As I wrote about a few months ago, I am now operating a consulting business called Civic Collaboration Consultants. I am slowly (very slowly) building a web site to help support that business. And part of that web site includes a blog that I hope to update more frequently than I managed to update Regional Physics.
I appreciate everyone who has followed Regional Physics for the last few years and I hope you will make the journey over to the new blog. And I look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Best Wishes,
Chris
Friday, August 12, 2016
Monday, August 1, 2016
Russ Pry: Galvanizing Leader
Collaboration is a term many politicians use, but very few are up to the challenge of actually doing it. Summit County Executive Russ Pry, who died on Sunday, was always up to the challenge.
He understood that collaboration required galvanizing leadership. And he used his immense leadership skills to unite diverse stakeholders to pursue change in such diverse areas as public health, workforce, early childhood education, economic development and government efficiency. The one skill he was most known for was building trust. He knew that he didn't have the power to order the mayors of Summit County, or anyone else for that matter, around. Instead he took the time to figure out what others needed and then helped them achieve their goals.
People trusted Russ because he was only concerned with making a contribution. Others could take the credit. Russ just wanted to make sure that at the end of the day the people and businesses of Summit were better off.
And unlike so many leaders, Russ was willing to trust others. A few years ago I brought a proposal related to fostering a talent development collaboration to Russ. Talent development was important to Russ. He wanted to create a world-class talent development system in Summit County. He said he wanted it to be his legacy. The proposal I made to Russ was more than a little vague, rife with risk and full of ambiguity. His peers would have not only passed, they would have run from it. He embraced it, telling me that as long as we both were willing to adapt and adjust things would be just fine. He knew that something as complex improving the performance of the talent development system couldn't be done with a simple program or even a detailed strategic plan. It would take a long-term commitment and sustained effort across multiple sectors. He knew the approach would have to evolve over time.
Tragically, Russ' time was cut short. But all of us who were blessed to work with him owe it to him and the people of Summit County to make sure his legacy is fulfilled.
He understood that collaboration required galvanizing leadership. And he used his immense leadership skills to unite diverse stakeholders to pursue change in such diverse areas as public health, workforce, early childhood education, economic development and government efficiency. The one skill he was most known for was building trust. He knew that he didn't have the power to order the mayors of Summit County, or anyone else for that matter, around. Instead he took the time to figure out what others needed and then helped them achieve their goals.
People trusted Russ because he was only concerned with making a contribution. Others could take the credit. Russ just wanted to make sure that at the end of the day the people and businesses of Summit were better off.
And unlike so many leaders, Russ was willing to trust others. A few years ago I brought a proposal related to fostering a talent development collaboration to Russ. Talent development was important to Russ. He wanted to create a world-class talent development system in Summit County. He said he wanted it to be his legacy. The proposal I made to Russ was more than a little vague, rife with risk and full of ambiguity. His peers would have not only passed, they would have run from it. He embraced it, telling me that as long as we both were willing to adapt and adjust things would be just fine. He knew that something as complex improving the performance of the talent development system couldn't be done with a simple program or even a detailed strategic plan. It would take a long-term commitment and sustained effort across multiple sectors. He knew the approach would have to evolve over time.
Tragically, Russ' time was cut short. But all of us who were blessed to work with him owe it to him and the people of Summit County to make sure his legacy is fulfilled.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Leadership Starts With Inquiry, Not Answers
The tragedies and turmoil of the last few weeks reinforced in dramatic fashion that we live in a VUCA world – where volatility accelerates, uncertainty abounds, complexity prevents control and ambiguity creates more unknown unknowns with each passing day.
It is unsurprising that such an environment generates wanna-be leaders who promise stability, certainty, simplicity and clarity. We are trained to expect this from our leaders. This training begins in the first grade with the teacher at the front of the class and continues through to the organizational chart that guides the entities where we work. We are trained to expect our leaders to have the answers. The problem is there are no easy answers in a VUCA world where inequity – whether measured by income, health, environment, safety, opportunity or whatever – persists.
The challenges and opportunities at the root of these issues cannot be solved by a single solution designed by an expert (even one who is “really smart,” with the “best words,” and excelled at “like the hardest … school to get into”). Going to the moon is a technical problem, as is, I guess, building a wall between countries. The answers to technical problems are knowable. In contrast, most of the critical challenges at the root of the turmoil that we see in our streets and feel in our hearts are adaptive in nature. The answers to adaptive challenges aren't clear, and indeed they only emerge through the interaction of stakeholders. Creating communities where all residents feel safe is an adaptive challenge, as is creating an economy where all residents have access to opportunity.
“The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems,” wrote Dr. Ronald Heifetz in his book The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Technical challenges may require us to behave differently, but adaptive challenges force us to think differently – and even to believe differently. To develop solutions to adaptive challenges we must challenge our assumptions about what we think we know, and help others do the same.
When faced with adaptive challenges we need to expect inquiry from our leadership, not answers. Adam Grant, in his powerful book Originals, describes in detail how pushing for solutions too soon limits originality, creativity and ultimately restricts our ability to create enduring, positive change. And David Peter Stroh, in Systems Thinking for Social Change, writes of the benefits of starting with inquiry rather than advocacy.
Practicing inquiry is a profound acknowledgement that we don’t know the answers, and a confident assertion that together– despite the realities of living in a VUCA world – we can develop sufficient, shared understanding from which solutions will emerge. Inquiry is leadership.
It is unsurprising that such an environment generates wanna-be leaders who promise stability, certainty, simplicity and clarity. We are trained to expect this from our leaders. This training begins in the first grade with the teacher at the front of the class and continues through to the organizational chart that guides the entities where we work. We are trained to expect our leaders to have the answers. The problem is there are no easy answers in a VUCA world where inequity – whether measured by income, health, environment, safety, opportunity or whatever – persists.
The challenges and opportunities at the root of these issues cannot be solved by a single solution designed by an expert (even one who is “really smart,” with the “best words,” and excelled at “like the hardest … school to get into”). Going to the moon is a technical problem, as is, I guess, building a wall between countries. The answers to technical problems are knowable. In contrast, most of the critical challenges at the root of the turmoil that we see in our streets and feel in our hearts are adaptive in nature. The answers to adaptive challenges aren't clear, and indeed they only emerge through the interaction of stakeholders. Creating communities where all residents feel safe is an adaptive challenge, as is creating an economy where all residents have access to opportunity.
“The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems,” wrote Dr. Ronald Heifetz in his book The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Technical challenges may require us to behave differently, but adaptive challenges force us to think differently – and even to believe differently. To develop solutions to adaptive challenges we must challenge our assumptions about what we think we know, and help others do the same.
When faced with adaptive challenges we need to expect inquiry from our leadership, not answers. Adam Grant, in his powerful book Originals, describes in detail how pushing for solutions too soon limits originality, creativity and ultimately restricts our ability to create enduring, positive change. And David Peter Stroh, in Systems Thinking for Social Change, writes of the benefits of starting with inquiry rather than advocacy.
Practicing inquiry is a profound acknowledgement that we don’t know the answers, and a confident assertion that together– despite the realities of living in a VUCA world – we can develop sufficient, shared understanding from which solutions will emerge. Inquiry is leadership.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Changing Places, But Still Focused on Change
I work to create change and it’s time to change my work. I will stay in the change business, but where and what I work on will be different.
On July 1, I will stop being a full-time employee of the Fund for Our Economic Future. I will use my time and talent to help leaders and organizations catalyze enduring, positive change in their communities. Through my business, Civic Collaboration Consultants LLC, I will provide training and support services to leaders and organizations who want to use cross-sector collaborations to create the kind of positive change we can see, feel and touch when we walk out the door in the morning.
“Cross-sector collaboration” is how independent organizations, institutions and individuals assume shared responsibility for achieving shared goals.
Through coaching, workshops and presentations I help leaders better understand:
I am fortunate that my first client will be the Fund. I will provide support to a few key Fund initiatives, including work in Akron – a community that both embraces collaboration and is experiencing a remarkable transition in civic leadership. I will also serve the Fund by providing collaboration coaching and training to its staff, members, grantees and partners.
I look forward to expanding my client base in the months ahead. I am having exciting conversations with leaders inside and outside Northeast Ohio at foundations, United Ways, advocacy organizations, leadership development organizations and planning agencies. I expect a few of those conversations will turn into interesting projects.
