Competition or Collaboration?

Hello Social Edge community, I'm excited to host this discussion on collaboration and competition, in all its complexity. I'll be sure to respond quickly and/or bring in the right people who have relevant experiences. Please don't be shy. This is an important conversation to have, and a timely moment to have it. I look forward to your contributions to the discussion. All the best, Peter

Hi Peter,

I think this abstraction might just obscure the issue. Whether two organizations collaborate or compete doesn't usually depend on which is a better idea overall--it depends on whether there is an individual in each organization with the imagination, the will, and the power to architect a way to work together.

From perusing the conference call notes, it seems to me that Greenblatt lacks either the imagination, the will, or the power to get specific and architect a way for your organizations to work together. When he talks about collaboration, as when he talks about the timeline for All for Good, it is unclear whether he is out of the loop himself, whether he is a representative without the authority to make commitments or meaningful statements, or whether he prefers to be secretive or standoffish. Perhaps he was just the wrong person for All for Good to put on the call. Perhaps they will correct this mistake, or a more communicative or committed leader of the project will emerge.

In any case, I think the chance for collaboration will emerge when a strong leader, someone who can take responsibility for what's happened and make commitments going forward, emerges on the All for Good side. I look forward to seeing that happen.

--Joe

I agree with Joe above - competition v. collabortition v. cooperative competition is an abstract argument. In addition to the individuals at each organization, it also depends on the environment. What does the market want? I.e. the orgs, the social entrepreneurs, the beneficiaries and the givers? Hopefully, whatever happens between these two efforts will reflect those desires, and I don't think anybody can predict how the ecosystem will evolve.

Greenblatt probably has a lot on his plate at the moment. I hope his lack of commitment in the call reflects only being caught flat footed and unsure of what the path for his org will be, rather than how he and AFG will perform in the future.

Hi Joe, Interesting points. I have so caught up thinking about collaboration and competition from the perspective of which produces greater innovation. I nearly lost the human factor. And now that you mention it, the greatest collaborations that Social Actions has been able to forge over the last two years are driven by people first and the opportunity to innovate second. Thanks for drawing attention to this point.

Quick caveat -> The title of the discussion is a little problematic. Personally, I do not believe in blank statements, or simple either/or dichotomies. Group dynamics are too complex to resort to a collaboration or competition line in the sand. In certain circumstances, collaboration produces innovation, ie Social Acitons' logo contest on GeniusRocket or our Change the Web Challenge on NetSquared. At other times, innovation comes out of intentional if difficult efforts to identify opportunities to innovate together, and then act on them.

The Stanford Social Innovation Review ran a great article several years back on how grassroots environmental organizations are finding ways to work with the multinational companies whose practices they protest. Something tells me that the cases studies referenced in the following SSIR article were driven by remarkable people on both sides.

Turning Conflict into Cooperation
http://www.ssireview.org/[…]/

All the best,
Peter

Hi Joe,

I totally agree with you that a strong leader will bring about collaboration in an organization. Without such leadership, an idea will always be just an idea. I want to add that it would be great if a strong leader is in the organization whose corporate culture is opening to new ideas and admiring diversity. This type of culture will allow their employees to express their ideas, and encourage those employees to put their ideas into actions.

Social Edge community - Collaboration is the next evolution within the information ICT sector my views as I have been working towards collaboration innovative projects since 2004. This is what I have truly witnessed. In my opinion, "Collaboration can be either a curse or blessing"
The collaboration model will work if - all parties win & benefit each other - if each party is transparent and open to work towards a better financial & sustainable model.

 Unfortunately the world and people initially come together with good intentions - but greed amongest a few who are competitive based ruin the essence & spirit of the collaborative projects.


Unless ethics & honest becomes the first mission when establishing the collaboration partnership.

Hope we can support your vision and collaborate with your organization.

Ashie Hirji
www.heartinaction.com

In Western culture there is a sense that when I compete and win I am therefore stronger, more powerful and more successful. In the same culture, when I collaborate, I do so out of weakness because I do not have the power to win.

Practising an Eastern martial art (say aikido) one learns that the opposite is true. When I exert power OVER someone else in order to win, actually both the winner and the loser are weak. Whereas when I connect powerfully WITH my opponent (partner), we both become more powerful.

Connecting powerfully WITH someone is the willingness to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own and another's well being. So in this respect, where collaboration is the process of connectinv powerfully with each other for the mutual benefit of the collaborating parties, then clearly this mode of behaviour is preferable to competition.

 

Hi Michael,

As a child student of Judo and an adult heavily influenced by Quaker thinking and practice, I couldn't have said it better. Thank you for these contributions to the discussion.

I would take your observation of "connecting powerfully with each other for the mutual benefit of the collaborating parties" one step further. Where audiences, power, and third parties are concerned, collaborating benefits many more stakeholders than just the participating parties.

My small example would be the standards conversation in industry. When a sector comes together to create a standard, anything from the diameter of a bottle cap to protocols for mobile devises, businesses and consumers in the sector benefit. Businesses reduce their costs because manufacturers don't have to build custom factories / product lines each time they sign a contract. Consumers also benefit. Anyone who has fastened a Pepsi cap onto a Coco-cola bottle and then ridden their bike home knows what I'm talking about.

Although this wasn't the point of my discussion intro, I'll say it anyway. Sometimes collaborating in one area raises the bar of competition in another. Chris Messina recently made this point at the NetSquared conference as it relates to open standards for managing one's identity online.

"... [Social networks] should compete on the quality of the service that they're providing, as opposed to just their lock in."

Have a look at this interview:

"Building a Ubiquitous Social Network - Interview With Chris Messina"
http://is.gd/1b7Pd

If you google cooperative competition, you will get 8.5M hits.
(and we might be into semantics now, i.e. cooperation == collaboration)
I really believe this is the strategy for getting a lot of folks working towards a common goal. (I think we're somehow wired for competiton - just look at the huge amount of time people invest in games)
I'm working on building a system that leverages competition to get teams of volunteers out to compete in solving environmental goals. (of course, there will be a Ferrari at stake... just kidding ;)).

I think it's necessary to break down the groups into sizes normal people can grok, so for your first q. I say both, but using small groups.

If I had to choose between competition and collaboration, I'd choose collaboration, because I think competition on its own leads to selfish choices.

Best,
Dave

Hi Dave,

I'd love to hear more about your system that leverages competition to get teams of volunteers out. Sounds intriguing, and exactly the kind of circumstance in which competition can in fact help more people find ways to serve. But to your point, the competition is playful and at a small scale. You're not talking about competing efforts to build infrastructure that powers the volunteer sector. You're talking about light weight competitions that can make volunteering fun.

Please do share more details, as long as you're not worried that someone here will swipe the idea. For all we know, there may be someone reading this discussion who would make for a perfect partner in your build-out of the system.

Now, to the 8.5 million figure --> I don't want to pick hairs but "cooperative competition" (with quotes) produces 15,800 results. Not surprising, that figure is somewhere between "competition is a good thing" (80,700) and "collaboration is a good thing" (2,650). "Cooperative competition" is for the folks in this world who are peace-makers and bridge-builders, merging two seemingly countervailing concepts for the greater good, as in rolling stones. :-)

All the best,
Peter

Hi Peter, I see your distinction and agree I am talking about 'light weight' competition among peace-makers and bridge-builders, but I think these situations can be orchestrated or influenced by the right leaders...

Thank you for inviting me to share my idea on using competition to get volunteers out. The concept is pretty simple: establish a challenge (e.g. plant 1000 trees within 1 week, starting...), offer a prize (eco-adventure tour in Great Bear Rainforest) and provide an organizing tool to assist in forming/displaying teams (a ning-like platform for individs to recruit and sign up), finally a feedback mechanism to help the volunteers gauge their progress. An in-the-field mobile device (iPhone?) to provide data capturing for verification (take a picture and upload to the contest map site) and a flexible mapping application on the contest site. (Also embed codes to allow the teams to log their progress for bragging rights on their FB accounts. (Maybe an automated Twitter feed that tweets updates about the teams)?
I can show you a mockup (http://daviddumaresq.com/rpg/) that illustrates a web UI for tracking team progress in a tree planting competition.

Thanks for your interest, and feel free to pass my name/email on to anyone who wants more info.

Take care (and kudos for initiating a great discussion)
Dave

Hi Dave,

A few people you should talk with about your tree-planting competition:

Vicki Saunders, Zazengo.com (a platform for impact challenges)

Jacob Colker, BeExtra.org (an iphone app for micro-volunteerring)

Joe Edelman, GroundCrew.us (on call volunteering via SMS)

Joe Solomon, EngageJoe.com (generally brilliant social innovator, looking for a new project)

Jon Warnow, 350.org (global platform to combat climate-change -- think tree-planting competition on a global scale)

That's 4 J's and a V. Great idea, and I love the mock-up.

Hope something works out.

All the best,
Peter

Hi Peter, thanks so much for the 4Js and a V! I'll let you know what comes of this.

Regards,
Dave

In my opinion, I believe the most important aspect to collaboration is knowing your strengths and being able to admit when someone else's strengths may trump your own.

Often large organizations have the general brain power and certainly the money to move mountains, but are often put the size of their org on a pedestal merely because its done something right to make it to its size. On the other hand, the smaller orgs have their specialties down pat, but lack the overall vision and the power to hedge through all the barriers in the way to making a significant difference.

If everyone simply laid down their guard and fairly assessed strengths, power teams could very well be formed.

Hi Conor,

Great points.

One problem. What happens when large organizations have power that is derived from not laying down their guard? On what basis would they want to form a power team with a smaller organization?

I'm asking because I'm having a hard time putting myself in that situation.

I'm a little late to the discussion, but Peter and Conor, you both raise great points. I definitely agree with Conor that a smaller organization can learn a lot from a larger one -- in the case of AllForGood, a lot of their techniques for spreading the word and increasing volunteer sentiment among the broader population are innovative, even if the overall idea has already been explored extensively by organizations like VolunteerMatch and SocialActions (an organization that I hadn't heard of until now, but sounds great!).

But Peter is right as well. Large organizations can add a lot of value when working with smaller organizations...but they don't always feel that it's necessary to do so. And when the collaborative piece is missing, the competition can be difficult, particularly when a top down competitor has a lot of inherent advantages (large partners, capital, relationships with the press, advanced technological expertise, etc) that can help them grow at the expense of your organization.

Luckily, social entrepreneurs are amazing and innovative and constantly developing new ideas. Perhaps a new organization arrives that, for whatever reason, is indeed more successful and effective at responding to one societal need. This should not be viewed solely as a setback, but also an an opportunity. The social entrepreneur will have to leverage his or her inherent talents to adjust their mission slightly and focus on adjacent spaces that also need that kind of unique drive and vision. By incorporating the learnings from the larger organization and the overall experience, one can emerge as an even stronger and more effective change-agent in the future.

