This guest blog was written by Ryan Lugalia-Hollon, Ph.D., CEO at UP Partnership.
One beautiful thing about collective impact is how it softens hierarchies. When done well, the work of the collective creates space for great ideas and practices to rise, independent of people’s titles. It helps systems to become more alive, to better connect to both themselves and to the communities they seek to serve.
Organizational charts within partner organizations still matter at collective impact tables — and they must be taken seriously for breakthroughs to last — but they do not limit the thinking or action of the participating leaders as much as they would in a typical meeting or committee.
Champions of change gather in ways that flatten the room, so that a system’s inevitable room for improvement becomes the focus. Power, like data, is shared. Relationships are strengthened. New types of accountabilities are built. The course for a more just future is charted, together.
Meanwhile, backbones themselves operate on hierarchies, even in co-director and multi-director models. And while the executive(s) leading that hierarchy may themselves be highly motivated by power sharing, they also have roles to own.
This creates built-in tensions.
In any given week, a backbone executive might ask themselves…
- Which decisions should I give away?
- Where do I really need to take a firm and final position?
- How much energy should we give to group process? And who should be involved?
As backbone organizations grow, these questions get magnified. In larger organizations, the executive(s) are now making power-sharing decisions at a level or three up…
- Where do I let supervisors drive their team’s own culture for decision making?
- Where do I set firm parameters, across departments, for how power is shared?
- How do I balance clear reporting lines and open organization-wide connections?
In my six years leading a collective impact backbone, I’ve engaged these questions and many of their cousins. I have deeply felt the tradeoff between speed and participation, between crystal clarity and co-creation, between strong horizontal relationships and a well-reinforced organizational chart.
I have had the “pleasure” of erring on multiple sides of these trade-offs. And I have seen the impact on our organizational norms and culture that often follows.
In some seasons, I’ve wasted precious blocks of team meetings leading a process that folks really did not want to be involved in. I’ve functioned as chief facilitator when I should have been chief decider. I’ve skirted choices that kept my team in limbo for longer than I care to admit.
On the flip side, I have also moved way too quickly. I’ve committed our organization to a new path, or schedule, or technology without getting the input needed to ensure success. I’ve responded to challenges with fast, bold action that failed to create lasting resolution. I’ve charged forward when I really needed to slow down and open that sacred path from my heart to my ears.
When I have my wits about me, I now seek ways to transcend the underlying dynamics, to create both/and solutions that are both efficient and deeply engaging. For example, I may invest heavily when defining the intended results for a meeting and then mostly sit back and watch for the bulk of the actual conversation. Or, at other times, I may just name the central tensions I see in an issue, ask that we clearly address them, and support whatever discussion that unfolds toward that end.
Most of all, I’ve learned to keep asking questions about the best ways for me to add value to a room or a process. For me, this means taking a living approach to my own positions, stances and methods, so that our backbone organization can continue helping our partners to bring more life to their own.
About the author
Ryan Lugalia-Hollon is CEO at UP Partnership, a member of the Cradle to Career Network. Learn more about UP Partnership’s work to ensure every child in Bexar County, Texas is ready for the future at UPPartnership.org.