Nonprofits
Cohort Capacity Building: Is the Sector Ready?
Earlier this month I had the privilege of learning from four really smart and experienced people who participated in a panel discussion that TCC Group, a global management consulting firm.
Earlier this month, I had the privilege of learning from four really smart and experienced people who participated in a panel discussion that TCC Group, a global management consulting firm, presented in New York City, called, “Casting A Wider Net: Effective and Affordable Cohort Capacity Building Strategies.” The panel, moderated by TCC Group Senior Vice President Paul Connolly, included Fran Barrett, Director of Capacity Building, Atlantic Philanthropies; Molly Eagan, Senior Director of Business Operations, Planned Parenthood; Diane Oettinger-Myracle, Chief Learning Officer, Girl Scouts of the USA; and Peter York, Senior Vice President and Director of Research, TCC Group.
Like many of our colleagues doing this work, TCC Group has been providing capacity building using a cohort format for several years now (we define cohort capacity building broadly, basically working toward a shared goal with a group of nonprofits that share some set of characteristics, such as size, geographic location, or programmatic focus). The idea for a panel on working with cohorts came out of some of Pete York’s recent research findings, which suggest that, in many cases, cohort capacity building is far more cost effective than other modalities, such as one-on-one consulting engagements. When designed well, the blended approach that cohort capacity uses provides skills building, reinforcement, and the support of colleagues. Collectively, these appear to be an effective strategy to help nonprofit executives become better leaders and managers.
Several interesting ideas emerged from the conversation. Particularly compelling to me were the panelists’ varying interpretations of the concept of a “cohort.” The panelists all seemed to agree that we in our sector are doing ourselves an injustice by continuing to go it alone. Some of the conversation felt familiar; such as the conversation about the intrinsic value of groups, and the particular power of peer exchange and support (which Fran Barrett also called “action learning”) to help nonprofit leaders gain new information, solve problems, and replenish their emotional reserves. This, in turn, caused me to reflect about the tension between preparation and implementation. It’s not “either/or,” but “both/and.” For example, the individual nonprofit may plan individually (perhaps using a consultant or coach), but turn to the peer group to gain the knowledge and support needed to actually put the plan into practice.
The panelists also shared some interesting insights into what it means to create a group that has hundreds of members, potentially spanning thousands of miles? The Planned Parenthood network has 87 affiliates that operate 825 health centers. The Girl Scouts has 100 councils and serves 2.4 million girls and over 900,000 adult volunteers. This is cohort consulting at scale, and the panelists had some good insights to share about leveraging technology to work with groups.
I also took away some newer insights about the power of groups. There was a lot of lively discussion about the ever-increasing relevance of advocacy and the concept coalitions as another type of cohort that both offers a collective voice and can be a mutually reinforcing experience for participants. Fran Barrett talked about the value of “natural systems,” looser cohorts.
The energy and wisdom on the panel was more than evident, and the audience’s interest was strong. There was a sense that the cohort strategy remains a well-kept secret in the capacity building world. Why is this the case? Lack of funding, to be sure. But I also sensed something else at play—that as the field of capacity building has professionalized, and as we learn more about what works, that perhaps we’ve come to believe that the value of our work is strongly correlated with its complexity and secret formulas. Pete’s research also suggests that there is an important distinction to be made between preparing for capacity building—such as developing a strategic plan or conducting an assessment or writing a report, and implementation—taking the plan or the evaluation and actually putting ideas and recommendations into practice. Perhaps not surprisingly, the research shows that while good preparation is necessary, it is by no means sufficient. We’ve all heard about the “plan that sits on the shelf;” what do we as practitioners do to help our clients become more likely to take the tools and use them to build a better organization?
Alas, as we all know too well, there is no silver bullet. However, reflecting on the wisdom shared at the panel, I keep thinking of Molly Eagan’s exhortation to the group: “You know more than you think you do. Don’t wait for the answer; just get started.” It seems to me that it might be time to take some of the “technical” out of technical assistance? What if, to paraphrase Diane Oettinger-Myracle from the Girl Scouts, it turned out that sometimes the best thing we can do is provide well-conceived, well-facilitated forums for people to actually sit and talk to each other?
Anne Sherman is the Associate Director at TCC Group. TCC Group is a national management consulting firm that serves nonprofit organizations, foundations, and corporate community involvement programs.
