Partnerships should be intimate, says Robert Ashton, or you risk losing control and credibility. 

I met an amazing lady called Michelle the other day. She runs a very small, publicly-funded organisation that in many ways holds the public sector accountable. Michelle's job is to keep community cohesion and equality on everyone's agenda. Hate crime is also something she monitors, forming the very nasty tip perhaps of the inequality iceberg.

Right now she is funded by the public sector and answers to them too. She has an amazingly large board; some 23 people, each representing a public or voluntary sector organisation. They describe themselves as a “partnership”. All I am sure would say, if asked, that they are committed to both the organisation and the cause. Yet checking the minutes of their last formal meetings, it seems only around half the board were there.

“So what's wrong with that?” I hear you ask. Well, nothing, if you want to tick the boxes and be seen to confer and comply. But the people with the greatest interest in equality are those who live day in, day out with the reality of inequality, prejudice and hate. These are not the professionals who try to squeeze a partnership meeting into an already bulging diary. They are ordinary people on the street, passing the window and perhaps even glancing in. But never, ever at the table.

Partnerships, in my experience, all lack the passion to see beyond process. They share statistics, rather than tell stories. They prioritise and assess, but they rarely confront inconvenient truths. It's just too easy to go with the flow, attend a couple of meetings a year and nod in agreement when asked for a view.

I don't know about you, but I've sat in plenty of meetings where the big hitters are pressing buttons on their BlackBerry under the table, rather than hammering the problems on the meeting's agenda. Indeed, I've done it myself, there because I'm expected to be there; physically present but mentally miles away. In a big group, you can feel safe allowing yourself to be distracted.

Though too polite to say, Michelle, I'm sure, experiences the frustration of at times, feeling she's the only one who'll be taking this stuff seriously when the meeting’s over.

So what's the answer? I think partnerships should be intimate. I'd never want to create any project partnership with more players than the number of people I'd be prepared to admit having slept with. Too many people and you simply lose control, commitment and usually, credibility too.

Next time, look at who you have around the table. I personally think every board needs at least one person with direct, personal grassroots experience of the issues being addressed. Look how effective John Bird is, as a former rough sleeper, as a key player at the Big Issue. He, and people like him, always say what others dare not even think. They strip away comfort, complacency and the tendency to assume that convenient one-size-fits-all solutions will solve the problem.

What I admired most about Michelle was her ability to cut to the chase. Working in a field where statistics can be complex and confusing, she tells it like it is. The more I challenged her, the more concise and clear she became. She's an unusual character floating in a sea of usual suspects.

But right now she's virtually invisible to those she's there to champion. And that's a shame. Do you know people like Michelle? How have you helped them get closer to the action and turn a worthy compliance organisation into a powerful campaign? I'm sure she'd like to see some examples!