Ready, Set, Go!

Nurturing Organizational Readiness for Cross-Sector

Partnerships within an International Development NGO

Marilyn Friedmann
Friedmann Strategic Consulting

1
Marilyn Friedmann

Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Seeking to Understand Perceptions and Concerns within the INGO Community

with Respect to Partnering with the Private Sector............................................................4

3. Innovations in Increasing Organizational Readiness for Cross-Sector

Partnerships with the Private Sector....................................................................................6

4. Next Steps................................................................................................................................. 9

5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 10

Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 11

Bibliography................................................................................................................................ 15

Notes............................................................................................................................................ 17

2
Marilyn Friedmann

1. Introduction
Despite growing international support for multisector partnering to foster sustainable development, some
stakeholders still hesitate to embrace this strategy. In the past several years, while working with
international development NGOs (hereafter referred to as INGOs), I have encountered a fair amount of
opposition to partnering with the private sector – especially with transnational corporations that do
business in developing countries.

This project focuses on innovative ways to nurture organizational readiness to engage in cross-sector
partnerships from the perspective of INGOs. In the PBAS wheel, “Where Could You Apply Brokering
Skills?” this innovation would fall primarily within the Partnership Exploration phase, beginning with the
Internal Assessment stage. However, elements of building organizational readiness may be required at
each phase of the cycle until an organization becomes comfortable with the process.

Management support for cross-sector partnerships is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success.
Stakeholders’ concerns, if not addressed, are likely to frustrate partnership efforts. Nurturing
organizational readiness requires active listening over time in order to ascertain current perceptions,
realities, and concerns within the initiating organization and its stakeholder groups and then working to
resolve outstanding issues. In this way, an organization can move forward with greater clarity,
commitment, and trust.

I begin by exploring some of the concerns that exist within the INGO sector. I then identify innovations
that I have borrowed from other disciplines during the period of professional practice. After this, I outline
an area of innovation that I am starting to apply in my brokering work. Section 4 concludes the paper.

3
Marilyn Friedmann

2. Seeking to Understand Perceptions and Concerns within

the INGO Community with Respect to Partnering with
the Private Sector
In September 2006, in Cambridge, UK, the International Business Leaders Forum, the Overseas
Development Institute, and the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry held a conference titled
The Partnering Event.1 One workshop at that gathering was “To Partner or Not To Partner: The NGO’s
Dilemma.” Concerns voiced by participants in this workshop included these:
 Potential for an image or brand crisis [relating to] real or perceived conflicting values.
 Lack of organizational fit, for example where work cultures differ.
 The question of trust, transparency, and true intentions as to the intended depth of engagement
by the company.
 … changing focal points within partner institutions and the maintenance of a relationship after a
“champion” has left the organization.

The Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC) 2 has produced numerous papers about
INGOs’ engagements with the private sector. CCIC members’ expressed concerns have included these: 3
 Risk of damaging the INGO’s reputation.
 Conflicts with other INGOs that are using other tactics to encourage socially responsible
behaviour by corporations.
 Risk of compromising the INGO’s mission, integrity, and reputation.
 Power imbalances between INGOs and the private sector.
 Danger of co-optation.
 Potential damage to the organization’s credibility vis-à-vis communities they work with, donors,
volunteers, and other INGOs.
 The sense that the private sector and INGOs “don’t know each other” and ”have different
values.”4

Other concerns I have encountered in INGOs include these:

 There is credible evidence that generally, the poor in developing nations have not benefited
adequately from the presence of extractives companies.5
 The presence of multinational corporations in developing countries has sometimes contributed to
human rights violations, disruption of land rights, increased conflict, and environmental
degradation
 Rapid increases in mineral exports in developing countries, through the Dutch Disease or similar
“crowding out” effect, causes appreciation in real exchange rates, reducing international
competitiveness of agricultural and manufacturing exports, often leading to reduced employment
in these sectors, which tends to hinder poverty reduction. 6
 Many INGOs are unfamiliar with the partnership approach to “doing business.”
 Some key players, especially in INGO field offices, are comfortable with traditional funding
mechanisms such as child sponsorship and government grants. They see no need to try new
approaches, especially when new expectations are attached.
 Many INGOs do not understand the business case for partnerships with corporations, and do not
see such partnerships as worth the investment in time, staff training, and so on.