Nine plus years at the Fund provided me with an all access pass to an amazing learning laboratory for collaboration. The Fund itself is a collaboration. The Fund supports collaborations. And several Fund members support collaborations separate from their work with the Fund. This concentration of collaboration gave me the opportunity to work on numerous and diverse efforts. Their scope range from bringing change neighborhoods to creating alignment across multiple states. The Fund’s work is focused on collaborations that improve job creation, job preparation and job access outcomes. I’ve been fortunate that Fund members have also asked me to help build collaborations that create change in other areas, as well. One of the many lessons I learned while working and observing collaborations in such diverse areas as public health, youth development, early childhood development, education and the environment is that how collaboration works is pretty much the same regardless of what change is sought. Effective collaboration – which is far different from its more common cousin, “coblaboration” -- requires a potent mix of leadership, capacity and process.
The Fund itself embodies this mix. For more than a decade a handful of foundation executives, including the Fund’s current chair Brian Frederick of the Community Foundation of Lorain County, have exercised the leadership necessary to encourage dozens of independent grantmaking organizations to pool resources and assume shared responsibility for achieving common goals. That the Fund has no peer across the philanthropic world is a testimony to the effectiveness of its leadership. A small staff, more than ably led by Fund President Brad Whitehead, provides the capacity to perform the critical functions that make collaboration possible. And the diverse members of the Fund have created a process that builds trust, fosters shared learning and gives all of its members an equal voice in its decision-making.
Working with Fund members and staff changed the way I look at our communities, how I work with others and what I know is possible. I am blessed to be able to continue to work with them, and to have the opportunity to share the lessons they have helped me learn with others inside and outside of Northeast Ohio. Over the next few months you will be hearing a lot more about Civic Collaboration Consultants LLC. In the meantime, if you’re interested in learning more about how I can help you catalyze enduring, positive change in your community drop me a note at ccarsonthompson@gmail.com or @ccarsonthompson.
On July 1, I will stop being a full-time employee of the Fund for Our Economic Future. I will use my time and talent to help leaders and organizations catalyze enduring, positive change in their communities. Through my business, Civic Collaboration Consultants LLC, I will provide training and support services to leaders and organizations who want to use cross-sector collaborations to create the kind of positive change we can see, feel and touch when we walk out the door in the morning.
“Cross-sector collaboration” is how independent organizations, institutions and individuals assume shared responsibility for achieving shared goals.
Through coaching, workshops and presentations I help leaders better understand:
- Why cross-sector collaboration is necessary to solve wicked, persistent problems within our communities
- When cross-sector collaboration is possible
- How to create the conditions for effective collaboration · The capacity and process needed to support effective collaboration
- And the leadership skills demanded to launch and sustain such collaborations.
I am fortunate that my first client will be the Fund. I will provide support to a few key Fund initiatives, including work in Akron – a community that both embraces collaboration and is experiencing a remarkable transition in civic leadership. I will also serve the Fund by providing collaboration coaching and training to its staff, members, grantees and partners.
I look forward to expanding my client base in the months ahead. I am having exciting conversations with leaders inside and outside Northeast Ohio at foundations, United Ways, advocacy organizations, leadership development organizations and planning agencies. I expect a few of those conversations will turn into interesting projects.
Nine plus years at the Fund provided me with an all access pass to an amazing learning laboratory for collaboration. The Fund itself is a collaboration. The Fund supports collaborations. And several Fund members support collaborations separate from their work with the Fund. This concentration of collaboration gave me the opportunity to work on numerous and diverse efforts. Their scope range from bringing change neighborhoods to creating alignment across multiple states. The Fund’s work is focused on collaborations that improve job creation, job preparation and job access outcomes. I’ve been fortunate that Fund members have also asked me to help build collaborations that create change in other areas, as well. One of the many lessons I learned while working and observing collaborations in such diverse areas as public health, youth development, early childhood development, education and the environment is that how collaboration works is pretty much the same regardless of what change is sought. Effective collaboration – which is far different from its more common cousin, “coblaboration” -- requires a potent mix of leadership, capacity and process.
The Fund itself embodies this mix. For more than a decade a handful of foundation executives, including the Fund’s current chair Brian Frederick of the Community Foundation of Lorain County, have exercised the leadership necessary to encourage dozens of independent grantmaking organizations to pool resources and assume shared responsibility for achieving common goals. That the Fund has no peer across the philanthropic world is a testimony to the effectiveness of its leadership. A small staff, more than ably led by Fund President Brad Whitehead, provides the capacity to perform the critical functions that make collaboration possible. And the diverse members of the Fund have created a process that builds trust, fosters shared learning and gives all of its members an equal voice in its decision-making.
Working with Fund members and staff changed the way I look at our communities, how I work with others and what I know is possible. I am blessed to be able to continue to work with them, and to have the opportunity to share the lessons they have helped me learn with others inside and outside of Northeast Ohio. Over the next few months you will be hearing a lot more about Civic Collaboration Consultants LLC. In the meantime, if you’re interested in learning more about how I can help you catalyze enduring, positive change in your community drop me a note at ccarsonthompson@gmail.com or @ccarsonthompson.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
On Unnatural Acts
A decade ago the Council on Competitiveness aptly described cross-sector collaboration as an "unnatural act among non-consenting adults. Rarely do I give a presentation without using that line and it always draws a knowing laugh from the audience.
It is a dead-on assessment, but why?
The non-consenting part is actually kind of easy to grasp. Collaboration requires us to work with others. Most of us would prefer to be in control of our own destiny so it's understandable that we are reluctant to join in on a process that we cannot control. Cross-sector collaboration requires all of us to leave our egos and our logos at the door. Because we each work for an organization that pays our bills (and is likely a source of great personal pride) we are not eager to leave either behind. We can overcome our reluctance if we truly value the potential outcome of the collaboration -- the enduring positive change. But even if we consent, collaboration remains unnatural.
More accurately, I would say that we've been trained so that collaboration is unnatural. Anthropologists and others have highlighted that humans evolved as a species because of our ability to collaborate. I'm not nearly skilled enough as a social scientist to fully understand why such a fundamental skill to the health of our species is now unnatural, but I believe one reason is that we have developed other skills; those required to form organizations. We form organizations to more efficiently and effectively achieve goals. Organizational skills -- the ability to build clearly defined structures with rule, procedures and clear lines of authority -- have become the dominant skills within our modern societies. Nearly all of us work of an organization (one could argue even the self-employed work for an organization of one). Every organization has its own org chart. And we learn how to navigate org charts from the first grade (class seating charts) through the rest of our academic life.
Those that aspire for leadership positions take courses in organizational leadership. Effective organizational leaders learn all of the tricks of exercising power and influence within the clearly defined structures of the organization. And organizational leaders are required to focus on the long-term health of their organization.
In contrast, there is no organizational chart to guide cross-sector collaboration. The best we can hope for is a systems map that identifies the relationships among the diverse stakeholders within a complex civic system. And the focus of systems leaders is the outcomes of the entire system, not just one organization. Rare is the organizational leader who is also well versed in complexity and systems leadership described by Peter Senge in the Fifth Discipline.
Organizational skills are critical in environments where outcomes can be controlled by a single entity, or even a small group of entities. But in environments roiled by rapid, disruptive change organizations are less likely to be able to keep pace or stay in control (examples range from Apple's efforts to stay ahead of hackers and the military's ability to contain non-state threats). In such evolving environments, adaptive networks are much more effective at taking advantage of the altered landscapes. Such networks demand collaboration. As the pace of change continues to accelerate, those that succeed will be those that aren't confined by their organizations.
And just maybe collaboration will become natural again.
It is a dead-on assessment, but why?
The non-consenting part is actually kind of easy to grasp. Collaboration requires us to work with others. Most of us would prefer to be in control of our own destiny so it's understandable that we are reluctant to join in on a process that we cannot control. Cross-sector collaboration requires all of us to leave our egos and our logos at the door. Because we each work for an organization that pays our bills (and is likely a source of great personal pride) we are not eager to leave either behind. We can overcome our reluctance if we truly value the potential outcome of the collaboration -- the enduring positive change. But even if we consent, collaboration remains unnatural.
More accurately, I would say that we've been trained so that collaboration is unnatural. Anthropologists and others have highlighted that humans evolved as a species because of our ability to collaborate. I'm not nearly skilled enough as a social scientist to fully understand why such a fundamental skill to the health of our species is now unnatural, but I believe one reason is that we have developed other skills; those required to form organizations. We form organizations to more efficiently and effectively achieve goals. Organizational skills -- the ability to build clearly defined structures with rule, procedures and clear lines of authority -- have become the dominant skills within our modern societies. Nearly all of us work of an organization (one could argue even the self-employed work for an organization of one). Every organization has its own org chart. And we learn how to navigate org charts from the first grade (class seating charts) through the rest of our academic life.
