partner to take responsibility for the difficulties that arose, offer solutions, and not resort to gaslighting. Gaslighting is unacceptable in a partnership. Second, instead of coming and explaining the situation as it was, they seemed to wait for us to proactively ask what had happened. In other words, there was a lack of mature, honest, and clear communication. The third element was respect. It seemed that the position of our responsible person could be disregarded as they did not hold a management position. Still, we are building a horizontal organization where everyone is responsible in their field of work and has the right to respect, the right to make decisions, and the right to vote.

I do not like it when partners behave this way. Even if the work is completely in line with our strategy, difficulties in interaction will raise doubts about further cooperation.

Who would Lviv Media Forum definitely not work with?

We would definitely not work with an organization having even the slightest ties with Russia. We would also probably turn down anyone we know nothing about. Not because we are arrogant, but because we already have a reputation and it is important to us. We work with those we trust: either people with a good reputation representing an organization, or organizations with a positive reputation.

How do you determine whether an organization is suitable for partnership?

If it is someone we have not worked with before but I know who has worked with them in the past, I feel comfortable calling my colleagues. I ask them to share their feedback about their experience of working with that organization and ask specific questions. From the information I get, I can more or less understand whether we should try to work together. Though we do not have our own experience of working with the organization yet, based on the experiences of our colleagues, we can take that risk.

Clarity is important to us. As collaboration starts, we either outline what we are willing to take on or our partner comes with very clear expectations and an understanding of what they want from us, what the result of our work should be, and what criteria they will use to evaluate its quality.

Most often, we fix everything in a contract or in letters. I always ask my colleagues to record our agreements. But, frankly speaking, if people start nitpicking over the meaning of words or legal terms, this is no longer a partnership. If someone wants to take advantage of us, we can sense that. This has happened to us. Ultimately, there must be trust between partners.

It seems that you spend a lot of resources on screening potential partners. Is that true?

Actually, we do not spend that much time on that as I, as well as our managers, have a wide range of acquaintances and enough skills to screen potential partners while making a few phone calls or Googling them.

Can you leave a partnership? When do you realize that it is time to leave, and when do you decide that you should continue working together?

We continue working if we understand that leaving the partnership would hurt our mission. But if the communication turned into unstoppable humiliation, we would end the partnership. No one can humiliate us as an organization or specific individuals. If a partner violates our dignity, we will not continue the cooperation.

Are you prepared to share reputational risks with your partners? For example, you invited two speakers to a conference, and a conflict arose between them. Their behavior could affect the impression people have of you. What would you do in this case?

When it comes to situations involving contractors, we definitely take the risk. It is our event, and we should have checked everything. We cannot communicate that the contractor let us down.

However, conflicts between speakers can be prevented by refraining from inviting those who pose reputational risks. LMF is a platform for the media community. It is a place where people have the right to exchange views, but it is we who choose the value paradigm.

If you were to evaluate your partnerships, what would be the ratio of those that were your initiative and external requests?

Most likely, it is 50/50. But of the 50% of external requests, we only develop half. These come from the partners we trust and have warm relationships with. And even if something goes wrong at the operational level, I will not wait for questions to arise but will call the manager myself and tell them what needs to be changed.

How should partners formulate their requests to get your attention?

For me, the best request for partnership is a letter by email. I feel comfortable communicating in a work environment, which is email rather than social media. It should be a letter with a normal heading, a brief introduction — who you are and what you do — and a clear proposal. For example: We would like to talk about how we can be useful to you in a particular area or project; we have an idea and would like to discuss how to implement it with you; or it could be a very specific request. If we see that it will create added value for our audience, great, but if not, we reject it.

What kinds of requests have no chance of success?

I find requests like “Let’s just talk. You tell us a little about yourself, we’ll tell you a little about ourselves…” less appealing. Our website may not be the best in the world, but if you take a look at it and do a little Googling, you will understand what we do.

I believe that people should do at least some “homework” as we do it too. For example, when someone sends a request saying, “We are interested in your foundation’s work and would like to discuss a partnership,” I wonder what kind of partnership they have in mind. I do not know whether I want to spend time on it or not. But if the request were phrased differently, like “We know about your activities to strengthen solidarity with Ukraine — this is something that coincides with our mission. We would like to discuss the possibility of cooperation in this field,” that would be fine. At least I would feel that there is some kind of “hook,” a bridge to common ground, rather thanot just a general request — about everything and nothing.

So, a partnership may not happen because someone failed in the initial communication?

– Yes, and this happens is often the case. We often encounter frequently face a lack of communication skills — many people find it difficult to formulate a request that goes beyond their own interests. “I need it. Don’t you understand?!” — and that’ is it. But when we talk about partnerships, it is very importantvital to send a signal to your partner: “We understand your mission, your priorities, interests, and needs. And here’s how we can be useful.”

