One word best captures the spirit behind the several regional planning processes currently underway in Greater Cincinnati: collaboration. The concept is embedded in the names of some of the initiatives such as Better Together Cincinnati, a coalition of funders led by the Greater Cincinnati Foundation that has taken on the thorny issue of racial justice and equity, and the Collaborative Agreement, which brought together government, civic groups and social activists to address police-community relations.

Likewise, Agenda 360, which is being organized by the Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber, is described on its website as “a group of passionate leaders from a variety of sectors of society in Greater Cincinnati (who) have come together to organize an action agenda.” The Strive initiative boldly declares on its website that it is an “unprecedented collaboration among community organizations that care deeply about educational success in the region.”

Collaboration as a concept is highly valued, but living up to its demands is quite difficult. The very notion of collaboration often is misunderstood. Frequently it is confused with coordination or cooperation, which merely require that participants do what they have always done, just in a more integrated manner. Collaboration implies that something new will emerge from the interaction that did not exist before – something, in fact, that could not exist except for the involvement of every participant.

One useful definition of collaboration comes from the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation in Minneapolis, which states that to have collaboration there must be shared responsibility, shared accountability and shared authority. It is this “shared authority” – or shared power – that makes collaboration most difficult, especially between institutional partners and grassroots partners.

In this context, power is not so much about control as it is the ability of one partner to influence the behavior of the other partners in order to get things done. Part of the difficulty in sharing power between institutions and grassroots sectors is that both sides often enter the relationship with assumptions that hinder their ability to influence one another in productive ways.

Grassroots leaders typically see institutional partners as already possessing power disproportionately. Institutions have financial resources, information, personnel and political clout, community leaders often reason. Therefore, they enter the partnership prepared to defend themselves from being imposed upon by more powerful forces.

Institutions, having encountered such defensiveness, assume the community’s agenda primarily is to fight and disrupt. They question whether the community group is genuinely interested in working together or whether they simply want to score points.

Fortunately, as the various partners involved in Cincinnati’s regional initiatives seek to more deliberately pursue true collaboration, they are learning to move beyond such shallow impressions. For instance, the place matters initiative, which seeks new comprehensive strategies for urban revitalization in three communities, has fostered unprecedented interaction between executives from a number of funding organizations and the grassroots leaders who are implementing programs. Representatives from the United Way, Greater Cincinnati Foundation, SC Ministry Foundation, PNC Bank, Chase Bank, Local Initiatives Support Corp. and NeighborWorks America regularly interact with community leaders in Avondale, Price Hill and Covington, Ky., where the project is taking place.
Such efforts can be frustrating. But as Cincinnati continues to make collaboration a central component of its strategy for civic renewal, progress is being made. As a result, the region’s most significant planning processes are no longer reserved for the “captains of industry.” They are open to leaders from a variety of sectors, all of whom have a unique and essential contribution to make as we continue to grow and improve our region.

The Cincinnati region has capitalized on the growing national trend toward creating collaborative partnerships across sectors to address pressing regional issues. Among institutional sectors – corporate, government and non-profit – the notion of working together has become rather routine. It is hardly unusual for the president of a local non-profit, a CEO of a Cincinnati-based business and a city administrator – or their managers – to find themselves at common tables addressing common problems and finding common ground.

But endeavors to include a fourth sector – grassroots or citizen-based leadership – create a greater challenge. This is not because that sector is not active. Cincinnati has a well-developed network of 52 community councils and hundreds of other formal and informal associations – from Local School Decision-Making Councils to neighborhood business associations to church boards – where people who live, work, worship or socialize in communities gather to take on civic issues. Each of the most prominent regional collaborative initiatives currently underway – including Agenda 360 (regional development), Strive (education), GO Cincinnati (economic development), Arts and Culture Partnership, place matters (community-focused revitalization), Better Together Cincinnati (racial justice and equity), the Collaborative Agreement (police-community relations), and Vision 2015 (Northern Kentucky regional development) – has some kind of deliberate outreach strategy to engage citizen leaders.

Still, each one of these efforts struggles to make the connection. It is no wonder. Institutions are like triangles, hierarchical in nature, with strategic leadership poised at the top and management well defined. Community associations are circular in nature with authority more diffused. Each system has its strengths, but those strengths sometimes contradict each other. Consider these fundamental distinctions, which often create tensions in partnerships between institutions and communities:

Institutions are overwhelming interested in outcomes. Grassroots leaders are equally concerned with process. The journey to the destination says as much to community folks about the integrity of the partnership as does arriving at the right place.

