Impact without Boundaries

June 8, 2011

As we’ve been working to bring about significant social change, alleviate poverty, and face other challenges over the past few decades, we’ve separated ourselves into silos.  We refer to:

  1. Non-governmental organizations or NGOs (also called by a whole host of other names),
  2. International development  practitioners (aid providers, not beneficiaries who have only recently been ‘asked to the [decision-making] table’);
  3. Social entrepreneurs, a term with many different definitions (See Alison Rapping’s blog for some of these)
  4. Corporate representatives (focusing on another broad concept, that of ‘corporate social responsibility’ or CSR)
  5. Academics who also play roles as international development consultants, and so forth

We’ve looked at these sectors as having different interests and as functioning in significantly different ways. Sometimes out in the world, addressing challenges, practitioners from these different sectors might ‘bump into each other’ and might even decide to collaborate, but it was usually done in an ad hoc way, involving specific individuals or organizations working on a specific project.

More recently there has been a growing cadre of people who have begun to look at how the sectors can work together in more systematic ways; we have also begun to consider whether some of these sector boundaries and the sectors the way they currently exist might be becoming obsolete. This, of course, will not happen quickly, and we can expect a lot of resistance, but the discussion is beginning to take place in significant ways. Here is one very simple graph of where some of the linkage can be found, and some differences in perspectives that we may need to overcome:

Social entrepreneurs and NGO practitioners have in common the goal of ‘social change’ or ‘social good,’ but have traditionally come at this goal from different perspectives: social entrepreneurs from the private sector world’s return on investment, and the NGO sector from a focus on mission. Due to these different perspectives and years of working and being trained in different ‘silos,’ the different sectors are often speaking different ‘languages,’ and outside of the small cadre of those who are seeing the linkages, have often been distrustful or even disdainful of each other.

A number of different factors are bringing us to a key juncture of revisiting these silos.  They include: (1) After decades of focus on international development the pace of progress is being questioned, bringing attention to whether there are better ways of doing things that should be explored; (2) There is discussion in a number of sectors about looking more at impact than just output and how best to do this; and (3) Traditional boundaries are coming down –  the increase in information technology and social media, capacity building in developing countries, etc. are all helping to bring practitioners from different sectors together. Differences between the sectors are now often seen as “gaps between the sectors” rather than just differences in the way they do business.

Here is a sample discussion of how a group of social entrepreneurs and NGO practitioners are discussing how the two groups may be moving closer together:

Think of how much smarter our aid and international development efforts could potentially be if we increased our collaboration and took the effective practices from wherever they reside, no matter what the sector label.

What are some of the next steps we might consider taking?

  1. Find common language that can encourage more members of both sectors to become involved in meaningful dialogue, and work together towards addressing major global challenges.
  2. Encourage more cross-sector forums to stimulate discussion among the different sectors.

How else might we encourage the breaking down of silos?

Cross-posted at Peace Dividend Trust

Categories: Communication, Partnerships, Uncategorized
Tags:

  • http://km4meu.wordpress.com/ Ewen

    Hi Bonnie!

    Very nice post indeed, brings a lot of good food for thought.
    I also agree very much with the trend of cross-boundary work, across development sectors and, as you point out, together with social enterprise initiatives.

    My two (ok, five) pennies on the topic:

    - The combination of perspectives, of ‘knowledge cultures’ as it were, is very important to bring a richer picture of social change (if that is the common objective), a deeper understanding of all the linkages and interactions between these different parties and knowledge cultures, also to explore much more thoroughly the assumptions that we have (if anything because we need to reconsider the language that we use indeed, and what we really mean when using certain words) and ultimately to bring a more varied skillset to deal with the task at hand. Oh yes it’s going to bring a lot of friction, but constructive friction in times of re-positioning is excellent!

    - The point of ‘impact’ is of course delicate as it remains notoriously difficult to single out factors that lead to a given impact – and to attribute it to our specific initiatives, but aiming at impact is certainly helpful as it gives a longer term and deeper perspective rather than the typical bean-counting that we are often forced to do (progress/output reporting), without giving ourselves chances to realise what that bean counting is supposed to lead to.

    - Although I understand your point about finding a common language, perhaps what matters most is not to have a common language but to have common references: we may prefer this or that combination of words, it’s all fine, so long as we know what we mean by those words. However painful semantics can be sometimes, I really think that the choice of words can deeply influence the way we perceive the world and how we act upon it; so it’s vital to assess the language we use.