It is because of this that I feel that, while competition is not always good for the organization, it is unquestionably good (in my opinion) for the sector.

I actually recently wrote a somewhat relevant blog post about the perceived tension between AllForGood and the some members the nonprofit community. If you're interested in reading more of my thoughts on the matter check out http://communiteach.com/blog/?p=78

Looking forward to participating in more Social Edge conversations in the future!

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for joining the conversation on competition and collaboration, and for adding a link to this discussion from your blog entry.

Let me pick up on one of your many insights. You point out that a social entrepreneur will continue to innovate and apply their unique drive and vision toward the outcomes they want to create, whether in the same field (if possible) or an an adjacent space (if necessary).

I agree.

In dealing with the issues raised in the intro to this discussion, I have already started to explore how to hone Social Actions' mission and to focus on the 'adjacent spaces' that also stand to benefit from our commitment to the social sector.

In this case, we're focusing increasingly on the people and organizations that are represented among our partners, and finding innovative ways to advance their work. Delivering potential action-takers via the Social Actions API is just one way of increasing their impact. Hosting in person and virtual conference calls with their peers, telling their stories, providing cross sector analysis and metrics, and recruiting strategic partners are also unique ways to increase their impact.

You can have a look at this blog series to get a better sense of how we're honing and clarifying the work we do in order to avoid the my-tool-is-better-than-your-tool rabbit hole.

http://my.socialactions.com/profiles/blog/list?tag=safuture

Strangely enough, by diversifying the ways in which we support our partners, we'll probably end up building support and developing further the tool that got us started in the first place.

All the best,
Peter

I use maps to focus on all of the poverty areas of Chicago, which is where kids need lots of help to grow up safely and become contributing members to society and the economic engine of the US and world economy. You can see some at http://mappingforjustice.blogspot.com and you can create your own in the new program locator we've just launched. It's at http://www.tutormentorprogr[…]tor.net/InteractiveMap.aspx

At http://tutormentor.blogspot[…]gerous-neighborhood-in.html you can see a map I created this morning using this resource.

The map area I pointed to is in the South part of Chicago. The tutor/mentor program I lead (Cabrini Connections) is not even in this part of Chicago.

Since these maps are on the Internet, I suspect others with more money, and more power, will duplicate the ideas and create similar services. Will that put me out of business? I don't know. Will it do more to help the kids I serve. I think it might.

So why am I spending hard-to-find dollars to help other tutor/mentor programs in other parts of Chicago?

It's because I'm really trying to inspire businesses, foundations, government, media and others to look at social problem-solving from a larger lens. On my own I can never get enough of the resources it will take to overcome the poverty that the kids in the Cabrini Connections program come from. I can't get businesses to create vocational mentoring programs where they begin to take a role in building youth skills as kids are entering 6th and 7th grade. I cannot keep operational dollars flowing directly to me each year for the next 10 years.

However, if I point to the entire city, and to more than 150 organizations, maybe I can get the attention of one or more business, faith, or political leaders who will think of ways to distribute his influence to all of the neighborhoods where he does business, in the same way he advertises each day to draw customers to buy those products and services.

In addition, if I teach the other programs in Chicago, and other cities, to use these tools, and educate their volunteers to use the resources on the T/MC to support their own kids, they become partners in building the traffic that T/MC sites need to attract donors to support our own work.

Thus, I'm involved in self-interested collaboration.

Now let's look at the problem you describe. You started Social Actions and now All for Good has entered the same market place. This is always going to happen. There's always going to be someone who wants to do their own thing (e.g. "not invented here").

What I've done is create a links library on the http://www.tutormentorconnection.org web site where I add links to my competitors. Thus, someone can visit my site and find others doing similar work. However, if they visit the sites of these others, it's not likely they will find my site, or the links on my site.

Thus, I offer greater value to visitors because I offer what I do, plus what everyone else is doing. Furthermore, I'm building a knowledge base that I and my own leaders are constantly drawing from to innovate better ways to help our clients. If I can always be in front of the competition, I don't need to worry about what they are doing.

What if everyone did this? We'd create tremendous traffic of people going from one site to another to find information they were looking for. Those who offer the best navigation, and the best facilitation, would attract the most use.

Ultimately, those who encourage the most interaction, and relationship building among the people they link to on their sites, and who visit their sites, will encourage the most cooperation and collaboration.

Those who choose not to play this way will always offer less than those who do.

In my case, if this builds a world wide army of volunteers, leaders and donors who are using the information on my site, and the sites I link to, to constantly improve the way they use their resources to help kids in poverty move to jobs, this will be a boon to the kids I'm working with.

Isn't that the goal?

I like what you have written above...

I come from a space where I am not interested in competing with anyone... there is no need - there is enough to go round (its an issue of ownership and distribution) and competing sets limits, boundaries, conditions and chokes off the ability to be innovative, expansive. I am interested in collaboration and cooperation.

I'm into 'synergy' and 'synchronicity'... I'm a natural networker - information and people cross my path, I keep tabs on who's doing what and where I see synergy I connect people and resources - they go off and 'make wonderful music together' and I keep on with my own interests. I do this informally (because I would get bored and feel fenced in, and it would spoil the INTENT and the organic spontaneity of it, if I formalised it into a business) usually without any recompense or ongoing stake in the outcome....

One of the major reasons I do this in just this way is because I see the spectrum of wealth-poverty we have in the world, even here in the West... and I think the imbalance we have going now is shockingly immoral and indefensible... doing business as a social entrepreneur, using the existing competitive business/economic model, does not do enough to redress that basic imbalance - in fact, one could argue that it enables and perpetuates the imbalance...

I dont think things will change until individuals (as well as corporations) recant their involvement in competition and in the drive for personal wealth - when is enough enough. on a personal and societal level?... How much money can any one person spend in a lifetime, and how much stuff can you fit into your coffin? And who/what really paid for all those beautiful things we beautiful people surround ourselves with? What was given up/lost so that we could enjoy the kind of life we do?

Social entrepreneurship is a laudable pathway IF we take it down to the personal level and consider our own, individual, daily lives part in the equation... if we dont do that, then we're pretty much being hypocrites, aren't we?

Hi Peter, thanks for the discussion. This is actually something I've thought about some myself in terms of Lend4Health. I have thought, "What if somebody else comes up with something like Lend4Health. There is nothing to stop them from doing it. Would then, then, be my competitor?" I think my immediate reaction would be to think of them as a competitor, but then when I step back and try to think about it in a more loving, gentle way, I come to the conclusion that another organization would be able to help that many more people. So, then I wonder -- is there even such a thing as competition in the space of giving, of social actions, of changing the world, and of philanthropy? Is the space big enough for all of us to "win"?

I'd like to think that it is. I see Kiva and I see Opportunity International's OptInNOW and I see them as very much the same thing. There are a few differences, but they are doing many of the same things. Are they competitors? Well, yes in a way they are. But isn't it possible that having two organizations doing basically the same thing are just enabling more opportunities, more reach, for people to get involved? Maybe one person has never heard of Kiva but they have heard of OptInNOW, so that's where they put their money. In Kiva's world, that's a lost "customer" to a "competitor," but in terms of their greater mission, they too have won because their "competitor" has a mission that collaborates with their own.

Does that make sense?

One thing that really impressed me about Social Actions' Change the Web contest was that the app developers -- who we could consider "competitors" -- were actually working quite nicely together, sharing their ideas, offering advice to each other, and cheering each other on. This surprised me because I was thinking there would be much more competition, which in my mind meant secretive discussions, lack of transparency, and even stealing of ideas. Instead, this contest made me realize that, in the world of Social Actions and getting actions out to as many people as possible across the web, we needed as many different apps as possible. It was okay if two people were developing two different Facebook apps because that meant even more exposure to the Actions across Facebook.

Granted, I am sure there are some differences in the Social Actions/All for Good situation. And as a Social Actions supporter and platform, I am finding myself feeling like I am on the "side" of Social Actions (if this is a "war").

But if I step back and look at the greater mission -- to get more people involved in volunteering and in taking action to help others and implement change -- isn't it a good thing that there are 2 hard working teams trying to make this happen? Doesn't that make it twice as likely that somebody would find or take an action?

I do think that this "competition" will be collaborative in terms of coming up with standards so that the 3rd, 4th, and 5th organizations who come to the space and want to build a similar thing would have standards to go on, similar to how I believe the microfinance organizations are coming together to figure out their standards and measures for success.

Very interesting discussion...I look forward to reading more of the comments as they come in!

Tori Tuncan
Founder, Lend4Health.org
(a Social Actions platform)

Hi Tori,

Thanks for jumping into the conversation, and for sharing your thoughts on how competition / collaboration may play out in the case of Lend4Health.org.

Yesterday, someone shared a wonderful quote with me:

"There is no limit to the good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit." -source unknown :-)

So yes, if more people find ways to make a difference, then everyone wins.

You asked, "Isn't it a good thing that there are 2 hard working teams trying to make this happen? Doesn't that make it twice as likely that somebody would find or take an action?"

My response is "yes, but if the 2 hard working teams had an open and constructive line of communication, then it may be ten times as likely that somebody would find or take an action." These mathematics are what drives Social Actions' work. From the start, we have said that Kiva should be talking to Globalgiving who should be talking to NABUUR who should be talking to Idealist.org who should be talking to... etc.

The opportunities for collaboration are so great that competing just doesn't cut it (in my opinion). Premal Shah of Kiva.org has a great quote on this front. He often says that (paraphrasing) "Kiva is not competing with other platforms; all of the platforms are competing with apathy."

Ben Rattray of Change.org says something similar, (paraphrasing) "Change.org is not competing with other platforms; all of the platforms are competing with the notion that you can build a sustainable online business about social causes."

I agree with Premal and Ben.

But then why does Kiva.org not show micro-loan opportunities from OptInNOW or Lend4Health or MicroPlace or Wokai when they run out of micro-loans? And why does Change.org not actively syndicate its content to TakePart and CauseCast and visa versa.

Many organizations are so in the trenches that forging collaborations seems like distractions that don't help our bottom lines. I'm sure this observation applies to other sectors.

The question becomes when will the donors, venture philanthropists, and foundations step forward to fund safe and constructive environments for collaborations to surface that do help all of our bottom lines, and do advance the all of our missions.

Tori, apologies for the rambling train of thought. And thanks again for contributing to the discussion.

All the best,
Peter

I know the players in this discussion, and I'm comfortable with everyone's motives - there's a lot of goodwill and plenty of worthy ideals involved. But I'm not sure it's possible to avoid competition entirely.