I advise many people on writing grant proposals, and honestly, the hardest part is explaining that you need to show the donor how you are contributing to their mission and to achieving their goals. Because wWhen it comes to humanitarian aid, it’ is okay, the donor is simply fulfilling their need to “be good.” But However, when it comes to a grant, it i’s not about your goals. It i’s about their goals. So, your job is to find the intersection.

In general, it’ is very important to be able to formulate a message that will resonate not with you, but with the person reading it.

The Lviv Media Forum has many projects where you bringing together several donors. How do you do this so that everyone is comfortable?

– Yes, one program can be sponsored by different various donors, since because each of them finances funds something of their own. The point is that they give money for the same thing, but each in their own interpretationinterpret it differently. For example, we support niche media, but with one donor sponsors sponsoring innovation and, anthe other finances financing media in de-occupied and frontline territories. A Herewith, the third one supports transformation, and while a the fourth one strengthens editorial capacity. My job is to offer a relevant proposal tailored to the each donor’s request.

These donors know about each other, but they have different ideas about the goal of this project, even though it is quite complex. We break it down into components and offer each donor what resonates the most with them the most.

In what formatHow do you report to donors? Do you use reports as a form of motivation or gratitude, for example?

– Everything happens differently with each donor. Establishing good communication is the task of the person responsible for the project on our side. Some partners are open and value active feedback, while others perceive it as “you are wasting our time.” We study the each donor’s underlying needs and act accordingly.

We also provide reporting that best meets the partner’s requirements. It is important that the person who receives our document is satisfied with its form and content. To each their own, and we try to find that “own.”

Your answers show that the Lviv Media Forum operates as a high-quality service organization. You know, anticipate, and even discover your partners’ needs. That i’s a high standard. But doesn’t that not make you a difficult partner for those who come to you?

– ItThat makes us a not everyone’s partner not for everyone, and we are okay with that. At first, it was difficult for many in the sector because people were used to events being free and open to everyone. Here, we have certain standards and requirements, so and we had to explain a lotmuch that we were changing our approach and so on. This actually leads to us working with fewer organizations for greater impact. And that takes a lot of pressure off.

We have never had the a goal of working with everyone and being a partner for everyone. Partnerships where there isthat alignment on the value, strategic, and tactical levels are very important to us. And there are not manyfew such organizations. For us, this is perhaps a risk, but also an opportunity. We are very quite aware of what compromises or changes could lead us to cease to be ourselves. It is unacceptable for us to simply follow instructions for money.

How do you ensure that you have a consistently good approach to each partner? And how do you maintain this approach, for example, if people in your team change?

– Each of our projects has its own passportID, which sets out the main parameters: duration, financing funding options, budget and what it is spent on, and what the main results  expectedshould be. In the same document, the project manager records additional important information, including the partner’s specific characteristics.

But the main thing is to discuss how we interact with a particular organization and why we do so. Internal verbal communication is very important because crucial, as it allows us to noticeing things that are not apparent in writing. It is one thing to write that a partner likes clear reports, but it is quite another when the manager says, “Look, it would be important for the partner to highlight other things here: not a list of events, but what has changed as a result, because for they do not value appreciate lists.”

Ultimately, it i’s much easier in our field, because donors have reporting forms and clear questions. It does n’t not work that way in business, though; there, you have to look for other methods of studying needs and interests. I think guess that for businesses, the product should be important, not rather than the internal processes of its creation.

What should be done with projects that take a long time and become inert in a certain way?

– Inertia is not a the word I am very familiar with right now, even with long-term projects. I think itthis i’s because we select our partners very carefully, because as we ha’ve found people who are willing to be flexible, listen, and hear. Also, when we see that something is n’ot working, we initiate changes to find solutions and improvements. And, iIn principlegeneral, this yields results.

Have you had any unsuccessful partnerships and what conclusions did have you drawn from them?

– Our criteria for selecting partners are based on our experience of both successful and unsuccessful cases. We had aDuring one of our collaborations, where we were gaslit by a project manager from the other side gaslighted us. That i’s a clear red flag. PlusBesides, we never enter into partnerships where we are seen as a contractor rather than a decision -maker. This is also a consequence of an unsuccessful partnership.

What about your interaction with the state? Do you have any experience in this sector?

– Previously, before all the negative processes, we had cooperationed with the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation. It was a normalThe experience was fine. ThenLater, of course, we did n’t not apply again. We have fairly normal relations with the National Agency for Corruption Prevention. But these are reformed institutions where with the right people are in the right place, sufficiently qualified and motivated to be focused on change rather than processes.