Those that aspire for leadership positions take courses in organizational leadership. Effective organizational leaders learn all of the tricks of exercising power and influence within the clearly defined structures of the organization. And organizational leaders are required to focus on the long-term health of their organization.
In contrast, there is no organizational chart to guide cross-sector collaboration. The best we can hope for is a systems map that identifies the relationships among the diverse stakeholders within a complex civic system. And the focus of systems leaders is the outcomes of the entire system, not just one organization. Rare is the organizational leader who is also well versed in complexity and systems leadership described by Peter Senge in the Fifth Discipline.
Organizational skills are critical in environments where outcomes can be controlled by a single entity, or even a small group of entities. But in environments roiled by rapid, disruptive change organizations are less likely to be able to keep pace or stay in control (examples range from Apple's efforts to stay ahead of hackers and the military's ability to contain non-state threats). In such evolving environments, adaptive networks are much more effective at taking advantage of the altered landscapes. Such networks demand collaboration. As the pace of change continues to accelerate, those that succeed will be those that aren't confined by their organizations.
And just maybe collaboration will become natural again.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Searching for Galvanizing Leadership
"Zero leadership."
"Business leaders have done squat on this issue."
"They're too important to lead."
Over the last week three normally optimistic leaders I know vented similar frustrations. The leaders are from different communities. They were talking about different issues. But their concerns were the same. They know that achieving systemic change demands galvanizing leadership -- the kind of leadership that can unite diverse stakeholders from different sectors to work together to achieve a shared goal. They are frustrated that such leadership is in such short supply. While they each are leaders, they recognized that they weren't in a position themselves to exercise such leadership. Each would be seen as self-serving if they pushed too hard for change.
What made them more frustrated was that other leaders in their respective communities -- leaders who are in a position to exercise galvanizing leadership -- were more than willing to complain about the issue that each were trying to address. They just weren't willing to take the risk of leading.
As Heifetz and Linsky make clear in Leadership on the Line, leadership is risky business. And "galvanizing leadership" is particularly risky as it requires organizational leaders to lead well beyond the walls of their own organization and bring other leaders to the table.
Organizational leaders are very familiar with what it takes to effectively lead within an organization. Many such leaders aren't accustomed to exercising leadership beyond their organization's boundaries, particularly within complex civic systems that lack clear lines of authority and established rules and procedures.
Organizational leaders can be made more comfortable with the risks of exercising galvanizing leadership if they have a better understanding of how change can be achieved within complex civic systems. Yes, achieving such change requires different leadership styles and skills, but many organizational leaders can make the transition. After all, they were smart enough to figure out how to lead within an organization.
Some leaders need to know that the risks of exercising galvanizing leadership have been reduced before taking on the challenging of uniting diverse stakeholders. The risks can be reduced in a few ways, and philanthropy is well positioned to help reduce those risks.
Funders can help reduce the risk of exercising galvanizing leadership by assuring leaders that they are prepared to support a collaboration process if the leader is able to galvanize enough commitments from other stakeholders. They can reduce the risk even more by making multi-year commitments, recognizing that cross-sector collaboration is never a short process.
And the heads of foundations can choose to join with other organizational leaders to exercise galvanizing leadership. There is strength in numbers. Two or three leaders exercising galvanizing leadership is much less risky than asking one leader to go out on stage alone.
Philanthropic leaders have the greatest freedom to choose to exercise galvanizing leadership. Leaders from other sectors have significant organizational/institutional constraints that can limit their ability to cross boundaries and engage others. Philanthropic leaders face few such constraints and often have the kind of credibility and trust that is necessary to help persuade others that the time is right to collaborate to achieve change.
Those of us who find ourselves searching for more galvanizing leadership should probably spend less time looking and more time trying to figure out how we can lower the risk so that organizational leaders are willing to take on the challenge.
"Business leaders have done squat on this issue."
"They're too important to lead."
Over the last week three normally optimistic leaders I know vented similar frustrations. The leaders are from different communities. They were talking about different issues. But their concerns were the same. They know that achieving systemic change demands galvanizing leadership -- the kind of leadership that can unite diverse stakeholders from different sectors to work together to achieve a shared goal. They are frustrated that such leadership is in such short supply. While they each are leaders, they recognized that they weren't in a position themselves to exercise such leadership. Each would be seen as self-serving if they pushed too hard for change.
What made them more frustrated was that other leaders in their respective communities -- leaders who are in a position to exercise galvanizing leadership -- were more than willing to complain about the issue that each were trying to address. They just weren't willing to take the risk of leading.
As Heifetz and Linsky make clear in Leadership on the Line, leadership is risky business. And "galvanizing leadership" is particularly risky as it requires organizational leaders to lead well beyond the walls of their own organization and bring other leaders to the table.
Organizational leaders are very familiar with what it takes to effectively lead within an organization. Many such leaders aren't accustomed to exercising leadership beyond their organization's boundaries, particularly within complex civic systems that lack clear lines of authority and established rules and procedures.
Organizational leaders can be made more comfortable with the risks of exercising galvanizing leadership if they have a better understanding of how change can be achieved within complex civic systems. Yes, achieving such change requires different leadership styles and skills, but many organizational leaders can make the transition. After all, they were smart enough to figure out how to lead within an organization.
Some leaders need to know that the risks of exercising galvanizing leadership have been reduced before taking on the challenging of uniting diverse stakeholders. The risks can be reduced in a few ways, and philanthropy is well positioned to help reduce those risks.
Funders can help reduce the risk of exercising galvanizing leadership by assuring leaders that they are prepared to support a collaboration process if the leader is able to galvanize enough commitments from other stakeholders. They can reduce the risk even more by making multi-year commitments, recognizing that cross-sector collaboration is never a short process.
And the heads of foundations can choose to join with other organizational leaders to exercise galvanizing leadership. There is strength in numbers. Two or three leaders exercising galvanizing leadership is much less risky than asking one leader to go out on stage alone.
Philanthropic leaders have the greatest freedom to choose to exercise galvanizing leadership. Leaders from other sectors have significant organizational/institutional constraints that can limit their ability to cross boundaries and engage others. Philanthropic leaders face few such constraints and often have the kind of credibility and trust that is necessary to help persuade others that the time is right to collaborate to achieve change.
Those of us who find ourselves searching for more galvanizing leadership should probably spend less time looking and more time trying to figure out how we can lower the risk so that organizational leaders are willing to take on the challenge.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Donald Trump Makes Me Feel Young Again
I apologize for writing about politics, but Donald Trump makes me feel young again. And that’s very frightening.
Friends know that in my teens and twenties I could get irrationally emotional about issues that I was certain foreshadowed the coming apocalypse. I grew up in a household run by a liberal from San Francisco, so it wasn’t surprising that I thought Ronald Reagan would turn our planet into a charcoal briquette if we were crazy enough to elect the former actor president. And I was convinced that the CIA would lose us the Cold War with their bumbling efforts to overthrow the leftist leaders of the third world. Of course, I was being hysterical. Thankfully, I stopped seeing doom around every corner (it’s exhausting). Over the last three decades I’ve learned that no matter what party thinks it is in charge, things stay pretty much the same in America thanks to the supernatural wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
Until now.
David Brooks said it better than I ever could in this morning’s New York Times, and I think it’s particularly telling that Paul Krugman’s column today reinforces Brooks’ dire warning. Usually those two seem more interested in taking pot shots at each other than reinforcing each other. Please take the time to read them both.
For several reasons – but mostly because it’s so damn lucrative for so many, including Fox & Friends – too many Americans are now fueled by fear. Fear makes us abandon our values. The Bill of Rights will not survive in a country ruled by fear.
Yes, I’m hysterical enough to suggest our nation may not survive this election.
National demographics have long foreshadowed a fundamental change is coming. The 2016 election is likely to be the last presidential election where a party that appealed primarily to white Americans even has a slim chance of winning. This is why Republican Party leaders declared their intent to broaden the party’s base after 2012. Not so fast.
Instead of changing the party, the party’s front runner wants to change America. He says he wants to make America great again, but there is nothing great, nor anything American about what he promotes. Again, Brooks said it better than I can.
I’ve believed since last July that Cleveland (the city I call home) will host the “Donald Trump Coronation Ball, ” aka the GOP convention, this summer. Back then I saw humor in that. Not now. There’s nothing funny about fear.