4
Marilyn Friedmann

 INGO offices in the developed world may perceive that they exist to provide financial support for
work in developing countries and that focusing on anything else is outside their purview.

The CCIC has identified three core paths of INGO–private sector involvement: 7
 Advocacy and promotion of appropriate national and multilateral regulation.
 Direct dialogue with individual corporations or corporate sectors.
 Social partnerships and strategic alliances with corporations.

There seems to be peer pressure among INGOs to utilize advocacy and direct dialogue paths rather than
partnerships with corporations. The entrenched view is that “good” INGOs must battle the “bad” forces of
the business world. However, progressive INGO leaders are increasingly willing to take a broader view
and to explore new approaches to engaging with the private sector.

There are several reasons why INGOs are more willing than before to explore cross-sector partnerships.
Identifying and understanding the mindset of an INGO and its stakeholders early on enables the broker to
address the issues. The alternative is to ignore them, with negative consequences down the road.

5
Marilyn Friedmann

3. Innovations in Increasing Organizational Readiness for

Cross-Sector Partnerships with the Private Sector
John P. Kotter, in Leading Change, outlines an eight-stage process for creating change:

1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency

 Examining the market and competitive realities.
 Identifying and discussing crises, potential crises, or major opportunities.

2. Creating the Guiding Coalition

 Putting together a group with enough power to lead the change.
 Getting the group to work together as a team.

3. Developing a Vision and Strategy

 Creating a vision to help direct the change effort.
 Developing strategies for achieving that vision.

4. Communicating the Change Vision

 Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies.
 Having the guilding coalition role model the behaviour expected of employees.

5. Empowering Broad-Based Action

 Getting rid of obstacles.
 Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision.
 Encouraging risk taking and non-traditional ideas, activities, and actions.

6. Generating Short-Term Wins

 Planning for visible improvements in performance, or “wins.”
 Creating those wins.
 Visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible.

7. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change

 Using increased credibility to change all systems, structures, and policies that don’t fit
together and don’t fit the transformation vision.
 Hiring, promoting, and developing people who can implement the change vision.
 Reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents.

8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture

 Creating better performance through customer- and productivity-oriented behaviour, more
and better leadership, and more effective management.
 Articulating the connections between new behaviours and organizational success.
 Developing means to ensure leadership development and succession.

6
Marilyn Friedmann

I applied Kotter’s change model in my professional practice in the hope of overcoming those forces which
often undermine change efforts. In the following subsections, I describe some of the areas in which I
tested innovations.

Establishing a Sense of Urgency

Business Review

I borrowed the business review model that I had grown familiar with in the business world, and adapted it
for the INGO environment. This model enabled me to examine market and competitive realities and
identify challenges, crises, and opportunities. Appendix 1 provides a business review template. This
process was innovative in that it extended fact-finding and reporting efforts more broadly, more deeply,
and more critically than is usual in the sector: it allowed analysis of foreign aid in the context of capital
flows to developing countries; a deeper examination of how social issues affect corporate strategies; and
a global evaluation of progress (or not) in reducing extreme poverty. This model provided valuable
insights prior to a strategic planning work session.

Creating the Guiding Coalition and Developing a Vision and Strategy

Strategic Planning Work Session

A strategic planning work session was organized. Knowledgeable and caring stakeholders were gathered
from several levels of the organization, who developed a vision and strategy for cross-sector partnerships.

Group strategic planning is nothing new. However, we employed innovative approaches to improve our
chances for success.

Strategic planning for a single area of opportunity is often done by a middle manager; the plan is then
integrated into the organization’s broader plans. This approach can work for established lines of business
but is inappropriate for complex problems and opportunities that will require significant organizational
change.

