I like to oversimplify if only because it is much easier to remember two or three things than it is a dozen or more. So at the risk of oversimplification, civic change efforts focus on either organizations or outcomes.
And while change occurs when we focus on outcomes, we spend most of our civic effort focused on organizations. Why? Again at the risk of oversimplification, here are three reasons:
1. We know organizations much better than we understand complex systems; after all we all work for organizations. Organizational structures are very familiar to us and we are comfortable with their design and redesign. The structure of a complex system is much harder to draw, let alone reshape.
2. We can control organizations. Control in the civic space is highly valued. Control plays out in many ways, not the least of which is budgets. About a decade ago a civic leader remarked how excited he was for a pending redesign of his community's civic infrastructure. "I can't wait to get my hands on that checkbook," he said. This desire for control is understandable and appropriate. We've all seen under-performing organizations and there is is great value in making them high performers. But we also know that high-performing organizations acting in isolation cannot transform a community.
3. We'd rather not be held accountable for things we cannot control. Achieving community-level change is about shared responsibility. We all have a part to play in holding each other accountable for the performance of a complex system. This is much more difficult than the relatively simple (but all too rare) job of being a fiduciary for an organization.
It is so easy (and understandable) to focus on organizational change over systems change. The best way for communities to stay focused on outcomes is to have a very clear and compelling goal that has the power to hold our attention -- or to at least pull us away from the temptation of focusing too much on a single organization.
If we are focused on the goal, the structure of individual organizations becomes secondary. Taking credit becomes secondary. Control becomes secondary. The only thing that matters is how are we doing toward achieving our goal.
Of course, that is an oversimplification.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Will, Skill and The Bill
The multi-talented Jennifer Splansky Juster of FSG wrote a great post recently that helped clarify what factors civic leaders should consider before embarking on a collective impact initiative.
I think Jen's advice is incredibly important because achieving collective impact is very difficult, and the last thing civic leaders should do is pursue it for the wrong reasons. While I believe passionately in the framework, Jen is right when she says it isn't always the correct approach to a community opportunity.
Based on experience and some recent conversations with some philanthropists and nonprofit leaders, I'd encourage everyone thinking about adopting collective impact to first take a hard look at the quality of the non-profits with which they would be working.
Do they have a proven track record of producing outstanding outcomes -- what Mario Morino in Leap of Reason calls high performers? The best way to get to collective impact is to start with high performers. Even a great collaboration among average performers can only produce average results.
Here's my overly simplistic short-hand as to what needs to be present to even consider exploring whether a collective impact initiative is worth pursuing.
I think Jen's advice is incredibly important because achieving collective impact is very difficult, and the last thing civic leaders should do is pursue it for the wrong reasons. While I believe passionately in the framework, Jen is right when she says it isn't always the correct approach to a community opportunity.
Based on experience and some recent conversations with some philanthropists and nonprofit leaders, I'd encourage everyone thinking about adopting collective impact to first take a hard look at the quality of the non-profits with which they would be working.
Do they have a proven track record of producing outstanding outcomes -- what Mario Morino in Leap of Reason calls high performers? The best way to get to collective impact is to start with high performers. Even a great collaboration among average performers can only produce average results.
Here's my overly simplistic short-hand as to what needs to be present to even consider exploring whether a collective impact initiative is worth pursuing.
- Skill -- Are there sufficient number of stakeholders in the space with the demonstrated ability to produce outcomes that give one confidence that achieving something great (collective impact) is possible?
- Will -- Is there sufficient trust and motivation among the stakeholders to go through the pain and agony of collaboration?
- The Bill -- The act of organizing for collective impact does take resources. Is everyone involved willing to see some of the dollars flow to the "process" rather than having them all go to the "doing?"
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Fly Fishing Your Way to Collective Impact
The Roaring Fork River flows through the canyon behind my room at the Aspen Meadows Resort - home of the first conference on the Funder's Role in Collective Impact -- so it shouldn't surprise anyone that reads my fly fishing blog that I spent the night reflecting on how my one passion informs what has become my life's work.