    - How to bring about change? The trend towards integrating across sectors is excellent and it should be realised at the highest hierarchical levels. In parallel though, a lot of us are individually experiencing increasing ‘mingling and meshing’ with people from other sectors, niches, walks of life. We are tweeting, emailing, skyping, facebooking, linking in with them and that also brings small yet long-lasting injections of change around the edge, under the floor, and that also contributes, I believe, to realising the importance of working across sectors and silos. The next step is for organisations to encourage and to the healthy extent needed, to “channel & focus” these personal practices into organisational dynamics.

    - Of all routes, however, civic-driven change seems to me the most promising way forward: social entrepreneurs and (I)NGOs alike should build upon the locally-driven initiatives because those are based on passion for a cause and local rooting in the social/economic/political fabric, two factors that give it much more weight and potential for ‘sustainability’ (in development terms). After all, ask your African farmer or Asian craftsman (or European fisherman for that matter) and they will not talk about sectors but of different things that together make their livelihood, their means to develop their welfare and happiness. I work in the water and sanitation sector and yet water & sanitation relate to education, health, energy, agriculture and so many more aspects.

    Thanks to these cooperation/combination/integration trends, reinforced by social networks, we are finally realising the complexity of development, wherever it takes place.

    Thank you for the thinking, I look forward to continuing this dialogue :)

    Ewen

    • http://www.goinginternational.com Bonnie Koenig

      Ewen, thank you for your thoughtful ‘five pennies’. Your comments are evidence of how we need the time and space to further explore and better understand: sector interactions; common reference points and ways to collaborate for greater impact. Like you, I hope this dialogue has just begun!

  • http://www.blendedvalue.org Jed Emerson

    Great observation regarding the need to move out of silos…

    A good resource on some of this is the Blended Value Map which explores links between the silos of SE, CSR, Strategic Philanthropy, Social Investing and Sustainable Development; it may be found at http://www.blendedvalue.org .

    Look forward to more on this!

    best,
    jed

    • http://www.goinginternational.com Bonnie Koenig

      Jed, thanks for the point to Blended Value.

  • http://www.blendedvalue.org Jed Emerson

    Following up on all this, where do you see the “best” processes taking place for moving folks beyond silos? Anything you see particularly intriguing?

    • http://www.goinginternational.com Bonnie Koenig

      Jed, it’s a good question. http://www.socialedge.org, although it calls itself a site for social entrepreneurs, has done a good job over the past few years of bringing in those from the NGO and other sectors as well. Just today there was a discussion sponsored by the Guardian in London looking at cross sector collaboration: http://bit.ly/mJX9ai but I don’t know if anyone is tracking these initiatives. What have you seen that is intriguing? Hope others might share ideas as well…

  • http://HildyGottlieb.com Hildy Gottlieb

    Bonnie:
    Thanks for this discussion – it is one that is going on seemingly everywhere. Truly I can’t recall a room I’ve been in for the past month where this is not a paramount issue! If we all care about the same thing, we begin to see that the silos within silos within silos are truly artificial constructs. And if we humans built them, we can unbuild them! :-)

    Questions I have found helpful in this regard aim not so much at “what can we do?” but precursor questions to the doing. What do we have to believe / value? What do we feel others need to believe / value?

    And then a bit different “doing” question: What would those values look like in action in our own work? What will WE do differently, to put into action the values we want to see in others?

    In our own work, we’ve seen remarkable progress made in breaking down walls within and between organizations when groups start walking the talk they want to see others walking. Instead of waiting for common language or anything else, they just start being what they want to see in others. It’s a remarkable change, and it happens quickly, in a way that builds the compassion we want to see in the world overall.

    I hope this is helpful – and again thanks for engaging this critical question!
    HG

  • http://gravatar.com/bkoenig01 Bonnie Koenig

    Thanks, Hildy, for your comments. I agree that the more people and organizations that just start ‘to do’ and practice collaborative values, the more (and faster) change we will see. However, to broaden the people and organizations that are involved in these kind of discussions and actions calls for creating more spaces (virtual or physical) where practitioners from different silos will come together and engage. It parallels the discussion we had a while back about which conference or unconferences were bringing together people with very diverse perspectives, from different walks of life, and finding that these were a challenge to find. Hopefully as we continue to broaden the ‘cadre’ of ‘fellow travelers’ as one person recently described it to me, we will see more opportunities being created for constructive engagement so the collaborative values are coming from many directions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/socialchangediva Ericka Hines

    Bravo for the opening salvo of a discussion and strategizing that I am eager to engage in. My broader comment is on your other website but plz keep me updated on where this is going.