Friends know that in my teens and twenties I could get irrationally emotional about issues that I was certain foreshadowed the coming apocalypse. I grew up in a household run by a liberal from San Francisco, so it wasn’t surprising that I thought Ronald Reagan would turn our planet into a charcoal briquette if we were crazy enough to elect the former actor president. And I was convinced that the CIA would lose us the Cold War with their bumbling efforts to overthrow the leftist leaders of the third world. Of course, I was being hysterical. Thankfully, I stopped seeing doom around every corner (it’s exhausting). Over the last three decades I’ve learned that no matter what party thinks it is in charge, things stay pretty much the same in America thanks to the supernatural wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
Until now.
David Brooks said it better than I ever could in this morning’s New York Times, and I think it’s particularly telling that Paul Krugman’s column today reinforces Brooks’ dire warning. Usually those two seem more interested in taking pot shots at each other than reinforcing each other. Please take the time to read them both.
For several reasons – but mostly because it’s so damn lucrative for so many, including Fox & Friends – too many Americans are now fueled by fear. Fear makes us abandon our values. The Bill of Rights will not survive in a country ruled by fear.
Yes, I’m hysterical enough to suggest our nation may not survive this election.
National demographics have long foreshadowed a fundamental change is coming. The 2016 election is likely to be the last presidential election where a party that appealed primarily to white Americans even has a slim chance of winning. This is why Republican Party leaders declared their intent to broaden the party’s base after 2012. Not so fast.
Instead of changing the party, the party’s front runner wants to change America. He says he wants to make America great again, but there is nothing great, nor anything American about what he promotes. Again, Brooks said it better than I can.
I’ve believed since last July that Cleveland (the city I call home) will host the “Donald Trump Coronation Ball, ” aka the GOP convention, this summer. Back then I saw humor in that. Not now. There’s nothing funny about fear.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Technical vs. Adaptive Civics
Last week I had the chance to listen to a civic leader present a 20+ year retrospective of civic collaboration in Cleveland. He talked of museums, stadiums, airports, school districts and other developments in the city's ongoing evolution. The challenges and opportunities he discussed were real and meaningful. They all had one other thing in common. They were all technical in nature.
In Leadership on the Line, Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky, distinguish between technical problems: those that can be addressed with expertise and authority; and adaptive problems: those that require experiments, new discoveries and adjustments from multiple places within the community.
Building museums, replacing a football team and expanding an airport can be very demanding civic challenges that do indeed require multiple parties to work together (one form of collaboration) and civic leadership. However, the collaboration required to solve a technical problem is much different than what is required to address an adaptive problem. The solution to a technical problem can be determined before a collaboration is designed or implemented. For example, it may take collaboration to finance a stadium, but the answer to how to finance it is known in advance. In contrast, the solution to an adaptive problem emerges from the collaboration process. For example, there is no technical solution to ending hunger within a community, but solutions can emerge through engaging key stakeholders using frameworks such as collective impact.
Heifetz and Linsky warn that the most costly leadership failure they see is when leaders use technical skills and practices to solve an adaptive problem. "When people look to authorities for easy answers to adaptive challenges, they end up with dysfunction," they wrote.
One can still be a Cleveland booster and acknowledge that our community suffers from a significant amount of dysfunction. The city's police department is operating under a federal consent decree. A population exodus that began decades ago has slowed, but persists. Regional planners have warned of unsustainable development practices. Infant mortality levels are among the highest in the country. And educational outcomes lag well below the nation. Each of these signs of dysfunction reflect an inability to address adaptive problems.
It is in the area of education that the differences between the technical and adaptive are so clear. Over the last 20 years there have been two major efforts to improve education in Cleveland. Both were technical efforts. The first involved changing control of the Cleveland school district. It replaced an elected school board with a CEO appointed by the mayor. The second effort, called the Cleveland Transformation Plan, gave administrators more authority, flexibility and resources. Both efforts relied on authority and experts to define the problem and develop the solution. Both of these efforts have created positive change, although the state still rates the district an "F" on its annual report card.
Technical solutions are needed, but education is the ultimate adaptive problem. The issues that influence educational outcomes extend well beyond the walls of any school building. Housing, health and income greatly influence student performance. No school CEO, even one empowered to hire and fire at will, controls those factors. CMSD CEO Eric Gordon knows this, that is why he advocates comprehensive, neighborhood-based approaches to improve educational outcomes like the one supported by the Third Federal Foundation in the Broadway-Slavic Village Neighborhood. That effort is taking an adaptive approach -- a lot of experiments and constantly adjusting -- to holistically address all of the barriers to educational success, including housing and health.
Technical solutions attract attention and resources in part because they are clear and defined. Adaptive approaches -- which evolve over time and are therefore difficult to explain -- struggle to get noticed, let alone support.
If Cleveland, or any community, is to live up to its promise, civic leaders need to excel at addressing technical problems and adaptive problems. The first step is recognizing the difference between the two.
In Leadership on the Line, Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky, distinguish between technical problems: those that can be addressed with expertise and authority; and adaptive problems: those that require experiments, new discoveries and adjustments from multiple places within the community.
Building museums, replacing a football team and expanding an airport can be very demanding civic challenges that do indeed require multiple parties to work together (one form of collaboration) and civic leadership. However, the collaboration required to solve a technical problem is much different than what is required to address an adaptive problem. The solution to a technical problem can be determined before a collaboration is designed or implemented. For example, it may take collaboration to finance a stadium, but the answer to how to finance it is known in advance. In contrast, the solution to an adaptive problem emerges from the collaboration process. For example, there is no technical solution to ending hunger within a community, but solutions can emerge through engaging key stakeholders using frameworks such as collective impact.
Heifetz and Linsky warn that the most costly leadership failure they see is when leaders use technical skills and practices to solve an adaptive problem. "When people look to authorities for easy answers to adaptive challenges, they end up with dysfunction," they wrote.
One can still be a Cleveland booster and acknowledge that our community suffers from a significant amount of dysfunction. The city's police department is operating under a federal consent decree. A population exodus that began decades ago has slowed, but persists. Regional planners have warned of unsustainable development practices. Infant mortality levels are among the highest in the country. And educational outcomes lag well below the nation. Each of these signs of dysfunction reflect an inability to address adaptive problems.
It is in the area of education that the differences between the technical and adaptive are so clear. Over the last 20 years there have been two major efforts to improve education in Cleveland. Both were technical efforts. The first involved changing control of the Cleveland school district. It replaced an elected school board with a CEO appointed by the mayor. The second effort, called the Cleveland Transformation Plan, gave administrators more authority, flexibility and resources. Both efforts relied on authority and experts to define the problem and develop the solution. Both of these efforts have created positive change, although the state still rates the district an "F" on its annual report card.
Technical solutions are needed, but education is the ultimate adaptive problem. The issues that influence educational outcomes extend well beyond the walls of any school building. Housing, health and income greatly influence student performance. No school CEO, even one empowered to hire and fire at will, controls those factors. CMSD CEO Eric Gordon knows this, that is why he advocates comprehensive, neighborhood-based approaches to improve educational outcomes like the one supported by the Third Federal Foundation in the Broadway-Slavic Village Neighborhood. That effort is taking an adaptive approach -- a lot of experiments and constantly adjusting -- to holistically address all of the barriers to educational success, including housing and health.
Technical solutions attract attention and resources in part because they are clear and defined. Adaptive approaches -- which evolve over time and are therefore difficult to explain -- struggle to get noticed, let alone support.
If Cleveland, or any community, is to live up to its promise, civic leaders need to excel at addressing technical problems and adaptive problems. The first step is recognizing the difference between the two.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
3 Reasons Not to Collaborate
Despite the never-ending hype around the value of cross-sector collaboration, the truth is, as Lori Bartczak notes in "Building Collaboration," a new report issued by Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, "Collaboration may not always be the best strategy."
When doesn't collaboration make sense?
1. When stakeholders complain about an issue, but aren't prepared to change. Collaboration requires everyone involved to change how they operate. If stakeholders don't agree to change how they engage with others, how they measure success and how they allocate resources then any attempt to foster collaboration will fail to rise above the all-too-common world of "coblaboration."
2. When the right kind of leadership is lacking. Galvanizing leadership -- the kind of leadership that inspires us to break out of our silos and assume shared responsibility for a common goal -- is necessary for a collaboration to survive the unavoidable rough spots that are inherent in the collaborative process. If the recognized leaders use "command and control" techniques and/or you cannot identify people who are prepared to exercise galvanizing leadership then your collaboration probably won't get past the first few traps. It is possible to engage individuals and help them see the need for exercising galvanizing leadership. That work should be done long before you try to launch your collaboration.
