In my last blog, I asked readers to share their knowledge about who is doing cool stuff to build the appetite of nonprofit leaders for collaboration models. Reader Christa Mannario advanced her opinion, saying that for change to occur it must be self-imposed.
No argument here.
That’s certainly been my personal experience, and I’ll share a funny (it only took 40 years for me to see the humor!) and classic scenario: How many times did your Mother push you—gently or otherwise— into something you had zero interest in and then when you underperformed, quit or failed, you had to endure her reaction, which usually involved throwing her hands up to the cosmic universe in sheer frustration mumbling something about “if you would just do this, you’d be successful.”
Sound familiar?
On the other hand, my Mother allowed me to explore areas where I had an interest and some talent: learning to swim and playing sports. Thanks, Mom!
I chose the iPad image for this blog because whether you realize it or not, Apple used collaboration to take their technology from cool to super cool. By integrating Apps made by others, Apple showed yet another side of its business model — a collaborator.
In my humble opinion, this is creativity in its highest form…..hmmmmm….Maslow’s self-actualization? Because Apple collaborated with, instead of competing against, all of the App makers, their creations were transformative, becoming 1+1=5.
Right now, I’m downloading the Steve Jobs biography from Amazon, where I hope to learn what internal silos Apple had to break down to embrace collaboration.
I hope the Apple example gets your creative juices going because I’m going to pose another question.
If you had the flexibility to design a program that would stimulate the nonprofit appetite to spiral-up through collaboration models, what would it look like?
Hi Pam:
Nice post! This is a really difficult question to answer. In an ideal world, learning how to collaborate would be as essential to nonprofits as, say, learning how to get grants. I think, in some ways, we are in the infancy of this endeavor, and in order to build interest in collaboration, nonprofits need to see what’s in it for them. Right now, it’s not so obvious, but there is some momentum building.
If I could design a program, it might include activities like this:
1) Collaborate! Build a coalition of partners who are committed to advancing this “cause.” They can serve as champions, ambassadors, hosts, focus group members, and leaders in building a movement.
2) Listen! What are nonprofits struggling with that collaboration can solve? What do nonprofits fear when they hear the word collaboration? Gather some data.
3) Talk! Share information about what we’re hearing and the data we are gathering. Start up a thousand conversations, online, on the ground, anywhere there’s an affinity for the topic. Debunk the notion that anytime a nonprofit hears the word “collaborate,” it’s code for merger.
4) Teach! Organize collaboration boot camp events both online and on the ground that are informative and fun(!), driven by the community, aimed in part at “match making,” and that include lots of real-world examples and stories from organizations that are collaborating successfully and not so successfully. We can learn from failure too.
5) Tell! Gather as many stories about real-world collaboration as possible and include them in the Nonprofit Collaboration Database, another treasure trove of data that can be leveraged to advance the “cause.” http://collaboration.foundationcenter.org/search/searchGenerator.php
6) Mobilize! Through the above, there’s opportunity to create a thriving community of additional champions, ambassadors, hosts, focus group members, and leaders in keeping the momentum building.
Sounds easy… When do we start? ;>
Cindy Bailie
The Foundation Center
cgb@foundationcenter.org
While Apple clearly mastered the value oriented concept of 1+1=5, converging nonprofits in a manner that yield a net positive is far more challenging. For one, the basic math continues to be 1+1=1, not 2. By any measure, that formula leaves a broad spectrum of stakeholders with a net personal loss; loss of jobs, loss of mission, and loss of autonomy. Creative convergence will require artfully capturing the best of both organization, with a clear focus on the stakeholders in the process…the staff and the board. Achieving the new math required to succeed will demand leadership from the marketplace funders who, sitting on the financial mountaintop, have the capacity to provide perspective and guide change. Sadly, 1+1=1 defies the logic of the physical world, and will demand the engineering talents of the funders. Just as Steve Jobs so deftly reengineered his teams, to create magic, and just as Jobs understood helping people visualize a need that they did not know existed in their lives (i.e. the iPad), convergence will require sacrifice, pain and leadership to be fully actualized.
Good questions! I think there are a number of things not done too often that funders could do to incentivize collaboration. Overarching theme–alleviate a bit of the pressure EDs and other staff have to raise funds for their own org, if they can show a good plan to re-invest that time in pursuing collaborations. For instance, put out an RFP offering to pay say 1 day/week of an EDs time if they have a good plan for how they will use that time to build relationships and explore collaborations. You could also offer prizes for the best collaborations–applications could respond to a set of standards that also would serve the purpose of setting forth some principles as to what good collaborations look like. I’m sure there are many other good ideas on the incentives theme.
The Jobs bio certainly is good fodder for creative thinking!