Nonprofit uncollaboration

in Fortune favours the brave consultant Paul Caplan reports on his work helping UK voluntary organisation explore the potential of what he appropriately calls the Live Web, and then muses on why the potential for collaboration is not being fully realised:

Currently doing some work for the nice people at the Finance Hub, another UK government initiative like my benefactors at the ICT Hub, designed to get the voluntary and community sector working better and taking over from the collapsing state sector (who slipped that in?).
Anyway, been seeing the inside of a lot of trains again as I travel around the country meeting VCOs and the organisations that support them. Once again I am amazed at the levels of energy, committment and passion out there in the real world. If these Hub initiatives actually worked and brought that sector together, and I was in government, I’d be more worried about that than a bunch of angry motorists and a petition. The organisations and the people who run them, often without resources, support or even encouragement, constitute a powerful series of voices that when combined with the Live Web could create a real political movement.
The Live Web, unlike any tool or medium before it, honours voice and passion. It favours the brave. Voice, passion and bravery are what drive the VCO sector - I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there’s a natural fit.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work out:

I believe the people running the Hubs know this and can see it potential. Perhaps even the ministers in Government who’re behind the Change-Up initiative believe it and want to see it happen. They can’t all be cynical New Labour PFI-driven privatisers can they? But what’s most frustrating about working for the Hubs is that the way they are working is not enabling that to happen as effectively as it could.
I go around the country like a digital Elmer Gantry whipping up enthusiasm but then moving on. I can’t afford to help all the organisations who ask me to and the project is being forced to focus on the number of attendees rather than on how deeply embedded the new tools and communication practices could be. There seems to be no  funding for follow-up, in-depth support or project development. There seems to be no real integration across the Hubs to enable organisations to use the new networking potential to develop P2P consultancy around communications, marketing, finance and fundraising.
The potential of the Live Web is bigger than just creating a voice-driven, passionate movement. It is about P2P, open-source networking -  a new form of consultancy where services like Blogs and Wikis, consultants like me and infrastructure organisations and funders like the Hubs or Change-Up get behind organisations, get out of there way and look for ways to enable them to do what they would do naturally and which for years they have been told to unlearn.
No-one quite knows what is the future of the Hubs. I’d like to think that they can take on this role.  Don’t unremarkable work in leading organisations.  They could do even more if they got behind them.

All credit to Paul for being prepared to tell it as he finds it; I share the same frustrations. But why is the potential for collaboration under-realised among nonprofits at national level? I think there are probably some structural challenges, among them the pressure to deliver against targets and compete for funding, and the short-term nature of many project which means staff don't have time to develop relationships. The level of expertise in using new technology is generally low across the sector, which makes it very difficult to enthuse people about the potential. Why bother if other people aren't using the tools.  However, as Dave Pollard reported from a wider study of collaboration he did with Mitch Ditkoff, Tim Moore and Carolyn Allen a year ago:

Two criteria, enthusiasm for the subject of the collaboration, and open-mindedness and curiosity, are rated as the most important criteria by virtually all segments of respondents. More than half of all respondents rated these qualities as indispensable in a collaboration partner. By contrast, five experience-related criteria (proven trustworthiness, collaboration experience, previous familiarity with other members of the team, reputation in the field of the collaboration, and business experience), rate at or near the bottom of the 39 criteria assessed by participants. Candor, courage and timeliness of follow-through are also rated very important qualities in a collaborator, along with strong listening, feedback and self-management skills and diversity of ideas.
These findings, most of which are based on responses from experienced collaborators, seem to suggest that just about any group of appropriately motivated people can be effective collaborators, and that good collaboration is more art, and perhaps chemistry, than science.

So what might foster a more collaborative attitude? I suspect those in the front line might point to senior staff ... senior staff might point to their funders. Maybe the use of the Live Web among smaller organisation will lead to pressure upwards for greater collaboration - if we believe that tools help change behaviours. I'll have a chance to explore some of these themes when I speak at the second conference of the ICT Hub, who I should emphasise are, of course, Very Nice People.
It's that other lot who are the difficult b*****s ...
Update: Leon Benjamin, in a comment on my earlier item about his on fractional work, writes:

Actually non-profits have an edge because they have a cause, particularly voluntary non-profits where the nature of the participants tends to promote rather than inhibit collaboration and sharing.  With some off-centred thinking and the application of social software, non-profits have the potential to evolve into movements.

... thus echoing Paul Caplan's point about the groups that he meets, and the wider potential. Perhaps the problem at the higher, inevitably more bureaucratic, reaches of the voluntary sector is that they are somewhat removed from cause. It's not just attitude, but context and culture that matters. I'm glad I don't have to do such a tough job, pulled in so many directions.

Technorati Tags: collaboration, nptechuk, snnonprofit

Comments

[Paul Caplan]

... and I've responded here: http://theinternationale.org/2007/02/25/fostering-as-a-career/

[Paul Webster]

Thanks David, I was initially hesitant when I read this, but relieved at the end!

I guess this is new, and people need time to accept change - as even government ministers don't know how to handle the power of collaborative live web working!

So many small groups don't have the capacity to embrace every new whim or fad so let things pass by ... that is unless we can demonstrate how blindingly essential this technology can be for them, and I guess how it will bring more funding their way!

Indeed i'm using the Live Web as I blog my exploits (http://watfordgap.wordpress.com/) and also picked up on Paul brave post.

C'mon it'd be silly not to show how the Live Web can work for all.

[Leon Benjamin]

I think the problem is leadership. The reality is that leaders of VCOs and NGOs aren't equipped to lead in the 21st century's networked economy. And this isn't their fault, but they need to accept help from people who can create the conditions that enable leaders to emerge, and then step aside. This isn't their time now.

Just before he died, Peter Drucker said at Davos in Switzerland, "community-building talent is the single most precious resource in the modern world." Let me briefly explain why.

Online community service poviders like Ezboard and CommunityZero, and Bebo and MySpace, to a certain extent have created leaders who in some cases, have literally started movements, with huge numbers of supporters and advocates. EzBoard has over half a million discrete 'clubs', each with a leader, covering a vast array of subject matter.

These leaders often deliver an experience that enriches people's social and professional lives. More so than the associations and unions that are supposed to serve them.

These are our leaders of the future.