Adam Kahane explains problem complexity well in Solving Tough Problems:8

Simple problems, with low complexity, can be solved perfectly well – efficiently and effectively –
using processes that are piecemeal, backward looking, and authoritarian. By contrast, highly
complex problems can only be solved using processes that are systemic, emergent, and
participatory.

In preparing for this session, I evaluated a number of strategic planning models. In the for-profit marketing
world, I had often put strategic questions to the group using brainstorming and norming techniques. This
had worked well, but I was concerned that it might be too restrictive for the situation at hand. In consulting
with others – including my mentor, Trish Hall – I was reminded of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). I judged that
while elements of AI would be helpful, group storming and norming would be more suited to the
organization’s present needs.

Appendix 2 provides a template for the strategic planning work session. During it, we identified and
worked through key strategic questions and raised difficult issues. We emerged with a greater
understanding of and support for partnerships with the corporate sector.

Appreciative Interviews

With Trish Hall, I concluded there was merit in balancing the more business-oriented strategic planning
agenda with the more nurturing elements of Appreciative Interviews. This was an ideal opportunity for
people to bond with one another and to establish a positive atmosphere. Our agenda was tight, so we

7
Marilyn Friedmann

were unable to complete all the debriefings. However, the debriefings that were presented were well
received; they helped us to see individuals more holistically and understand their concerns. We will
complete the debriefings in future meetings of this group as we move forward.

Communicating the Change Vision

After the strategic planning session, highlights of the business review and strategy insights were
presented at an all-staff meeting. Points were presented in a way that helped staff understand the context
of international development efforts and that provided compelling reasons why partnerships with the
private sector are necessary (see Appendix 3). Many employees reported that they had experienced a
“wake-up call” that “shook us out of our comfort zone” and made them feel that there were important and
exciting challenges ahead. It seemed that the staff were genuinely engaged. This was deeply gratifying. A
similar effort has been undertaken by members of the Guiding Coalition in a recent meeting with the
organization’s East and South Africa regional teams.

Generating Short-Term Wins

Deliberative Dialogue

As we began to focus on matching regional program strategies with prospective corporate partners’
interests, concerns started to surface, particularly with respect to partnering with mining companies.
Canada is home to more mining companies than any other nation. At our national office and among field
office teams, concerns surfaced regarding our plans for exploring partnerships. In the Canadian office, the
issues explored related most often to the following:
 The recent Roundtables on Extractive Industries and Corporate Social Responsibility that have
taken place in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal over the past six months.
 The work done by the CCIC’s Learning Circle on INGO Engagement with the Private Sector.
 A paper published by Oxfam America in 2001 titled “Extractive Sectors and the Poor.”

One team manager identified herself as a trained facilitator and offered her expertise and materials to
help work through the tough issues. In January we will begin to apply Deliberative Dialogue 9 to our
internal discussions in order to name and frame issues in search of common ground that will enable us to
establish an agreed way forward in pursuing cross-sector partnerships.

8
Marilyn Friedmann

4. Next Steps
One innovation that I am beginning to apply will, I believe, be especially helpful in increasing
organizational readiness.

In Social Intelligence, Daniel Goleman offers profound insights into how our daily encounters influence
our interpersonal world. Of particular interest here is how groups that are divided by prejudice can learn to
make progress together. Goleman introduces the I-It interaction concept of philosopher Martin Buber.

In I-It interaction, Buber wrote, one person has no attunement to the other’s subjective reality,
feels no real empathy for the other person. The lack of connectedness may be all too obvious
from the recipient’s perspective … Buber coined the term “I-It” for the range of relations that
runs from merely detached to utterly exploitative. In that spectrum others become objects: we
treat someone more as a thing than as a person.10

Later in the book, Goleman refers to “Us–Them,” which

restates I-It in the plural: the underlying dynamics are one and the same. As Walter Kauffman,
the English translator of Martin Buber, put it, with the words “Us-Them,” “the world is divided in
two: the children of light and the children of darkness, the sheep and the goats, the elect and
the damned.” The relationship between one of Us and one of Them by definition lacks empathy,
let alone attunement. Should one of Them presume to speak to one of Us, the voice would not
be heard as fully or openly as would that of one of Us – if at all. The gulf that divides Us from
Them builds with the silencing of empathy. And across that gulf we are free to project onto
Them whatever we like.