Simply putting boxes and lines down on paper doesn’t guarantee that your organization will make better decisions.
Long-term investment in organic agriculture will provide above-market returns, environmental impact, and—in the developing world—enormous social impact.
Q&A with KoAnn Skrzyniarz of Sustainable Brands.
Critics of Obamacare have taken away attention from important aspects of the act such as its focus on keeping people healthy.
The misalignment between the expansive goal of “health” and a cramped
Entrepreneurs are setting up shop in the nation's urban food deserts.
A riveting memoir by Egyptian revolutionary—and Google marketing executive—Wael Ghonim.
COMMENTS
BY Mark Fulop
ON January 12, 2011 05:52 PM
What is missing from this article are the words incentive, alignment, adaptive, and engagement (okay engagement appears once). We can talk in paternalistic consultant -speak about capacity building and performance improvement but until we have authentic two-way conversations about:
1) the incentives for capacity building;
2) aligning capacity goals across the entire sector of government, philanthropy, and nonprofits;
3) recognize that we are way beyond generic training and that capacity is agency specific and adaptive;
4) abandon a program focus and adopt an engagement focus;
then we will continue to convene and extol and fund random cohorts to learn about evaluation or board development or whatever the soup du jour happened to be. Indeed, thinking about these themes was the basis of a recent peer reviewed that drew the same core finding:
“Interestingly, nonprofit executives, capacity builders, and funders have different perspectives about why organizations should engage in capacity-building efforts, as well as different preferences for different types of capacity building. Overall, the nonprofit executives were most likely to engage in building adaptive and leadership capacity, offering explanations consistent with the predications of strategic management or resource dependence theory. Capacity builders, however, tended to talk about capacity building in terms that were reflective of agency or institutional theory and offered standard programs, services, and trainings designed to build management and technical capacity. The funders struggled with how to support meaningful capacity building. They recognized the potential value of building adaptive and leadership capacity, but they continued to fund one-size-fits-all technical assistance and management capacity building.”
Millesen, JL., Carman, JG., & Bies, AL. (2010). Why engage? Understanding the incentive to build nonprofit capacity. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol 21 (1) 5-20.
So are we ready for capacity building? Apparently there is still some work to do around authentic two-directional dialogue. Thanks for starting the conversation.
BY Marissa Tirona
ON January 19, 2011 03:59 PM
As noted in the article, cohort capacity building is an effective strategy towards helping nonprofit staff become more effective in their organizational roles. At CompassPoint, it has also been our experience in working with cohorts from various fields within the sector that the benefits of such capacity building extend beyond the four walls of an organization. Indeed, this type of capacity building can be an effective strategy in facilitating the creation and development of a shared vision for the field. The cohort setting can support individual leaders in getting clarity regarding what large-scale change they really seek and coordinating activities among individual organizations. It can also support the strengthening of an entire field’s “leadership bench”; as the cohort deepens its understanding of a shared agenda, it also begins to identify what the leadership needs are across organizations and networks to ensure that the agenda can be implemented. In our work, participants have highlighted this as a significant benefit of learning and developing in a cohort setting. For many, the cohort setting often offers the first chance to reflect on and dialogue about what it means to be leaders in a community, field and movement. Consequently, we’re attuned to the broader impact of cohort work given the tangible and realizable benefit of supporting larger scale field and movement building.
BY Kevin Johnson
ON January 20, 2011 11:06 PM
Having worked with cohorts of like minded groups and groups with different purposes, I have observed value in both. Interestingly enough, the mixed cohort participants seemed to me to get more out of the mix. However, both types of groups benefited from peer learning, even a positive peer pressure experience. The group experiences also gave many participants confidence to actually implement their plans.
The cohort model has much to recommend itself. However, the model is only as good as the consultants and facilitators. I noticed that a mix of skill sets and experiences on the part of the facilitators was critical for the kind of success we would all like to brag about. While my observations are of course limited, most consulting groups I have observed have a focus for a particular market and as a result, when working with cohorts may inadvertently try and use existing skills sets/staff and, in effect,end up trying to put round pegs in square holes.
I would urge donors and foundations to strongly encourage support not only of groups doing or experimenting with this kind of work already but putting together new collections of people who are passionate about helping the nonprofit and social profit world live up to its potential. Combining both might enable the promise of cohorts be fulfilled.