'Total Attention' of all the wired users in, say, the U.S. is a finite factor. Any media aimed at gaining users (and fomenting action) will compete for some of that limited attention. When you put Google, Craigslist and President Obama into one equation - well, the table gets tilted in that direction.

It's clear to me that All for Good wants to be the go-to platform/feed for volunteer opportunities with the good-housekeeping seals from those big, audience-driving brands (and more). But it's equally clear that they want to distribute involvement widely throughout society and really connect to the original Obama "change" call.

That's where the opportunity lies - for something between the pure competition vs. collaboration choice. Why? Because Social Actions has tremendous leverage! It's a respected pioneer that built its platform from the bottom up over two years, attracting open data from more than 50 platforms. It's true social entrepreneurship in action. And it's based on grassroots organizing.

In my view, the fact that we're all working in the social sector shouldn't negate a little gritty back-and-forth - I know both Peter Deitz and Jonathan Greenblatt (they're both people of goodwill who I'd grab a beer with any time), and I'm familiar with the backgrounds of both projects. A bit of slightly uncomfortable confrontation - in public - is a good thing. Nothing should be swept under the rug on this.

Look: Google is the most powerful public company in the world. It should be challenged. Constantly. By the social sector. Likewise, President Obama is the most powerful politician in the world - daily challenges come with that job. And clearly, Craig Newmark doesn't shy away from challenges involving Craigslist.

So, goodwill aside, the question is this: how to move forward to increase the opportunity to volunteer (and give and advocate, 'cos that's where All for Good is going)? Let's talk about that, starting with using standards that allow for easy cross-posting/hosting of opportunities.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for jumping into the conversation, and from a quintessentially New Yorker perspective --> "A bit of slightly uncomfortable confrontation - in public - is a good thing. Nothing should be swept under the rug on this."

Agreed. Hence, this discussion, and last week's conference call, and many more conversations / action plans to come.

The fact that we're having this conversation less than a year after CauseWired was published is a sign of how quickly the philanthropic web is materializing.

In CauseWired, you ask if Social Actions "will go the way of pioneering but semi-forgotten early 1990s guideposts like WWW Wanderer, Aliweb, or Webcrawler, or ... blossom into Yahoo, the early directory that became a true central gathering spot for the explosion of the popular Web." (p. 180)

It's scary to think that Yahoo may have become Yahoo because Google didn't yet exist. The current situation that Social Actions faces begs question of whether our impact and ability to shift the social sector in a direction of collaborative innovation will be stymied because our Google equivalent showed up to the party too early.

I know the answer to that question. Our impact will not be reduced in any way shape or form. But not because we competed effectively with a giant. Rather, we're committed to not letting the opportunities to collaborate evaporate. While we may not change the culture in which our newest partner is operating, we will create every opportunity for them to work with us and for the greater good of the CauseWired sector.

When we say collaborate, we do not mean it in name only. We mean it deeply and completely and openly. Innovation happens through collaboration in our particular corner of the social sector.

To your point Tom on there being a finite amount of 'total attention' of wired dogooders, I respectfully disagree. Capitalism has flourished on the notion that the market is always expanding, even if it contracts from time to time. The philanthropic web has even more room to expand than pure capital markets because the currency in which it operates is infinite, if locked up in the day to day lives that many people lead. There is no need to worry of philanthropic inflation when printing more empathy.

But I also want to point out that there are bigger issues at play here than just Social Actions and All for Good. Those bigger issues are worthy of our attention.

The cultural bias of many funders, and many social entrepreneurs, and many social citizens is that competition = innovation.

My main objective in hosting this discussion is to draw attention to the possibility that opportunities to innovate are lost by groups too closely subscribing to the notion that competition is a good thing, and too fiercely holding their cards close to their dogooder chests.

The cultural collision described in my introduction is not between David and Googliath. It is a collision between open culture and closed culture.

Within the social sector, there are many groups big and small that regularly have turf wars, that see the world in a zero-sum. And there are groups that take a more open approach to creating change.

Social Actions is committed to growing the philanthropic web through open culture and genuine collaboration. We invite anyone and everyone to participate in the building of the philanthropic web, and to meet us where they feel most comfortable. And yes, we'll fight for our vision of where all this could go, although we wouldn't call it fight.

Who knows? Maybe in five years people will be writing books about how the private sector can learn lessons from the social sector.

Let's keep the conversation going.

All the best,
Peter



 
  

Peter:
First, wow and thank you! Great topic!!

The either/or question is a disturbing one, though. Our competitive western culture may assume that we collaborate at the expense of innovation, but that’s just silly. The list of innovations that have come from the more cooperative eastern culture is long and wide. (See “gunpowder” and “rockets.” See “moveable type.” See “Toyota.”)

Once we assume there is no either/or, we can begin to ask the more relevant question: “Given that we all want the same end result - a healthy, vibrant, resilient world - how can we create systems that make it easy to work together to accomplish that?” Within those systems, folks will absolutely innovate, because the end result is something they are all passionate about!

Right now, western philanthropic systems assume competition is the only reality. As an example, the vast majority of funding systems center around competitive grantmaking.

Those funders often create the artificial mechanism of forcing collaboration in order to be considered for a grant, the result of which (in addition to resentment and failed collaborations) is simply that now larger groups will compete with each other for funding.

There are, however, those rare funders who assume they can create systems that instead engender a true spirit of cooperation. And those efforts consistently find innovative answers to some of the stickiest questions our sector faces! (Examples of those answers take up all of the final 75 pages of The Pollyanna Principles http://pollyannaprinciples.org/.)

Individuals will go where systems lead them. The more we can make cooperative systems the norm in this sector’s work, the more individuals will find innovative ways to work together to effect real change.

Again, many thanks for what is certain to be a lively discussion!
Hildy

Hi Hildy,

I agree wholeheartedly. Although I would caution you to not create a dichotomy between East and West. There is a lot that's collaborative about the Western tradition. And a lot that's competitive about humanity in general. That said, your main point is regarding systems and funders, and on those points, I agree completly. I'll have to have a look at the Pollyanna Principles. Thanks for the link.

Individuals go where systems lead them. Sure. And fortunately, I like to think that we're empowered enough to create the systems in which we want to live. I'd love for Ami Dar of Idealist.org to weigh in on this question of systems. I know that he has a passion for thinking creatively about the structure of the social sector. I'll ping him to see if he has a moment to add a few thoughts on systems.

In collaboration,
Peter

Peter:
Two points. While there is no clear black-and-white duality between east and west, I do think western culture tends to place a higher value on competition than eastern culture does, and that eastern culture tends to place a higher value on cooperation than western culture does. That is not to say one cannot find fine examples of cooperation in western culture, just as one can easily find examples of intense competition in eastern culture. But the overarching values system (which is a big part of what culture really is) tends to place a higher value on competition in the west and cooperation in the east.

Second, re: both systems and cooperation, these segments from the video that introduces The Pollyanna Principles may help further the discussion (and they are short!) Re: Cooperation / Collaboration / Interdependence: http://is.gd/pkYC This short 6min segment focuses on the walls we create between organizations and how that can be different, all under the principle that "Everything and everyone is interconnected & interdependent, whether we acknowledge that or not."

Further, re: your comment (with which I whole-heartedly agree) that if we can build systems that do not serve us well, we can just as easily create systems that DO serve us - this short video portion focuses on precisely that: http://is.gd/B8TZ (Quote from the video: "If resource development requires us to compete and then complains that we do, that's a system that is not working."

I hope these short clips help further the discussion.
Hildy

Hildy,

Have you corresponded with my colleague Christine Egger (@christineegger) on Twitter. You should talk. I don't have the theoretical understanding of the social implications of quantum physics to do much justice to your point that we're all interconnected and interdependent, but Christine is very good at articulating this point.

In essence, working against one another is working against ourselves. Innovating with others is the most constructive form innovation can take, because it lifts everyone by design.

Thank you for video links. I'll be reviewing the full video archive of the Pollyanna Principles.

All the best,
Peter

I agree with you Peter, a single universal standard would be the best way to work collaboration into competition in together, setting everyone up on a level playing field to bloom and grow. To your question what produces greater innovation, I'd say that human nature does. Greater innovation comes when more people are involved together "to explore creative ways to adapt open-source technology" to give "everybody access to all data".

I like Colin Powell's definition of competition, which "occurs when average people win by putting in above average effort" human nature, is the inner motivation.

Hi Jo,

The beauty of widespread adoption of universal standards in the social sector is that they could be used to both compete better _and_ collaborate better, depending on one's personal preference.

I envision the adoption of open standards for nonprofits and philanthropy leading to dramatic and meaningful collaborations that can form on the fly. Rather than bringing the boards of multiple organizations together to have conversations about sharing data and knowledge, the data would already be exposed and already be interchangeable. The collaboration question becomes when and how, instead of if.

Coming up with the standard, to ensure that it reflects as much nuances in the form of the data and knowledge is difficult. But process absolutely can and should be done, across the social sector and in business as well.

One thing that I love about the Social Actions and All for Good datasets is that third parties can convene collaborations without the expressed approval of the nonprofits involved. Take this example. Using Social Actions and All for Good, a developer in Pittsburgh can create a Pittsberg 'take action' center and effortlessly feature all of the actions individuals can take in the Pittsburgh area. Now imagine if the nonprofits and civic leaders of Pittsburgh tried to create this 'take action' center without the underlying infrastructure. First they would have to come up with a budget for the project, schedule monthly meetings with groups involved, and overcome inter-personal rivalries that may have proceeded the collaboration.

Open data is a powerful force that can drive both collaboration and innovation. But a collaborative and innovative mindset is critical to ensuring that the open data that emerges is rich and reflects the best interests of everyone involved.

I'm going way off topic here, but thank you for hearing me out, and responding if you choose.

All the best,
Peter

You put the rock in rockstar Peter, now all that needs to happen is for it to be done. I like what you said " working against one another is working against ourselves." To carry the point further, in quantum physics you can't have a universe without mind entering into it, so you're right on it's true, "innovating with others is the most constructive form innovation can take.

Hi Jo,

Thanks for the encouragement. Now we just have to invite the rest of the world to see the value in collaborative innovation.

For an inspiring collection applications that leverage the Social Actions and All for Good API's in the way I'm describing:

http://www.socialactions.com/share-actions

http://www.allforgood.org/apps

All the best,
Peter

If you ask an attorney for an opinion on anything, he / she will say, well, it depends. I personally think that applies here as well. It depends on the field, depends on the nature of the organizations, or even the geographic culture. In most business areas (primarily for-profits), competition may yield better results relatively. Meanwhile, for non-profits or social innovators/entrepreneurs, collaboration seems more suitable, because their common goals are similar and usually without as much financial constraint/pressure. Especially, most non-profits have difficulties obtaining human/monetary resources.

