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.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)