Posts Tagged ‘collaboration’

Hallmarks of effective collaboration

In early 2010, the idea for the Colorado Collaboration Award was born whatsappen org. Last week, the final selection committee decided on a recipient for the award from a pool of nearly 200 applications from across Colorado, representing a very diverse range of collaborative work outlook kostenlos herunterladen deutsch. I had the honor of being involved in this process from the first meeting through the final selection and learned a great deal about effective collaboration along the way gmx emails. Overall, there is some incredibly impressive and successful collaborative work taking place across Colorado and through this process, five things stood out as hallmarks of effective collaboration:

Effective leadership

Effective collaboration requires a different mindset than one operating a single organization windows 10 home 64 bit downloaden. Leaders who are over time able to shift their thinking and behavior to work as part of a group to move beyond their organization’s walls are an essential factor in building effective collaborations xrayen. Some of these intangible leadership skills include the ability to see the bigger picture beyond a single organization’s mission and programming, willingness to be flexible, ability to work cooperatively as part of a group, and willingness to give up power and control on a regular basis for the good of the collective effort zoom cloud meetings downloaden macbook.

A collective vision for the partnership

Whether a collaborative effort is focused on improving the delivery of direct services in a small community or seeking significant change at the system level, partners who have a vision for the future of their work together are achieving the most success foto herunterladen kostenlos. Overall, the most impressive applicants for the Colorado Collaboration Award have been successful because the partners had a vision for creating something that is more impactful than a single organization’s work could ever be and then have worked toward achieving that collective vision over time mediamonkey gratis downloaden. In the nonprofit sector, we often think about resources as being fixed – we compete for a slice of a pie that has a fixed size. For these groups, they are instead working together to enlarge the pie by bringing in new ideas, resources and solutions videos von google downloaden.

Willingness to give up control and power

One of the finalists for the Colorado Collaboration Award is a group of organizations that are consolidating some of their major donor work, believing that if they identify and cultivate donors together, they have the potential to raise significantly more because of the inspiring nature of their collective vision vlc media player videosen. In casually discussing this approach with colleagues, the almost universal response has been in the vein of “we could never do something like that” or “our donors are our donors.” While it represents traditional practice in the nonprofit sector to protect one’s programs and fund development prospects, the willingness to give up some power and control to achieve something bigger than a single organization could alone consistently showed up as a sign of success.

The right motivation

Funders are often essential partners in building and sustaining effective collaborations. In considering the pool of finalists for the Colorado Collaboration Award, one consistent theme is the role of funders as partners, not as drivers. Sustaining a successful collaboration often comes from building buy-in and commitment that is driven by something other than funding or a funder’s directive.

Perseverance

Deep collaboration is difficult. The most successful collaborations are often focused on very difficult work that takes time. Having the systems in place to resolve conflict and maintaining the ability to weather difficult times by staying focused on the collective vision have proven to be essential to long-term success.

See also:

The Power of Collaborative Solutions

When People Care Enough to Act

Community

Image credit: contactzilla

Leave a reply

What’s in a name? Everything.

Having recently finished Tom McLaughlin’s terrific second edition of Nonprofit Mergers & Alliances, I find myself looking at collaborations with the benefit of his helpful lexicon. And now that I have an improved working knowledge of the many shapes, sizes and formalities in which collaboration can be formed, according to his C.O.R.E my little pony spiel kostenlosen. model, I have a greater respect for the robust effort behind them. What’s more, this book gave me clarity on the existing partnerships I have. If you have ever considered a collaboration or are currently in one or more, I encourage you to read on. You’ll find it very interesting to see how your personal definitions are realigned by McLaughlin’s perspective. Before we take a look at McLaughlin’s mini-glossary, let’s take a brief look at his model herunterladen.

The C.O.R.E. Continuum

According to McLaughlin, the C.O.R.E. model is based on the premise that different forms of collaboration affect different aspects of the nonprofit. The four aspects affected are: 1) Corporate, 2) Operations, 3) Responsibility, 4) Economics. By corporate, the author means the legal entity of the nonprofit corporation or the business structure that has an official purpose: board of directors, officers, bylaws, etc vcr player kostenlos. Many collaborations affect the operations, or the heart of the nonprofit’s unique reason for being, often referred to as programming. Responsibility in this model means the backbone that makes the organization run or oversight of program activity such as paychecks, paying bills, etc. Lastly, economics can be affected by collaborations and can be as simple as bartering free office rent for services or as complicated as establishing a jointly owned company musik downloaden ios app.