3. When the organizations you will be collaborating with don't even aspire to be high performers. We need to acknowledge that too many organizations within the complex systems we are striving to improve aren't operating at a high level. If they were it is less likely that you'd be pushing for systems change. Mario Morino and other Leap of Reason advocates have identified seven pillars of high performing organizations. Mario is fond of reminding me that collaboration can be a fool's errand because it all but requires harmonic convergence. I guess I'm more optimistic than that, but experience has taught me and the Fund for Our Economic Future that if you ask a handful of average organizations to collaborate you can guarantee a failed collaboration. Collaboration is hard work. Before pursuing a collaboration with others, make sure your organization and others are up to doing great work, or at least aspire to it.
There are more reasons not to collaborate than to do so. But if you want to achieve enduring, positive change within your community you will have to collaborate. Just don't assume your community is ready for it. You can help get them ready helping key stakeholders see the compelling cause that must be addressed (not just complained about); supporting those who have the ability to exercise galvanizing leadership (and by discouraging the command and control leadership style); and by promoting the performance imperative. Yes, the work involved in getting your community in a position where collaboration is possible can be just as demanding as the collaboration process itself.
When doesn't collaboration make sense?
1. When stakeholders complain about an issue, but aren't prepared to change. Collaboration requires everyone involved to change how they operate. If stakeholders don't agree to change how they engage with others, how they measure success and how they allocate resources then any attempt to foster collaboration will fail to rise above the all-too-common world of "coblaboration."
2. When the right kind of leadership is lacking. Galvanizing leadership -- the kind of leadership that inspires us to break out of our silos and assume shared responsibility for a common goal -- is necessary for a collaboration to survive the unavoidable rough spots that are inherent in the collaborative process. If the recognized leaders use "command and control" techniques and/or you cannot identify people who are prepared to exercise galvanizing leadership then your collaboration probably won't get past the first few traps. It is possible to engage individuals and help them see the need for exercising galvanizing leadership. That work should be done long before you try to launch your collaboration.
3. When the organizations you will be collaborating with don't even aspire to be high performers. We need to acknowledge that too many organizations within the complex systems we are striving to improve aren't operating at a high level. If they were it is less likely that you'd be pushing for systems change. Mario Morino and other Leap of Reason advocates have identified seven pillars of high performing organizations. Mario is fond of reminding me that collaboration can be a fool's errand because it all but requires harmonic convergence. I guess I'm more optimistic than that, but experience has taught me and the Fund for Our Economic Future that if you ask a handful of average organizations to collaborate you can guarantee a failed collaboration. Collaboration is hard work. Before pursuing a collaboration with others, make sure your organization and others are up to doing great work, or at least aspire to it.
There are more reasons not to collaborate than to do so. But if you want to achieve enduring, positive change within your community you will have to collaborate. Just don't assume your community is ready for it. You can help get them ready helping key stakeholders see the compelling cause that must be addressed (not just complained about); supporting those who have the ability to exercise galvanizing leadership (and by discouraging the command and control leadership style); and by promoting the performance imperative. Yes, the work involved in getting your community in a position where collaboration is possible can be just as demanding as the collaboration process itself.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Systems and Networks - They're Not the Same
I'm a word snob. I like words to mean what I think they mean. And I go a little nuts when others interchange words with that mean different things -- at least according to me.
For example: "Systems" and "Networks."
These words are often treated as similes but in the context of complexity they are distinctly different -- at least according to me.
Systems exist. Networks are built.
Systems -- caused by the interactions of independent players -- come in many shapes and sizes whether one is discussing natural systems (such as ecosystems) or civic systems (such as a public health system). We may not like how the players within a system interact -- causing chaos like mudslides or epidemics. But the system exists. I frequently hear people say something like: "We need to create a workforce development system." Or worse, "Our workforce network needs to work more like a system."
If I could edit these people they'd say something like: "Our system is producing lousy outcomes. We need to build a network within the system that is effective enough to alter the system's outcomes."
Networks are built by players within a system that agree to assume shared responsibility to achieve common goals. They embrace rules of interaction that build trust, expand and strengthen connections and create enduring positive positive change. We call such behavior collaboration.
For example: "Systems" and "Networks."
These words are often treated as similes but in the context of complexity they are distinctly different -- at least according to me.
Systems exist. Networks are built.
Systems -- caused by the interactions of independent players -- come in many shapes and sizes whether one is discussing natural systems (such as ecosystems) or civic systems (such as a public health system). We may not like how the players within a system interact -- causing chaos like mudslides or epidemics. But the system exists. I frequently hear people say something like: "We need to create a workforce development system." Or worse, "Our workforce network needs to work more like a system."
If I could edit these people they'd say something like: "Our system is producing lousy outcomes. We need to build a network within the system that is effective enough to alter the system's outcomes."
Networks are built by players within a system that agree to assume shared responsibility to achieve common goals. They embrace rules of interaction that build trust, expand and strengthen connections and create enduring positive positive change. We call such behavior collaboration.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Developing Our Collaboration Muscles
A recent report by Grantmakers for Effective Organizations emphasizes the need for leaders to develop their “collaboration muscles” to achieve enduring positive change within the complex civic systems that make up our communities. But what are those muscles and how can we develop them?
I've been fortunate to work with two colleagues Mark Scheffler, president of Leadership Akron, and Marcy Levy Shankman, director of Leadership Cleveland, we have identified three muscles, or more accurately collaborative leadership skills that are essential to effective cross-sector collaboration.
The three skills are:
I've been fortunate to work with two colleagues Mark Scheffler, president of Leadership Akron, and Marcy Levy Shankman, director of Leadership Cleveland, we have identified three muscles, or more accurately collaborative leadership skills that are essential to effective cross-sector collaboration.
The three skills are:
- Assess Context – Before they can catalyze systems change, civic leaders must recognize that they are operating within a complex civic system. Change occurs differently within complex systems than it does within organizations. Collaborative leaders engage with others to explore whether stakeholders recognize the need for systemic change, can agree on shared goals and are willing to assume shared responsibility to achieve those goals.
- Practice Inquiry – Collaborative leaders need to understand the motivations and priorities of other stakeholders within the system. Such understanding can be achieved by exercising inquiry skills, especially the skill of asking compelling questions. Compelling questions prompt conversations that help us improve our decision-making, create learning opportunities, direct our focus, engage others, influence our thinking and ultimately build trust among stakeholders.
- Build Trust – The absence of clear lines of authority within complex systems increases the value of trust among the stakeholders that make up the system. We are more willing to invest time, talent and treasure with those that we trust. That is why our collaborations move at the speed of trust. Collaborative civic leaders use their inquiry skills to understand what it will take for stakeholders to develop more trust with each other. They also adopt behaviors that build trust.
We will be presenting the workshop at GEO's Collaboration Conference in Houston next week.
Through our workshops leaders have developed a better understanding of context of the wicked, persistent challenges facing their communities, they have developed their ability to use inquiry to help others identify opportunities for change and they have developed techniques to build trust with other stakeholders.
We have been fortunate enough to work with and watch leaders put these lessons into practice within such complex systems as health care, education, workforce, economic development, food security and the arts.
We have taken the lessons learned from these leaders – their victories and their struggles – to refine and enhance our workshops.
These skills can be learned; these muscles can be developed. Our leaders can use them to create the conditions and capacity for collaboration. And our communities can thrive.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Power and Collaboration
I recently had the chance to help the volunteers supporting the Summit Food Policy Coalition explore what it takes to create sustained positive change within the complex local food system. As we explored the challenge of moving from the all-too-common world of coblaboration (where stakeholders just talk about, rather than catalyze, change) to cross-sector civic collaboration, Beth Vild, a community organizer and local food advocate, made the simple but elegant observation that collaboration is about exercising power with others rather than exercising power over others.
Beth's insight came as I'm reading The End of Power by Moises Naim, a fascinating examination of how global trends are making it harder for large institutions in government, business, religion, philanthropy and other sectors to retain power, and why smaller "micro powers" that are emerging as a result of those same trends also struggle with the rapid erosion of their power.
One of Naim's observations is that as power decays, so do the structures and organizations that help organize our communities (think Congress). Some may see this decay of power as a boon to collaboration. But this decay not only hurts an organization's ability to exercise power over others, it also limits their ability to collaborate (exercise power with others). Effective cross-sector collaboration is demanding work and organizations suffering decline struggle to allocate resources to collaborative efforts.
The antidote to the decay of power is leadership. While we often associate leadership and power, we need to separate these two concepts if we are to achieve change. Some of the most effective collaborative leaders lack any positional power and authority. They acknowledge this reality and instead take actions that build sufficient trust among diverse stakeholders so that they assume shared responsibility for achieving a common goal.
Collaborative leadership builds power. The power to achieve change with others.
