My Theory of Change
by Brian Reich | 8 Feb 2010, 1:54pm
Beth Kanter is asking what people’s theory of change is, as a part of a program that HP is running. Here is what I wrote:
My theory of change is that everything has to change. Everything needs to be re-visited, re-considered, re-evaluated, and ultimate re-worked. Until we do that, nothing will change - at least not on the scale that we desire, and not in a way that is sustainable. So my theory of change is really focused on setting us up so all the other theories of change are even more likely to realize success.
I believe in the power of community and the marketplace, I am confident that people, especially now that we are all connected, have the ability to radically shift the way we organize, communicate, educate and act (read: behave) if given a solid platform from which to launch their efforts. But for those powers to be activated, for those forces to have their influence, we have to change the way we are structured, the very way we look at how theories of change themselves are implemented. We have to knock the meteor that is currently hurdling towards the planet (apathy, focus on activity and not impact, serving the cause instead of solving the cause) and threatening to destroy everything off course, if you will.
Thus, my theory of change is:
1) Review everything. Start by looking at every organization, plan, structure, message, tactic, and activity to understand what is working and what isn’t. There are too many legacy systems and failed approaches being used ‘because that is how we have always done it’ to expect real change to flourish. This is true as a nonprofit community, and for individual organizations. That’s step one.
2) Break the big pieces into small ones. By reviewing everything you open up the possibility of considering everything. You can break the big systems down into little pieces — each goal can be isolated, each strategy left to stand on its own, each tactic able to be considered in a very narrow, specific context. When each challenge, each opportunity and each approach is on its own two things happen: a) you can more easily prioritize and organize what you are doing, and b) you can determine what is working and what isn’t more easily.
3) Put the pieces back together. No single activity or goal, no matter how exciting, will have a significant impact on its own. Everything is connected. And each piece plays a very specific role - they compliment each other, they expand the reach and impact of whatever came before them. When we put the pieces back together, and look at the whole picture of what needs to happen and the steps required to get from start to finish, we have a chance to do some real damage. So step three is to start to re-connect the pieces, and understand the relationships that exist between individual areas of focus, goals, the roles and responsibilities of those involved, the actions we all take, and the outcome we are seeking.
4) Divide and conquer. Right now, we mostly compete - for attention, for dollars, for ownership and control. Collaboration is nice. But in reality, to realize change we have to divide and conquer. We need to distribute responsibility and ensure that the necessary talent, energy and focus is applied to each of the key pieces along the path towards change. So, rather than invite people to participate, or throw open the challenge so that everyone can meet, we need to clearly identify the specific things that need to be figured out, at all levels, and make sure someone takes responsibility for each (and is held accountable). Until we all get out of our own way, not to mention each other’s, we won’t get anywhere.
5) Evolve. The last, and perhaps most important aspect of my theory of change, is change itself. Evolution. We have to grow. We have to try things and fail, but be comfortable in getting up and trying again. We have to be willing to accept that mistakes are part of the process of change, and embrace the fear, anxiety and difficulty that comes with doing new things. We have to be patient, and self-aware (or aware with help from others) so we can apply the lessons to our work in real-time. That will allow us to improve, our work and our plans, and the whole movement can evolve.
My theory of change is that you have to start by changing everything. You have to start by looking at everything we are doing, accepting it isn’t working, and start fresh. That doesn’t mean throw everything out, it means look at the game film and find the good stuff. It means ask tough questions. It means challenge existing assumptions. It means nothing that we are doing is working exactly as we had hoped and nobody who is doing anything is without a need for change.
Until we do that, things might look different, but nothing will change. That’s my theory anyway.
What do you think? Go post your own theory on Beth’s blog (not that you need a reason, but you might win a really neat prize too).
TAGS
: Beth Kanter Department of Ideas HP Theory of Change
leave a comment
Some thoughts on Charity 2.0
by Brian Reich | 6 Aug 2009, 12:31pm
A couple of days ago, CNET’s Caroline McCarthy published an article called “Crowded Roads Ahead for Charity 2.0” reflecting on how the landscape has changed for fundraising on social networks. Beth Katner, an all around super-smarty pants when it comes to thinking about nonprofits and their use of technology and social media, crafted a very thoughtful post, and asked the following question of her audience:
Given how the social media landscape has changed over the past few months - with the growth of Twitter and entrance of many more nonprofits and individuals fundraising through social networks, how does this influence or shape your organization’s social media strategy? How will you remain effective?
The following is my response, which I published in the comments of Beth’s post (but decided to re-post here as well):
There is absolutely a challenge for organizations looking to break through and use social media to engage audiences and address serious issues and causes. Over-saturation by group is definitely a factor. Audience fatigue, which is not often considered, is also important to understand. The challenge to getting people to become more involved in an organizations’ efforts, whether as advocates or donors, or even just interested onlookers, depends more - I think - on the user and meeting their expectations, then on the strategy of the organization conducting the effort.