    All the best,
    Ericka

  • http://twitter.com/ecoblips danielle lanyard

    Bonnie,

    I love your post, and its poignancy, and am honored and pumped that an ongoing conversation you and I have been having on skype, has migrated into the public forum on your awesome blog.

    Speaking of migration, and to add some spice to the pot, let us also embrace that this change is both social and ecological. “Social’ change began as a result of resources (access to or lack there of) and subsequent migration. Today, resources still remain among the driving factors in what leads to or is a driver in, social (and ecological) change, and the subsequent impact. To get all deep ecological on ya, the ‘social’ is just part of the ‘ecological’ anyway, ie: humans are but a faction of the greater ecosystem. I think if we cherished this and made it part and parcel of how we strategize and implement initiatives for positive change, we’d be building a world that worked.

    Humorously, my lil comment just supports your point and focus on the need to remove silos and embrace the meshyness of everything!

  • http://www.goinginternational.wordpress.com Bonnie Koenig

    Thanks, Erika, for commenting in both places this piece was posted!

    thanks, Danielle, and yes I agree that ecological change is indeed an important driver. A recognition of finite resources (whether that recognition is made explicit or not!!) is certainly changing behaviors and hopefully moving us towards more collaboration…

  • http://www.blendedvalue.org Jed Emerson

    Thanks, Bonnie!

    In response to your question above, and in terms of things I’ve seen that might be of relevance to this discussion, I’m afraid it may be less a question of things I’ve seen than what I’ve experienced! : )

    After publishing the research on the BVM in 2003, I was encouraged by a number of foundations to launch something that could continue to advance this idea of cross silo collaborations, but they each wanted me to do that with reference to their own particular area of interest–so for example, what the implications of these ideas might be for, let’s say, social entrepreneurship or strategic philanthropy. In a word, they wanted to collaborate from the position of a silo rather than operate from within a vision of the whole.

    While I appreciated the interest, it seemed antithetical to create a new organization to help bridge organizations within various silos; instead I opted to focus on promoting the broader notion of value as cutting across silos and to work with organizations which seemed to be pursuing elements of a blended value proposition, which I then did through affiliations with a couple of foundations, a sustainable ranching venture, and various capital providers–all the while, doing a good deal of writing and speaking regarding an alternative vision of the overall value that might be released through a new level of collaboration among the silos–to transcend the silos as it were!

    And so what I’ve seen over the past years has been various efforts at linking parts, but without the focus upon the whole that you so rightly suggest is needed in your original post.

    More recently I’ve had to kind of conclude I was perhaps naive to believe the power of the vision of cross silo collaboration would on its own be able to support such a process of mutuality. The reality is that there are few funders interested in moving out of limited program areas (social entrepreneurship, mission investing, NGO capacity building, and so forth) in order to execute a strategy that helped “pay for the commons,” as it were, so many of these efforts that are envisioned don’t have the resources to actually advance the vision you and the folks on this blog/posts so rightly share with myself and others in various parts of this conversation.

    Perhaps I should have accepted the money and launched a “beyond the silos” organization (crossing my fingers it would not simply degenerate into one more self-interested actor within a silo!).

    Onward–and i appreciate your vision/passion on all this!

    best,
    Jed

  • http://www.goinginternational.wordpress.com Bonnie Koenig

    Thanks for sharing your experiences, Jed. My experiences are similar to yours – I don’t see that the resources to encourage cross-sector discussions and collaboration are going to come from ‘traditional’ mainstream funders. I think it’s going to take us growing that ‘cadre of fellow travelers’ who feel strongly that cross-sector dialogue and collaboration is the way we need to go, and then we will be able to identify or cultivate resources that are aligned in this direction. But I think we will get there. So, yes, onward and upward!

  • Pingback: Reflecting on being a ‘changemaker’ « Engaging Internationally

  • Pingback: Back to the Future « Engaging Internationally

  • Pingback: Going International :: Turning Challenges to Opportunities