This sort of “Us-Them” dynamic exists in many situations, including within and among the state, market,
and voluntary sectors. It is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of organizational willingness to explore
multisector partnerships. Goleman introduces the exciting work of social psychologist Thomas Pettigrew,
who has been studying prejudice and seeking ways to close the “hostile divide.”

Pettigrew has led the largest analysis of studies ever on what kinds of contact change hostile
groups’ views about each other …

Significantly, studies that track the time course of across-the-divide friendships show that the
closeness itself leads to a reduction in prejudice. But mere casual contact on the street or at
work does relatively little, if anything, to change hostile stereotypes. Pettigrew argues that the
essential requirement for overcoming prejudice is a strong emotional connection. Over
time the warmth each person feels toward the other generalizes to all of Them.

I believe that this Us-Them dynamic is at the heart of much of the tension that exists between the
corporate and INGO sectors, and within INGOs – between those who are opposed to partnerships with
the corporate sector and those who believe such partnerships are important. The more ways we find to
nurture strong emotional connections within the organization and with prospective cross-sector partners,
the more likely we will be to break down Us-Them barriers and move forward in authentic partnerships.

9
Marilyn Friedmann

5. Conclusions
There is plenty of evidence that past approaches by the state, market, and voluntary sectors have proven
inadequate in mitigating poverty. Partnerships for sustainable development are a step in the right direction
but are not a cure-all.

Leading and sustaining change is always difficult. It is even harder to do so within complex organizations
and especially between sectors, which tend to view the world differently and often harbour negative
feelings about one another.

In this paper I have focused on innovation in nurturing organizational readiness to engage in cross-sector
partnerships from the perspective of INGOs. To develop a climate for partnering with other sectors,
particularly the private sector, one must first acquire a solid understanding of the perceptions and
concerns of the INGO’s staff and stakeholders. Having done so, the organization can address those
concerns as it prepares to navigate the shoals of cross-sector partnerships. If the ship’s crew are well
prepared, understand one another, and can work together in a spirit of trust, they may well succeed in
their mission.

Kotter’s eight-step process for creating major change is one of the tools that has been added to the
partnership broker’s toolbox for navigating cross-sector partnerships. A rigorous business review process
was undertaken to examine market and competitive realities and to create a larger and more compelling
view of the role of INGOs in the broader context of international development. A group strategic planning
process that was systemic, emergent, and participatory helped develop a vision and strategy for
partnering with the corporate sector and going beyond the traditional realm of philanthropic partnerships.
The Appreciative Interview process helped team members get to know one another at a deeper level; it
also set a positive climate for gathering individuals into a team. The change vision was communicated at
an all-staff meeting and continues to be communicated to other key stakeholders. Deliberative dialogue
will soon be undertaken to name and frame the issues and concerns within the initiating organization in
pursuit of common ground. New findings in the field of social intelligence are now being applied within the
organization in an effort to overcome whatever prejudices exist both inside the organization and against
the private sector or elements thereof.

The period of professional practice has been an incredibly exciting time of individual and organizational
learning, growing, and testing, and for developing new capabilities for partnering with the corporate world.
We have set out on a journey that some crew members are excited to join. Others, however, still have
their doubts. Fund-raising and grant-seeking approaches will continue to be vital to enabling the important
work of INGOs. However, multi-sector partnerships for sustainable development represent an important
and exciting opportunity for this organization to enhance its impact on poverty mitigation.

The waters ahead look challenging, exciting, and highly rewarding for the critical mission we have
undertaken! Cast Off!

