13 Reasons to Avoid Collaboration
The following is adapted from my keynote address at the Collective Impact Symposium held by the York Opioid Collaborative on January 10th, 2024.
Collaboration is built into our everyday experience. As a Dad to six kids, Gail and I have learned that a smoothly running home is only possible when each member behaves collaboratively.
Our governmental structures require politicians to work together to keep systems running. The roads we drive on require us to cooperate and obey the basic rules of the road. Anyone who has played on a sports team understands that the best teams learn to collaborate.
As organizations working together to reduce the adverse impact of substance use in York County, I am here to tell you that collaboration is not easy. I want to give you 13 reasons people likely use to avoid collaboration.
13 Reasons to Avoid Collaboration
The TELOS problem. “I already know where my organization needs to go.” Telos is a Greek word that means end or goal. You might call it the destination. As a leader in your organization, you likely already say to yourself, “I know where I want to go.” Establishing common goals with other people is hard. There are many good things we could get done independently. When my wife’s four siblings decide where we go for summer vacation, each of them has in mind what would be the best possible destination. Agreeing on one final destination can be challenging.
The TRUST problem. “I’m not sure I can trust you. I have heard numerous reasons around town that I should be suspicious of partnering with your organization.” Collaboration requires trust. Trust is built on relationships. Building relationships takes time.
The POWER problem. “I will lose control.” All of us desire to have control of our organizations. Collaboration requires that we relinquish a certain measure of control. If you like to be in the driver’s seat all the time, collaboration is not for you.
The TURF problem. “This is my turf. What are you doing on it? Have you not talked to the City’s mothers and fathers about the fact that this area of work is my domain and terrain?” Collaboration means relinquishing control of our little kingdoms.
The FUNDING problem. “I will lose donors if I choose to work with other people. Someone else may get my share of the money if my donors become ‘our’ donors.” Collaboration requires that we share resources toward a common end.
The CREDIT problem. “I won’t get the credit, the awards, or the recognition for the work. I may lose opportunities for career advancement.” Collaboration requires that we learn to set aside our egos and our tendency toward jealousy.
The SPEED problem. “My organization can get things done more quickly when we work independently. If I have to foster awareness of what other organizations are doing, that will slow us down.” Collaboration means that we develop awareness of what other partners are doing in the work.
The COMMUNICATION problem. “I can barely communicate consistently and clearly with my organization. Working with numerous other partners will create communication issues.” Collaboration requires open, regular, and transparent conversation.
The STYLE problem. “I don’t like how other people operate, their personalities, and the way they do things.” Collaboration means we accept that people have a variety of personality styles and that there are inherent strengths in those styles. Visionaries behave differently than implementers who are good at operating systems. In addition, various cultures have modes of operation that may be different from our own. In a collaborative environment, we take the time to learn these styles, appreciate them, and adapt.
The ACCOUNTABILITY problem. “Why would I want to be accountable to a collective group? I already have my own Board and leadership to which I am accountable?” Collaboration requires that every partner is accountable to the whole.
The CONFUSION problem. “There is no way that collaborating with multiple organizations won’t be complicated and confusing.” Collaboration inherently involves multiple parties and strategic coordination. Confusion is only avoided through constant coordination.
The OVERHEAD problem. “Investing in a backbone organization sounds like more overhead. Nonprofits are rated harshly for high overhead expenses. Collective impact just sounds like more unnecessary expense.” The best collective impact organizations require some form of organizing hub or backbone organization. These require funding to operate and coordinate the multiple parties involved in collective impact.
The IMPACT problem. “My donors are satisfied with hearing regular stories about the people we impact.” Collective impact collaboration requires that we move beyond telling nice stories and develop clear goals and measurable data. Most nonprofit fundraisers know that telling a few cute stories is enough for some donors.
Moving Beyond Objections to Collaboration
The problems our communities face are big, growing, enduring, and unpredictable. The old ways of solving these challenges are not working.
It will require organizational leaders to divert course if we want different outcomes. The reality is that a decent nonprofit leader who can fundraise can likely sustain a job for a long time without actually making a dent in the social problems their organizations exist to solve. The question we must face though is, “Are we truly solving the very problems our organizations exist to address or are we just focused on keeping the doors of our nonprofit open?”
Real social impact is possible but requires strategic collaboration. In addressing the substance use and abuse problem in York County, the most likely way to make change is for your numerous organizations to develop common goals, agreed-upon measurable data points, teamwork, constant communication, and trusting relationships, all done over long stretches of time.
We must be honest that the philanthropic funds being disbursed are being spread in too many directions to have a meaningful impact. This is what makes giving money away such a hard task for funders. There are too many people doing good work and too little impact on the huge social issues we are addressing. Collaboration would help us focus those funds on the most effective collective strategies that can actually be measured.
My own experience facilitating meetings between York County’s police chiefs and clergy, specifically the Black Ministers Association, has taught me the joys of collaboration. Not only have I witnessed relationships develop, but I have also watched trust spring out of those relationships. This has taken several years to happen, but it has shown me that collaboration is productive.
Leadership is hard. We are living in times when leaders are lonely. Life is better lived together and the celebration is much sweeter when we accomplish the difficult goals we set out to tackle. The work of solving enduring social problems can wear you down. There is no need to do it alone when collaboration is an option.
What is the legacy you are trying to leave? If you desire to leave the legacy of a lone ranger who looked out for yourself and your organization, I provided you with 13 reasons to avoid collaboration.
Your presence at this gathering tells me a different story. Each of you got into this work of battling substance use because it is personal to you and you desire to make a difference. Nothing is more discouraging than believing that you are not making a difference. I am convinced that a deep and lasting commitment to collaboration will result in change for generations to come.
For the lasting good of York County, we must set aside our egos, and personal agendas, and ask:
“How can we collaboratively tackle York’s most enduring social challenges that are destroying lives and make a lasting social impact that will last for generations?”
