Large scale social issues are really complex.
Sound obvious right? But, as Brenda Zimmerman describes in Getting to Maybe, there are three types of problems:
- Simple problems, like baking a cake, that have solutions which once defined can be easily replicated.
- Complicated problems, like putting a man on the moon, which are very challenging but if you work hard and long enough, you can figure it out.
- Complex problems, like raising a child, which are interactive and ever changing. Just because you do it once successfully, doesn’t mean the same approach will work again.
We in the social sector have gotten very good at finding solutions for simple and complicated community issues. We come up with services that help a particular population or address a particular need and then focus on working harder and growing our capacity. But if we want to move the needle on the really big issues, we need to take a fundamentally different approach, one that recognizes the complexity of the problem: working with a wide variety of experts, opinions and references, recognizing and responding to the constantly moving parts, and opening our minds and eyes to new and different ways of working together.
Defining how we work together must come before defining the solution.
This is perhaps the biggest shift in thinking that I personally have to make. I have tended to focus on whether individual organizations are helping their particular constituents and finding ways to measure their particular impact. What this way of thinking does not address, though, is that large scale challenges are far too complex for one perspective – or even a small group of perspectives – to be able to fully identify the need and think through the best solution. The first step, then, in effective social impact is convening the right people/organizations to group-think through the problem. The process comes first and possible solutions follow.
Leaders can be most effective when they encourage learning, dialogue and shared visioning.
Although it’s been around since the 1970’s, the concept of servant leadership plays a key role in the success of achieving social impact. Sometimes, when we are looking for bold and aggressive change, it may seem natural to select a bold and aggressive leader who can set the course and carry the initiative. While it is important to have a strong advocate for social change, the collective work is more effective when the leader encourages shared project ownership, learning and direction-setting. Although the leader will naturally have the bias of their own position and organization, they are able ensure all partners are heard, have their priority needs met and perform as highly as possible.
It’s all about learning and adaptability.
Greenlights is currently helping to manage an exciting Collective Impact project: the Travis County Collaborative for Children. The Collaborative is a multi-year, bold initiative, led and catalyzed by the TCU Institute of Child Development, and intended to bring system-wide change to the way children in foster care in Travis County are cared for during and after their time in state custody. Perhaps the most valuable advice I keep in mind as we work on this project comes not from the guidance of experts on social impact, but rather from Albert Einstein: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” We must learn and adapt in order to hope to achieve our intended impact.