Applying the model is best explained by stacking the acronym vertically with “C” at the top and “E” at the bottom. This silo of letters, representing each affected aspect in collaboration, shows the earliest and easiest area of impact at the bottom (Economics) and highest, most powerful choice that takes the longest to achieve, a single entity in the marketplace (Corporate). Collaborations involving any or all three of the O, R and E levels are alliances. Those involving all four levels of the C.O.R.E.™ Continuum are mergers schreibprogramm kostenlos downloaden.

What each level of collaboration on the C.O.R.E.™ Continuum looks like

Economic-level collaboration is characterized by sharing information or bidding jointly, for example. Sharing information is quick, easy and inexpensive. However, disadvantages include: there are no guarantees of gain, there are no structured means of following up on any gains and any gains are hard to document sophos vpn client herunterladen. Responsibility-level collaboration means sharing management and administrative chores, and it requires standardization, replicability and scale. For example, United Way standardized and centralized their campaign pledge forms through a national electronic system. Another example is referred to as “circuit riders” or professionals who travel from one partner to the next, performing the same task for everyone, such as accounting herunterladen. Operations-level collaboration is the level of integration that ultimately means the most for any merger or alliance of nonprofits because without success here, nothing else matters. This level of cooperation looks like shared training, joint programming and/or joint quality standards. McLaughlin notes that, “Good programmatic collaboration requires excellent planning, patience, and time.” Corporate-level mergers experience the most profound level of change google drive mehrere dateien gleichzeitig herunterladen. It carries the identity that our programs use in their interactions with the outside world. It is also the basis of accountability and the reconciler of conflicting demands on resources. And, it is the level at which partners will integrate at the structural, governance, and board levels, including ancillary boards and committees.

McLaughlin’s Mini-Glossary further illustrates the different points of collaboration along his continuum:

Affiliation herunterladen. The lowest level of collaboration. Requires little more than meetings and good faith.

Alliance. Collaborations that entail change on any one or all three of the C.O.R.E. levels.

Collaboration freefall. Our generic term for what happens any time two or more nonprofits work together in some formalized way.

Merger. A collaboration that entails change on all four C.O.R.E. levels.

Network. Another name for alliance, or a shortened reference to integrated service network.

Partnership. A legally binding agreement between two or more entities that is intended to produce economic benefit for both that is to be shared in some predetermined fashion. Partnerships can operate at any level of the C.O.R.E. continuum because they are simply legal vehicles for collaboration.

Email us at Mail@CausePlanet.org for a free article by author Thomas McLaughlin, “Management Company Model: It’s a Nonprofit Merger by Another Name”

For more information about Nonprofit Mergers & Alliances, visit Jossey-Bass Publishing or our Page to Practice book summary library.

Leave a reply

Mergers and alliances: Are your cultures compatible?

We recently spent some time focusing on organizational culture in June with the Page to Practice feature of The Nonprofit Organizational Culture Guide: Revealing the Hidden Truths that Impact Performance by Teegarden, Hinden and Sturm movie maker for vista for free. The value of knowing your organizational culture cannot be overstated when you realize the impact it has on everyday management decisions, as well as important benchmarks such as executive transitions, restructuring, organizational alignment and mergers herunterladen.

By choosing to reveal your organization’s culture, the authors say you will be better able to orient new staff and board members, find better leadership matches, better understand and define your theory of change, develop more effective strategies, market and communicate more effectively and make successful choices about restructuring or mergers osx sierraen. In other words, cultural awareness increases your effectiveness in almost every leadership choice you make.

The importance of culture couldn’t be more evident when considering compatibility during a merger or alliance herunterladen. “There are many good places to look for evidence of a nonprofit’s culture. The key is to look in as many as possible and to assemble what you find into a coherent portrait of the organization,” says Nonprofit Mergers & Alliances author Thomas McLaughlin herunterladen. McLaughlin further says that not everything listed below will yield insight, and some will contradict others, but overall the list represents a usable roadmap to the nature of culture herunterladen.

Where to see culture at work, according to McLaughlin:

•         Composition of board and management team

•         Degree of centralization versus decentralization

•         Demographics of clients

•         Demographics of staff

•         Financial investment policies

•         Financial performance

•         Geographic location

•         Management compensation policies

•         Marketing materials

•         Number and type of management meetings

•         Number of board meetings per year

•         Philosophy regarding staff turnover

•         Process for recruiting and selecting new board members

•         Requirements of major funding sources

•         Size of board

•         Size of management team (especially vs chrome mac downloaden. comparable nonprofits)

•         Unwritten/unspoken hiring preferences

Our upcoming feature this month, the second edition of Nonprofit Mergers & Alliances by Thomas McLaughlin was completed when the nonprofit sector witnessed the largest and most spontaneous burst of collaboration interest in our social sector history, according to McLaughlin excel students. This focus on collaboration is the result of the nonprofit sector’s typical two-year lag on economic downturns, pointing upstream to the recession in 2007 and the fall of the subprime mortgage market in 2008 pdf to ipad.