However, I personally think some level of competition can help build a sense of motivation and desire that really drives one moving forward. Too much competition, of course, will draw negative ending.

This is a great topic and something that I personally identify with. As a co-founder of Jolkona Foundation (http://www.jolkona.org) we often get asked about how we are different from other similar organizations.

At a basic level, there will always be competition amongst the non-profits because they are all competing for donors' attention. Competition can be healthy for non-profit organizations because it leads them to innovate and try new approaches. In the non-profit world it is very difficult for small organizations to innovate because it is hard for them to raise enough money. Moreover, if the big orgnaizations / established non-profit voices label the small innovators as competition, then, it becomes even more difficult.

If all non-profit organizations' ultimate goal is to help the people on the ground, then I think collaboration becomes more critical. If the conditions are favorable the small organizations will innovate successfully. We can pick up these innovations and come up with best practices through mergers or partnerships.

In this article All for Good is the focus. I like that more people are trying to innovate in the volunteer space. I would be even more excited if a small startup was putting this together instead of Google. But, that gets to the problem that if a small startup went to VolunteerMatch, Idealist, etc. to put this together, they would have had much less success. Google was able to bring their name and get this done. I would love to have a situation where if a person / small organization wants to do build something like All for Good, there is enough support (financial and organizational) for them to go and try it.

While it makes sense to label organizations as competition, we should try our best to support alternative approaches as new ideas (especially when they are done by the little guys). If the ecosystem supports and encourages the little guys to try their ideas, then, in the long term the world will win.

My $0.02

Hi Adnan,

A few quick thoughts:

You highlight an important contradiction. On the one hand, nonprofits are supposedly competing for donor attention and resources. On the other hand, collaboration can serve up greater results on the ground.

How does a group of forward thinking and resourceful individuals resolve this paradox? Is there a model for collaborative grant-making that's been tested, and proven? Or do we simply need to widen the resources available to social ventures(big and small) so that competition for resources (whether capital, connections, creativity or action) is a non-issue.

In the case of corporate initiated projects, there is a tragic pattern that only widens the resource gap. Companies often fund the pet projects they create instead of the existing projects that were already part of the ecosystem. I don't need to list any examples of this. I'm sure you can think of a few.

Fortunately, there are plenty of examples of corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility going well. I'd point to Advanta's ideablob competition or American Express's Members Project. Both initiatives leverage technology to drive resources to innovative projects that are worthy of support. Sure, the initiatives take the form of competitions, but they intentionally support projects based within the sector they are trying to advance.

In 2008, AmEx distributed a portion of $2.5 million dollars to DonorsChoose.org and Kiva.org for their impressive work in the areas of education and micro-finance respectively.

What would people have said if AmEx asked its members to decide whether a portion of $2.5 million should be spent on building a new DonorsChoose.org or a new Kiva.org? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have said nice things.

Responsible corporate citizens need to tread very carefully when entering a new space. What passes as acceptable in the private sector isn't necessarily okay in the social sector. More importantly, the cultural biases and processes of the corporate sector don't necessarily translate to positive outcomes in the social sector. And come to think of it, the cultural biases and processes of the private sector don't always create positive effects period, regardless of what Milton Friedman may tell you.

I'd certainly recommend that everyone reading this discussion have a look and F. David Peat's book, "Gentle Action: Bringing Creative Change to a Turbulent World"

http://www.gentleaction.org/

Abstract:

"In his new book Gentle Action: Bringing Creative Change to a Turbulent World Peat argues that while individuals, organizations or governments take action or give aid, often from the best of motives, it is sometimes the case that such action is disruptive and damaging to a community, economy or environment. The reasons are that in some many cases plans and policies do not take into account the complexity and delicate nature of the systems that surround us. Moreover the nature of the organization that attempts to bring about positive change may be more rigid than the system it seeks to alter. In addition so often the organization is not working from within the system but imposing change from outside.

"The solutions proposed in the book are that new forms of 'gentle action' are needed, actions which begin from within the system in question and emerge in creative ways. These may range from projects on an international scale to a simple action by an individual. Such actions generally flow from what Peat has termed 'creative suspension' - that temporary pause when we listen and learn what the system has to teach us before taking action."

Good points, Peter. There needs to be a stronger effort to fund the smaller social enterprises. You have programs like EchoingGreen, Ashoka Fellows, etc. who provided funding to organizations with a proven record. Hardly anyone exists who is willing to fund social enterpreneurs from the beginning. It is interesting that microfinance (i.e. loans to those who are not deemed credit-worthy by traditional banks) is huge now. Yet, there isn't micro-VC (i.e. funding for social enterprises that are just wanted to try out an idea).

My personal belief is that there needs to be a concerted effort in funding 1000s of early-stage social enterprises. We need to inspire grassroots innovation and thinking and the way to do that is to support small grassroot organizations as much as possible. The funding available today is biased towards established organizations. It should be inverted - we should support start-ups much more than the established ones!

Hi Adnan,

I think you've come up with a great idea -- let's call it the Early Stage Social Entrepreneur Fund (ESSEF). Now what would make it truly remarkable is if the funders made grants in triples, and the groups of three were asked to private or publicly build their social ventures alongside one another, sharing lessons learned throughout.

What you're describing is an angel fund for angels. :-)

All the best,
peter

Agreed. This kind of fund can truly unleash entrepreneurship at the grassroots level. We will lots of good ideas. I know we - Jolkona Foundation - could really benefit from such a fund. Hopefully, some folks will step and take an initiative to create an ESSEF and light a fire!

'Competition' in terms of interfaces to the data makes sense but 'collaboration' in the core data-set is essential. But even in interfaces, which can serve to create greater engagement in the shared dataset, it's not really about competition, it's about unique value propositions... making the data valueable to different audiences and for different use cases. Twitter is a good examples of this.

The best word that I can find to describe the seemingly disconnected emergence of All for Good is unnecessary. Not that their resources, participation, and site are unnecessary, but the friction is unnecessary and unproductive.

I seem to recall you doing a Google Talk sometime last year - apparently before this was started - about SocialActions. Even if it meant a rewrite of the code, I can't see any productive reason that this would have been active collaboration from the outset.

It's particularly troubling to me, when a well resourced organization essentially duplicates what a social entrepreneur has poured themselves so fully into to make happen. That's counter-productive to the entrepreneurial culture we need to create.

Would love it if All for Good folks chimed in here to explain the rationale. The potential learning from this example is valuable.

I hope too that in this you find the support you need and deserve to keep building things you are passionate about.

Competition brings out the best in an individual or a team. Let's look at competition through the lens of one of it's purest manifestations: athletic competition. Football for example.

The athletes on the team are all individually competing for personal gains and improvements in their positions. The outcome of their competitive drive often results in either a starting position or spot on the bench in a supporting role. Collaboration is fostered through team dynamics and cohesion, which is in turn driving a competitive force against the opponent team. A spectator of these "sporting events", watching two teams competing against one another for a common goal(to win the event), will sometimes witness amazing things that have never happened before. In the event where each team is fiercely competitive, a great game unfolds. The same holds true in the social sector. When two social groups are each striving for a common goal, competition as well as collaboration will result in positive societal shifts. I think that both are necessary, and can result in amazing outcomes when developed properly.

Thanks,
Chad

Hi Chad,

Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. I am hearing a lot of both / and input on the competition vs. collaboration, which makes perfect sense. Obviously, we need a healthy does of both, in the right circumstances respectively.

Your description is one of collaboration within an otherwise competitive system (ie, the relationship between team members within a larger competition between teams).

I am especially interested in the reverse, competitions where appropriate within an otherwise collaborative system (ie, networks of people working together intentionally and openly toward a common goal, and occasionally finding that competitive incentives help them get to where they want to be).

Thanks again for jumping into the conversation.

All the best,
peter

Let's get a little more abstract before getting concrete. Competition generally stems from a scarcity model - let's take that as a given. So it's basically over who gets a bigger share of the scarce resource - the "pie". Ignoring for a moment that growth can also come from growing the pie, let's look at what the "competition" would be over.

Given that neither organization can or will tap all of the human energy available in this sphere, it would be silly to compete over that. Donor constituencies? Different groups, as you mentioned. Mind share? different groups. So it seems to me that until it's very clear what the competition would be over, a competition doesn't exist.

Hi Greg,

I appreciate your thoughts very much. Thank you.

Here's perhaps a more accurate way to describe the situation. There isn't a competition, for the reason you mentioned. But the absence of competition in these circumstances doesn't mean that there's an instant collaboration either.

There may be opportunities to collaborate that aren't being leveraged, and will have to wait for another day, when all the parties involved are ready to intentionally explore them in detail.

I think I'm reaching the acceptance level with this situation to say, If it helps another group to innovate on the false assumption that they are competing, then more power to them.

In the meantime, I will wait patiently, and mildly disappointed, while the opportunities to collaborate come into focus in the mind's eye of my partner to be. :-)

Thanks for helping me put words to this sentiment.

All the best,
Peter

Thanks for the discussion Peter.

First, I find myself wondering whether or not SocialActions has approached All for Good with a collaborative proposal. Is there a way that YOU can visualize a collaborative relationship? Or has a proposed collaboration been rejected? Also, do you, as SocialActions, feel in any way "threatened" by the Obama initiative? In which way does it threaten to compromise what you hope to achieve?

Secondly, It seems to me quite human that those of us who innovate for social good do want the "credit," and the credibility that comes with that at a gut level... the only other thing that we really "get" out of changing the system is the satisfaction of knowing what good was achieved. It also seems quite normal, however, that markets evolve and grow. If I am shopping for consumer goods, I wouldn't want walmart to be my only possible source... similarly, if I am shopping for volunteer opportunities, I wouldn't want Social Actions or All for Good to be my only available choice.

If the hope is to engage the mainstream in the market for engaged activism, then we have to accept that the market is much bigger than any one org can cater to. Markets feel perhaps "competitive" by nature because consumers need the right to choose. If you can focus on identifying your "USP" or unique selling point and build on that, then you actually become a collaborator in helping the market of consumer choices to evolve.

Hi Christina,

For more background on the conversations to date, see:

http://my.socialactions.com/[…]/all-for-good-and-social

Personally, I do not feel threatened. I feel that an opportunity is being missed for our sector to have a more advanced conversation on how new technology and a new ways of working together can produce innovation.

In this one case, too much of the conversation is about the new technology and not the new ways tech allows us to work together. I am disappointed because the social sector can and should be reinventing itself right now, instead of recycling competitive models that have led to its fractured condition.

