In the late 1980s, an organizational consultant in rural America coined the term “information silos” to describe how an organization may be as rich with information as a silo is with grain, but the information remains trapped, again like grain in a silo, so that it has no influence outside of the organization. Over time, this metaphor was extended to reflect how organizations generally work in competitive isolation.

Today, organizations across sectors are recognizing that a siloed strategy makes it difficult to find solutions in a world facing increasingly complex challenges and opportunities. Instead “collaboration” is emerging as a better approach.

But there’s also a degree of uncertainty about what collaboration might look like in the nonprofit and charitable sector, including when it is useful and when it isn’t.

What it can look like

The word “collaboration” is everywhere these days, so much so that its essential meaning can get lost. At its core, collaboration is simply two or more people (or organizations) working together to achieve the same goal.

We talked with a variety of people working in and around the nonprofit sector who are engaged in collaboration or facilitating organizations working together to offer different pictures of what collaboration can look like.

Tara Bedard is the executive director of the Waterloo Region Immigration Partnership, which describes itself as a “backbone organization” by operating a collaborative planning table that brings together more than 100 independent organizations working with immigrants in their region.

Barbara Cartwright is the CEO of Humane Canada, an organization that promotes respect and humane treatment toward all animals. After evidence-based research showed that violence against animals and violence against people are not distinct or separate problems, Humane Canada convened the Canadian Violence Link Coalition with other nonprofits across 10 different sectors and across the country.

Tania Little is the chief development and partnerships officer for Food Banks Canada, where she leads fundraising, foodraising and cross-sectoral partnerships between food banks and other charities and nonprofits, as well as with government and various private sector partners.

Rebecca Sutherns is a strategic planning consultant and facilitator who designs and conducts multi-stakeholder processes that facilitate better collaboration within and between organizations.

Why collaborate?

Art Taylor writes in the Stanford Social Innovation Review that, historically, nonprofits have worked together to create efficiencies through shared administration or mergers, sometimes when they are struggling and other times at the request of funders.

But times are changing. As a society, we are faced with increasingly intricate global problems. Sutherns says, “Because the complexity of life is increasing, we each have a more limited viewpoint and less ability to solve problems alone. Our one perspective isn’t sufficient. That complexity requires people to collaborate to reduce our blind spots.”

At the same time, donors are also changing and becoming more sophisticated in their expectations. As Little says, “Donors are looking at the sector more and more as an investment vehicle to create social change.” Further, these donors are interested in tangible outcomes and greater impact for these investments. With “pressures on the social sector to be utilizing their resources as effectively as possible,” Little sees collaboration as a way of using funding more effectively, with remaining funds going to new research and strategies.

Bedard has seen organizations achieve this kind of efficiency over more than a decade of the Immigration Partnership. “We’ve come to a place where we realize not everyone can do everything, that some organizations are better suited to doing some things than others.”

Today, organizations in Bedard’s community sit down together to determine who is best suited to do what, collaboratively planning government funding applications to reflect these individual strengths.

This type of approach is welcomed by all levels of government. “There’s a recognition of the value of collaboration and that it helps the government work better with social partners. Rather than having many people to consult with, it’s easier for them to gather input from a collective voice,” says Bedard. In fact, the Immigration Partnership owes its existence to the federal government creating a collaborative umbrella model. “Ten years in, they are seeing tangible results of having supported that in communities as it impacts their ability to understand what is happening and what is needed.”

Working collaboratively also allows organizations to do more and better work in terms of their own unique mission, often offering better solutions by increasing the diversity of voices at the table. Cartwright says, “Cross-sectoral collaboration allows us to amplify the impact of the work we do in new areas where previously we had no reach. It also allowed us to build a national coalition and begin work in cross-sectoral committees that have allowed us to achieve several of our action items.” Similarly, Food Banks Canada has found natural partnerships with other existing groups that share their goal of addressing issues around poverty and hunger.

What’s the (perceived) down side of collaborating?

As anyone who has ever embarked on a group project in school knows, there can be definite challenges to working with others.

At the core of concerns about collaboration in this context are those around costs in terms of time and money: is it easier and faster to just do things ourselves? Are we going to lose funding? As Sutherns explains, “We are more likely to collaborate if we believe we are better together and that there’s enough to go around, rather than if we think that more for you is less for me.” This scarcity mentality was strong in the early days of the Immigration Partnership, says Bedard, noting that when cuts in government funding occur it influences conversations between organizations and how they work together.

But those who have engaged in collaborative ventures have found that the cost is worth it. Cartwright says, “It sometimes takes longer to get things done but it is a small price to pay for the benefits of collaboration.”

