COALITION BUILDING AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZING:

UNDERSTANDING RESULTS, PROCESS, AND RELATIONSHIPS

Early Years Collaborative: Learning Session 5

A REALITY CHECK…

Coalition leaders often ask participants to leave their individual “bias”—their programmatic responsibilities and objectives—at the door.

Such a sacrifice drains the coalition of its purpose and energy.

• Focus on Results, Process, and Relationships• Creating safe spaces for collaboration• Understanding your stakeholders…• …and then engaging them with clear decision

making processes

Adapted from: Interaction Associates

Shared Responsibility

RESULTS:•Completion of the test•Achievement of the goal

PROCESS:•How the work gets done•How the work is designed and managed•How the work is monitored and evaluated

RELATIONSHIPS:•How people experience each other•How people relate to the collaboration/coalition•How people feel about their involvement and contribution

HOW WILL YOU KNOW?

Guides/Questions

For results: • Identified outcomes and process measures for improvement• Are the results high quality?• Are the results timely?• Do the results of our work meet the needs of the children,

families, and citizens we serve?

For process: • Was the process of how we worked together clear and logical?

• Was the process efficient?• Is the process of how we are working appropriate for the

task?

For Relationships: • Do team members feel supported?• Do team members trust each other?• Do team members feel valued?

Adapted from: Interaction Associates

HOW WILL YOU KNOW?Measures Specific Goals

• % antenatal bookers eligible for Healthy Start (self reported)

• Improve uptake of Healthy Start (food and vitamin voucher scheme) to 90% of eligible participants

• Degree of key stakeholder participation and buy-in

• Number of team mtgs without clear desired outcomes and agendas

• All team members/contributors participate in the change efforts

• All key stakeholders support the work design

• No team meetings without clear desired outcomes and agendas

• % of team/coalition members who feel acknowledged for their contribution

• Opinion rating of eligible expecting mothers (random sample)

• All team members feel acknowledged upon completion of project/test

• 4 out of 5 eligible expecting mothers express satisfaction with our services.

Results

Process

Relationships

MORE MEASURES FOR RELATIONSHIPS

• NUM: # of partner organisations contributing to intervention(s) in the past quarter

DEN: Total # of organisations interested in partnering

• NUM: # of partner organisations participating in more than 5 meetings/events in the past quarter

DEN: Total # of organisations interested in partnering

• # of members not from our organisation/agency

• # of unique neighborhood residents participating in EYC-related events in the past month

• # of participants in a specific EYC-related event

…EVEN MORE MEASURES FOR RELATIONSHIPS

• Degree to which team members keep

commitments (1-7 scale; 7=highly)

– Goal: Team members rate their promise keeping

level at 6+

• Degree to which families/individuals feel

supported by practitioners (1-7 scale; 7=highly)

– Goal: Median rating of 6+ across a random 10%

sample of families/individuals

WHEN YOU FOCUS ON RELATIONSHIPS: MAKING IT SAFE TO COLLABORATE

Source: Edmondson, AC “The competitive imperative of learning.” Harvard Business Review

BARRIERS TO THE LEARNING ZONE• Serious work means serious tension• Silence is easier than speaking up• Shhhh, here comes the boss…• Thinking that accountability equals ability

– Making people fearful does not make them able.

• Naïve Realism• The Fundamental Attribution Error• Thinking consensus is the end all be all of

collaboration (more on this later…)

FOSTERING THE LEARNING ZONE• Recognizing the fragility of coalitions• Questioning your assumptions• Leaving the door open!• “You have one mouth and two ears, use them

proportionally”• Telling “war stories” rather than talking about best

practice – the best two words in a collaborative are “ME TOO”

• There is no substitute for a local articulation of purpose

Discuss with 1-2 people at your table.

GETTING TO THE LEARNING ZONE

• In what ways are you experiencing barriers to the Learning Zone?

• In what ways are you fostering the Learning Zone?

THE DILEMMA:Coalition collaboration requires for you to lose a bit of control for much, much more power.

However, there are real benefits and risk for increasing involvement in collaboration and decision-making.

What other benefits and risks have you seen in your work?

RISKS AND BENEFITS

Benefits of Involvement/ Engagement

Risks of Involvement/ Engagement

• You can generate some creative, diverse ideas

• Increase buy-in and will for change

• …

• People may not know enough to really effectively participate

• Could lead to chaos and impending doom. (But, really, it could be chaotic.)

• …

THE DILEMMA:“What am I afraid of losing control over?”