If the take away from Obama's presidential campaign is that creative applications of technology can make change, then we're missing something big. I would hope that the takeaway from Obama's presidential campaign in the long run is that change comes from discarding tired assumptions about how influence is gained.

I'll save my comments on the 'market' for another discussion. But I'll say this: I don't think the 'market' is the right metaphor for the work we're engaged in as social innovators.

Thank you immensely for taking the time to contribute your thoughts.

All the best,
Peter

Hi Peter,

First I offer something we published a year or so ago on the web. It' in the context of Microsoft and helping each other.

"The term "social enterprise" in the various but similar forms in which it is being used today -- 2008 -- refers to enterprises created specifically to help those people that traditional capitalism and for profit enterprise don't address for the simple reason that poor or insufficiently affluent people haven't enough money to be of concern or interest. Put another way, social enterprise aims specifically to help and assist people who fall through the cracks. Allowing that some people do not matter, as things are turning out, allows that other people do not matter and those cracks are widening to swallow up more and more people. Social enterprise is the first concerted effort in the Information Age to at least attempt to rectify that problem, if only because letting it get worse and worse threatens more and more of us. Growing numbers of people are coming to understand that "them" might equal "me." Call it compassion, or call it enlightened and increasingly impassioned self-interest. Either way, we are all in this together, and we will each have to decide for ourselves what it means to ignore someone to death, or not."

http://www.p-ced.com/info/se/

It's a point I'm trying to make today, to Google, commenting on obstruction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/activate/blog/2

Regards,

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

"Ignoring someone to death." That's quite a powerful visual.

Thanks for sharing the links and the impassioned quote.

Do you have any advice in this situation on how we can get the powers that be to stop ignoring the existing, thriving, blooming innovators? Or are we better off innovating without their attention?

I guess these two questions can back to the original question above, is it possible for large and small organizations to collaborate effectively?

All the best,
Peter

I can empathize with the concept of "ignoring someone to death". In many ways this is fed by the concept of "not invented here"

Today I was showing a friend from NYC a tutor/mentor program locator service which I've launched recently, as an enhancement of something I first put on the Internet nearly 10 years ago. It's at http://www.tutormentorprogramlocator.net and is intended to focus dollars and volunteers on all of the tutor/mentor programs in Chicago. I've spent about $50,000 on this in the past 18 months.

As I showed this to my friend, I pointed to a page on the city of Chicago web site announcing an $8 million grant from The Wallace Foundation to build a "rogram Locator" for Chicago. What they created is at http://www.afterschoolchicago.org/locator.html

These folks could have come to me and asked me to be part of this. I certainly made it known that I already had a service that was not only able to locate programs, but was intended to be used by leaders to draw dollars and volunteers and other resources to all of the programs operating in the city. Leaders of other tutor/mentor programs pointed this out to the city. But they did not.

You asked how we can get the powers that be to stop ignoring innovators. In another thread the question was how to innovators shine the light on their work, so their is funding, and talent, to support their innovations, and their operations after they innovate.

I maintain a section on the Tutor/Mentor Connection web site with links to volunteer recruitment and matching services. It's at http://www.tutormentorconnection.org/[…]/Default.aspx

This is interactive so you could add a link to Social Actions, and someone could add a link to All for Good. Others who are hosting, or launching similar sites, could also add links. The result would be a growing list of places where people can search for volunteer opportunities, as well as a list of organizations who each need funding. It's also a list that any innovator can use to see the "competition" and innovate new and better ways to connect volunteers and places of service.

I also keep a list of Chicago tutor/mentor program links on the site, which is at http://www.tutormentorconnection.org/[…]/Default.aspx I operate just one of the 200 programs in this section of links.

All of these programs require the same dollars and volunteer talent as my organization does, yet few spend time hosting such a list, or attracting potential donors to look at "all of us" instead of just themselves.

I believe that if more of the local programs linked to this list, or more donors used it as a resource, more volunteers and additional donors would find it, and they would choose where to get involved based on the location of each program in the city, the age group of youth served, and the information they share about what they do on their web sites.

Some of the youth programs do this, but certainly not more than a minority. Yet, I believe that there is a need for tutor/mentor programs in every high poverty neighborhood of the Chicago region, and what I do models what others could do to help make this a reality.

So I keep doing what I do to help all of us, while working to find the resources to support my own role.

I think social innovators, from specific service areas, or specific geography, could duplicate much of what I'm doing, to build hubs listing people doing similar work, who may compete for resources, but who also could work to increase the total resource pie, as well as the quality of the work each innovator is doing.

Maybe you're already doing this.

If we build enough visibility for the "hubs" maybe some of the people who want to "do their own thing" will think twice and support things that are already being done.

This section of links focus on collaboration and might be of equal interest to this group. http://www.tutormentorconnection.org/[…]/Default.aspx

Hey,

In my honest opinion it all boils down to this: If I do good and you do good we are naturally partners. There's no space for competition. That we can sort out on a football field.

In tomorrow's society we'll be all working for the common good. We'll be sharing and collaborating. There is no need for possessiveness. However, it means we need to rid ourselves of this obsolete idea of success measured in money. We need to raise our consciousness to the next level. And that's what social entrepreneurs are already doing!

For now money is one of the resources needed to kick-start and scale the good solutions. Tomorrow it's not slowing things down anymore. We need to free ourselves from these old structures.

A friend of mine summed up it up succintly: "Don't ask how change happens; ask how does change *not* happen?".

Love,

-t

Kind of a false dichotomy it seems to me…it isn’t either/or, it is both. Collaboration and competition are tools and whether collaboration works depends entirely on: what one is trying to do and whether collaboration can effectively get you there.

Competition has always driven innovation…there is a natural linear progression that evolves from looking at what others have done and taking it that one next step that others will perceive as an improvement. Whether the process of determining that “next step” is a “one party” effort or a “multiparty” effort depends, I think, on the complexity of the product, service or process that needs improving.

In health and human services, for instance, the complexity of the problems and of the interventions has multiplied exponentially. It is highly unlikely that one mind has the answer or even that one organization has the answer to how to improve or reinvent what we have. Multiple, multi-discipline, multi-sector, multi-stakeholder approaches are often required to determine what should be changed, how to change it, and are always required to implement change. Long ago, competition alone got us innovation in health and human services. I think that time is past…

Now we need both and the wisdom to know which is the mostly likely to succeed at what task or, as an alternative, how to sequence them correctly. These two organizations are both trying to use technology to raise the visibility of volunteer opportunities and better connect willing volunteers with those tasks. They are trying to do exactly the same thing in (I think) exactly the same way. This may be an instance of pointless duplication and wasted resources, or, an amazing opportunity to create two fronts to attack the same problem from somewhat different directions. At the least, they should talk, coordinate access to their sites so that users don’t have to figure out two different methods for posting opportunities, and determine whether there is a way capture some synergy in helping one another push forward on the issue.

Jane, I really like your line of thinking. In a way I see collaboration and competition as a false dichotomy, too. Or, more precisely, as short-hand for different ways to approach and describe a relationship or intent (working with, and working against, ARE distinct). But placing them on either ends of some kind of metaphorical stick, dualistically, doesn't make much sense to me. There are myriad opportunities, at myriad levels of participation and organization, to be simultaneously engaged in both collaborative and competitive practices. The question then immediately jumps to exactly the point you're making: "We need both and the wisdom to know which is the most likely to succeed at what task or, as an alternative, how to sequence them correctly."

But for me a second question immediately comes to mind, and this ties closely with Hildy Gottlieb's contributions to this discussion: "In addition to choosing what is most likely to succeed at this particular moment, which is most likely to generate the kind of environment/context/system/etc. that will best serve your mission in the future?" In other words, a competitive stance today may be exactly what your organization needs in order to accomplish X. However if that competitive stance doesn't contribute to, or worse detracts from, a cultural norm that would significantly lift the sector as a whole, that would be extremely unfortunate.

To my mind collaboration -- working with -- is one of the key principles of social innovation, betterment, well-being, whatever we choose to call "being kind to each other." Competition or collaboration in this environment is more than a "what's best for a particular organization here?" kind of question. There's the larger question of consistency with the principles that inform the entire sector.

While the introduction to this discussion described two organizations, what it really presents as a case study for all of us to learn from are two different approaches to HOW we're each drawing attention and resources to similar issues. Should it matter that we're considering volunteer and other types of engagement as the outcome here, rather than types of tires, or tax structures, or t-shirts? In addition to checking the appropriateness of our method to the impact we want to have, I hope the discussion here recognizes the importance of checking whether our methods and mission are equally aligned. Should competition have less of a role to play in this environment than in others, and if it doesn't, what long-term opportunities to truly enrich our capacity to care about and for one another are being lost?

I disagree that competition in and of itself drives innovation... innovation basically is problem solving, curiosity manifested in creating something new.... it doesnt only happen in a competitive environment...I believe its an inherent drive within the human spirit to create something new/different; its an extension of our need to express ourselves and it has little do do with what's going on in the outside world/market...

I think competition restricts innovation because there is so much at risk in daring to think outside the box - profits, reputation, social position, livelihood. That's why we have so much of the same thing with only minor variations available to us as consumers.... small (often only cosmetic) changes are hailed as being highly innovative.... I think true innovation happens in an environment which is supportive, where there is no economic/political attachment to the outcome.... innovation is an organic process... think of children being creative - how many children can think freely when they are under time or other constraints? How many artists or authors can come up with their best work if the clock is ticking and their publisher is pushing them to meet a spring deadline because another popular author has a new book due out then? How well do you do, if someone is standing over your shoulder, demanding that you produce something entirely original by a particular day/date, meeting highly defined criteria, using a tightly controlled set of resources? If you cant do it, you and the process are termed 'failures'...

How much more likely is innovation to occur, if you could talk/collaborate with all the other people working in the same field, no matter what they're doing and who they work for? Imagine the incredible outcomes that might spontaneously present themselves out of the synergy of working without boundaries?

I'd like to make a point about volunteering.... have done my share of volunteering in my life; however, have always thought that volunteering was a double-edged sword.... volunteering lets society and its institutions off the hook in fulfilling essential functions/delivering essential services to its citizens, and is also exploitative of people.... I see many non-profits operating from a commercial business model, but paying their staff relatively low wages/salaries. They claim lack of funds for this disparity in pay between the private and non-profit sector and there is an underlying implication that people ought to be OK about being paid less because its for a 'worthy cause', they are giving of themselves and a degree of altruism is required to prove they are sincere in their motivation.

