What we have learned from chapters
•CHAPTER 2 OF AUSTIN TEXT
The Collaboration Challenge
LIKE MANY RELATIONSHIPS… •Cross-sector collaborations (between (NGOs and corporations) go through stages
•Austin (2000)
refers to this as the “Collaboration Continuum”
• Corporate partner is the donor
• NGO is the recipient
• Engagement is low and simple to manage:
• NGO submits grant proposal / request
• Corporation provides funds or resources
• Benefit is minimal and mainly one-way to the
NGO partner
• Scope / interaction is limited to one or two
events / activities
• NGO asked to donate boots for 70 volunteers
• City Year received high quality boots to complete the volunteer’s uniform
• Timberland simply received thanks, acknowledgement of their value and a sense of well-being
NGO that matches young adult volunteers with school-aged children of diverse backgrounds http://www.cityyear.org/jo incorps.aspx
Renowned manufacturer and retailer of rugged men’s boots and shoes
Typically, NGOs suffer from:
• Gratefulness Syndrome
• NGO should be grateful for what it receives and should not bother the donor again (until next year!)
Typically, corporations suffer from:
• Charity Syndrome
• Corporations should only give to good causes that solicit resources and
• They should limit time spent on such peripheral matters
• More of a two-way relationship
• Through “real connection” partners discover similar interests and values
• Overlapping missions are identified
• Mindset moves from “fundraising” to “business operations”
• Interaction between partners intensifies
• becomes more frequent
• Scope broadens
• includes more organizational levels and activities
• NGO partner Alan Khazei
• visited CEO Jeff Swartz
• to thank him for the boots…….
You are out there
actually saving lives.
I am making boots,
but I have always
wanted to save lives
Let me show you
how they can
be related
• Resource exchange is formalized through:
• Specific activities • City Year trained Timberland employees in diversity and
team-building
• Cause-related marketing • Marketing campaigns focused on Timberland’s support
of educating youth (City Year)
• Event sponsorships • Timberland sponsored one of City Years youth core
teams
• Paid service arrangements • Timberland became official supplier of City Year
uniforms
• Philanthropic donations are often replaced by employee volunteer programs • City Year organized a “service day”
for Timberland employees
• Timberland allowed employees paid time- off to volunteer for City Year
• Collective action in:
• Missions
• People (employees, stakeholders)
• Activities
• Relationship is like a joint venture
• Very few boundaries
• Attitude of “we”
• Mutual commitment
• Helps partnership survive tough times
• Timberland CEO Jeff Swartz served as Chair of the Board of City Year
• He treated City Year like an equity investment
• He acted as if he was “at the helm” of City Year and held them accountable
• Swartz also increased Timberland’s commitment by allowing employees up to 40 hours of paid community service per year
Philanthropic Transactional Integrative
Strategic
Value
Complexity
Interaction
Level
Scope
Resource
Magnitude
Mission
Mesh
Engageme
nt
Modest
Simple
Infrequent
Narrow
Small
Peripheral
Low
Major
Comple
x
Very
frequen
t
Broad
Very
large
Part of
strategy
High
Philanthropic
Transactional
Integrative
Unilateral Transfer of Resources
Reciprocal Exchange of
Resources
Co-Creation of Value
• Summary of the Stages:
Philanthropic
Transactional
Integrative
• The 3 stages are not discrete • Relationship can be at any point in-between
Philanthropic
Transactional
Integrative
• Progression is not automatic • It requires conscious effort of both partners
• The direction is not necessarily forward • Relationships can slip back to earlier stage
Leverageable Assets
Things You HAVE:
• Physical assets
• Location/space
• Distribution/sales
network
• Brand/Reputation
• Patent
• Access to desired
resources
• Relationships
(membership,
suppliers, etc.)