10
Marilyn Friedmann

Appendices
Appendix 1
Business Review

1.0 Business Performance Overview

1.1 Performance Summary

How has [name of INGO] performed historically in the corporate segment both in Canada and in
other countries of operation? How well have business objectives been achieved? How are we
performing relative to other organizations similar in nature?

1.2 Business Outlook

What are the key trends in the industry we exist in (not for profit, international development, etc.)?
Is the market growing (from a revenue perspective)? What are the key drivers? What issues and
opportunities exist in the marketplace (current and potential corporate donors / partners)? What
issues and opportunities exist in the communities we serve? What issues and opportunities exist
within our own operation? What are the internal and external forces impacting our performance?

1.3 Key Learning

Where have we been successful / unsuccessful? Where are we likely to have the greatest
potential? How are corporate donor / partner preferences changing in terms of charitable
interests?

2.0 The Marketplace

2.1 Size and Growth

What is the relative size of each of our market segments? What is the size of the corporate
market? What is happening with respect to government funding for development? How does our
performance compare within our peer group / industry? What has been the market growth? What
has been our “share of the market”? Are there any industry performance comparisons? How have
we performed by region? Look at how much corporations are giving to various types of charitable
organizations and what % is going to international development. Look at North/South Institute
figures on overseas development investment, etc. What information do we have on multi-sector
partnerships undertaken by our organization or others? What have we learned?

2.2 Trends in the Canadian Sector

2.3 Trends in the International Sector

3.0 The Donor & / or Partner

What research or other learning do we have that will impact our partnership / fundraising /
marketing strategies and plans? What feedback do we have from corporate donors / partners
about what we are doing well, what we can do better, etc.?

4.0 Accessing Corporate Decision Makers

What is happening in terms of accessing decision makers in the corporate world? What channels
are increasing / decreasing in importance and how does this compare within the industry? How
do fundraising channels differ between the corporate segment, government funding and
consumer funding? Where are corporate donations / partnerships coming from, how is this

11
Marilyn Friedmann

changing over time and how does this compare within the industry? What is the profile of a
successful corporate “fundraiser” or partnership broker? What issues do we face in fundraising or
partnering?

5.0 Competition
Who are the key players? What are their strengths, weaknesses and apparent goals? What is
happening in the sector that may be a benefit or threat? Who are the new players and
developments? How is the competitive environment changing? How have competitors’ offers
changed and which ones have impacted our business? We will look primarily at competition
within the international development space. How are developments in related areas likely to
impact our business (e.g. socially responsible investment funds, Equator Principles, Global
Reporting Initiative, etc.)

6.0 Macroenvironment

6.1 Economic Environment

6.2 Regulatory Environment

6.3 Cultural Environment

6.4 Sector Environment

6.5 Supplier Environment

6.6 Technological Environment

6.7 Employee Relations and Supply

6.8 Brand Image

12
Marilyn Friedmann

Appendix 2

Strategic Opportunity Work Session

What business are we in?
How does this business segment?
How will this business change in the next three to five years?
What are the key factors for success?
Who is the customer?
What are the customers’ needs?
Who are our competitors?
How do we perform relative to key competitors?
What are the opportunities?
Ranking opportunities
Positioning / basic stance
What do we want to accomplish with corporate partners?
What is our competitive posture?
What are our effort priorities, and who will be accountable for them?

13
Marilyn Friedmann

Appendix 3
 Foreign direct investment is the largest source of external capital flow for all developing countries
taken together.11

 FDI is larger than official (multilateral and bilateral) development assistance.

 Extractive industries dominate the flow of FDI for many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

 Across the developing world as a whole, it is the oil, gas, and mining industries that generate the
majority of tax revenue and export earnings.

 There is growing evidence that mineral-dependent developing countries often experience low
economic growth and high poverty rates.

 A consequence of this has been that the potential contribution of the oil, gas, and mining
industries to economic development and poverty alleviation has increasingly been challenged.

 There is an opportunity for international development INGOs and extractives-based companies to

find ways to work together to contribute to meaningful economic development and poverty
alleviation in developing countries where mining companies are operating.