I think this contributes to the continuation of the imbalance we have in our world, firstly because it sends the message that someone else will come along and clean up the mess and secondly, those issues are not important anyway, because we use volunteers so much and dont pay staff enough to show we value the work...

      

I disagree that competition in and of itself drives innovation... innovation basically is problem solving, curiosity manifested in creating something new.... it doesnt only happen in a competitive environment...I believe its an inherent drive within the human spirit to create something new/different; its an extension of our need to express ourselves and it has little do do with what's going on in the outside world/market...

I think competition restricts innovation because there is so much at risk in daring to think outside the box - profits, reputation, social position, livelihood. That's why we have so much of the same thing with only minor variations available to us as consumers.... small (often only cosmetic) changes are hailed as being highly innovative.... I think true innovation happens in an environment which is supportive, where there is no economic/political attachment to the outcome.... innovation is an organic process... think of children being creative - how many children can think freely when they are under time or other constraints? How many artists or authors can come up with their best work if the clock is ticking and their publisher is pushing them to meet a spring deadline because another popular author has a new book due out then? How well do you do, if someone is standing over your shoulder, demanding that you produce something entirely original by a particular day/date, meeting highly defined criteria, using a tightly controlled set of resources? If you cant do it, you and the process are termed 'failures'...

How much more likely is innovation to occur, if you could talk/collaborate with all the other people working in the same field, no matter what they're doing and who they work for? Imagine the incredible outcomes that might spontaneously present themselves out of the synergy of working without boundaries?

I'd like to make a point about volunteering.... have done my share of volunteering in my life; however, have always thought that volunteering was a double-edged sword.... volunteering lets society and its institutions off the hook in fulfilling essential functions/delivering essential services to its citizens, and is also exploitative of people.... I see many non-profits operating from a commercial business model, but paying their staff relatively low wages/salaries. They claim lack of funds for this disparity in pay between the private and non-profit sector and there is an underlying implication that people ought to be OK about being paid less because its for a 'worthy cause', they are giving of themselves and a degree of altruism is required to prove they are sincere in their motivation.

I think this contributes to the continuation of the imbalance we have in our world, firstly because it sends the message that someone else will come along and clean up the mess and secondly, those issues are not important anyway, because we use volunteers so much and dont pay staff enough to show we value the work...

      

Hi Peter,

This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with your view that collaboration is extremely valuable and can greatly benefit the field of Social Innovation/Entrepreneurship. However, there is also strong benefit in competition in all fields. If competition is a good thing then the two organizations you mentioned, Social Actions and All for Good, should compete on some level in order to spur innovation and create better service, etc. Otherwise they might become stagnant, uninteresting, ineffectual, and lose their base of users who want better information and resources. However, I do see your point about conversations about open standards becoming partisan. It does seem as though what is needed in this field is stronger definition and joint goals. However, even if some "applications that distribute ways to do good will be duplicated", to use your words, perhaps this will generate greater innovation.

I believe it is absolutely possible for large and small organizations to collaborate. The problem is that the large organization often over takes the smaller one, changing the mission. The point is to figure out a way to collaborate in a way that causes this not to happen. Finding a large organization that is in line with and supportive of the smaller organizations goals is critical and also incredibly difficult.

I personally am unable to choose which concept is better, both are so incredibly valuable. I believe it is important to collaborate in some ways and compete in others.

Hi Caitlin,

Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion.

The kinds of collaboration that I'm envisioning for the social sector -- in general and in the Social Actions / All for Good situation -- would certainly not lead to stagnation, uninteresting products and services, and inefficiency. I have a keen interest in collaboration in the social sector that leads to the opposite of all those things, and that cannot be achieved through competition.

Monopolies in industry are not permitted for the reasons you mentioned, as well as greed and excessive power. As far as I know, there is no such equivalent in collaboration. But it is kind of humorous to think of laws that would prevent groups from collaborating too much, especially when the purpose of those collaborations are to innovate and aid everyone.

Great point about large and small organizations collaborating when and only when the two organizations have congruent missions and are genuinely supportive of one another.

All the best,
Peter

Two thoughts occur to me as I am reading. First, this just posted to Change.org re: competition among homeless shelters:
http://homelessness.change.org/[…]/when_shelters_compete_who_wins
I’m not sure this is so much about competition as it is about one person’s serious ego issues, but I thought I’d share it for the group’s consideration.

Second, though, I am seeing some underlying assumptions from many comments here, adhering to the theory that "Competition breeds innovation." And while it might be true that competition might indeed breed innovation (not entirely sure it is in all circumstances, but I'll go with it for now), such assumptions generally then lead to the following unspoken assumption: “Because competition breeds innovation, cooperation will not breed innovation to the extent that competition will.”

In my experience, this simply is not true. We have seen radically innovative cooperative efforts. We have also seen abysmal uses of competition in the name of innovation.

From that, then, it is clear that the question that will help organizations achieve visionary end results in their communities is not "Which is better, cooperation or competition?"

Instead, the most significant question is the one Peter mentioned in one of his comments: "How can we build systems that maximize innovation while building upon the considerable strength we have when we are all working together, all towards the end goal of creating healthy, vibrant, resilient, compassionate communities?"

Hildy

Hi Hildy,

Here, here. In 99.9% agreement.

I especially like this line:

"And while it might be true that competition might indeed breed innovation, such assumptions generally then lead to the following unspoken assumption: “Because competition breeds innovation, cooperation will not breed innovation to the extent that competition will.”

I think that observation pretty much sums up what I hope the takeaway of this conversation could be.

And to build on your point, blanket statements that 'competition is a good thing' or 'collaboration is a good thing' are unhelpful for those who seek to innovative as much as possible.

Thank you for being such an active participant in this discussion.

All the best,
Peter

If I had to choose a default I'd choose collaboration, but I don't think the two are necessarily at odds. I hope I'm not being too simplistic. But it's been my experience that a robust exchange of ideas and resources yields the best results. As for competition, I think it depends on what kind and how it's carried out. And we need greater efforts at collaboration. Our focus is way too lopsided in favor of competition. We need more collaboration, but for that to happen, we need the will to do so. Sometimes I think that would take really evolutionary and revolutionary change in our collective mindset.

Peter: while I haven't followed the full thread here, I really like the way you have framed this discussion. As open source and crowdsourcing are teaching us, collaboration is the ONLY way to work. And if we had collaborated on, instead of competed on going to the Moon, imagine how many more nations would already be there. Not to mention the amount of goodwill that would have been created by, say, helping other (less resource rich) countries to get there along with us. What if we had collaborated with a Muslim country, like Iran or Yemen, to get to the moon. Perhaps it would be a very different world today? But it's not too late. the possibilities....

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the encouragement. I had a very interesting in person discussion with Diana Ayton-Shenker this afternoon about the topics discussed above. I believe she'll be adding a few thoughts in the coming days.

In brief, here are two unresolved questions that we were thinking through:

1) How do you demonstrate irrefutable evidence of innovation emerging from a collaborative mindset? We know that collaboration can produce innovation, in the right circumstances, but how do we get beyond case studies to make the argument in favor of this orientation?

2) What is a financial model that can support collaborative innovation going forward? It's going to take more than just a handful of foundations practicing collaborative grant-making. The financial motives behind cut-throat competition, even / especially in the social sector, are obstacles. What financial models for top-down and bottom-up social ventures would support collaborative innovation?

I don't have concrete answers to either set of questions, but would certainly welcome your ideas (and others).

All the best,
Peter

Outside of the financial model for resource mobilization, to move forward without relying on old structures, or to create as Hildy said, the interdependence, I agree with Tomi. It's about raising consciousness so competition and collaboration are on the same page. The way to move consciousness, is through persuasion, which pushes thought to action.
It's also time to regrid the world, overhaul computer networks and link digital sensors together, the future is now.

Hi Jo,

I came across a quote earlier this week while (of all things) preparing an article for the Open Source Business Resource's special issue on Collaboration.

"It is the nature of thought to find its way into action." Christian Nevell Bovee

If we can get more people, organizations, and governments to think collaboration, then maybe they'll act collaboratively as well.

Open Source, Open Culture, and the Open Web are certainly driving a movement toward thinking differently about how innovation comes about. And that certainly makes me optimistic.

Thanks for all of your contributions to the discussion.

All the best,
Peter

Thanks for the earlier links, it's all inspiring stuff. Great quote, you know in the politics of revolution, Joe Edelman's comment is right, it's going to come down to, (collective) will-power and imagination in breaking down the defenses.

Jo:
A small side note re: your comment that "The way to move consciousness, is through persuasion, which pushes thought to action." In my own experience in building community, I find that a more effective approach towards consciousness is not so much persuasion, but inspiration, encouragement, engagement.

Persuasion happens when an outside force is working upon my consciousness. But inspiration comes from inside me - it is a force I create upon myself. Encouragement gently coaxes that inspiration out from inside me. And engagement is where it all begins - it is what intrigues me to take the time to listen long enough to be encouraged, and to then be inspired.

When I am persuaded, I may act reluctantly - or I might rebel. When I am inspired, and then encouraged to act on that inspiration, I will generally act with enthusiasm.

As we seek to build inspired cooperative efforts that reach for new heights in innovation, inspiration, encouragement and engagement will be the keys to success in both igniting and maintaining those efforts.

Hildy

Hildy, I'm really enjoying your contributions here and look forward to talking soon (one of the great ripple effects of these discussions are new connections). Subtle but important differences between the concepts you're describing. Fun question coming to mind: how do you inspire and encourage people to inspire and encourage rather than persuade? Hmm, first answer that pops to mind: "By example." Have a feeling there'll be more in your comments above... Circling back now...

I agree many of our behaviors have been hardwired over a millennium to favor competition as a survival instinct but as you know, society is created by social interacting and it is still evolving. You're right Hildy, to move forward we have to challenge our assumptions, especially in breaking down the defenses competition creates- to envisage the kind of collaborative innovation Peter suggests- persuasion is a likely glue because it mixes the inner inspiration and encouragement, with outer engagement without it being imposed as an outside force that we submit our will too. I believe it to be an inherent trait we all have, rather than just a few having a monopoly. I also agree, leading by example encourages others to follow. I completely agree with you Christine.

Hi Jo,

I think it's safe to assume that we have evolved as collaborative and competitive animals over the last few millennia (sp?). Even the systems we live in demonstrate both characteristics, and always have. The problem really is with the culture of the social innovation camp. It's this group of inspiring people who tend to favor competition for producing innovation, as opposed to collaboration. But to fully understand the psyche of our nascent sector would require a book and a few psycho-analysts to say the least.

