“Collaboration” is a word that gets a lot of air time in this day and age in the philanthropic sector.  Every foundation wants to know what you’re doing to collaborate with others, and evidence of collaboration has become a standard metric of organizational effectiveness.

Unfortunately, not-for-profits resist collaboration as heartily as foundations insist on it.  This is no different whether you’re an orchestra, an opera, or a group in the social service sector.  Our funders increasingly want to see us collaborating with one another, and most of us don’t seem to be getting it.  (There are exceptions; if your organization is one of them, good on you!)

What’s going on here?  If collaboration is the dance of the age, why do nonprofits seem to have two left feet when it comes down to it?

The Greater Tacoma Community Foundation decided to do something about it.  They’ve been holding a series of presentations under the title “Authentic Collaboration,” facilitated by Seattle consultant-poet Ted Lord.  A group of executive directors from various not-for-profit organizations met initially a month ago for an overview session, followed by what Ted and the GTCF are calling the “deeper dive” series.  We’ve held one “deeper dive” session already; a second takes place this week.  Already the discussion has been candid and probing.

Collaboration is difficult for us not-for-profits, I believe, because it goes against the grain of our tradition and training.  No trustee ever joined a nonprofit Board because the organization was collaborative.  No individual donor gives money to an organization because it is collaborative.  Board members join, and donors give, because they find something unique and special about the organization, its mission, vision and values, and its contribution to society.

Executive Directors are all about making sure their organization remains unique and special.  Our Boards hire us to devote ourselves full time to the advancement of our organization.  For most nonprofits, this has never been about collaborating with other groups.  It’s been about fulfilling our mission richly, standing out with a brand that captures community mindshare, generating financial resources and using them wisely, and governing with integrity and transparency.

Since foundations are pretty much the lone voice among our supporters calling for collaboration, it’s a message sometimes given short shrift by harried executive directors.  This has nothing to do with a lack of ability to play well with others; it’s not only counter-instinctive, it’s one more thing to add to an already intense workload.  I’m running as fast as I can to keep my organization solvent; now on top of everything else I have to be collaborative too?  Moreover, pressure to collaborate does not come from our Boards, to whom we report.  They often have little direct contact with foundation donors and so don’t hear the call for collaboration, except as it filters through us.

So given all this, why do foundations keep emphasizing it?

Most communities, including Tacoma, have a plethora of nonprofits to address a plethora of needs.   Some may be duplicative and inefficient; many are effective, well-run organizations.  But historically, most nonprofits evolved as basically closed systems, operating from within their own silo and their direct constituents, rather than as part of an integrated sector.

Contemporary societal needs are epidemic and systemic, and most good foundations don’t want to simply support causes – they want to have a real impact on their community.  This is "grantmaking 2.0."  With many more nonprofits applying to them for funding than they can possibly support, they want to see greater efficiency within the nonprofit sector.  This has given rise to viewing the nonprofit sector as a system.  And most communities, according to this way of seeing things, are “program rich but system poor.”  Impact is isolated and random rather than aligned.  In today’s day and age, so the thinking goes, collective impact requires a systematic approach.

At the Tacoma Symphony Orchestra, we are working to infuse a collaborative spirit into our organizational DNA.   In our values statement, we define our community stance in this way:

“The TSO is a collaborative, respectful organization and promotes an atmosphere of service to our community.  We work in partnership with the larger arts sector and beyond to address local needs.  We seek innovative ways to make the TSO a nimble resource for the community.”

We put this in our Values Statement, not because we think we’re already adept at it, but because it’s important and we want to get better at it.  We try to operate this way every day, not just in projects we have defined as “collaborative.”  That’s one reason I’m participating in this “Deeper Dive” series.

But any organization that has really tried hard to be collaborative knows it’s not easy.  The theme of the Deeper Dive series is “authentic collaboration,” and the devil is in the adjective here.  Authentic collaboration is hard.  It doesn’t come naturally at first.  It has to be learned.  It takes time and commitment.  It involves humility and a willingness to surrender ego and pride.  And sometimes it plain doesn’t work.

So while I understand where the desire for collaboration comes from, I hope our funders have realistic expectations.  (And if their praise of our initial halting steps is any indication, fortunately, they do!) Collaboration may well eventually result in a more effective nonprofit sector, but spectacular results may be elusive.  Like any worthwhile endeavor, getting the sector to operate as a cohesive system will take time.

Before taking that deeper dive, we may need to learn to dog-paddle -- starting from the shallow end of the pool.