Get Out on the Ledge & Enjoy the View

Every so often I get a sign that I'm not just talking to myself. Last week I got a voice mail from the head of a foundation that I've been working with for the last few years. She was excited to share that her board had committed to a multi-year grant to accelerate systems change.

Since her foundation is a traditional, programmatic grant maker a grant designed to improve the performance of a key civic system was a departure from the norm and therefore a significant risk. The board had acknowledged the risk in approving the grant. This both pleased the head of the foundation and made her nervous. She said she felt like she was out on a ledge and was hoping I could talk her off. I called back and declined her request. Instead, I congratulated her on persuading her board to make and acknowledge a risky grant. And I encouraged her to enjoy the view from the ledge. Because she was definitely on one. And I said she should make sure her board comes out on the ledge with her.

Indeed, we should all be willing to get out on the ledge more often and we definitely need to enjoy the view when we are out there. The only way we're going to achieve sustained positive change is to support efforts to advance systems change and that means taking more risks. Granted, theses efforts won't always work as planned. That's to be expected. We'll be more willing to go back out on the ledge again if we at least enjoy the view while we are out there.

2 Types of Leaders Required for Collective Impact

One of the many paradoxes of complex civic systems is that even though they are beyond the control of any single individual or organization, achieving change within those systems is still dependent on outstanding leadership. Without leadership the diverse stakeholders within the system will pursue their individual interests and fail to develop the capacity to collaborate.

Within the civic arena two distinct types of collaborative leaders are required to achieve sustained positive change. The two types of leaders are dramatically different in character and experience. One reason collaborations fail is the first kind of leader fails to recognize the need for the second kind.

The first kind of leader is the "galvanizing leader." This leader helps create what John Kania of FSG refers to as the preconditions of Collective Impact. Those preconditions are:

1. An Influential Champion - An individual or small group who command the respect necessary to bring CEO-level cross-sector leaders together and keep them actively engaged over time
2. Adequate Financial Resourcing -  Adequate financial resources to last at least two to three years and generally involving at least one anchor funder to support needed infrastructure and planning
3. A Sense of Urgency for Change - A new opportunity or crisis that convinces people that a particular issue must be acted upon now and/or that a new approach is needed

I refer to these preconditions as the "climate for collaboration." Galvanizing leaders are able to change the climate within a community -- to create the sense of urgency; to secure the resources and to provide the public face for a new way of operating.

Ironically, these leaders often fail to translate their galvanizing efforts into effective collaboration because they don't value the second kind of leader critical to successful civic collaboration. I call this kind of leader the "coordinating leader."

Usually the galvanizing leader runs an organization -- they are charismatic CEOs, politicians and nonprofit leaders able to unite other leaders for a greater cause. When it comes to finding a leader of that cause they often look for a leader who looks like them -- an organizational leader. However, as Chrislip and Larson (and many others) have made clear, the leadership techniques and skills needed to foster collaboration are dramatically different than those learned by most organizational leaders.

Leaders of a collaboration need to focus on creating value for the stakeholders, not on building up an organization. Coordinating leaders exhibit what Robert Greenleaf identified as the principles of a servant leader. The listening, empathy and trust-building skills of a servant leader are often under appreciated by an organizational leader, but they are essential to foster collaboration.

Put an organizational leader at the helm of a collaboration and soon the entity formed to foster collaboration (what FSG calls a "backbone") looks like just another organization competing for funding and credit within the complex system. That is a recipe for coblaboration, not Collective Impact.

Organizations and Outcomes

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.

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.

1. 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? 
2. Will -- Is there sufficient trust and motivation among the stakeholders to go through the pain and agony of collaboration?
3. 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?" 

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.

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.”

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:

• Trust has no memory; it must be earned every day.
• Broken trust is never forgotten.

This is why we can never put enough time into the hard, often tedious work of building trust among diverse stakeholders. Yes, we all want to "get things done" but moving fast requires us to go slow and to wisely use that time to build trust.