Thank again for collaborating to make this discussion so interesting. :-)

All the best,
peter

Hi Peter,

I fortunately happened upon your fantastic and inspiring discussion, along with everyone else's input. My partner and I are launching a global charity campaign at the end of July 09 that touches on some of your points (www.tweetmyride.com - website currently under construction). A big part of what we plan to achieve involves collaborative competition (words we've used to describe our project although it's apt to add that it is a respectful and unified collaboration as ultimately we are all focused on a larger goal at hand than what any one charity can ever achieve on their own and in our lifetime).

Our grassroots campaign stemmed from my partner signing up to participate in one of the toughest mountain bike races on the planet happening in Costa Rica this coming November. He has to go through quite a transformation in preparation for the event both mentally and physically (read regular working guy stepping way out of his comfort zone), so I thought we should raise some money for his efforts. As we are both still relatively newly 'twitterpated', we wanted to engage the Twitter platform as a way to spread our campaign, while giving the charities greater reach and global connection to their supporters. We have asked 10 charities around the world to come on board to help us raise $1 million - some are large, some are small and some of them represent similar causes but for the most part we've tried to engage in a variety of different areas. They've been wonderful with their support and encouragement as we prepare to launch later this month. As this hasn't been done before, we are all excited to see how our 4-month long campaign will go.

Thanks for the food for thought and great inspiration.
 
Best wishes,
Leoni
@tweetmyride

Hi Leoni,

Good luck with the tweetmyride.org collaborative competition. Sounds like a great initiative.

All the best,
Peter

IMHO, these two organizations are at a crossroad. In business, the market would decide which organization their customers prefer. However, in this industry, these substitutes should decide to collaborate for the greater good. The ego of each respective founder should be minimized to reduce friction.

Hi Andy,

We're doing what we can to move toward collaborative innovation between the two organizations.

Thanks for casting your vote in the collaboration camp, even if in business competition would appear to make more sense.

All the best,
Peter

It's so great to be part of this conversation. Having conversation like this is probably the best way to collaborate already!

As a newbie to this area, I don't know and I don't think there is one absolute answer. What's helpful is probably for us to be aware of these two perspective as we work on doing good. If it makes sense to collaborate to make the best volunteering site, then collaborate; when it's better to start something else (sometime being competition), welcome to the eco-system.

Who has the open mind should have long-term success and enjoy the most.

Hope to see more collaboration and more competition at the same time :)

Shuai

Hi Shuai,

Very diplomatic, and well said. Thank you for adding this reality check to the discussion.

What's most important -- in my opinion -- is that collaboration and competition be viewed as equally viable tools in the toolkit for producing innovation and social impact.

Well, that's not entirely an accurate portrayal of my view. I'd like to see collaboration credited with being a slightly larger, slightly more agile, if more difficult to operate tool for producing innovation and social impact.

All the best,
Peter

...why be hindered by market competition. Organizations, firms, enterprises in our sector boast total dedication to the deliverance of social good above all. If we are so involved in this mission, why shy away from collaboration for the sake of economic competition? If the benefit of teamwork increases the amount of social good produced, then collaboration is a yes, hands down. Competition only exists with businesses and corporations that measure their success from a different lens. If global demand shifts to the B Corp, then we've won.

Hi Samantha,

I certainly agree with you in principle, and am a big fan of the B Corp model. But I would point out that competition is a powerful force in the non-profit / social good sector. Whether we like it or not, there are plenty of groups who see their work through a competitive lens, and see other social benefit organizations working in their cause area as market competitors. I get particularly aggravated when that competition is defined (by assumption) as a net good for the sector. As we have seen in this discussion, there is plenty of room to credit collaboration and open culture with producing producing a net good. But it will take some work to get to a culture where collaboration is seen as inherently innovative and good for the sector.

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

All the best,
Peter

Absolutely, Peter.

What do you see as possible steps to take to get those within the sector to address the potential for producing net good through open culture and not through social benefit market competition? How much do you think leadership styles and personalities impede the evolution of "a culture where collaboration is seen as inherently innovative and good for the sector." As I see it, this debate lies more within human, not organizational, nature. Do you envision a plausible strategy to promote collaboration as directed towards a change in the leadership's vision, and not the vision of the organization as a whole?

Samantha

Hi Samantha,

Great questions. Yes, the issues at hand are primarily human and leadership-centered. Humans shape an organization's culture. And once the organization is born, it stymies or encourages certain forms of behavior -- in some cases, toward the more collaborative & open and in other cases toward the more competitive & closed.

I don't personally have an effective strategy for engaging with a group that's more competitive & closed. The strategies that I have tried in this case have all failed. Patience and leadership by example seem to be the best strategies for guiding colleagues in the direction of collaborative innovation.

On a related note, I am especially interested to make sure that the presence of a more competitive and closed peer does not affect the organizational and personal culture that I have developed. Any strategies and/or suggestions you may have for staying the collaborative course are welcome.

All the best,
Peter

Hello all

Great stuff! I'd like to drop the M word into the conversation, but with a new angle.

Peter asked: "What is a financial model that can support collaborative innovation going forward?"

Without getting too abstract, the basic property of money - as a thing - is scarcity. That is the reality all enterprises of any kind are faced with in the world we have so far constructed for ourselves. Whether they are giant for-profit corporations or tiny not-for-profit outfits, they are all competing for a scarce commodity called money.

But if we think about one of money's most important roles, to act as a medium of exchange to get things done, to measure the exchange of effort or service, then saying money is scarce is a bit like saying you have run out of feet and inches to build a house, which is clearly absurd.

That is why the global movement of 'complementary' or 'community currencies' has been quietly demonstrating over the last three decades how you can design a new kind of 'collaborative money' that is always sufficient to the kinds of exchange people wish to do. These currencies match available assets of skills, goods and services and spare capacity of all kinds to local problems, needs and goals.

Example: bored young people are motivated to work for their community 'doing good' like picking up litter, helping elderly people etc. etc. by offering them rewards like trips to concerts for their effort. They are acknowledged and valued for their contribution to their community. This approach uses the market mechanism of incentive to bring about collective good. In this example youth centers could compete with each other to offer better rewards. If it gets the job done, why not?

Second example: a hostel for the homeless in the UK offered rewards to its residents to do essential jobs around the hostel like maintenance and gardening. Results: increased self-esteem, practice in using skills, reduced bills for the hostel in bringing in outside contractors.

Finally, what if Social Action or a similar organisation initiated an internal currency to reward social action? Twitter is experimenting with Twollars (www.twollars.com) and Facebook is experimenting with rewards. Others like Geoff Chesshire at Regenerosity (www.regenerosity.com) are developing tools to acknowledge all kinds of contributions to community life.

Collaborative money for a collaborative web. It's happening.






 

Hi John,

I really like your unique contribution to this discussion on collaboration and competition. I agree that we need to seriously embrace the notion of abundance in order to move collaborative innovation forward. For what's it's worth, I think Social Actions has received most of its support in collaborative currencies (not dollars). I don't have the language to fully articulate this concept, but I'll use this discussion as an example. We were given a platform on which to host a discussion about collaboration and competition. The gift of a respected platform served to legitimize the issues at hand and sparked a morale and intellectual exchanges that have helped my team to put Social Actions back on track.

In future collaborations with AllforGood, there is no question that the kind of mutual support we would offer one another is of the alternate currency form, in the same we that we work with other partners.

Thanks for helping me think through the kind of support we have received and given. Until now, I hadn't thought of it in terms of a currency.

Have you come across TimeRaiser.ca? I think it's exactly the kind of alternative currency that you are describing.

All the best,
Peter

Hi Peter

Glad to hear of the 'in-valuable' gift of a public platform to have your discussion. And that is part of our problem: national currencies and the market do not give us a language to articulate these contributions.

So what if we want to say THANK YOU to people who help us, those who volunteer, those who are the 'operating system of society' without whose contribution society falls apart (as Edgar Cahn, the inspiring founder of time banking likes to put it)?

New metrics like the Time Raiser you pointed us to allow this to happen because they give us a grammar for talking about exchange. In fact a whole family of approaches from Time Raiser, getting volunteering pledges, through to hard-edged community currencies backed by national currency getting schools built in Brazil (http://www.strohalm.org/en/brazil.html). Not the place here to articulate all the theory but collaborative currency opens out new spaces of possibility for community development in both rich and poor countries alike.

Good luck with Social Actions as collaborative currency!

John

REDF has spent time thinking about a directly related topic – funder collaboration. In 2008, REDF published “Out of Philanthropy’s Funding Maze: Roadmap #1: Strategic Co-Funding.” In it, Cynthia Gair investigates how some of the underlying principles of venture capital co-funding (aka collaboration) might be adapted to foundation and individual giving in the nonprofit sector. The paper is meant to inform charitable foundations and forward-thinking individual donors who want to increase the strategic impact of their grant making and catalyze a more effective nonprofit capital market through strategic collaboration. Despite the positive features of funder collaboration, including the potential to streamline and simplify the funding process, and focus funding on the most effective solutions, it also raises an interesting issue about competition. Collaborative funding can paradoxically make it a tougher competitive market for nonprofits by limiting funders’ interest in proposals that are not in the collaborative sweet spot.

Hi Stewart, Thanks for joining the discussion on collaboration and competition.

In case other readers are interested, I tracked down the paper you mentioned here:

http://www.redf.org/learn-from-redf/publications/548

I think it's safe to say that the majority of funders will remain most comfortable operating in the traditional funding model, in which grantees compete for resources. We shouldn't worry to much that non-collaborative nonprofits are disadvantaged as more funders experiment with co-funding.

Speaking for Social Actions, I wish I knew the names of a few of those avant-garde funders who place a premium on collaboration.

All the best,
Peter

Thank you, Peter, for moderating this very important discussion.

For the past year, IdeaEncore Network ( http://budurl.com/BL0714 ) has been working with various nonprofit groups (regional management support organizations, national associations of nonprofits, local nonprofits) to share their tools / templates / plans on the online marketplace we have created. We encourage organizations to share materials for free or to sell them to other nonprofits ... as a B Corp, we have a double-bottom line and are focused on sustainability.

While our service has grown nicely and is helping 1000s of nonprofits save time and money compared with reinventing the wheel, we consistently find ourselves addressing 'fear' as the key human barrier to collaboration. Fear caused by concerns about loss of:

Control: If I sell my materials to others, can I license them in a way to protect myself (e.g.: creative commons)

Power: If others have my tool / plan , will my program be less valuable (unique)?

Prestige: Our organization claims to be a leader. If others have my tools, will we no longer have an edge?

Confidence: Are my materials / skills good enough to withstand scrutiny?