Beth's insight came as I'm reading The End of Power by Moises Naim, a fascinating examination of how global trends are making it harder for large institutions in government, business, religion, philanthropy and other sectors to retain power, and why smaller "micro powers" that are emerging as a result of those same trends also struggle with the rapid erosion of their power.
One of Naim's observations is that as power decays, so do the structures and organizations that help organize our communities (think Congress). Some may see this decay of power as a boon to collaboration. But this decay not only hurts an organization's ability to exercise power over others, it also limits their ability to collaborate (exercise power with others). Effective cross-sector collaboration is demanding work and organizations suffering decline struggle to allocate resources to collaborative efforts.
The antidote to the decay of power is leadership. While we often associate leadership and power, we need to separate these two concepts if we are to achieve change. Some of the most effective collaborative leaders lack any positional power and authority. They acknowledge this reality and instead take actions that build sufficient trust among diverse stakeholders so that they assume shared responsibility for achieving a common goal.
Collaborative leadership builds power. The power to achieve change with others.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
We Need More Climate Change
Our communities are in desperate need of climate change. Not the kind caused by greenhouse gasses, but the kind that makes it easier for cross-sector collaboration to occur.
More often than we'd like, the climate is too frigid for cross-sector collaboration. Too many organizations have developed turf protection as their core competency and refuse to engage with others to explore what change could be achieved by adopting and pursuing common goals. Large organizations accustomed to control can be reluctant to engage in a process that is rooted in the awareness that no single organization can control the outcomes within the complex systems that make up our communities. Organizations facing financial challenges simply don't have the resources or capacity to engage in the difficult, challenging work that is cross-sector collaboration. Other organizations may be content to declare programmatic success and ignore the systemic challenges that remain. And some organizations have no interest at all in assuming shared responsibility for addressing complex challenges and opportunities.
In such a climate, cross-sector collaboration isn't possible.
Sometimes the climate for collaboration can be over-heated. This occurs when a large funder (often-times the federal government) offers the promise of a large grant in exchange for a organizations agreeing to collaborate on a project. Such offers can set off a frenzy of collaborations. But the motivation for the collaborative spirit is access to cash, not a commitment to sustained positive change. Once the money runs out the collaboration dies.
Those who recognize that the climate isn't right for cross-sector collaboration need to exercise leadership that leads to climate change. The first step is to understand the root causes of the current climate. One cause of a frigid climate for collaboration is a lack of shared understanding of the need for change. For example, a researcher asked me the other day if there was broad awareness within a community about its recent sharp economic decline when compared to its peers. Unfortunately, the answer is "absolutely not." And the reason is simple. No one in the community measures economic performance. No measurement. No awareness. Civic leaders that want to catalyze change need to build shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing our communities.
Another cause for a frigid climate is a lack of trust among stakeholders. Cross-sector collaboration requires organizations to assume shared responsibility for achieving a common goal. No one is eager to share responsibility with someone they don't trust. Civic leaders that want to catalyze change meet one-on-one with other stakeholders to better understand their respective priorities and motives and they work with others to create safe spaces where tough issues can be sorted through. Collaboration moves at the speed of trust. Trust can be built. Building trust is fundamental skill for those that want to exercise collaborative civic leadership.
Increasing shared understanding and building trust are two ways to begin to change the climate and make cross-sector collaboration possible in our communities.
More often than we'd like, the climate is too frigid for cross-sector collaboration. Too many organizations have developed turf protection as their core competency and refuse to engage with others to explore what change could be achieved by adopting and pursuing common goals. Large organizations accustomed to control can be reluctant to engage in a process that is rooted in the awareness that no single organization can control the outcomes within the complex systems that make up our communities. Organizations facing financial challenges simply don't have the resources or capacity to engage in the difficult, challenging work that is cross-sector collaboration. Other organizations may be content to declare programmatic success and ignore the systemic challenges that remain. And some organizations have no interest at all in assuming shared responsibility for addressing complex challenges and opportunities.
In such a climate, cross-sector collaboration isn't possible.
Sometimes the climate for collaboration can be over-heated. This occurs when a large funder (often-times the federal government) offers the promise of a large grant in exchange for a organizations agreeing to collaborate on a project. Such offers can set off a frenzy of collaborations. But the motivation for the collaborative spirit is access to cash, not a commitment to sustained positive change. Once the money runs out the collaboration dies.
Those who recognize that the climate isn't right for cross-sector collaboration need to exercise leadership that leads to climate change. The first step is to understand the root causes of the current climate. One cause of a frigid climate for collaboration is a lack of shared understanding of the need for change. For example, a researcher asked me the other day if there was broad awareness within a community about its recent sharp economic decline when compared to its peers. Unfortunately, the answer is "absolutely not." And the reason is simple. No one in the community measures economic performance. No measurement. No awareness. Civic leaders that want to catalyze change need to build shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing our communities.
Another cause for a frigid climate is a lack of trust among stakeholders. Cross-sector collaboration requires organizations to assume shared responsibility for achieving a common goal. No one is eager to share responsibility with someone they don't trust. Civic leaders that want to catalyze change meet one-on-one with other stakeholders to better understand their respective priorities and motives and they work with others to create safe spaces where tough issues can be sorted through. Collaboration moves at the speed of trust. Trust can be built. Building trust is fundamental skill for those that want to exercise collaborative civic leadership.
Increasing shared understanding and building trust are two ways to begin to change the climate and make cross-sector collaboration possible in our communities.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Complex Systems and Leadership
Increasingly my day job provides me with opportunities to share lessons in collaborative civic leadership and the art of cross-sector collaboration.
Recently my colleague Sara Lepro helped with two blog posts published on the web site of the Fund for Our Economic Future.
Complex Civic Systems, Collaboration & Leadership
Building Collaborative Leadership Skills: A Primer
The posts are taken from a brief paper I wrote to help different groups do some "advance reading" before I gave a presentation or a workshop on collaboration. I hope you find them helpful, as well.
Recently my colleague Sara Lepro helped with two blog posts published on the web site of the Fund for Our Economic Future.
Complex Civic Systems, Collaboration & Leadership
Building Collaborative Leadership Skills: A Primer
The posts are taken from a brief paper I wrote to help different groups do some "advance reading" before I gave a presentation or a workshop on collaboration. I hope you find them helpful, as well.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Trying to Define Civic Collaboration
Collaboration is everywhere.
Just in the last 24 hours, according to Google, we’ve been told that everyone from the Air Force to Kanye West, is working on a collaboration, and collaboration shapes everything from the quality of teaching to well-being in the workplace. Suffice to say, there’s a whole lot of collaboration going on.
But what is collaboration exactly? In my years of working to help others to collaborate, I've found that "coblaboration" is much more common than collaboration. And nearly everyone's definition of collaboration is somewhat different, in part because there are many different kinds of collaboration. I'd like to take a shot at defining a specific type of collaboration; the type that is required to bring sustained positive change to the complex civic systems that make up our communities. I call this kind of collaboration "civic collaboration."
My definition is full of terms that themselves need to be defined. Here's my latest shot at it. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Civic Collaboration: A process used by diverse stakeholders from multiple sectors within a civic system to develop and sustain a high-performing network able to identify and achieve shared goals by assuming shared responsibility for aligning resources, coordinating actions, measuring progress and adapting.
Process: A structured series of functions and activities that enable stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of what is possible and a framework that helps to collectively pursue shared goals.
Stakeholders: Organizations, entities and individuals that shape the performance and outcomes within a civic system, including funders, governmental entities, residents, businesses and nonprofits.
Sectors: Defined segments of our communities, examples include the public sector, private sector, nonprofit sector and philanthropic sector.
Civic Systems: A set of independent, interconnected stakeholders that through their performance and their interactions influence key outcomes within our communities. Civic systems cannot be controlled by any single or small group of entities.
High-performing Network: An interdependent web created when independent stakeholders within a civic system agree to a shared set of performance standards, rules of interaction and goals, and agree to assume shared responsibility for achieving those goals.
Shared Goals: Outcomes that independent stakeholders agree to pursue together.
Shared Responsibility: Independent stakeholders assume a portion of the responsibility for achieving shared goals. Stakeholders can articulate the specific actions that they will perform to fulfill their shared responsibility.
Resources: Financial, human and physical capital that is deployed to support individual or collective actions by stakeholders.
Actions: The programs, projects and initiatives undertaken by stakeholders, either acting individually or with others, that are designed to achieve specific outcomes, including achieving the shared goals identified by the high-performing network.
Measuring Goals: Stakeholders agree to set of metrics that will used to measure progress toward the shared goals.