Things You DO:
• Continuously
innovate
• Manage
information
• Produce low cost
goods
• Sustain privileged
assets
• Interaction with
clients
• Manufacture
products
• Produce events
Things You KNOW:
• Understanding of
specific issues
• Process expertise
• Market expertise
• People / Key
Decision- makers
Philanthropi
c
Transaction
al
Integrative
Collaborati
on Mindset
Strategic
Alignment
Collaborati
on Value
Relationship
Manageme
nt Source: Austin (2000) Table 2.1
• In collaboration with Linda Carrigan, Austin created the following table to help identify the collaborative relationship stage
Philanthropic Transactional Integrative
Collaborati
on Mindset
•We are separate
•Gratefulness and
Charity syndrome
•We are partners
• Increased trust and
understanding
•We are a unit
•Mutual understanding and trust
Strategic
Alignment
•Minimal Fit
•Shared interest in
one or few areas
•Some overlap in mission
/ values
•Shared vision but not
values
•Broad scope of overlapping
activity
•High mission mesh
•Shared values
Collaborati
on Value
•Generic resource
transfer
•Unequal value
exchange
•Core competency
exchange
•More equitable value
exchange
•Joint benefit creation
•Need value renewal
•Shared equity / mutual return
Relationship
Manageme
nt
•Single contact person
in one area
•Minimal performance
expectations and
communication
•Expanded relationships
throughout organization
•Strong leader connection
•Explicit performance
measures & structure
• Informal learning
•Deep relationships at many
levels including employees
•Org Culture mesh
• Partner relationship mgrs
• Incentives encourage partnering
•Active learning
Source: Austin (2000) Table 2.1
Philanthropic Transactional Integrative
•Collaboration
Mindset
•We are separate
•Gratefulness and
Charity syndrome
•We are partners
• Increased trust and
understanding
•We are a unit
•Mutual understanding and trust
Strategic
Alignment
•Minimal Fit
•Shared interest in
one or few areas
•Some overlap in mission
/ values
•Shared vision but not
values
•Broad scope of overlapping
activity
•High mission mesh
•Shared values
Collaborati
on Value
•Generic resource
transfer
•Unequal value
exchange
•Core competency
exchange
•More equitable value
exchange
•Joint benefit creation
•Need value renewal
•Shared equity / mutual return
Relationship
Manageme
nt
•Single contact person
in one area
•Minimal performance
expectations and
communication
•Expanded relationships
throughout organization
•Strong leader connection
•Explicit performance
measures & structure
• Informal learning
•Deep relationships at many
levels including employees
•Org Culture mesh
• Partner relationship mgrs
• Incentives encourage partnering
•Active learning
Source: Austin (2000) Table 2.1
Philanthropic Transactional Integrative
Collaborati
on Mindset
•We are separate
•Gratefulness and
Charity syndrome
•We are partners
• Increased trust and
understanding
•We are a unit
•Mutual understanding and trust
Strategic
Alignment
•Minimal Fit
•Shared interest in
one or few areas
•Some overlap in mission
/ values
•Shared vision but not
values
•Broad scope of overlapping
activity
•High mission mesh
•Shared values
Collaborati
on Value
•Generic resource
transfer
•Unequal value
exchange
•Core competency
exchange
•More equitable value
exchange
•Joint benefit creation
•Need value renewal
•Shared equity / mutual return
Relationship
Manageme
nt
•Single contact person
in one area
•Minimal performance
expectations and
communication
•Expanded relationships
throughout organization
•Strong leader connection
•Explicit performance
measures & structure
• Informal learning
•Deep relationships at many
levels including employees
•Org Culture mesh
• Partner relationship mgrs
• Incentives encourage partnering
•Active learning
Source: Austin (2000) Table 2.1
Philanthropic Transactional Integrative
Collaborati
on Mindset
•We are separate
•Gratefulness and
Charity syndrome
•We are partners
• Increased trust and
understanding
•We are a unit
•Mutual understanding and trust
Strategic
Alignment
•Minimal Fit
•Shared interest in
one or few areas
•Some overlap in mission
/ values
•Shared vision but not
values
•Broad scope of overlapping
activity
•High mission mesh
•Shared values
Collaborati
on Value
•Generic resource
transfer
•Unequal value
exchange
•Core competency
exchange
•More equitable value
exchange
•Joint benefit creation
•Need value renewal
•Shared equity / mutual return
Relationship
Manageme
nt
•Single contact person
in one area
•Minimal performance
expectations and
communication
•Expanded relationships
throughout organization
•Strong leader connection
•Explicit performance
measures & structure
• Informal learning
•Deep relationships at many
levels including employees
•Org Culture mesh
• Partner relationship mgrs
• Incentives encourage partnering
•Active learning
Source: Austin (2000) Table 2.1
Philanthropic Transactional Integrative
Collaborati
on Mindset
•We are separate
•Gratefulness and
Charity syndrome
•We are partners
• Increased trust and
understanding
•We are a unit
•Mutual understanding and trust
Strategic
Alignment
•Minimal Fit
•Shared interest in
one or few areas
•Some overlap in mission
/ values
•Shared vision but not
values
•Broad scope of overlapping
activity
•High mission mesh
•Shared values
Collaborati
on Value
•Generic resource
transfer
•Unequal value
exchange
•Core competency
exchange
•More equitable value
exchange
•Joint benefit creation
•Need value renewal
•Shared equity / mutual return
Relationship
Manageme
nt
•Single contact person
in one area
•Minimal performance
expectations and
communication
•Expanded relationships
throughout organization
•Strong leader connection
•Explicit performance
measures & structure
• Informal learning
•Deep relationships at many
levels including employees
•Org Culture mesh
• Partner relationship mgrs
• Incentives encourage partnering
•Active learning
Source: Austin (2000) Table 2.1