Collaboration Is The New Competition

collaboration

Photo credit: Kelsey Lynn & Pacific Lutheran University

Thursday and Friday I’m attending a conference called “Working Collaboratively for Sustainability,” put on by Seattle University. The title is an interesting – and arguably bold – call to action:  we need to work together, to break down old barriers, to truly move toward “sustainability.” This because the old paradigms of siloed competition are dying, or dead.

This topic echos that upon which my colleague, Brett Horvath, and I spoke at last weekend’s Green Festival: it’s time to go beyond the paradigm of “green” and into a paradigm of systemic change, of recognizing the holistic aspect of our very real, global challenges.

To echo Vanessa German, how can we save the polar bears if we can’t save our people living in the ghettos?

The talk we gave last weekend focused on two core problems with the current green movement. The first is that the “green” movement has lost its focus: What is the green movement about? Is it efficiency? Recycling? Buying the right kind of car or light bulb? Social justice? To whom are we speaking, and who are we? The second problem is that the green movement is unsustainable. In essence, it’s a zero sum game: there are only so many funders, so many volunteers, so many people who will actively identify as “green” and do what the movement is trying to get them to do (assuming the movement has defined that).

Brett’s and my proposed solution is this: it’s time to move beyond green, to meet people where they are and to find the issues that matter, and then to bring them together under a much larger tent. Green can’t be a catch-all term; for too long, we’ve been trying to use the (marketing) momentum of “green being the new black” as a way to simultaneously address climate change, pollution, and poverty.

The reality is that these are all fundamental human issues – things about which all humans can and should be concerned. How will we truly address issues of such scope, such immense breadth? Through (competitive) collaboration. Through tearing down old silos, agreeing to share resources and move forward toward common, clearly-identified goals. It’s no longer about who has the biggest list, the biggest crowd; it’s how one engages that crowd, how one helps leverage that crowd to help others, that now matters.

Now, back to the conference to see Auden Schendler speak; a long-time hero of mine, he’s been pushing the dial on this thinking for longer than most.

Similar Posts:

Share & Enjoy:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • NewsVine
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
  • Gabriel
    Thanks for the great response, Mary. I appreciate your insights - and great points about the generational aspect of things. I'm intrigued at how, indeed, more bridges can be built between generations. Referencing, again, the Pickens plan - the average age of the users of that social media campaign was 60 years old. Not, one might guess, the typical Facebook user! I'd love to see more of that.
  • This is why NBIS stresses sustainable more than green. There are lots of things that are green, but they may not be sustainable. Sustainable involves taking a whole systems view of things -- products, policies, the way we do business, etc. Green is tactical and short-sighted and doesn't go nearly far enough to examine the whole system of who we are and our impacts on the larger system, whether we are individuals or businesses. A whole system view can be positive as well - it helps us make good choices about where to spend energy, how to set priorities for the greatest impact.

    I take a bit of exception to the person who said boomers don't understand cooperation. I think we actually started the revoluntion. All that is happening today was written about and discussed in the sixties and seventies and people were very passionate about it. Society wasn't ready for the big leaps and we weren't as well prepared to implement effectively, though we tried hard. There was major push back; people got killed if you recall. We attempted to change institutional structures for greater democracy and collaboration, but it was all still very much emerging from the great depths of hierarchy, class, race and gender discrimination. The powerful were very much ready to fight back, and they won over and over, sadly. One of the things I really appreciated about that era though was the multi-generational activism. There were really great older folks, visionaries and activists who helped inspire and give concrete ideas and analysis to us young folks. I'm glad that we have the opportunities today to build on the experience, wisdom and skills of all generations. I'm totally thrilled that we all pulled together and elected Obama. I am so happy for the younger generation that you put your passion and hard work into and succeeded. I am happy for us older folks who have experienced so many losses and disappointments to actually see good values and future-looking leadership win. One elderly activist, on inauguration day, declared to his wife "This is the happiest day of my life!" He lay down on the couch and died.

    Okay, thanks for letting me ramble!
    Mary
  • Gabriel
    This is some great thinking, all.

    Max: I agree with Mark - great points on bringing those orgs in. In fact, I'd argue that those are some of the best examples to date. Another would be the Blue-Green Alliance.

    Deanna, great points. I agree with Carolina, but I'd add more to that. Specifically: you get "outsiders" by figuring out where, in fact, your interests align. Rod & rifle conservationists are one example. The folks supporting T Boone Pickens' oil plan were another: the majority of folks supporting his plan were doing so not because of identification as "environmentalists," but rather, because they found a person who spoke their language. I.e. T Boone spoke to their concerns: nationalism, concern for the disruptions inherent in our dependence on foreign oil, the need for American jobs (building a renewable energy infrastructure). The result: people collaborating, for very different reasons, after a common goal.

    Think further about the "competitive" part of competitive collaboration: how do we find ways to encourage people to collaborate, using the (natural) competitive urge? Common examples of that kind of work include fund-raising drives (take, for example, KEXP's Hood-to-Hood challenge, in which Seattle neighborhoods compete against one another in fundraising efforts - by individuals - to get KEXP to come broadcast for one day in their neighborhood) and charity auctions (bidding against others wins you stuff! and helps the organization!).

    Thoughts?
  • Mark Newell
    Great discussion. Max, thank you for bringing those two groups in to the conversation. Farmers and hunters are some of the most effective modern conservationists, perhaps because they inherently get the relationship between their livelihood and passion, and healthy ecosystems and deep ecology. To try to address Deanna's comments, maybe we can draw on these common natural systems roots to show how nature both competes and collaborates in order to maintain a sustainable balance. The wolf, in killing a deer, is actually collaborating with the long term interest (population stability, food chain) of deer population. Eliminating competition would not be good either animal population. As Caroline spoke to, teasing out how your interests are aligned my interests might be where we all find success.
  • Collaboration creates Prosperity is a core belief helped us raise over $1million in 2008. 100% went to our NGO partners.