Look and learn before wading in. Many fly anglers, even experienced ones, assume the most (and certainly the largest) trout are up against the far bank. It seems nine out of 10 anglers immediately wade into a river, stripping out line trying desperately to reach the far shore. In the process they spook the fish holding tight against the near bank, cause a ruckus with their aggressive wading and quickly discover that there are too many competing river currents to get a good drift on the far side. A river is a complex system. Just because one has seen one river doesn't make one an expert on a new river. And even if a river has been fished before an angler should take the time to understand what has changed since the last visit, because like all complex systems a river is constantly changing. Take the time to stand at the bank, observe, learn how the fish are responding to their environment and watch some more before wading in.
Funders of collective impact need to do the same. Patrick McCarthy, CEO of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, said yesterday that advocates of collective impact cannot be in a hurry -- either to define the high level vision or shape governance. Stakeholders need to learn together and develop a shared understanding of each other's interests, as well as their collective aspirations. Learning before wading is costly, time consuming and sometimes frustrating; but the dividends are great.
Junious Williams of the Urban Strategies Council, made a strong case for the value of accessible, transparent data in helping communities achieve change. We need robust data that enables us to see the integrated relationships among the systems we are trying to influence within our communities, he said. Using data to inform decision making rather than wading in -- assuming one knows the answers -- is a critical part of the collective impact framework.
Williams, McCarthy and others emphasized the need to understand the needs of the individuals whose lives we are trying improve by actually engaging them in the change process. Paul Schmitz of Public Allies said the best people to work on neighborhood change are the residents themselves. They should be engaged, and even hired to help lead the change.
Pay attention to what's below the surface. The vast majority of trout are caught not on beautiful, delicate dry flies that float on the river's surface, but on chunky, hairy nymphs that bounce along the bottom. This requires the angler to understand the dynamics of river currents and the effects of obstacles -- such as boulders and logs -- on trout.
The Funder must also understand the power dynamics within the complex system -- including how their mere presence in the process influences those dynamics. Good data adds transparency to the system, Williams said; just as polarized sunglasses can bring some transparency to the river bottom.
McCarthy said that issues of race, class and equity are often hidden below the surface of community conversations. Because we are uncomfortable with such conversations we are eager to reach agreement on a high level vision that seems to address these issues, such as this vision for a neighborhood redevelopment effort: "All families will be better off." Yet, the stakeholders never take the time to understand what each other means by being "better off."
Schmitz echoed an earlier post here by saying that collaboration requires conflict. This work requires people to change their behavior and that is an inherent source of conflict. That conflict is often below the surface, hidden from view. But eventually it will come out and disrupt the collaborative process. Funders and designers of collaborations need to develop a process that surfaces the conflict within the "collaboration room," or else it will surface outside the safe space of the collaboration and cause even more conflict.
Fish close in. As noted above, most anglers are inclined to fall in love with the long cast even though actually catching a trout requires an angler to be in constant contact with the fly. Long casts make both sensing the take and setting the hook very challenging. And more often than not, a long cast results in an unnatural drift, spooking the trout.
Many funders, particularly foundations, have a habit of keeping their distance from their grantees. There are a variety of reasons -- including a sincere desire to allow the experts in the field to do their work without excessive interference. But working on sustained community change is not traditional grantmaking and as Ben Hecht of Living Cities said, it requires an engaged grantmaker. "You need a point of view," he said. It is very hard to develop that point of view from a distance.
Muscle memory matters. Weather and work often conspire to keep fly anglers off the water for months. And many of us think it's just like riding a bike and we can resume accurate casting without any practice. Not so much. There is both an art and a science to fly casting; and like all such hybrid activities it requires practice.
Stacey Stewart of United Way Worldwide described collective impact as the building of new community muscle that results in civic confidence. Building those new muscles takes hard work. And Hecht added that most people aren't technically proficient at using the muscles required to work and/or lead collaboratively in complex systems.We must learn to build these muscles and get proficient at using them.
Schmitz of Public Allies said leadership requires us to practice the values that engage with others -- not engage to or engage at. This practice of collaboration doesn't come naturally -- it requires preparation, dedication and commitment. In this way it isn't like fly fishing at all. Fly fishing is relaxing and pure pleasure. In contrast, collaborating to achieve collective impact is, as McCarthy said, "awfully tough work."
But it's worth it.