Adapt: Stakeholders in high-performing networks use metrics to better understand the performance and outcomes of the system and adapt so that their actions result in improved performance and outcomes.
Just in the last 24 hours, according to Google, we’ve been told that everyone from the Air Force to Kanye West, is working on a collaboration, and collaboration shapes everything from the quality of teaching to well-being in the workplace. Suffice to say, there’s a whole lot of collaboration going on.
But what is collaboration exactly? In my years of working to help others to collaborate, I've found that "coblaboration" is much more common than collaboration. And nearly everyone's definition of collaboration is somewhat different, in part because there are many different kinds of collaboration. I'd like to take a shot at defining a specific type of collaboration; the type that is required to bring sustained positive change to the complex civic systems that make up our communities. I call this kind of collaboration "civic collaboration."
My definition is full of terms that themselves need to be defined. Here's my latest shot at it. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Civic Collaboration: A process used by diverse stakeholders from multiple sectors within a civic system to develop and sustain a high-performing network able to identify and achieve shared goals by assuming shared responsibility for aligning resources, coordinating actions, measuring progress and adapting.
Process: A structured series of functions and activities that enable stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of what is possible and a framework that helps to collectively pursue shared goals.
Stakeholders: Organizations, entities and individuals that shape the performance and outcomes within a civic system, including funders, governmental entities, residents, businesses and nonprofits.
Sectors: Defined segments of our communities, examples include the public sector, private sector, nonprofit sector and philanthropic sector.
Civic Systems: A set of independent, interconnected stakeholders that through their performance and their interactions influence key outcomes within our communities. Civic systems cannot be controlled by any single or small group of entities.
High-performing Network: An interdependent web created when independent stakeholders within a civic system agree to a shared set of performance standards, rules of interaction and goals, and agree to assume shared responsibility for achieving those goals.
Shared Goals: Outcomes that independent stakeholders agree to pursue together.
Shared Responsibility: Independent stakeholders assume a portion of the responsibility for achieving shared goals. Stakeholders can articulate the specific actions that they will perform to fulfill their shared responsibility.
Resources: Financial, human and physical capital that is deployed to support individual or collective actions by stakeholders.
Actions: The programs, projects and initiatives undertaken by stakeholders, either acting individually or with others, that are designed to achieve specific outcomes, including achieving the shared goals identified by the high-performing network.
Measuring Goals: Stakeholders agree to set of metrics that will used to measure progress toward the shared goals.
Adapt: Stakeholders in high-performing networks use metrics to better understand the performance and outcomes of the system and adapt so that their actions result in improved performance and outcomes.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Why So Many Orgs?
Our communities all have two things:
- An abundance of wicked, persistent challenges.
- A number of non-profit organizations formed with the intent of addressing those challenges.
A cynic -- I used to be one, so I should know -- says that the employees of organizations don't want to put themselves out of a job and that is why the challenges persist. But if you spend any time at all with leaders (both staff and boards) of non-profit organizations you know that the vast majority devote their lives to the challenges. Most could make much more money (if that is what motivates them) doing something else in the for-profit world. To suggest that they care more for themselves than for their cause is simply wrong and offensive.
Yet, the paradox and the challenges persist. Why?
Increasingly I believe it is a reflection of how we try to make sense of our environment. Karl Weick said we are inclined to insert vestiges of orderliness to make sense of our lives. And organizations create a sense of orderliness. Organizations have mission statements and organizational charts that assure us that they are able address the challenge at hand.
In communities with significant resources, the ability to create organizations to address challenges appears limitless. There are now more than 1.5 million nonprofits in the United States, and sometimes it seems there are that many in the philanthropy-rich region where I work.
High-performing organizations can indeed address complicated challenges facing our communities. But the wicked, persistent challenges are complex -- that is their solutions emerge not from an organization but from the interactions of many organizations, individuals and institutions that make up the complex system that is at the heart of the challenge.
We can create all the organizations we want to improve educational outcomes, for example, but ultimately educational outcomes at the community level are determined by how well all of those organizations, and so many others that make up our "education system," interact with each other.
Why do we keep creating organizations to address complex challenges? I believe it is because we do what we know. We are taught by organizations. We work for organizations. We are all familiar with organizational charts; we encounter them in first grade and many of us cannot go to bed at night without knowing where we are on the chart. Funders work in organizations, too. Ideally, they want to know the outcome before the check is written and organizational charts and linear logic models all help.
But as the great Kathy Merchant, former head of the Cincinnati Foundation, so wisely puts it: "If you're looking for linear, find a new line of work." Bringing change to complex systems is anything but linear.
But we are all trained in linear. I had a biology teacher in high school who tried to introduce me to complexity (by having us read Aldo Leopold) and it wasn't until just a few years ago that I realized what he was talking about. And while I can be more obtuse than most, I don't think I ever really encountered complexity again throughout my schooling and my professional career until a mentor helped me understand its relevance to my work in regional economic development. When I speak to leaders I often ask how many are comfortable with complexity. Rarely do more than a few in a large crowd raise their hand.
This is why we keep creating organizations. It's what we know. If we understood complexity better -- and understood how the organizations we created our part of complex systems -- then we'd spend more time creating the capacity to understand how our systems perform and why, and less time creating new organizations unable to address the challenges they were created to solve.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
On Reorgs and Spaceships
There are two common (and commonly ineffective) approaches civic leaders use to address persistent challenges within their communities.
The first approach is to reorganize the institution that is deemed to be to blame. Superintendents of urban school districts are very familiar with this phenomenon as they've watch one wave of reorganization after another wash over their districts. Rarely is a school reorg tied to a community effort to eliminate economic poverty, even though numerous studies link poverty to poor educational outcomes. Yes, we need high-performing schools (and other civic institutions) as the Leap of Reason movement makes so very clear. But we also know that no single organization can change the outcomes within a complex system. Restructuring a single organization in the absence of systemic change will not result in the outcomes we desire for our communities. But we keep trying.
We also like to try spaceships. "Spaceships" is my term for the practice of transplanting a "successful" program/project/initiative from one community to another.
In the best case scenario, the new initiative is led by an emotionally intelligent leader who is able to adapt to their environment, build relationships, create connections and generate results that make the spaceship a valued part of the system and the community.
Too often, the champions of the new initiative let others in the system know that the spaceship is here to fix what others could not. Existing players cannot be engaged because they are part of the problem. The spaceship must not be infected. These champions are like the aliens from a bad sci-fi movie; here to save the human race from itself. The problem with this spaceship approach to civic change is that spaceships are expensive to keep up. They start off all shiny and new and attract a lot of attention. But over time, the luster wears off, the problems they are trying to address are complex and therefore beyond the control of even the fanciest of spaceships. Eventually the funders of the spaceship tire of footing the entire bill and try to persuade others to embrace and make their spaceship "sustainable." But other funders have their own spaceships to sustain.
This is when the really bad stuff happens. The spaceships agree to a merger and promise all will be well as soon as they finish their reorg.
The first approach is to reorganize the institution that is deemed to be to blame. Superintendents of urban school districts are very familiar with this phenomenon as they've watch one wave of reorganization after another wash over their districts. Rarely is a school reorg tied to a community effort to eliminate economic poverty, even though numerous studies link poverty to poor educational outcomes. Yes, we need high-performing schools (and other civic institutions) as the Leap of Reason movement makes so very clear. But we also know that no single organization can change the outcomes within a complex system. Restructuring a single organization in the absence of systemic change will not result in the outcomes we desire for our communities. But we keep trying.
We also like to try spaceships. "Spaceships" is my term for the practice of transplanting a "successful" program/project/initiative from one community to another.
In the best case scenario, the new initiative is led by an emotionally intelligent leader who is able to adapt to their environment, build relationships, create connections and generate results that make the spaceship a valued part of the system and the community.
Too often, the champions of the new initiative let others in the system know that the spaceship is here to fix what others could not. Existing players cannot be engaged because they are part of the problem. The spaceship must not be infected. These champions are like the aliens from a bad sci-fi movie; here to save the human race from itself. The problem with this spaceship approach to civic change is that spaceships are expensive to keep up. They start off all shiny and new and attract a lot of attention. But over time, the luster wears off, the problems they are trying to address are complex and therefore beyond the control of even the fanciest of spaceships. Eventually the funders of the spaceship tire of footing the entire bill and try to persuade others to embrace and make their spaceship "sustainable." But other funders have their own spaceships to sustain.
This is when the really bad stuff happens. The spaceships agree to a merger and promise all will be well as soon as they finish their reorg.
