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.

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:

• 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 have developed workshop exercises that help leaders better understand and develop these three critical skills. The exercises are designed to help leaders share their experiences, learn from others and explore specific activities that they can take to improve their capacity to practice collaborative civic leadership.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.