THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS HAVING A UNIT FOCUSED ON RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING

by João Vitor Domingues

By Governance for Public Goods and Services

September 21^st, 2026

by João Vitor Domingues, General Coordinator of the Institutional Affairs Office, National School of Public Administration (ENAP), Brazil

With more than a decade of experience in institutional relations, I have always been intrigued by a specific question: what defines the identity of the unit I work in? There is a valid reason for this question. Institutional relations functions are typically cross-cutting and versatile areas within an organization. Yet, since they do not coordinate core activities within the organisation, they often lack signature projects. Consequently, they can remain invisible to those who view the organization primarily through the lens of specific projects or areas of business.

In the case of Brazil’s National School of Public Administration (ENAP), the institutional affairs office initially focused on international cooperation. Its role gradually expanded to include engagement with national networks and communities of practice, federal government agencies, multilateral organizations, civil society organisations, academia, the private sector, and more recently, local governments.

RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING AS AN INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION

Over time, practically every sector came to occupy the daily agenda of ENAP’s institutional affairs office. That familiar old question began to cross my mind again: “What is this area’s identity?” How do we foster institutional cooperation with such diverse sectors all in one place? What makes us special enough to have everything centered here?

It was precisely as this multitude of sectors became a part of the daily relationship agenda that I found the answer. The unit’s identity lies precisely in its relationship-building vocation. For a long time, I sought the answer in some concrete cooperative initiative that would exemplify the behind-the-scenes work being done. However, the answer lies not in the outcome of the action, but in the action itself. The unit exists to connect and build relationships with multiple actors.

It is no coincidence that this unit at ENAP has always borne different names while sharing the same objective: fostering cooperation through articulation and relationship-building. Today, it is known as the General Coordination for Institutional Affairs. However, it has previously been designated as the General Coordination for Institutional Relations, Institutional Affairs Advisory, International Advisory, and Institutional Relations Advisory. Despite these different names, having a unit with a relationship-building focus is becoming essential for public institutions.

In the private sector, it is common to find areas focused on relationships—whether with customers, partners or suppliers. A company may offer an excellent product, yet fail to reach its target audience simply because it lacks effective relationships with its customers and key stakeholders. Consequently, having relationship-focused areas is essential for business success.

In the public sector, we need to devise different ways to value areas that rely on relational skills. The logic of product sales is not the most appropriate basis for comparison. To illustrate this, I enjoy recalling a story from my school days when I was a teenager.

CONNECTING PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS

When I was at school, there was a doorman who greeted me every day with a big smile. His name was Zé. Mr. Zé was not only friendly, but also knew exactly how to navigate the school and where to direct people. He knew everyone who worked there by name, every department and the shortcuts to getting things done. No matter what came up, he always had a kind and accurate answer. When Mr. Zé didn't know the answer, he would share what he did know and direct them to someone who could help. Quite often, Mr. Zé was able to enroll a new student—precisely because of the way he treated people.

The relationship-building unit within the public sector—to draw a parallel—plays a role similar to Mr. Zé’s. The unit is familiar with the entire organization and knows where to find specific information. It fosters cooperation and shapes the institution's positioning. For those within the institution, it helps to identify the best ways to connect with external parties. This department has no issue with constant meetings; in fact, it is highly recommended that relationship-building units meet with various stakeholders, conduct face-to-face engagements and listen to what institutions and individuals have to say and what they are seeking. That is precisely why they are called relationship-building units.

The phrase "this is yet another meeting that could have been an email" does not align with fields rooted in relationship-building. On the contrary, these units seek to turn an email into an opportunity for a meeting. Through meetings and conversations, relationships geared toward specific goals are solidified, and new partnerships are established.

In the era of artificial intelligence, deep relationships are becoming increasingly scarce. As interactions become increasingly mediated by technology, a genuine interest in building relationships is becoming increasingly important to achieve common goals and build trust among the parties involved.

The unit focused on relationship-building serves as both the entry and exit point for institutional partnerships. It seeks to break the "silo" paradigm in public administration, fostering communication across different areas and enabling external partners to understand the institution as a whole, rather than merely through its individual departments.

THE FOUR DIRECTIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

There are four possible directions for institutional affairs and relationship-building:

From inside to inside: when the unit fosters integration and coordination among departments within the same institution;
From inside to outside: when the unit facilitates access for the institution's departments to external actors for potential institutional partnerships;
From outside to inside: when the unit facilitates other organizations’ access to the institution's projects and services;
From outside to outside: when the unit builds bridges between institutional partners, strengthening multisectoral partnerships.