Look and learn before wading in. Many fly anglers, even experienced ones, assume the most (and certainly the largest) trout are up against the far bank. It seems nine out of 10 anglers immediately wade into a river, stripping out line trying desperately to reach the far shore. In the process they spook the fish holding tight against the near bank, cause a ruckus with their aggressive wading and quickly discover that there are too many competing river currents to get a good drift on the far side. A river is a complex system. Just because one has seen one river doesn't make one an expert on a new river. And even if a river has been fished before an angler should take the time to understand what has changed since the last visit, because like all complex systems a river is constantly changing. Take the time to stand at the bank, observe, learn how the fish are responding to their environment and watch some more before wading in.
Funders of collective impact need to do the same. Patrick McCarthy, CEO of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, said yesterday that advocates of collective impact cannot be in a hurry -- either to define the high level vision or shape governance. Stakeholders need to learn together and develop a shared understanding of each other's interests, as well as their collective aspirations. Learning before wading is costly, time consuming and sometimes frustrating; but the dividends are great.
Junious Williams of the Urban Strategies Council, made a strong case for the value of accessible, transparent data in helping communities achieve change. We need robust data that enables us to see the integrated relationships among the systems we are trying to influence within our communities, he said. Using data to inform decision making rather than wading in -- assuming one knows the answers -- is a critical part of the collective impact framework.
Williams, McCarthy and others emphasized the need to understand the needs of the individuals whose lives we are trying improve by actually engaging them in the change process. Paul Schmitz of Public Allies said the best people to work on neighborhood change are the residents themselves. They should be engaged, and even hired to help lead the change.
Pay attention to what's below the surface. The vast majority of trout are caught not on beautiful, delicate dry flies that float on the river's surface, but on chunky, hairy nymphs that bounce along the bottom. This requires the angler to understand the dynamics of river currents and the effects of obstacles -- such as boulders and logs -- on trout.
The Funder must also understand the power dynamics within the complex system -- including how their mere presence in the process influences those dynamics. Good data adds transparency to the system, Williams said; just as polarized sunglasses can bring some transparency to the river bottom.
McCarthy said that issues of race, class and equity are often hidden below the surface of community conversations. Because we are uncomfortable with such conversations we are eager to reach agreement on a high level vision that seems to address these issues, such as this vision for a neighborhood redevelopment effort: "All families will be better off." Yet, the stakeholders never take the time to understand what each other means by being "better off."
Schmitz echoed an earlier post here by saying that collaboration requires conflict. This work requires people to change their behavior and that is an inherent source of conflict. That conflict is often below the surface, hidden from view. But eventually it will come out and disrupt the collaborative process. Funders and designers of collaborations need to develop a process that surfaces the conflict within the "collaboration room," or else it will surface outside the safe space of the collaboration and cause even more conflict.
Fish close in. As noted above, most anglers are inclined to fall in love with the long cast even though actually catching a trout requires an angler to be in constant contact with the fly. Long casts make both sensing the take and setting the hook very challenging. And more often than not, a long cast results in an unnatural drift, spooking the trout.
Many funders, particularly foundations, have a habit of keeping their distance from their grantees. There are a variety of reasons -- including a sincere desire to allow the experts in the field to do their work without excessive interference. But working on sustained community change is not traditional grantmaking and as Ben Hecht of Living Cities said, it requires an engaged grantmaker. "You need a point of view," he said. It is very hard to develop that point of view from a distance.
Muscle memory matters. Weather and work often conspire to keep fly anglers off the water for months. And many of us think it's just like riding a bike and we can resume accurate casting without any practice. Not so much. There is both an art and a science to fly casting; and like all such hybrid activities it requires practice.
Stacey Stewart of United Way Worldwide described collective impact as the building of new community muscle that results in civic confidence. Building those new muscles takes hard work. And Hecht added that most people aren't technically proficient at using the muscles required to work and/or lead collaboratively in complex systems.We must learn to build these muscles and get proficient at using them.
Schmitz of Public Allies said leadership requires us to practice the values that engage with others -- not engage to or engage at. This practice of collaboration doesn't come naturally -- it requires preparation, dedication and commitment. In this way it isn't like fly fishing at all. Fly fishing is relaxing and pure pleasure. In contrast, collaborating to achieve collective impact is, as McCarthy said, "awfully tough work."
But it's worth it.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Collective Impact Reality Check
As I get ready to board a plane headed for a Collective Impact conference
for funders at the Aspen Institute I am thinking about the challenges, promise
and realities of collaborating across sectors in complex systems to achieve
sustained positive change in the communities for which we care.