The Root Cause for Failing to Achieve Change
Recently a civic leader I work with expressed frustration that he's heard the same complaints for years about poor workforce development outcomes in our region and nothing has changed. He correctly observed that before we try to make change happen, we need to understand the root cause for why change hasn't happened to date.
While I originally offered several specific reasons for the persistence of the workforce status quo, upon reflection I believe the real root cause is rather generic. Whether the issue is workforce development, business development, public health, innovation or entrepreneurship, the root cause for the lack of sustained positive change is that these are complex civic systems.
What is a complex civic system and why is it so hard to achieve sustained positive change within such systems?
Complex civic systems are made up of diverse independent stakeholders (organizations, institutions and individuals) from multiple sectors (private, public, nonprofit and philanthropic).
Here are several things that we need to understand about complex civic systems:
Within poorly performing civic systems, stakeholders with resources and capacity can influence parts of the system or create workarounds to achieve the desired outcomes. This may improve outcomes for some, but the overall system continues to perform poorly. Stakeholders without resources and capacity have limited influence over any part of the system and struggle to develop workarounds. They also have limited capacity to aggregate their individual interests into a collective voice and/or collective action.
This is the root cause of our frustration.
Civic leaders can catalyze the capacity for the cross-sector collaborations that are necessary to bring change to complex civic systems. The first step is recognizing the root cause of our frustration is that we are dealing with a complex system.
While I originally offered several specific reasons for the persistence of the workforce status quo, upon reflection I believe the real root cause is rather generic. Whether the issue is workforce development, business development, public health, innovation or entrepreneurship, the root cause for the lack of sustained positive change is that these are complex civic systems.
What is a complex civic system and why is it so hard to achieve sustained positive change within such systems?
Complex civic systems are made up of diverse independent stakeholders (organizations, institutions and individuals) from multiple sectors (private, public, nonprofit and philanthropic).
Here are several things that we need to understand about complex civic systems:
- They are not controlled by any individual entity or even a small group of entities.
- The outcomes – educational outcomes, business development outcomes, job training outcomes etc. – that emerge from these systems are also beyond any single entity’s control.
- Complex civic systems exist even when they are not well coordinated. (Both chaos and order can emerge from complex systems.) Often I hear that "there is no system" or "we need to create a system." There is always a system, it just may not function in a way that we would like.)
- The quality of what emerges from a complex civic system is determined by the quality of the interactions among the players within the system.
- The boundaries of such systems are unclear, can change and vary widely. Just as in natural systems, civic systems are made up of multiple subsystems and they're all interconnected.
Within poorly performing civic systems, stakeholders with resources and capacity can influence parts of the system or create workarounds to achieve the desired outcomes. This may improve outcomes for some, but the overall system continues to perform poorly. Stakeholders without resources and capacity have limited influence over any part of the system and struggle to develop workarounds. They also have limited capacity to aggregate their individual interests into a collective voice and/or collective action.
This is the root cause of our frustration.
Civic leaders can catalyze the capacity for the cross-sector collaborations that are necessary to bring change to complex civic systems. The first step is recognizing the root cause of our frustration is that we are dealing with a complex system.
Thank You to Intersector
Last month, the Intersector Project was kind enough to post an article I wrote for them about valuable role that public sector officials can play to catalyze cross-sector collaborations.
I've been tracking the Intersector Project for awhile. Its four-step process for supporting cross-sector collaboration will be familiar to those who follow the work of the Collective Impact Forum, Bridgespan and others.
It is encouraging to see more energy and effort going into helping stakeholders develop systemic approaches to addressing the wicked, persistent challenges within their communities.
While I believe that philanthropy has the most freedom to catalyze cross-sector collaborations that target systemic change, clearly the private and public sectors can do the same. I am fortunate to work with public leaders willing to do just that in Summit County, Ohio. And I'm very thankful that Intersector was willing to help me highlight their leadership to a global audience.
I've been tracking the Intersector Project for awhile. Its four-step process for supporting cross-sector collaboration will be familiar to those who follow the work of the Collective Impact Forum, Bridgespan and others.
It is encouraging to see more energy and effort going into helping stakeholders develop systemic approaches to addressing the wicked, persistent challenges within their communities.
While I believe that philanthropy has the most freedom to catalyze cross-sector collaborations that target systemic change, clearly the private and public sectors can do the same. I am fortunate to work with public leaders willing to do just that in Summit County, Ohio. And I'm very thankful that Intersector was willing to help me highlight their leadership to a global audience.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The Coblaboration Test
I've written before about how many cross-sector efforts remain stuck in "coblaboration" and rarely move to collaboration. The following chart highlights the difference between the two.
While "coblaboration" is a made up word, I've never had to explain it to anyone working in the civic sector. Everyone is all to familiar with the frustrations of coblabloration; even though they may not have had a word to describe it. As I've worked with more and more collaborations, I've begun to develop a set of multiple-choice questions that stakeholders can take to assess whether they're stuck in coblaboration-mode or whether they are moving to collaboration.
Leaders of collaborations should ask the participants to take and share such a self-assessment on a consistent basis to surface key issues that hinder a collaboration's progress.
1. I participate in this collaboration:
a.) To protect myself or my organization's interests
b.) I'm not sure why
c.) Because it creates value for me and/or my organization
2. When it comes to other participants in this collaboration:
a.) I am suspicious of their motives and priorities.
b.) I am unclear of their motives and priorities.
c.) I understand their motives and priorities.
3. My level of trust with other participants is:
a.) Non-existent
b.) Low
c.) Moderate
d.) Strong
4. My level of trust with other participants is:
a.) Declining
b.) Staying the same
c.) Growing
5. Our collaboration has a regular meeting schedule:
a.) Yes
b.) No
c.) I don't know
6. Our meetings are:
a.) Like Ground Hog Day, the same thing over and over
b.) Inconsistent
c.) Helpful
d.) Very Helpful
7. Our collaboration's communications are:
a.) Rare
b.) Sporadic
c.) Consistent
8. Our collaboration's communications are:
a.) Unclear and unhelpful
b.) Somewhat helpful
c.) Very helpful
9. Participants in our collaboration are focused on:
a.) Assigning blame
b.) Taking credit
c.) Achieving change
d.) Not sure yet
10. Data from our collaboration:
a.) Isn't available
b.) Is available, but irrelevant
c.) Is relevant but rarely used
d.) Is occasionally used
e.) Regularly informs are decision-making
Take the coblaboration test. What do your answers tell you about the health of your collaboration?
Focused on assigning blame or taking credit
|
Focused on outcomes
|
Stakeholders participate to protect
|
Stakeholders participate to generate value
|
Opinions rule
|
Data is king
|
Talk exceeds action
|
Actions emerge from engagement
|
Informal process
|
Intentional, rigorous process
|
While "coblaboration" is a made up word, I've never had to explain it to anyone working in the civic sector. Everyone is all to familiar with the frustrations of coblabloration; even though they may not have had a word to describe it. As I've worked with more and more collaborations, I've begun to develop a set of multiple-choice questions that stakeholders can take to assess whether they're stuck in coblaboration-mode or whether they are moving to collaboration.
Leaders of collaborations should ask the participants to take and share such a self-assessment on a consistent basis to surface key issues that hinder a collaboration's progress.
1. I participate in this collaboration:
a.) To protect myself or my organization's interests
b.) I'm not sure why
c.) Because it creates value for me and/or my organization
2. When it comes to other participants in this collaboration:
a.) I am suspicious of their motives and priorities.
b.) I am unclear of their motives and priorities.
c.) I understand their motives and priorities.
3. My level of trust with other participants is:
a.) Non-existent
b.) Low
c.) Moderate
d.) Strong
4. My level of trust with other participants is:
a.) Declining
b.) Staying the same
c.) Growing
5. Our collaboration has a regular meeting schedule:
a.) Yes
b.) No
c.) I don't know
6. Our meetings are:
a.) Like Ground Hog Day, the same thing over and over
b.) Inconsistent
c.) Helpful
d.) Very Helpful
7. Our collaboration's communications are:
a.) Rare
b.) Sporadic
c.) Consistent
8. Our collaboration's communications are:
a.) Unclear and unhelpful
b.) Somewhat helpful
c.) Very helpful
9. Participants in our collaboration are focused on:
a.) Assigning blame
b.) Taking credit
c.) Achieving change
d.) Not sure yet
10. Data from our collaboration:
a.) Isn't available
b.) Is available, but irrelevant
c.) Is relevant but rarely used
d.) Is occasionally used
e.) Regularly informs are decision-making
Take the coblaboration test. What do your answers tell you about the health of your collaboration?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)