Current funding systems are already highly competitive. Interestingly, funders / donors almost universally acknowledge that cooperation will be critical if this sector is to dramatically improve our world. However those same funders / donors continue to use competitive funding approaches even as they bemoan the lack of cooperation those approaches create.

Given all that, what I am suggesting is that we need a different model.

History has shown us that the most dramatic shifts in human capacity come in leaps, not increments. Adjusting the current system may create incrementally stronger organizations, and perhaps incrementally more benefit for certain individuals, but it will not create dramatic, visionary improvement in the quality of life in our communities.

As I note in “The Pollyanna Principles,” it all comes down to what we hold ourselves accountable for. If funders / donors hold themselves accountable for rewarding strong capable organizations, then our communities will have strong, capable organizations who will create incremental improvement in narrowly defined areas.

If, however, funders / donors hold themselves accountable for creating dramatically improved communities, then we will begin to see solutions we have never even considered before. And the funder case studies in “The Pollyanna Principles” bear that out.

It’s all a matter of where we aim. We can aim at the results, and create systems that lead to those results. Or we can continue down the path we are on – a competitive path that funders universally bemoan even as they perpetuate it.

I guess, in short, we will have to agree to disagree!

I appreciate your raising the issues, though – great thought-filled discussion!
Hildy

I don’t see my model as being any more competitive than the landscape already is today. I’m just focused on philanthropy supporting the healthy growth of high performing organizations and I would think that a strong community is made strong by being made up of high performing individual ors.

First, at least one aspect for me is the issue of “who decides?”

Do funders and organizations decide from the top down what is best for a whole community via a system of rewards as you note above? Or is the community convened to find a different path to a vision they all mutually share, for their own benefit, creating systems that will achieve those results (which may or may not include “organizations” as we currently know them)? And what values do each of those approaches not only reflect but perpetuate?

Which leads me to the driving force behind writing The Pollyanna Principles – a single question: What systems create visionary community change – systems for organizations, for funders, for communities overall?

The 6 principles that repeatedly proved themselves in guiding visionary community / social change were the ones we documented. The first two are all about FIRST aiming at visionary end results; the other 4 principles align systems around the interconnected strength and values we bring to bear when we work together and engage community members in creating their own change (Gandhi and MLK being the most visible examples of what is possible when those 6 principles are aligned).

In testing various approaches, we repeatedly found that when work accomplished significant community change, it was done cooperatively, engaging community members in creating the community they envisioned. When work assumed competition was the only way to create innovation, those “best of the best” efforts tended to be less visionary and more reactive and incremental in what they accomplished.

Again, it was not a study in organizational effectiveness, but in the bigger question of what systems and models will help lead ALL players in social change work – organizations and individuals and funders and etc. – to create the future we all want.

Not sure that answers your question or not?

Hildy

That’s an argument that has raged in economic circles for years. Do I have it right or are there other issues at work in your comment?

As I’m reading, I fear that focusing on high-performance / high-impact organizations may miss the more important question of what is really needed to aim this whole sector at greater results. The real question, in my years of exploring these issues, begins not within the organization but in the community.

Organizations, the systems and individuals within those organizations, philanthropists who provide funding and volunteers who provide labor – they are all catalysts for the desired end result of healthy, vibrant, resilient, compassionate communities.

Currently, more by accident and adaptation than by intentional design, our system uses all those inputs in a certain way. Adjusting / fixing the performance of those inputs may incrementally change some organizational systems and some individuals’ lives. But those tweaks simply cannot dramatically change communities.

If we intend to create dramatic results in communities, we need to begin asking different questions.

• How can we look to the future results we want to see in our communities, and reverse engineer the combination of inputs and efforts that will lead us to community wellness, vibrance, resilience?

• What combination of our existing resources (community members, organizations, capital, etc.) would most effectively create the healthy communities we want?

Clearly there are many answers. We have seen remarkable steps taken in those directions, some of which we documented in “The Pollyanna Principles.”

Will those answers include enhanced performance and impact at individual organizations? Undoubtedly. Boards that hold themselves accountable FIRST for the end results they create in Community, and who lead and plan to create those results? Individual programs that are engaged and collaborative at the core? Absolutely.

But to significantly improve the quality of life in our communities, those are just some components of one piece of the puzzle – the organizational piece. There are many other puzzle pieces as well – caring community members, social infrastructure, philanthropists, foundations – all of which themselves have components to adjust.

I just fear that as a sector, we are spending enormous time and resource trying to patchwork the ineffective system we have, simply because it is the system we have. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge the elephant in the room and begin aiming at overall systems change, to align this whole sector-ful of participants behind the healthy, vibrant communities we all want.

Thank you again, Sean, for generating such thought-provoking discussion!

Hildy

“Nurture Nonprofit Networks

High impact nonprofits help their competitors succeed. They build networks of allies and devote a remarkable amount of time and energy to advancing their field. They freely share their wealth, expertise, talent and power with their peers. Not because they are saints, but because it is in their own self interest.”

The point does not seem to require that all partners be high performing, but it does speak to the value of community partnerships.

Bruce,
I wonder if at some level of performance, something like that is not noticeable because all of the organizations do it and are implicit about it because it is just baked into their DNA.

The criteria include: operational excellence (strength of leadership team and fiscal responsibility), mission, goals, and impact. Each of these four areas are more fully defined for the employees. We expect few organizations to excel in every area, but it will help employees take a more comprehensive look at prospective grantees, decide which areas they are comfortable with allowing room for improvement, or not, as well as benchmarking progress over time. I also agree consideration should be made for the “only show in town” organizations as someone commented yesterday. This is just one model that works for an organization of this type and size, and I look forward to hearing about others and seeing what the common denominators may be through the dynamic discussion that your blog has sparked. Thank you.

- Lisa