…the process for getting there?…how people behave or will behave?…the nature and quality of the result?

(And the really hard one)

…my own feelings?

WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS• A key stakeholder is any person (or group of people)

who: • Are final decision makers or are opinion leaders that

can impact the outcome• Must ratify or who can veto the decision• Must be consulted prior to the decision being made• Have expertise crucial to realizing the desired

outcomes or experience in the situation we seek to change

• Will be affected by the outcome• Must implement or live by the changes• Will need to be informed of the changes

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSISA. Key

StakeholdersB. Impact C. Expertise or

ResourcesD. Issues, Wins

and MindsetE. Stakeholder Strategy and Comments

• Key stakeholders (or stakeholder group)

• Rate each stakeholder according to their impact in helping or hindering the change effort

• 3 = critical• 2 = very important• 1 = somewhat

important

• What expertise or resources do they bring to the table?

Identify issues that are important to each stakeholder. •What would be a “win” for them/this organization?•What would influence them to support the change? •What do they need?

What strategies they are currently using to accomplish their outcomes and goals?

Engagement:•Who could help influence this stakeholder•What approach might work?•How might you proceed if you don’t win their support?

SEEK MAXIMUM APPROPRIATE INVOLVEMENT VS. MINIMUM NECESSARY INVOLVEMENT

Level

Of

Owner-ship

Level of Involvement

Decide & announce

Input from others & decide

Input from group & decide

Consensus

Delegate with constraintsFallback*

Source: Interaction Institute for Social Change

SOME FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN MAKING DECISIONS IN A PARTNERSHIP, COLLABORATION,

OR COALITION

• Stakeholder buy-in• Time available• Importance of the decision• Information needed • Capability• Building teamwork

SEEK MAXIMUM APPROPRIATE INVOLVEMENT VS. MINIMUM NECESSARY INVOLVEMENT

Level

Of

Owner-ship

Level of Involvement

*Fallback can be to any other level

Decide & announce

Input from others & decide

Input from group & decide

Consensus

Delegate with constraintsFallback*

Source: Interaction Institute for Social Change

DECIDE AND ANNOUNCE

• Leader makes a decision with little to no input, then announces the decision to those who will be affected by , or must carry out, the decision.

Possible Advantages Possible Disadvantages

• Decision can be made quickly

• Leader is in control

• Implementation can begin immediately

• May not be a well-informed decision

• Those assigned to carry out the decision may balk at the implementation

• Those affected may harbor resentment about not having been asked their opinion

GATHER INPUT FROM INDIVIDUALS AND DECIDE

• Leader asks selected individuals for input, then makes a decision.

Possible Advantages Possible Disadvantages

• More info with which to make a decision

• Increased likelihood that decision will be carried out

• Doesn’t require a meeting of all the players

• Some players may feel arbitrarily included

• If the decision is in conflict with input, players may undermine decision to be less likely to provide input the next time.

GATHER INPUT FROM TEAM AND DECIDE

• Leader asks the team members to share their ideas in a meeting. Leader decides after hearing from the team.

Possible Advantages Possible Disadvantages

• More creative thinking because of group synergy

• Increased likelihood of well-informed decision

• People feel included and may be more committed to implementation

• Takes more time

• May surface issues or conflicts inappropriate for that meeting

• If resulting decision is in conflict with input, people may sabotage implementation

CONSENSUS

• What consensus is:• Everyone has an opportunity to be heard.• Everyone is willing to support and actively implement.• Win/Win for those involved.

• What consensus is not:• Not a majority vote.• Not everyone’s first choice.• Not win/lose.

CONSENSUS

• Define what consensus is from the beginning.• Decide on a fallback strategy if consensus cannot be

reached.Possible Advantages Possible Disadvantages

• Educates the team through active participation.

• High level of support for decision.

• Quicker implementation because more people are already up and running on the issues at hand.

• May take more time.

• Team may not have the collaborative skills needed to reach agreement.

• People may interpret leader’s choice of consensus approach as weakness.

DELEGATE DECISION WITH CONSTRAINTS• Leaders defines the decision that needs to made in the form of a

question(s), clarifies the constraints (including budget, timeframe, etc.), and delegates the decision to other.

• The leader does not alter the decision as long as it adheres to the constraints

Possible Advantages Possible Disadvantages

• Frees up leader up to deal with other issues

• Minimizing undermining of the decision

• Develops leadership capability of others

• Team may not have the skill, experience or perspective to make an informed decision

• May take more time

• Team may take issues outside the bounds of the task.

THANKS FOR A GREAT SESSION!