With that, I want to add a couple of thoughts to your excellent post (above) about cause fatigue and the challenges for nonprofits.
1) More than movements. Realistically, if organizations want to have real, meaningful, measurable impact on the issue(s) that they are designed to support - hunger, the environment, education, whatever - they are going to have to do more than create a movement to support their work. People want to see real change. They want to feel like they are involved in something that is having an impact. And they want to know that the investment they make, in time or treasure, is worthwhile. That feeling has no time limits.
We have known for a while that launching a campaign wasn’t enough - its a good way to raise awareness and attention for an issue, but when the campaign ends, the momentum fades. Movements are designed to go further, do more to sustain people’s interest and participation, and of course drive greater impact. But in the vernacular of organizing, especially online, I’m increasingly concerned that the word ‘movement’ has simply replaced the word ‘campaign.’ Everybody wants to start a movement now, and understand how to use technology, and social media, to make that happen. But few are willing to embrace the huge organization and institutional commitments necessary to create and sustain a movement. The term is being co-opted, the level of excitement and commitment towards creating movements is growing, but we are still running in place in terms of truly shifting how causes are addressed and most nonprofits use the web.
The holy grail of organizing, offline and now online too, is the ability to create sustainable shifts in behavior. Getting people to do something once or twice is critically important, and no small task in its own right, but it still just one of the very early steps towards real impact. To make people healthier, or to significantly reduce their carbon footprint, or to transform communities, or to dramatically improve schools or really anything of significant size requires a commitment that is operationalized day after day after day after day. Its not enough for the numbers to improve for a month or a year, only to have people fall off the wagon and go back to their old behaviors when the pressure on them lets up. Its not enough for an organization to reach its goals and then move on to other projects, leaving society to fend for itself. Some organizations, like the American Heart Association and Feeding America (note: a client) are starting to think that way, while also realizing the longer-term approach is much more complicated than just maintaining effort for a longer period of time.
Behavior change can be generational, or glacial. Within organizations that might mean new leadership emerges, not by coup but naturally over time, so that a new perspective and capacity just evolves internally. You want a different donor base, you may have to wait for the old donor base to disappear, or for the organization to re-organize and re-present itself so that new and different audiences find it compelling and relevant. For communities, that change occurs as houses change ownership over time and kids grow up, as the fabric of the neighborhoods change and priorities of local officials adapt. Those changes are happening faster today, because of the influence of technology and the internet, the level of awareness and particiation from people at the grassroots level in issues where they were never involved before. But, you don’t see the long-term commitment by organizations in most cases. You don’t see the organizations changing their mission, their focus, their staffing, and their tactics (not to mention their technology) to reflect the changing times. Many either focus on their operational needs (which I have ranted about before, as you know), which sometimes obscures the larger focus, or simply add new discrete projects around a particular issue or opportunity — failing to coordinate their thinking or look at how all the pieces fit together and create real change.
2) A reset: I like to talk about a reset, a total re-thinking and re-structuring of how our organizations operate, where they focus, the efforts they pursue, and how they support them. Nothing is sacred. Everything has to be revised, from business models and organizational structures to the audience(s) that are being served and the tools, messaging, and support a group provides. That begins with a shift in focus, away from campaigns (and even movements) and towards a focus on long-term, sustainable, shifts in behavior - if you have a whole new, different challenge, the natural response is to come up with a whole new, different way to address that challenge. But it also includes a greater commitment to collaboration between groups, and coordination across the sector. There are simply too many groups competing for attention and resources, trying to figure out the answers to complex questions on their own. Similarly, there are too many consultants offering tools and advice that doesn’t do anything but serve one group’s interests, when the larger community and society is what needs the attention and support.
We need to more thoughtfully and fully engage the audience/community in the process of re-thinking the approach, the structure, and similar. I would also suggest a new role, for experts and advocates, people who aren’t connected to one group or carrying water for one form of communication or platform, to help address the broad changes that need to occur, to help the individual groups to adapt their focus, and similar. And the media, the way it operates, what it covers, and the role that we - as organizers and advocates - expect it to play must all be transformed. Everything is in play, everything needs to change, and I am under no illusions that these changes will happen naturally, without help, or soon. But rather than think about a different strategy for using social media to tackle an issue, I suggest we look at how the concept of social has revolutionized and changed our whole society, what that means to the strategies nonprofits and causes must pursue, and then look back at what we can do to use the tools different and more appropriately to meet our goals.
Thoughts?
TAGS
: behavior change Beth Kanter Charity 2.0 CNET organizing Technology
1 comment