Here are three realities that I think will be helpful to
check the unbridled enthusiasm that we’re about to encounter at the conference.
Collective Impact is
a process, not a solution. All true advocates of this framework for
collaboration acknowledge this reality up front. Our friends from FSG write
about this point extensively, but it’s often lost in the translation as eager
consultants and wannabe “backbones” gloss over the challenges, limitations and
hard work involved in this process. My mentor and great Karen Nestor is fond of
quoting Eric Hoffer about what happens when a good idea gets in the hands of
sales people.
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
All of us who champion Collective Impact must take care to
stay out of the racket business.
Achieving Collective
Impact depends on transactional excellence. In all of the excitement about
collaboration it is easy to lose sight of the need for nonprofits to perform
their work very well. Mario Morino hammers home this point in his critically
important book Leap of Reason. If nonprofits fail to be high performers able manage to outcomes but are
good at collaborating what will actually be achieved? Rare is the collaboration
of C-level organizations that are able to produce an A-level collaboration. And
achieving Collective Impact demands an A-level collaboration. Before investing
a lot of time in learning how to collaborate, nonprofits (and their funders)
need to focus on elevating their own performance.
Leadership is
critical. One of the many paradoxes of complex systems is that while no
single entity is in control, achieving positive change is dependent on
leadership. No collaboration can be successful without effective leadership.
Collaborative civic leadership behavior and skills are dramatically different
than traditional, hierarchical leadership. Uniting diverse stakeholders from
across sectors takes a rare breed of leader who is able to build trust, foster
a shared vision, and empower everyone involved. Without such dynamic
leadership, the collaboration will likely be stuck at the level of “coblaboration.”
Monday, May 12, 2014
Trust's Memory
Collaborations within complex systems can only move at the speed of trust as no single entity has the authority to control others within the system.
When trust is absent stakeholders only pretend to be willing to work together the same way execs pretend to pay attention to the presentation while scrolling through their email on their iphone.
Recently a wise man shared two truisms about trust:
When trust is absent stakeholders only pretend to be willing to work together the same way execs pretend to pay attention to the presentation while scrolling through their email on their iphone.
Recently a wise man shared two truisms about trust:
- Trust has no memory; it must be earned every day.
- Broken trust is never forgotten.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Meeting Global Demand & Creating Local Demand
One of the more disturbing possible explanations for widening economic inequity is that innovation in the global economy is reducing demand for labor. If -- and I emphasize the word if -- this is the case, this poses an unprecedented challenge for the economic development community.
Economic development efforts today are almost entirely designed around improving a community's ability to meet global demand for goods and services. Entrepreneurial assistance programs are designed to assist start-up businesses serving global markets. Business attraction efforts target companies that are growing because of increased global demand for their products. Business retention and expansion efforts are focused on helping companies innovate and address the ever-changing demands of global markets.
But if all of that effort to help companies meet global demand actually results in fewer people working, what is the civic justification for these efforts?
If what we are seeing in the post-Great Recession economy is a global reduction in demand for labor the mantra of traditional economic development efforts could no longer be "jobs, jobs, jobs." No governor is going to seek re-election touting the growth in their state's economy if that growth resulted in fewer jobs.
Such a dramatic shift in global economics would require economic developers accustomed to helping companies meet global demand to help entrepreneurs create local demand. Perhaps the best example of this is the burgeoning local foods sector. Much of the food market is globalized -- we buy berries from Chile and chicken from China. But as plenty of communities have demonstrated, there is growing demand for local foods -- everything from farmer's markets to local restaurants that rely on locally-sourced food. The entrepreneurs propelling these efforts aren't trying to meet global market demand, they are striving to create local demand. And this local demand is -- relatively speaking -- labor intensive.
What's exciting is there is growing evidence that despite the globalization of our economy, entrepreneurs are able to create local demand. And these entrepreneurs are deserving of assistance from economic development organizations. While no more food is being consumed in a no-growth region like Northeast Ohio, more food is being produced by local labor -- whether that is by farmers affiliated with the Countryside Conservancy or the plethora of new businesses surrounding the West Side Market in Ohio City. Obviously the question is how much of the global economy can be shifted to a local economy and would that shift result in more vibrant communities? Advocates of locally-sourced clothing, furniture and even cars will tell you that huge chunks of our economy can be shifted from the global to local markets.