Time: If I help others, will my boss / board accuse me of ignoring "our clients"

Most of these concerns are best overcome with the expansive thinking of broad-minded mission and "interconnectedness" mentioned in other postings. To this end, the key element to be encouraged and rewarded for collaboration to succeed is leadership and courage. As others have pointed out, we are all working toward the same goals; ideas and know-how grow with collaboration; the more we share, the more quickly we learn.

Competition and collaboration will continue to co-exist in different types of interactions between the same organizations. I believe the key is to use market incentives in the right types of interactions (e.g. to reward efficient or beneficial actions) and shelter organizations from market forces in others types of interactions (e.g.: building redundant infrastructure). To this end, IdeaEncore Network encourages nonprofits to consider they know-how as an asset and to confidently set a reasonable fee for others to access their knowledge. This enables them to create the organizational priority re-invest in learning and more knowledge sharing. Without organizational AND individual incentives for collaboration, the scarcity of resources conspires to reward competition.

you say you are a double bottom line business.... how come you didnt go as far as triple bottom line? Just curious...

When I was living in Australia from 1996-2004, lots of companies interested in sustainability and social justice issues were looking at bringing triple bottom line ideas in from Europe, where they had already been in practice in large companies for quite some time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line

Microfranchsing, a relatively new concept uses ideas borrowed from micro credit to create avenues for large firms to cooperate with poor households and communities in rural or peri urban areas.

To illustrate the idea through an example, Kodak launched a program in a few villages in India in which digital cameras were made available to women's self help groups through micro credit and each woman in the group was trained on how to take photographs, print them and create albums. Weddings being a chief source of expenditure in northern India and one of the few periods of celebration for underprivileged communities , villagers were very open, in fact excited about the idea of owning albums of their wedding photographs. The Self Help Groups became entrepreneurs as the only village-level photographer and were able to make healthy profits through their wedding photography business. The initial loan taken to buy the cameras was hence, paid back in a short amount of time and part of the profits were set aside for the monthly savings of the group. These monthly savings allowed the group to use Micro Credit to expand their business in terms of infrastructure and gain access to bigger loans for household construction and the dairy business.

Hence, the collaboration insured that Kodak benefited through the sales of their cameras and printers, creating a micro franchise in the rural sector and tapping a new market. The SHGs benefited immensely from their new business. In turn there were immense social benefits to a women's groups running a lucrative bussiness in the villages.
Further, competition between SHGs insured that customers also got a fair price for their albums.

In the Long run one would hope that another Camera company would enter into competition with Kodak to insure fair prices for the SHGs. Either way, I think this Micro-Franchising example illustrates how what is called 'Pareto efficiency' in economic theory (or in biological terms, 'a symbiotic relationship') may be established through a healthy dose of both collaboration and competition; both being essential features of the success of the initiative.

To add to my previous post:

The current literature on Micro Credit institutions is very critical of the high interest rates and the low percentages of customers that are actual benefiting in terms of livelihood promotion from micro credit. Keeping this in mind, Micro credit and Micro Franchising, essentially, offer a chance to poor households to be inculcated into, what I would call, 'formalized competitive markets' and the competitive culture that comes with it. Though this is achieved through collaboration between a corporation and a poor household, the corporation tends to benefit a lot more than the household.

In this 2 party collaboration, where both parties are essential to each other's monetary benefits from the project, should it be the case that one party is benefits to such a large degree while the other does not?

Micro franchising adapted from micro credit is essentially doing the same thing. However, since Microfranchsing is new phenomenon it has not had the chance to face up to these criticisms as yet. However, one can envisage them surfacing soon as the micro franchise sector grows and addressing this issue may bevery important for those of us interested not in assuring equity in these partnerships so they are long lasting and fruitful for the target community.

The question I pose then, to those that are optimistic about he benefits of Microfranchising in alleviating poverty is this:
"Should Microfranchisng become a part of CSR initiatives solely?"

I pose this question because even when formal and informal organizations collaborate the expectation, with respect to what proportions of the profits or residuals from the collaboration should go to each party become distorted; not because the investing firm is striving to make the enterprise sustainable, but rather because they overestimate their organization's importance or necessity to the collaboration.

CSR initiatives are obligatory and so, Micro franchises that set up as part of CSR initiatives should guarantee a larger stake of profits from the franchise to the poor households they work with. The profits generated for the firm may then be reinvested back into the project in the form of improving and maintaining infrastructure and providing technical support and capacity building. However, the lack of competitive drive for the firm may create disincentives and adversely affect the efficiency of the project. What steps can then be taken top make sure there isn't a loss in the efficiency of the enterprise?

Seems like a Catch 22... but definitely an interesting puzzle posed by our current business/economic set up... any input would be great.

Peter,

Just read this article, brought me back to this discussion.

http://springwise.com/[…]/index.php
http://www.sciencecommons.org/projects/greenxchange

I see it as an example of how collaboration increases potential to compete; with the right incentives in place within the market, it also contributes to social good.

I wrote this piece on an Open Standards thread at the My Social Actions site, and Peter suggested I cross post it here...

I dont have much knowledge about Open Standards in technology, except that wherever possible I use Open Source software, and I have talked casually to senior government and business leaders from around the world about the need for IT companies to break away from proprietory software and hardware competition/branding and to collaborate, if they truly want to create ubiquitous connectivity using cloud computing.

I'd like to comment on the idea of open standards and collaboration across all of society.

I think the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' competition model our economic and social worlds are built on is leading us to extinction, dragging with us many of the planet's other inhabitants.

I dont believe we can afford to be participating in that model, at any level, any longer and the sooner large businesses and governing institutions can accept that reality and move into collaboration, the better.

For some more ideas around this, I'd recommend that people read Peter Senge et al's "Presence"... which really is a distillation of the knowledge contained in most of the world's spiritual (not religious) traditions, especially in the indigenous cultures. For me its interesting that Senge - an MIT professor specialising in systems theory/organisational management has come to these same conclusions that many spiritual traditions have been espousing for thousands of years. Buckminster Fuller also said a long time ago, that we are now in the age of collaboration, not competition; that we have the technological means to provide for the needs of every human on the planet so competition is no longer necessary or useful.

Competition is killing too many of us, and the fact that we still have to fight each other for basic life-giving and supporting resources such as food, water, shelter, clothing, moving up the scale to education and medical care etc, is a completely immoral and unjustifiable state of affairs in the 21st Century.

Juxtaposing the consumerism and waste of the west with the poverty and death in the east for example - where is the sanity in that? Taking it down to the most basic level, how can the west justify the idiocy of multiple brands of laundry detergent lining supermarket shelves, for example, when its confronted daily in the media about the reality of life and death struggles undergone by billions of other people in other places on the planet? Within its own borders, how does the US justify the growing gap between the haves and have nots, and the lottery system that's in place that determines whether or not a child will be given the opportunity to mature into his/her full potential?

It seems to me to be a completely irrational economic argument that the free market and competition are the mechanisms that best encourage prosperity. Capitalism, by its very nature, is exploitative, driving up the cost of finite resources with the winner being the person/entity at the end of/controlling the 'value-added' chain.

Its non-sustainable - look at the cycle of expansion and contraction, growth and depression - the system keeps imploding on itself and only those very few at the top are immune to the effects of that cyclical binge and bust phenomenon.

Look at the pyramidic wealth structure that exists in the west, notice the fact that 90% of the wealth is controlled by 3% of the population; competition actually costs uncalculable amounts of money, resources, time and energy in lost human potential and 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff' measures to contain the societal damage and dysfunction of a system which is in reality, the ultimate hybrid Pyramid-Ponzi scheme...

Remember the Reagan and Thatcher economic battle cries of the 80s - be patient and wait for the trickle down effect? Statistically and in real terms, people are worse off now than they were post WW2. How many years of economic decline does it take before people realise there never has been, and never will be, a sharing of the profits from the top down to the middle and bottom.... Running out of people and resources to pull into the bottom of the pyramid? Easy - sell the 'dream/fantasy' offshore and suck people into the pyramid from there - globalisation.... Limited resources on the earth? Easy - start claiming ownership of the water and the air and the fuel and the medicinal plants and the trees and the minerals and now even human genomes and make people pay for use and access... Natural resources becoming rare or too expensive from which to make a profit? Easy - start making plans to go off planet - see http://www.abundantplanet.org/home

And then we have the nonsensical accounting structures we have in place in measuring costs and profits... goods are sold at a fraction of the real costs of production... we dont count the costs of environmental degradation for example, and we seem to think it justifiable to pay some people less than a living wage to produce goods and services which then are sold at 200+% the cost of production... For a more detailed, scholarly look at this issue, I'd recommend people read Marilyn Waring's "Counting for Nothing"; Marilyn is an internationally-respected New Zealand economist. She was at one time the youngest member of New Zealand's Parliament and brought down her National Party government led by Robert Muldoon...
   
There is nothing in all of this enthusiasm about capitalism and the free market about equity, stewardship, collaboration and sharing ... and none of this will change until major businesses and governments turn their backs on the current paradigm, turn their backs on the idea of competition being a good thing and commit to equity and sustainability....

- Sahila ChangeBringer
communications, personal and organisational change facilitator, social justice advocate and activist

Here is a little different slant from a competitive intelligence practitioner of 25 years. When I practice competitive intelligence in companies, I am cooperative, and have created cooperative intelligence http://www.thecisource.com/coopintel around this. When we seek information from others which is what competitive intelligence professionals do, we gain so much more if our attitude is cooperative, even more so than collaborative. This sparks innovation, which you were asking about, especially is you're asking the right people.

Collaboration insinuates that you expect in return. Cooperation insinuates you're giving and you almost always get back when you give, maybe not from whom you thought. Cooperative intelligence integrates the most positive aspects of leadership, connection and communication. There are very few articles on this topic, yet I believe it's far more effective. Here's an introductory one. http://www.thecisource.com/[…]/CooperativeIntelligence2006.pdf I hope it helps you in your thinking and would love to talk with you.

All the best,

Ellen Naylor

We're great at competition. Mediocre at collaboration. We need to focus on collaboration. That doesn't mean we collaborate with just anyone or don't keep refining our products and services.

In the context of social entrepreneurship, I think that both competition and collaboration are necessary. A lively sense of competition is good in order for the entrepreneur to continue to be innovative and not rest on his/her laurels. However, part of the innovative spirit must include the ability to craft new ways of achieving more effective and efficient collaboration. While the benefits of collaboration is increasingly becoming obvious, it takes the competitive mind to seek ways of doing it better. In summary, while organizations must be open to collaboration, individuals in the organization ought to sharpen their competitive mindset in order to challenge the status quo and find better ways of collaboration and 'profiting' from it. ["I WANT MY ORGANIZATION TO BE THE BEST IN DRIVING AND PROFITING FROM COLLABORATION" - That is competition]