McLaughlin notes that the more specific reason collaborations are in the spotlight is that the recession was the means for revealing which nonprofits had a weak financial or programmatic structure momentum herunterladen. Systemic results of the economy coupled with the explosive growth of the number of nonprofits in the last decade have compelled nonprofit leaders to examine the benefits of collaborating. No longer will strategic planning sessions be focused on programs and services; rather mergers and alliances will be the strategic planning of the 21st century.

Email us at Mail@CausePlanet.org for a free article by author Thomas McLaughlin, “Merger Myths: 6 Reason the Package Really Is On the Truck”

For more information about Nonprofit Mergers & Alliances, visit www.JosseyBass.com or our Page to Practice™ book summary library.

Leave a reply

Why nonprofits should explore shared administrative services

To some, sharing administrative services sounds like a great idea for streamlining operations and saving money. Others would ask whether it is really worth the effort, compared to just continuing with business as usual. What is needed is a clear-eyed exploration of the real benefits and challenges of shared administrative services herunterladen.

Some of the most common shared services are bookkeeping/accounting, office space, human resources and benefits administration, and information technology. Most shared administrative services take on one of the following structures:

  • One organization provides services for one or more other organizations wwe supercard download required content not possible.
  • Two or more organizations share staff, a department, space and/or office equipment.
  • Two or more organizations trade administrative services (e.g. one organization trades IT services in exchange for HR services provided by another organization).

Here are the most common questions I am asked about sharing administrative services with one or more other organizations:

Will we reap substantial savings by sharing administrative services herunterladen?

Most organizations will not experience significant cost savings in the first year or two of sharing administrative services. Often, they can expect additional expenses associated with the transition to shared services, such as building or modifying systems to handle the transactions of multiple organizations. For example, let’s say three organizations decide to jointly share one department to do their bookkeeping. In the first year, there are costs for modifying an existing accounting system, migrating data from other sources into one system, transitioning staff and training the shared staff on the financial transactions of each organization microsoft word download for free for pc. (In this particular case, it is also useful to note that typically organizations with budgets of less than $500,000 do not reap significant cost savings from sharing bookkeeping/accounting services, but can often outsource the function at a lower cost.)

Will it increase our capacity and provide us with expertise that we do not currently have access to?

The most immediate benefit of sharing administrative services is that organizations can gain access to expertise they do not have or could not easily obtain on their own herunterladen. For example, three organizations might decide to hire an HR manager because each organization individually does not have the resources to hire a person with HR expertise. By sharing this service, they now have assistance in hiring new staff, retaining and building the capacity of current staff and more effectively handling personnel matters that might otherwise take up a significant amount of an executive director’s time dateien vom ftp server downloaden.

How do we determine if an organization is a good partner for exploring shared administrative services?

The first question to ask is: Do our potential partners have operations and programs that require similar administrative functions? Organizations that have operations and programs that require different administrative functions are not good potential partners for sharing services. For example, if one organization services mortgages and the other organization processes a lot of insurance reimbursements, they would not be good potential partners for sharing accounting/finance services because they would require different accounting systems and staff with specific areas of expertise herunterladen.

Next, you want to look at the following question: Is there a high level of trust between the organizations? Our experience with nonprofit partnerships tells us that organizations with close, trusting relationships have the greatest potential for successfully sharing administrative services. Organizations that share services will be making many decisions together, and if there is not a high level of trust it is often difficult to efficiently and effectively make those decisions spiele herunterladen für laptop. In most cases, when organizations terminate their partnership after a very short time together or decide not to launch a partnership with another organization, it is because there is not a high enough level of trust between the organizations.

Another key criterion is: Does one of the potential partners have existing systems with the capacity to handle providing services for multiple organizations, or are there resources available to build the systems or infrastructure to provide these services herunterladen? Most of the time, sharing services requires modifying a current system or building a new system. For example, if two organizations share accounting staff but continue to run two different accounting systems, the outcome would not be cost effective.

Finally, there is the managerial question: Will it be difficult for the shared services staff to serve under more than one executive director and meet the needs of multiple organizations with different cultures ps1 spieleen? For example, if one organization has a highly centralized decision making culture and the other has a very decentralized decision making culture, it can present a challenge for the staff of the shared services department to get both organizations to make necessary decisions and develop common systems and procedures.

