The Inadequacy of Social Sector Problem-Solving
Thanks to a recent client I’ve spent a couple of months reading and thinking about a slim 2020 publication: “The Flat Org Chart” by Dan Pallotta. I have found this publication to be fascinating and provocative and it turns upside-down the social sector’s assumptions about “doing good” and achieving equity!
Dan starts out by saying that we’re not organized to solve problems in our communities. And our dreams aren’t big enough to change that. He goes on to propose that our aspirations are inadequate and our community org charts for real collaboration are non-existent. That sounds harsh; and yet we have a lot of evidence that many social problems are becoming more difficult not less. So...is he right or wrong?
Imagine--if you can--what the “community org chart” looks like for your community.
Are the collaborations clearly mapped?
Is anyone facilitating or managing all the collaborations going on?
Are the collaborations multi-sectoral?
Are all the players on the map?
Do you know where you/your organizations are on the map? Your responsibilities? The outcomes?
You might be drawing a blank...or close to it! You just can’t visualize it? Not unusual.
Although most communities do have some collaborative actions underway they usually are small, under-resourced, not well-structured and not adequately coordinated; mostly they are doomed to make minimal progress or out-and-out fail. In reality, most community collaborations require robust coordination and facilitation at levels most of us would consider unfundable or unsustainable. We have norms around administration and the use of money that “forbid” us from paying for a level of coordination/management that is actually useful. But if coordination could get us to success shouldn’t we be willing to try?
Let us imagine what community collaboration might really look like; how many players are there? How many people and organizations are holding a piece of the puzzle?
As an example, lets imagine the collaboration we would REALLY need if we were serious about solving food insecurity in our community. Of course we would need our food pantries and food banks! But what about
Childcare/Day care, pre-schools, K-12 and colleges/universities
Transportation and accessibility of food sources
United Ways
Community Foundations
Private and corporate funders
Neighborhood associations
Community health centers/programs
Agencies on Aging
Disabilities outreach/service organizations
Refugee and immigration organizations
Economic development agencies
Nutrition education and programs
Community gardens
Food Co-Ops
Grocery stores
Planning & Zoning departments/City planning
Local farm policy
Farm to table programs
Hospitals
Homelessness; affordable housing programs
Chefs, restaurants, food processing industry
Churches
Civic/service organizations
This took me about 2 minutes to generate! The list would likely be much bigger and more complex if we seriously explored the issue in our own community. And imagine if you could “convene” all these players to agree to some common outcomes and to pursue their work guided by those outcomes. Would we be closer to good solutions and a critical mass of problem solvers if we engaged all these people/institutions?
What this list should tell us is that most of the time we have too few people working on a problem and often collaborative groups are working in their own silos, e.g. we’re the food network; we’re the childcare network; others are the housing network etc. Likely, there is no communitywide and active network of all the problem-solvers on the issue.
Assuming that everyone would be willing to join their efforts, the recruitment of this much cooperation and the management of all the good will (let alone the inevitable conflicts) require leadership...not control or centralization...but strong, active, facilitative leadership. Most social sector organizations resist “top-down” structures and yet they crave and respond to great and supportive facilitation and management. With support at the right bandwidth, the participants can drive values like diversity, equity and inclusion and shape the agenda over long periods of time: project life-spans start looking like 20 years...not 2 to 5 years (traditional funding cycle)!
Dan points out that effective collaboration also benefits from a big enough dream! Why collaborate if the outcome is not exciting or inspiring enough. What good is a timid goal? And a precise timetable helps to focus and drive progress...have the guts to set a deadline to which you will be accountable!
The social sector accomplishes small victories for many individuals short term which are incredibly valuable for the individuals served but not often enough transformative. The big systemic issues don’t seem to budge very much. In the “Flat Org Chart” this underwhelming accomplishment is attributed to the familiar scenarios in community problem solving; we settle for modest visions; skimpy funding; too few people involved--especially those close to the problem; and not enough coordination. Even when we aspire to “collective impact” we often don’t hold ourselves accountable to truly system-changing outcomes, including the coordinating structure that is needed.
The solution, then could be the opposite: we need
A Clear Ambitious Vision +
A Reasonable but Hard-driving Deadline +
Well-proportioned Coordination of all the People/organizations Needed.
Dan suggests looking at other examples where coordinative structures make the difference for success. His favorite example is NASA! The success of NASA is in its size and scope and its ability to coordinate enormous amounts of input that help make smart choices and high level innovations and systemic change. Where in the social sector are our “NASAs”? Could they help us leap to a new level of systemic change and equity?
If you want to know more about the “Flat Org Chart” theory read “The Flat Org Chart” by Dan Pallotta (2020 CThings, California).
If you want to challenge your organization’s problem solving capacity and your potential for a more aggressive vision for change, engagement and equity, schedule a Discovery Session with our See What I Mean Consultants below.
Author: Stephanie Chlosey