The good news for economic developers is that the strategies to meet global demand and to create local demand aren't mutually exclusive. The most resilient communities will find ways to support strategies that increase local demand, in addition to maximizing the value generated by helping companies meet global demand.
Economic development efforts today are almost entirely designed around improving a community's ability to meet global demand for goods and services. Entrepreneurial assistance programs are designed to assist start-up businesses serving global markets. Business attraction efforts target companies that are growing because of increased global demand for their products. Business retention and expansion efforts are focused on helping companies innovate and address the ever-changing demands of global markets.
But if all of that effort to help companies meet global demand actually results in fewer people working, what is the civic justification for these efforts?
If what we are seeing in the post-Great Recession economy is a global reduction in demand for labor the mantra of traditional economic development efforts could no longer be "jobs, jobs, jobs." No governor is going to seek re-election touting the growth in their state's economy if that growth resulted in fewer jobs.
Such a dramatic shift in global economics would require economic developers accustomed to helping companies meet global demand to help entrepreneurs create local demand. Perhaps the best example of this is the burgeoning local foods sector. Much of the food market is globalized -- we buy berries from Chile and chicken from China. But as plenty of communities have demonstrated, there is growing demand for local foods -- everything from farmer's markets to local restaurants that rely on locally-sourced food. The entrepreneurs propelling these efforts aren't trying to meet global market demand, they are striving to create local demand. And this local demand is -- relatively speaking -- labor intensive.
What's exciting is there is growing evidence that despite the globalization of our economy, entrepreneurs are able to create local demand. And these entrepreneurs are deserving of assistance from economic development organizations. While no more food is being consumed in a no-growth region like Northeast Ohio, more food is being produced by local labor -- whether that is by farmers affiliated with the Countryside Conservancy or the plethora of new businesses surrounding the West Side Market in Ohio City. Obviously the question is how much of the global economy can be shifted to a local economy and would that shift result in more vibrant communities? Advocates of locally-sourced clothing, furniture and even cars will tell you that huge chunks of our economy can be shifted from the global to local markets.
The good news for economic developers is that the strategies to meet global demand and to create local demand aren't mutually exclusive. The most resilient communities will find ways to support strategies that increase local demand, in addition to maximizing the value generated by helping companies meet global demand.
Friday, March 14, 2014
New Forms Needed
This is an exciting time to be engaged in rethinking the role of funders and non-profits in catalyzing sustained positive community change. Dynamic thinkers and doers are raising provocative ideas and making strong cases for a revolution.
Yet, that is exactly what such organizations are being asked to do -- even by foundations that have embraced collaboration, networks, systems change etc. While foundations are increasingly embracing new ways to catalyze change, many haven't yet designed new forms to accommodate this new way of thinking. This might prompt a cynic to wonder whether this new approach will be just a passing fad. Once the forms have changed, we'll know this new thinking will stick.
If you haven't yet read NPC's Tris Lumley's call for transformation in the social sector on the SSIR blog check it out now. He may have been a little over the top on this one, but I respect him for declaring:
Overall, there is a lack of meaningful accountability among funders to those they claim to help.
And there's this recent post from Jeff Bradach at The Bridgespan Group, who explains why scaling up and collective impact are better viewed as a mash up than as competing concepts. He adds to the growing chorus calling for more support for the capacity to collaborate and coordinate:
The program-centric perspective espoused by much of the social sector often undervalues the role played by organizations engaged in field-building work.With all of this good thinking going on why am I writing about forms? Here's why. If foundations and other grant makers want to explore these ideas they need to accommodate them within their business practices. The Monitor Institute captured this very well in their Catalyzing Networks for Social Change report issued last year:
Basic grantmaking structures and mechanics, such as siloed program areas static application requirements, inhibit working ... with networks.How does an organization that is providing what FSG would call "backbone functions" and Monitor would call "network cultivation" fill out a grant application that only wants to know how many individuals will be served by the grant?
Yet, that is exactly what such organizations are being asked to do -- even by foundations that have embraced collaboration, networks, systems change etc. While foundations are increasingly embracing new ways to catalyze change, many haven't yet designed new forms to accommodate this new way of thinking. This might prompt a cynic to wonder whether this new approach will be just a passing fad. Once the forms have changed, we'll know this new thinking will stick.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)