Here are some other key lessons that we have learned about shared services:

Sharing administrative services will often not help organizations that are in financial distress. These organizations need to develop new revenue strategies, find another organization to acquire them and/or begin planning an orderly shutdown of their organization and transfer of their clients to other organizations.

There are more and more for-profit organizations providing administrative services for nonprofits. Many small- to medium-sized companies already outsource many of their administrative functions, from accounting to human resources management. At our firm, we work with a great local financial services provider that handles all our accounting transactions, and all our staff is actually employed by a PEO (Professional Employer Organization) that provides a robust and affordable package of employee benefits including a variety of trainings on capacity building topics.

Sharing space can be a great starting point for organizations that wish to share services. Operating together in the same space provides the opportunity to share conference rooms, reception areas, front office staff and equipment. It also provides an environment for the staff of the different organizations to develop relationships that often lead to increased levels of trust. As trust builds, the organizations may feel more comfortable sharing services in various administrative areas like information technology, human resources or accounting/finance.

Sharing services can provide many significant benefits to your organization, but it is important to take the time to consider the factors above before jumping in with both feet.

See also:

The Cash Flow Solution

Cash Flow Strategies

image credits: jeffbullas.com, mikemerrill.com, influenceapp.com

 

Leave a reply

Collaboration or competition? Let the nonprofit sector answer that question

Join us for the final installment of our interview with Michael Edwards about his book, Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World. In this portion of the interview, find out where you can follow the debate about philanthrocapitalism, and learn more about Edwards’ views on collaboration versus competition visitenkarten design vorlagen kostenlos herunterladen.

CausePlanet: The notion of philanthrocapitalism sounds like the next new great idea at first blush—especially to those who haven’t read your book. Are there any blogs, newsletters or periodicals you would recommend that provide an ongoing, unbiased evaluation of philanthrocapitalism as it evolves panoramabilder herunterladen?

Edwards: That’s a tough call, though I’m already beginning to see more pushback, constructive criticism and healthy debate about these questions. It’s still very difficult to be honest and open about this stuff because of a justifiable fear of offending the donors, and there’s a huge industry of advisers, consultants and bloggers who act as an echo chamber for the philanthrocapitalists and their views, often in ways that are quite divorced from the day-to-day concerns and experiences of the nonprofit community herunterladen. But I would definitely recommend The Nonprofit Quarterly, for example, which does speak up and is not afraid to take up the difficult questions, and Blue Avocado. The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy is also very good, and the Chronicle of Philanthropy publishes opinions on both sides of the debate.

CausePlanet: Everyone talks a big game about collaboration in the nonprofit sector, but many nonprofits still don’t believe that a rising tide lifts all boats despite positive examples. You support collaboration by way of addressing businesses’ misguided favor of competition among nonprofits. Can you explain?

Edwards: This is one of the most contested issues in the debate over philanthrocapitalism, and it’s partly down to language. If “competition” simply means doing one’s best for the causes one believes in, or striving to be the best that we can be, then it would be odd to argue against it. But if it means competition in the formal, business sense of building market share against other providers, often by driving prices down and profits up, then I think that’s very damaging to the nonprofit mission of securing equal rights for all. After all, you can’t have too much social justice or compassion, and securing things like that requires a rich diversity of organizations acting like an ecosystem so that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The elements of an ecosystem co-exist in a mutually-supportive relationship, they don’t compete. Obviously, nonprofits have to secure resources in environments where they are scarce, but that doesn’t mean that competition should define the sector and its work.

CausePlanet: What factors characterize high-performing, appropriate collaborations between philanthrocapitalists and nonprofits?

Edwards: Honesty, humility, authenticity, self-criticism and an equal valuing of what each has to bring to the table. Those qualities may be absent from many current collaborations (which are very one-sided, reflecting the power imbalance and structures of privilege that run through much of philanthropy), but they determine whether enough common ground exists to make the work effective, to set it on the right road, and to monitor and address any problems that arise along the way. There’s a saying from the foreign aid world that I think is relevant here: “If you have come to help me, go home now. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let’s get to work.” That captures the spirit of equality and mutual learning that all successful collaborations require. But that is very demanding, because it requires openness to change—deep, personal change—on both sides.

For more information about Small Change, visit Michael Edwards’ site at www.futurepositive.org. For the complete interview and summary, visit our summary store or subscribe to our monthly summaries of Page to Practice. Or, you can keep up with what we’re reading on Facebook and Twitter.