    Learn More:
    http://cli.gs/6dTb0D

    With Gratitude,
    David
  • I think the essence of capitalism now is having to focus on collaboration. your customers have less money. not all of us can have more stuff and new stuff all the time. so what makes money then? businesses where you make more money sharing scarce resources. being tied to a movement enhances cooperation that enhances profit in that scenario.
  • Great post. This is one of the most holistic treatments of sustainability that I've come across in a while. The points about meeting people where they are and recognizing these as fundamental human issues, rather than "green" issues, are particularly important. They broaden the discourse about what "green" is (and the term is already overused and diluted), encourage us to take a fresh and holistic approach to the problems that we face, and remind us that we need to reach out to those who may not agree with us - not with righteousness but with compassion.

    Deanna, thanks for articulating the arguments that can be made against a collaborative approach to tackling sustainability. I agree with you that not everyone would act out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly if it went against their own self-interest. I would, however, suggest that human evolution actually supports collaboration. The individualization of society is a fairly recent development in human history, particularly in western societies; traditionally, human societies have depended upon close collaboration within the group in order to ensure the group's own survival. Also, one of the strengths of sustainability is that it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition (i.e., choosing between halting climate change OR promoting human rights) - it can be a both/and proposition (you can halt climate change AND promote human rights). This is possible because everything is interconnected and what's good for people is also good for the planet and vice versa.
  • Max Scoll
    It was a pleasure to hear you speak last weekend; eco-conspicuous consumption has been rolling of the tongue since. It is heartening to hear such eloquent and concise discussion regarding the future of the movement. I would note two significant groups have made headway towards collaboration that brought millions of previously unconcerned citizen voices to the movement. Both succeed in reiterating and re-couching the arguments for sustainable livelihoods and in doing so grew membership and political will. It is examples like these that lead me to take umbrage with your zero-sum game argument for the movement.

    The first neatly mixes metaphors with your silage discussion, and that is family farm lobbying organizations. Agricultural advocacy groups such as The National Farmers Union and Farm Bureau have never been at the forefront of sustainability however that is changing through the concerted and dedicated efforts of cooperatives such as CROP (Organic Valley) whose members have joined these national organizations. By steering the valence of the discourse from paternalistic and self-righteous proclamations of the urban liberal eco-consumers towards more localized, collaborative and proactive arguments based on heritage, family and conservation, “green” movement insiders have redirected one of the most disproportionately powerful lobbying blocs inside the beltway.

    Similarly the rod and rifle conservationist whose pedigree outdates nearly every other sub-category of “green” organizations have experienced a recent resurgence in media attention in recent years. While my friends at Sea Shepards, Green Peace, PETA et al may rankle at the thought of sharing a tent with gun-toting, truck driving avatars of Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Quality Deer Management etc, the reality is that to grow the movement beyond a zero-sum game of college educated upwardly mobile middle-class suburbanites, we have to invite them in, at least share a cup of fair trade shade grown organic java. Collaboration is not only happening its working and there is a strong political precedence for this social process to evolve from.
  • I'd argue that you are suggesting something that goes against human behavior. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that human evolutionary biology is definitely not working in your favor here. How do you get people to collaborate on issues if they aren't really interested in them?

    What I mean is, let's say I'm interested in carbon output and peak oil, but don't give a rip about human rights or poverty. In fact, let's go so far as to say that I'm willing to step on human rights and push people into poverty as a method to prevent global climate change and energy depletion. Will I be willing to collaborate on a large variety of issues when only a few of them may touch on my interests or, as Mychal says, the ones I'm passionate about?

    How do you convince me to spend my precious little spare time working on issues I'm disinterested in? In other words, how do you convince a large enough group of people that, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm more apt to just find my own, smaller, group of people with narrower interests and lose that momentum that a larger group would have. And you are back to square one. So what's the incentive? Last time I bothered looking I didn't see a whole lot of altruism out there. And there's not enough free cake and ice cream in Seattle to convince people otherwise.

    Finally, how is the collaboration competitive? If I were competitive in this situation, I would make sure that the lion share of effort went towards "my" interests and not the group's.
  • Yeah but the only way to get a group of people to collaborate is to get them passionate. The only way to do that is make it easy, simple, and clear. Once you have that then the call to action is easy. I think the recent earth hour is a perfect example.
  • Agreed, Corbet. Just think what the world would look like if everyone took that mindset to heart.
  • Great post. I think we all get lost in the fact we want to do something, but do no always know what is going to have the greatest impact. Instead of trying to solve everything at once by yourself, pick a path that meets your passion. By pulling passionate collaborators together you maximize the potential. All of these roads will lead to impact together.
  • Gabriel
    Mychal: I agree... on an individual basis. You need to do your thing, others theirs, because clearly we can't all do it all. That said: connectivity, transparency, & collaboration are key in the new economy. If people continue working in silos, not realizing the broader picture, we're going to continue making baby steps, rather than the huge leaps needed.
  • I think the focus needs to narrow and there needs to be a decision on where to focus. Right now as you say there are too many causes and they are all getting in each others way even though they have at least a few complimentary parts. Pick one go after that and then the others will follow. So what do you want to promote?
  • Gabriel
    Thanks, Alex!
  • Alex Berg
    Awesome.
blog comments powered by Disqus