We have all seen this process repeated in our companies and organizations for decades now. We know that in our own work, if we identify the outcomes we want to achieve and target our work toward them, we will most likely reach them.

Why don’t we do this as a community?

Because the very way a community is organized pre-empts any kind of overview of what we are trying to accomplish. We work in our separate realms as good people doing good things. But lacking a larger focus, is it any surprise we don’t achieve the larger goals?

We simply don’t know how to work as a community body. Our community leaders and citizens don’t typically get together and aspire together. Even when we come together in collaborative groups, we come as representatives of our organizations, companies, and agencies.

We are, at our most basic, a collection of people living in the same place, all wanting a good life for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors. But we don’t think or do things at that basic level. We have so long operated from our own niche in the community—from our job, mostly—that we can only think through the prism of that niche. Finding a way to work as a community is what we mean by working differently.

What is a “community?” This is determined by the people who are working together, but it can refer to a neighborhood, a town or city, a county, or a region. The “community” is defined by wherever the solutions exist. If a problem can be solved at the neighborhood level, then that is where the community needs to work differently. If the problem requires multiple counties working together to solve it, then that is where the community needs to work differently. The community is wherever we can share an aspiration and achieve it.

Working differently as a community doesn’t mean reorganizing the systems we have created to address problems. Years of collaboration and efforts to rework how money flows and how services are provided have left most of us frustrated and more pessimistic than when we started. 

[Rochester/Olmsted County, MN early childhood service system spaghetti – “Trying to reorganize existing systems has left most communities frustrated and pessimistic.”]

But when community members are clear about what they want and hold themselves accountable for achieving it, alignment of effort happens naturally. The systems reorganize themselves to achieve the goals.

Get Together
Aspire Together
Set Measurable Outcomes
Make Plans
Take Action
Evaluate Results

In 2003 we published a book called Community Visions, Community Solutions  that laid out the concept of working differently at the community level. Our suggestions for what this work looks like and what it requires for success were based on research and a few community examples.

In the seven years since, we’ve shared this approach with communities throughout North America, and they have proven time and again that working differently, well, works.

The latest to explore the Pixar Pitch, is Daniel Pink in his new book "To Sell is Human" (see Book Reviews).  In order to move others, we need to become much better at clearly stating what it is we want and where it is we want people to go. Pink presents the Pixar Pitch as a prime tool in thinking about this. Pixar Animation Studios, starting with Toy Story, is one of the most successful studios in moviemaking history. Pixar has produced 13 feature films that together have grossed $7.6 Billion. Six of these movies have won the Academy Award for best animated film. And the company has amassed a total of 26 Oscars in all. 

How do they do it?

There are probably a number of interrelated reasons, but no one will discount the stories themselves. Pixar story artist, Emma Coats has cracked the code and argues that every Pixar film shares the same narrative DNA – a deep structure of storytelling that involves six sequential sentences:
1. Once upon a time there was …
2. Every day …
3. One day …
4. Because of that …
5. Because of that …
6. Until finally …

Take for example the plot of Finding Nemo. 
1. Once upon a time there was … a widowed fish, named Marlin, who was extremely protective of his only son, Nemo.
2. Every day … Marlin warned Nemo of the ocean’s dangers and implored him not to swim far away.
3. One day … in an act of defiance, Nemo ignores his father’s warnings and swims into the open water.
4. Because of that … he is captured by a diver and ends up in the fish tank of a dentist in Sydney.
5. Because of that … Marlin sets off on a journey to recover Nemo, enlisting the help of other sea creatures along the way.
6. Until finally … Marlin and Nemo find each other, reunite and learn that love depends on trust.

This six-sentence template is both appealing and supple. For it allows pitchers to take advantage of the well-documented persuasive force of stories but within a framework that forces conciseness and discipline.

Now, let’s bring this to a community example where you are seeking to dramatically improve early childhood reading outcomes. 
1. Once upon a time there was … an education crisis haunting our schools and communities across North America.
2. Every day … large percentages of our children were not achieving proficiency in vital literacy skills to the point that some in our community even doubted whether they ever could.
3. One day … we developed a simple and shared definition of what children had to know to be ready for school.
4. Because of that … our early childhood centers and parents became better at helping all children enter kindergarten ready to learn 
5. Because of that … teachers were free to work more on skill development for each individual child.
6. Until finally … every child, irrespective of ethnic or economic circumstance, became a proficient reader by the end of third grade.

The Working Differently communities -- like Erie, PA and Decatur, IL and Shelby, IN and Austin, TX -- have all made transformative progress on K-readiness.  In common, they were able to engage their entire communities (not just those in the early childhood sector) in the story of what is possible for all our children.  They knew intuitively how to give the Pixar Pitch!  You should try it for your collective impact vision.