Leave a reply

Urban and rural nonprofits can learn from each other

Fundamentally,  nonprofit organizations exist to meet a community need, but how they meet those needs varies widely. Urban and rural environments present different obstacles and opportunities that must be overcome and met.

Neither locale is easier or more challenging, but the lessons each provide can help organizations think in different ways and step into the other’s shoes for a change in perspective.

Nonprofit work is hard. Refreshing your perspective by taking a look at what works in different places could help energize you for the work ahead herunterladen der creative cloud desktop-applikation.

Rural and urban organizations, which often work in very different settings, excel in unique ways and offer lessons for their city or country counterpart. Of course, not all rural and urban nonprofit agencies are alike, but some generalizations can be made that provide insight into different ways to operate.

Unique differences

Often, one of the most striking differences is the size of an organization. Rural nonprofit organizations are typically smaller—in budget, staff and board herunterladen. Rarely have I come across an organization out on the plains or mesas that looks top heavy in management, has an oversized board or is grossly over-funded. Often, the end result of this small size is a nimble, flexible organization. Rural groups are more able to adapt quickly because they are unencumbered by large bureaucracies.

Urban nonprofits look and feel different from their country cousins youtube videosen wie. Aside from generally larger staffs, urban groups tend to differentiate job descriptions. People are hired for their specific skill set and expertise that add to an organization in a certain way. Jobs are better defined; there is development staff, program staff, volunteer coordinators and levels of management. Policies and procedures are organized and standardized. This type of organization leaves less to chance. In times of stress, it reduces the burden to devise processes and allows groups to focus on solutions.

Geography also affects organizations in different ways, both for the good and bad. In rural areas, no client is too far away or too remote. The rural lifestyle lends itself to reaching across broad geographies (and to lots of driving). Organizations recognize need before geographical inconveniences, knowing that there are few others to provide needed services. Often nonprofits encompass several issues instead of specializing in one service. Who else will meet the needs?

Simply as a matter of geography, urban nonprofits are closer to more funding outlets, such as government departments, corporate headquarters and foundation offices. Urban groups can take advantage of the coincidental meeting of a funder at an event or restaurant to provide updates on the organization, share an invitation for a visit or simply maintain goodwill. When used to their best advantage, these casual meetings can create new avenues for revenue.

Less technical assistance is available outside of metro areas. Leaders of rural agencies must rely more on their instincts and less on formal training. They learn as they go forward by taking risks, seizing opportunities in the moment and mobilizing their communities. Rarely can a leader in a rural setting call for immediate consultation from an expert or whip together a board training on fundraising when the budget is in dire need of a boost.

Leaders in urban settings tend to have greater access to their peers and make good use of this by connecting through questions, discussions and collaborations. They grab the opportunity to learn from others and to develop relationships that provide insight and support as they do their difficult jobs. This collaboration also provides the chance to seek out partnerships and understand the greater scope of the work going on in their area.

Resources in the hinterland can be scarce. Not only must rural organizations learn to be lean and mean, but they can’t overburden their limited pool of donors. Agencies must be thoughtful and stick to a plan when asking for support.

The same principle applies to board members. Metro area nonprofits have a larger pool of candidates from which to choose. Specific slots, such as accounting, marketing or legal expertise, can be filled with well-qualified folks. Many of these new board members come with training and an understanding of the expectations and roles of board members.

Lessons learned

Rural and urban nonprofits can learn from the strengths of the other to make for stronger organizations all across the state. Rural organizations would do well to be thoughtful when adding new staff and board members. Too often, people are added to organizations out of a sense of urgency instead of from a strategic process. There are good, qualified people all over the state who are willing to add to the capacity of the sector. Tap into those resources through a sense of abundance rather than a sense of scarcity. Rural leaders can also reduce their sense of isolation by using technology to reach out to their counterparts all over the state. There’s no reason not to utilize the strengths of others and the wonderful camaraderie within the nonprofit world to help do your work better.

Urban groups can connect to their communities more directly and more often. Rural groups are never far from their supporters and clients, which provides an instant accountability that is unique to smaller towns. As one leader in a small rural town told me, “Everyone is involved in hospice.” This reminds organizations of their true missions and can guide new programs and work in ways that create authenticity that does not come from sitting in an office on the phone. Trust the instincts that guide this work. There is much to be gained from tapping into external resources, but the passion that drives the work of the nonprofit sector comes from the compassion and knowledge that lies within people.

Finding the balance between utilizing rural, instinctual leadership and urban, resourced leadership provides the best of both worlds to contemporary leaders in any setting.

Leave a reply

Welcome! Please provide your log-in information below.
Forget your password?
Enter your email or user name and your log-in information will be sent to the email on file.