14
Marilyn Friedmann

Bibliography
Culpepper, Roy. 2004. “Private Foreign Investment: Part of the Problem of Part of the Solution?”
Canadian Development Report 2004: Investing in Poor Countries. Ottawa: The North-South
Institute (available from Renouf Publications).

Diedericks, Linda, Otto Farkas, and Rajat Das. 2006. “To Partner or Not to Partner: The NGOs’ Dilemma.”
The Partnering Event [Conference], Cambridge, UK, September 24–26, 2006.

Goleman, Daniel. 2006. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. New York:
Bantam.

Hutchinson, Moira. 2000. “NGO Engagement with the Private Sector on a Global Agenda to End Poverty:
A Review of the Issues.” http://www.ccic.ca/archives/lc_2000-01_first_workshop.pdf.

––––– 2001. “Canadian NGO Policy Views on Corporate Responsibility and Corporate Accountability: An
Overview Paper Prepared for an NGO-Government Meeting, May 2001.” http://www.ccic.
ca/e/archives/crs_2001_canadian_ngo_policy_views_on_corp_resp.pdf.

Kahane, Adam. 2004. Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New
Realities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ludema, James D., Diana Whitney, Bernard J. Mohr, and Thomas J. Griffin. 2003. The Appreciative
Inquiry Summit: A Practitioner’s Guide For Leading Large-Group Change. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.

Marquardt, Richard (for CCIC). 2000. “CCIC Learning Circle on NGO Engagement with the Private Sector
on an Agenda to Eradicate Poverty.” http://www.fly.net/ccic/devpol/LC11_second_workshop
_ngo_engagement.htm.

––––– . 2000. “Engaged or Entangled? NGO and the Private Sector on an Agenda to End Poverty.”
Summary Report of CCIC Learning Circle. http://wwwccic.ca/e/archives/lc_2000-11_engaged
_or_entangled_summary_report.pdf.

O’Neill, Mary (for CCIC). 2001. “Bridges or Walls: Engaging with the Private Sector – Final Workshop
Report.” http://www.ccic.ca/e/docs/ 002_dev_org_2002_01_final_pse_report.pdf.

Ross, Michael. 2001. “Extractive Sectors and the Poor: An Oxfam America Report.” http://www.
polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/oxfam.pdf.

––––– . 2003. “How Does Mineral Wealth Affect the Poor?” www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/minpoor.pdf.

––––– . 2004. “Mineral Wealth and Equitable Development” (Background Report for the World
Development Report 2006). http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/cv.pdf.

––––– . 2006. “Chapter 8: How Can Mineral Rich States Reduce Inequality?” In Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph
Stiglitz, and Macartan Humphreys, “Escaping the Resource Curse” (forthcoming).

Tennyson, Ros. 2005. The Brokering Guidebook: Navigating Effective Sustainable Development
Partnerships. Cambridge: The Partnering Initiative.

15
Marilyn Friedmann

16
Marilyn Friedmann

Notes

17
1
Diedericks, Farkas, and Das, “To Partner or Not To Partner.” Over this conference’s three days, more than
130 partnership practitioners from business, government, and civil society gathered to push the
boundaries of sustainable development partnerships.
2
The CCIC is “a coalition of Canadian voluntary sector organizations working globally to achieve
sustainable human development. CCIC seeks to end global poverty and to promote social justice and
human dignity for all” (http://www.ccic.ca).
3
O’Neill, “Bridges or Walls,” 6.
4
Ibid.
5
Ross, “Extractive Sectors and the Poor.”
6
Ross, “How Does Mineral Wealth Affect the Poor?”
7
Hutchinson, “NGO Engagement,” 1.
8
Kahane, Solving Tough Problems. 32.
9
http://www.ccic.ca/e/002/public_deliberation_2003_overview.shtml.
10
Goleman, Social Intelligence, 105.
11
Culpeper, “Private Foreign Investment.”