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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.