The McCune Charitable Foundation deliberately used the principles 4QP discovered in our research on emergence to rethink its grantmaking strategy...and its very way of operating as a grantmaker. This article illustrates how moving from a prescriptive strategy to an emergent one can shift the power imbalance between grantmaker and grantees, expand agency and ownership for complex social change, and potentially create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Now available to download: 4QP just released it's funded research into emergent strategy, using seven examples of widely varying social change initiatives to draw insights about what emergence means, what it looks like in practice, and what it promises to achieve.
What is the difference between those complex systems that adapt relatively quickly and those that do not? In support of our newly released research report, this article takes a deeper dive into what Complex Adaptive Systems research discovered about how systems adapt and what the social sector can learn from these discoveries.
The terms “adaptive” and “emergent” are beginning to be used, often interchangeably, to describe strategies by which funders can tackle complexity. In this article, we propose distinguishing between the two and explore how the research into complexity can inform philanthropic practice. While approaches like systems mapping, scenario planning, and appreciative inquiry have been put forward as useful approaches to expanding perspectives and seeing whole systems, the field needs a framework for going beyond these planning tools in order to actually create the conditions in which emergence can happen – by expanding agency beyond the walls of the funder, distinguishing between goals and strategies, encouraging experimentation around strategies, and supporting whole-system learning. In this article, we offer Emergent Learning as a framework to support the creation of these conditions and describe how the tools help make thinking visible and support real-time and peer learning.
This research into the state of philanthropic learning finds that foundations over-invest in stand-alone learning activities and publish "lessons learned" at the end of a program. They under-invest in creating the links that result in true, continuous learning through their grantmaking.
Solutions to complex social problems remain elusive; at the same time, philanthropy is facing growing pressure to account for its tax-free dollars; to demonstrate, replicate, and scale success; and to be transparent about failed social investments. Learning from failure requires changing deeply rooted habits of thinking, decision-making, and interacting. The authors recommend steps that foundations and their nonprofit partners could take to learn from failed social investments. In Foundation Review, volume 3, Numbers 1-2, 2011, pp 97-109.
Discussing, analyzing and learning from failure should be a common practice that can strengthen the work of all organizations. After reading Mistakes to Success: Learning and Adapting When Things Go Wrong, use the Roadmap's simple set of tools to get started, build the habit and sustain a learning culture that includes learning from failure. Co-authored by Marilyn Darling, Robert Giloth and Colin Austin. 2011.
How do you bring great minds together around complex challenges? Former SoL researcher-consultants Marilyn Darling and Charles Parry recognized that groups need a method in order to effectively capture learning that occurs over multiple events. EL Maps [now called EL Tables] offer a simple and powerful approach to recognize patterns and come up with systemic solutions. As bringing bright people together can be like "herding cats," the EL Map guides groups through iterative rounds of action and thinking towards actionable theory that meets the test of application grounded in real context. In Reflections - The SoL Journal on Knowledge, Learning and Change, volume 8, 2007.
On the face of it, the After Action Review is the simplest of practices. A leader gathers the team after a significant action, compares what they intended and actually achieved, and asks what they want to sustain and improve going forward. What could be simpler? Marilyn Darling, Charles Parry and Joe Moore describe the AAR practices of a nimble, winning organization,the U.S. Army's Opposing Force. They then review the experiences of a range of companies attempting to build "Lessons Learned." Key insight: Companies that succeeded did not conduct check-box AARs - they shifted their thinking so that AAR cycles became the way they tied together leading, learning and execution. Harvard Business Review, July 2005.