Bedard agrees. “Every one of our partners will tell you that collaboration takes time and organizational resources but what they give in, they get back and then some. When we do evaluations, every organization says that they gain a lot of benefits in their collaborative work. Partnership strengthens the ability of each organization to deliver on their own individual mandates, strengthens outcomes for clients, and helps them better understand the rest of the community so they can be smarter in planning their programs.”

So how do we actually do it?

1. Think before you act. “It’s easy to get drawn into the excitement of a new partnership, but it’s really important to start by having an internal philosophical conversation about what collaboration means to your organization,” says Little. “Be practical and specific about what your organization is open to and what your hard limits are.” Sutherns agrees, adding, “Take time to develop a clear sense of what you hope to achieve or how your organization may benefit from collaboration.”

2. Listen to others. Once your organization has figured out its own philosophy and approach to collaboration, reach out to other organizations whose interests overlap or intersect with your own, listening to their priorities to determine where there can be a match. Sutherns suggests finding resources to support a period of exploration together.

3. Relationships are king, says Bedard. Success or failure in collaboration is underpinned by trust built in interpersonal and inter-organizational relationships. Investing time in developing relationships – particularly in face-to-face meetings – is important, says Bedard, who adds, “We can do more if all relationships in the ecosystem are strong.” Sutherns says, “Trust is built through lots of interactions and low-risk opportunities to work together. Start small but think big.”

4. Understand history. Whether individuals or organizations have worked together in the past, history can impact what you do and how you do it. Bedard says, “It can be tricky to move past and beyond where we have been but we have to account for things that seem to fall outside our specific mandate if we want to build better collaborations.”

5. Establish a clear goal that all agree on and work toward. Cartwright suggests establishing a clear, concise Terms of Reference for the committee or Memorandum of Understanding for a collaboration so that all partners understand the goals and objectives of the collaboration along with the deliverables and timelines. Little encourages specifically defining what success would look like, whether that is a numeric or another outcome. The Immigration Partnership had a mammoth task to achieve with the sudden resettlement of Syrian refugees in 2015-6 but the clarity of this goal cemented collaboration between organizations. Bedard says of a goal, “It needs to be something all can get behind, and are inspired by, in order to be really engage people in moving forward. When people have five hundred other things on their plate, they need to see it has impact on the community, their organization and themselves in order to prioritize their involvement.”

6. Good facilitation and convening makes a difference. “Getting the right people in a room doesn’t necessarily assure collaboration will be effective,” says Sutherns. “You need good facilitation, good process, and ways of working together to make it collaborative.” This can be achieved in a variety of ways, whether it is hiring an experienced facilitator who serves as a neutral third party, working under the umbrella of a backbone organization, or, in the case of larger organizations, hiring team members with experience in building partnerships.

7. Measure the effectiveness of the collaboration. Bedard suggests, “Not everything is measurable but lots of things are. We regularly evaluate our collaboration, what is going well, where there are improvements and challenges. When people say, ‘how do we know collaboration is making a difference? Why should we prioritize time on this?’ being able to demonstrate the measurable value of collaboration is a huge piece of ongoing engagement.”

8. Overcommunicate, says Cartwright, noting that information can easily get lost between partners.

When not to collaborate

“If you can do something perfectly well on your own, go ahead,” says Sutherns. “If you can’t, collaboration makes sense.” But beyond this, there are other reasons not to collaborate.

Like any other relationship, there can be a mismatch between potential partners. Little says, “We have to look out for the best interests of our local food banks so we have to be thoughtful about who we work with in any partnership. That’s why it is so important to know our philosophy, values and culture. We don’t want to work with those whose values are misaligned with ours.” She adds, “It can be hard to say no, especially to a potential corporate partner, but it’s not worth it if what you end up with is a failed partnership or, worse, a bad story in the media.”

It’s also important to realize when “it’s not you, it’s me.” If what your organization is really hoping for is a quick partnership to get money in the door or if your organization is entering into a collaboration with a territorial approach, unwilling to compromise to find common ground, it’s not likely your organization is actually looking to collaborate.

“Collaboration is a buzzword, like innovation, these days,” says Bedard. “And yet, it doesn’t change the fact that whether the term is trendy or not, there’s value to be gained at multiple levels for those organizations that engage in authentic collaboration.”

Susan Fish is a writer/editor at Storywell, a company that helps individuals and organizations tell their story well. She has written for the nonprofit sector for more than two decades and loves a good story.

Please note: While we ensure that all links and email addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other websites and email addresses may no longer be accurate.