Once the value of a relationship-building unit is recognized, a second question arises: "How do we create such units?" Viewing the relationship-building as a core management function is a first step. Partner Relationship Management (PRM) is a strategy focused on closely monitoring an organization's partnerships, aiming to foster greater synergy among the parties, strengthen relationships and maximizing collaboration. Tracking interactions with each partner ensures that each partnership is understood in depth and managed according to its unique context. When meeting with a partner, the history of relationship captured through PRM can support the participants in any subsequent negotiations or collaborative efforts.

MANAGING AND STRENGHTENING RELATIONSHIPS

It is also important to measure the maturity of relationships with partners. At ENAP, the relationship is measured using indices. At the moment, two indices have already been created: the Countries Relationship Index (CRI) and Subnational Relationship Index (SRI). The CRI measures the level of relationship and partnership with each country, based on several criteria. The criteria are monitored in real time and relationship efforts are made to ensure that the criteria are met. The use of data and evidence in support of relationship-building allows ENAP to identify areas with untapped potential and maximize collaboration.

Recommending the creation of units focused on relationship-building may seem simple at first glance. However, when relationships become something to be managed and monitored, new competencies are required to lead these areas. Combining the development of institutional affairs competencies with managerial skills can yield positive results in this regard.

Schools of government can play a significant role in building the relational and cooperative capabilities needed for the future of the public service. It is not very common to observe a behavioral perspective in theories of cooperation—much less one that focuses on competencies. Discussions regarding power, domination and interests, for instance, are more observable in the study of international relations.

Nevertheless, in any cooperation process, it is important to outline the paths that can enable an organization to develop the capacity to cooperate at national, local and international levels. This task requires the acquisition and development of competencies.

BUILDING THE CAPACITY TO COOPERATE

First, we need to establish how cooperative behavior transitions from simple interpersonal relationships to more complex forms. Cooperation can be viewed as the mother of civilization, in the sense that our evolved cooperative capacities provide the building blocks that enabled us to collaborate on an increasingly large and complex scale, generating new global systems of influence.

Cooperation is not limited to power dynamics between the parties involved. It arises from a combination of various factors and is not always predictable. One such factor is the capacity of a given country, organization or community to cooperate. To this end, competencies must be identified, developed and adapted to new contexts. This shift in perspective regarding cooperation enables a better realization of what each of us is capable of achieving within relational processes. It allows us to learn from ourselves and to drive change through our actions.

Secondly, we need competencies to be acquired not only by individuals but also by influential groups. Concrete negotiation processes and global policy networks require decision-making. This type of high-level decision-making typically takes place within relatively small groups of people representing nations or organizations in national and international forums. I refer to this group—about which very little is known—as communities of practice that influence governance systems.

Therefore, it is possible for us to learn how to cooperate and relate to one another. Professor Dirk Messner proposes a set of competencies based on the so-called "cooperation hexagon" in his article titled "The Behavioral Dimensions of International Cooperation."

At the center of the diagram is reciprocity, a fundamental prerequisite for cooperation to be sustained over time. Through fundamentally pro-social tendencies, we learn early on in our cultural development that reciprocity is essential for establishing long-term cooperation. Although all elements of the cooperation hexagon are important, the professor argues that four of them are necessary to create conditions conducive to reciprocity: trust, communication (a key mechanism for building trust), the ability to assess people's reputation as reliable partners, and the perception that the interaction is fair. In addition to these four mechanisms, the professor highlights the power of enforcement to restrain non-cooperative partners. Finally, these mechanisms that enable reciprocity are far more likely to emerge in groups that share a common narrative—that is, among those with whom a group identity ("we identity") is shared.

FROM RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING TO IMPACT

The importance of public institutions having a unit dedicated to relationship-building goes beyond its mere creation; it also entails developing the competencies associated with this function. Through this combination, three major outcomes can be pursued:

Unlocking innovation: collaborative efforts among a diverse range of (international) actors can lead to innovative interventions, elements of which have been tested elsewhere. This supports effectively addressing complex challenges at local, regional and global levels.
Revealing novel opportunities: engaging a diverse group of stakeholders in a dialogue model that uncovers new actors and solutions, paving the way for fresh patterns of cooperation and collective action. The aspiration is to overcome negative patterns of conflict and limiting mental models, and instead identify leverage points and seek to pursue common interests.
Balancing local and global perspectives: highlighting the critical need to understand local realities while maintaining a global perspective, which fosters effective cooperation across borders and sectors. This is precisely where leverage points become important: a small shift in one area can produce big changes elsewhere.

In summary, the need for cooperation will never cease to exist. On the contrary, in our volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world, the need of countries and organizations to forge strategic alliances for a sustainable future is becoming increasingly evident. Achieving this goal depends on the capacity and maturity of institutions to engage with diverse sectors and stakeholders. This capacity-building can be identified and fostered in organisations with a natural aptitude for collaboration—organisations that are aware of their own actions to connect and build powerful relationships with reason, passion and purpose.

Button Label