A recent comment to a collective impact article -- "...and let all of the skeptics stay at home" -- hit me with a dull thud.  Can you have collective impact with only "true believers?"
     I think not.
     Nor, it seems to me, can you achieve community outcomes with just the agencies, or schools, or hospitals, or funders, or whatever institutions in a community are dedicated to addressing "the problem," on board.  For I'm a believer in the concept that a core requirement to true sustainable outcomes is a change in community expectations and behaviors.  This can't be done by just a few committed souls.  It is for this reason that I think of this work in the on-going (strategic v. tactical) sense of working differently.  There are too many examples of strong, meaningful impact having an innoculation half life of two to three years (see my blog postings on The Cohort Effect and Return on Investment on Early Education for examples in the sphere of education outcomes).  Impact needs to be embedded into the on-going community context -- not just grafted on as a transitory accomplishment.  When we are envisioning community impact, we are required to think of the entire community -- skeptics and all.
     Thus, engagement, full throated, cross-sector, friend and foe embrace is central to achieving collective impact.  It should be the core capacity of any backbone or community support organization.  But often the path of least resistance (see my review of Linchpin) sub-optimizes on the size of the circle.  To get some help thinking about engagement, I went to Daniel H. Pink's new book "To Sell is Human" (which I'll review through a community collaborative lens in the near future). 
     In discussing engagement, Pink says that there are two methods of attempting to get people to act in a concerted way.  The first, practiced in the vast majority of situations is IRRITATION.  Here you are attempting to engage people to do something that WE want them to do.  Think of the vast number of non-profit or corporate endeavors under the guise of engagement, community outreach, listening sessions, where in fact we are presenting the audience with something we have already decided to do and are seeking their assent.  
     According to Pink, the other, less traveled approach to engagement is AGITATION.  Here you are engaging folks by challenging them to do something that THEY want to do.  "Want to" creates much more energy than "have to."  
     This catalytic energy is one of the reasons why all of the Working Differently communities start at the aspirational level.  In essence, coming to a shared aspiration brings us to a shared understanding of what it is we are collectively trying to achieve -- not in narrow provider or programatic language, but in clarity of what's in it for all of us.  It brings the community to the necessary "want to" energy!

Watch Out for Traps!  Despite the Best of Intentions, How Efforts at Working Differently to Achieve Meaningful Community Outcomes Get Derailed

This is the third of three postings regarding "Traps" in achieving community outcomes.  At every community meeting, at every step in the process, we have seen some version of these traps arise and threaten progress. 

Here’s the full list of “traps” that we have encountered.  Over these three entries, I’ve featured a different set of these traps:

o  Let’s Get Comfortable
o  Let’s Put On a Show!
o  We’re Not Ready
o  Oh, That’s Their Problem
o  We Need a New Organization
o  We Need to Collaborate More
o   Data First
o   Money First
o   What If We Get It Wrong?
o   But What Are We Going to Do?

Data First

It is helpful to know where you are now in order to determine where you are going. But if every community effort begins with, “First we have to gather all this data” (do a needs assessment, create an asset map, whatever), it will never get off the ground. For one reason, extensive data tends to "burn through" a lot of volunteer hours and passion, with in the end, very little to show for it (see below).

Put aspirations first, outcomes second, and actions third. As you do the work, the data will follow, and will help you progress toward your outcomes. In the beginning, you won't know what you don't know.  So how do you know what data to look for?  Conversely, as you progress toward outcomes, the data points will be more clear.

Another way to think about this trap (and it again seems counter-intuitive to most of the consultant prescriptions ... remember data collection = billable consultant hours) is to think about your own personal or community history with data.  To gather data you have to have some frame, some way of looking at things.  This frame tends to be the way we have always looked at the problem.  This data tends to be all about telling you where you've been; but very little help in telling you what you need to do differently.  Historically, the actions from this approach tend to be "do (fund) more of the same."  This pleases the status quo, but does very little about "moving the needle" on outcomes.

I would venture to say that upwards of 50% of communities who contact me have undertaken some sort of extensive indicator or benchmark study, that gave them a score of where they stood but very little direction as to what to do about it.     

Money First

So often, we see an opportunity for a grant and try to figure out how we can use it for our purposes. Or we short-circuit our dreams as soon as someone asks, “But how are we going to pay for this?” Be careful not to let money drive the conversation. (Check out my recent post on Funder Intentions in Working Differently Communities).  

The desired outcomes should drive how money is sought and invested. Available money should not drive the activities we try. We know from experience that the communities that are willing to work differently together are much better positioned to get resources. We have seen millions of new dollars come to our Working Differently communities -- from state and federal sources, as well as, foundations (especially corporate foundations) -- primarily because they were working differently and had the outcomes to prove it.  In fact, we have seen in community after community that achieving the outcome is no more expensive then perpetuating the problem. Start with the outcomes, and the money will follow.

It is the zen of Working Differently: don't focus on the money and the money will come!

What If We Get It Wrong?

Every community feels overwhelmed by this process at first. Like people with stage fright, the participants fear that everyone is looking at them and waiting for them to give the right answers. But working at the community level is a process of discovering what we don’t know, not proving how much we do know. Unlike leadership at the organizational level, expertise is not revealed by having the right answers but by asking the right questions. [See: On becoming a “Catalytic Leader” in a forthcoming Tools post] And if you feel people are judging you, invite them to get involved; after all, it’s their community and their responsibility, too.

But What Are We Going to Do?

It is so easy for our brains to jump from “what is the problem?” to “how are we going to fix it?” Everyone wants to know his or her purpose in the process and how existing roles and organizations will be affected. All too often the conversation rushes to action steps before participants are clear about purpose and how to measure success. We’re wary of too much “process” and not enough action.

It’s true that process without action and outcomes is of no value, but actions and outcomes without process won’t succeed. Look at your present community outcomes, if you have any question about that reality.   

Without trust and buy-in, there’s no implementation. Without ever-increasing engagement -- well beyond the usual suspects -- there’s no sense of ownership. Without a solid foundation of community support, there’s no sustainability. The process is much of the enterprise. It allows you to use what you already do, and what you already spend, more effectively and efficiently.  As an example, we have seen communities come to a shared and actionable kindergarten readiness measure and action plan in six months where two-thirds of the time was "process." And conversely, we have seen communities spend little time on process during years where of never coming to that agreement (they still have 10 different definitions of readiness -- at loggerheads with each other) and it remains that fewer than 35% of their children ready.

Process isn’t something to get done as fast as possible; it is the warp through which all the action is woven.