Crimes in the Name of Collaboration
More time is spent calling for collaboration than is spent understanding how to design and sustain effective collective efforts. This leads to way too many crimes being committed in the name of collaboration.
Getting the “how” of collaboration right is just as important as the “what.” Yet, the “what” of the work gets most of our attention. Not focusing enough on the how results in what Eric Gordon has dubbed “coBLABoration,” a made up word that needs no explanation because we’ve all experienced it.
Three of the most common crimes committed in the name of collaboration are:
Authoritarian Collaboration – This crime is committed by those with the authority to force others to work together. Of course, that isn’t collaboration at all. It’s ordering others around. But that doesn’t keep powerful funders and policymakers from calling it collaboration and committing the crime.
Recognizing the inherent shortcomings of isolated programs, federal and state governments regularly design programs that require applicants to be a part of a collective effort. Workforce programs, place-based development efforts and industry-specific initiatives often require local government, non-profit and private sector entities to collectively submit their grant application. The promise of federal or state funding can be a wonderful incentive for diverse players to come to a shared table.
However, acting together to apply for a grant is much easier than acting together to implement a grant. Rarely do grant programs come with funding or technical support to help the players sort through the challenging issues of how they will share power and responsibility to implement the grant. Decisions made in the rush to make the application deadline often don’t hold up in the real world of implementing the grant. Rarely are procedures put in place for participants to sustain a collective decision-making after the grant is awarded.
Foundations eager to see more collaboration also often require multiple nonprofits to apply together for a grant. However, the application process is often designed by the funder with little to no input from the potential applicants, let alone the community members who are the intended beneficiaries of the grant. Too often, foundations assume they know what is needed and design criteria around those assumptions.
Federal policy makers and philanthropic funders can take a few steps to avoid these crimes:
- Include funding and technical support to help applicants design and sustain effective processes related to the “how” of collaboration that help diverse players to learn, decide and act together.
- Engage potential grant applicants and beneficiaries of the grants in the development of the grant application.
- Partner with other funders in the development of the grant application and work with other funders to sustain funding for collective efforts. Collective efforts supported by one funder rarely are sustained.
Ego-tripping Collaboration: This crime is committed by the entity that serves as the host of the collective effort. Instead of being a generous host, the role goes to their head and they try ordering others around.
Every significant collective effort needs a host. Sometimes the host is only responsible for convening meetings. Sometimes the host provides facilitation and coordination capacity –known as the backbone in efforts that use the collective impact framework.
Almost any entity – foundations, universities, government agencies, non-profits etc. – can be a host. But being a host is hard work and requires a tremendous amount of humility and grace.
Hosts that equate the role with power (the ability to influence others) or, worse, authority (the ability to order others around) will find themselves with few partners, if any. The job of the host is not to tell others what to do, but to provide the support necessary for all the participants to learn, decide and act together.
To avoid committing this crime, funders and champions of a collective effort should have explicit conversations about the characteristics they want in their host. And establish criteria through which the host’s effectiveness can be evaluated. A power-tripping host can kill a collaborative. Yet, I’ve seen multiple collaboratives thrive when the partners agreed they needed a new host. Indeed, some of the most successful collaboratives have had multiple hosts.
The key is having a host that can meet the collaborative’s needs. Don’t assume that every organization knows how to be a host or that the host doesn’t need to change as the collective effort evolves.
Cruel Collaboration: This crime is committed when organizations that have been starved for resources are encouraged to participate in collective efforts by funders or policy makers. Being a member of a collective effort is demanding and difficult. High-performing organizations have the skills and capacity to collaborate. However, too many organizations – especially smaller non-profits – are expected to participate even though much of their energy is consumed just trying to overcome systemic challenges and unhealthy power dynamics that make it difficult to keep the doors open.
Too often those with power ask organizations that are victims of what Vu Le refers to the non-profit hunger games to use their all too rare resources to participate in collective efforts. They then compound their crime by blaming the weak organizations for the collaborative’s failure. This piling cruelty on top of cruelty.
Funders and policymakers can avoid committing this crime by providing the encouragement and support needed for organizations to become high-peformers. Then they should find ways to help them develop the capacity to engage in collective efforts.
The first step to promoting more collaboration is investing in organizations so they have the capacity to collaborate.
The next step is to design the collective effort so it is rooted in collective decision-making. Then identify a host to guide the effort with a gentle, firm and selfless hand.
These three steps can help avoid the three most common crimes committed in the name of collaboration.