For institutions, decision-making is top down. There might input in the decision-making process, but ultimately someone is clearly accountable to make the final call. At the grassroots level, where true authority is vague, reaching a decision is a lot like sifting for gold. The trivial is continually pushed through the screen through dialogue until something of recognized value eventually remains.

Institutions tend to pre-define success. Indeed, why even begin the work if there is no definable end in sight? Community processes tend to discover success along the way. After all, how can you possibly define success until you begin working together?

Institutions see relationship-building as a strategic tactic. You get invited to participate in the process based on the specific contribution you can make toward reaching the objective at hand. Community leaders see relationship-building as a core strategy. You get invited to the table based simply upon your stake in the community, not your particular expertise.

In institutions, authority is bestowed based upon credentials. A new president can come in from another organization if she has the right credentials, she can immediately assume executive status. At the grassroots level, leadership is earned through loyalty to the community. A successful grassroots leader who moves to another community must prove himself in the new place before any kind of authority is granted.

Given these profound differences, it is no wonder that institutions and grassroots leaders sometimes struggle over agendas, timetables, and leadership. At the heart of these challenges is a simple but ever-present concept: power. Unfortunately, few leaders are comfortable addressing it directly and even fewer know how to do so successfully. We’ll talk about that next time.

On September 18 and 19, Dr. White is conducting a 1½-day workshop for corporate, non-profit and government community relations managers on “Achieving High-Powered Community Partnerships.” The workshop, sponsored by the Community Building Institute, will take place at the Cintas Center. More information can be obtained by contacting Trina Jackson at 513-745-3348 or jacksont@xavier.edu.

When I left here in 1992, the City of Cincinnati was showing signs of slipping economically, socially and physically. In one response, Mayor Charlie Luken persuaded John Smale, the CEO of Procter & Gamble at the time, to head a commission to examine the city’s aging roads, bridges and other infrastructure.
The private-sector commission, made up of the traditional “Captains of Industry,” presented to Cincinnati City Council in 1987 more than 100 recommendations. Their impact continues to be felt. The fact that 20 years later the city’s infrastructure still tends to be in better shape than other parts of our region is a testament to the Smale Commission’s forward-thinking perspective. However, the makeup of the Commission is, in many ways, something of a relic of the past.

Upon returning to Cincinnati 10 years later, I was pleased to find that special commissions continued to be appointed by elected officials and other leaders to address the region’s most pressing issues. But unlike the Smale Commission, today’s working groups are far more inclusive in membership. Collaboration across sectors – corporate, non-profit, government and grassroots – has become the most effective way to solve civic problems nationally. The Cincinnati region has aggressively pursued this course.

The list of collaborative coalitions currently underway in the region is quite impressive. Among the most prominent are Agenda 360 (regional development), Strive (education), GO Cincinnati (economic development), Arts and Culture Partnership, place matters (community-focused revitalization), Better Together Cincinnati (racial justice and equity), the Collaborative Agreement (police-community relations), and Vision 2015 (Northern Kentucky regional development).

The trend took new shape in 2001 when Mayor Luken named the Cincinnati Community Action Now (CAN) Commission to address racial tensions following an episode of civil unrest. A broad coalition of leaders obviously was needed to address such a complex issue. The growing evidence, however, is that such coalitions are essential to effectively tackle nearly any urban problem. Indeed, most sectors have tried independently to fix the problems of urban America using their own initiative and have fallen short.

The federal government’s War on Poverty during the 1960s and 1970s failed to halt urban decline. The Model Cities programs and local initiatives that followed, giving grassroots community groups overwhelming control of resources to fix neighborhoods, were inadequate as well. In the 1980s, the foundation world funded numerous urban ventures, none of which managed to sustain sweeping urban improvement. Throughout the economically robust 1990s, Corporate America stepped forward to manage urban systems such as schools and local government. The solutions seldom led to long-term improvement.

All of these efforts had merit. The problem was that each sector tended to pursue its agenda apart from the influence of the others. Increasingly, there is recognition among civic leaders in Cincinnati that a broad range of perspectives and contributions is essential to bring enough resources, insight and leadership to effectively address the challenges of urban communities. At the same time, new forms of communication technology enable collaboration to take place in ways that were not possible just a few years ago. This blog, for instance, connects people across sector lines, creating more inclusive networks for dialogue and engagement.

This new level of collaboration has not come easily. Each sector has unique approaches to problem-solving. These disparities are most obvious between the more institutional sectors – business, non-profits and government – and grassroots leadership. Overcoming this obstacle is perhaps the next great challenge for many of the region’s collaborative efforts.


On September 18 and 19, Dr. White is conducting a 1½-day workshop for corporate, non-profit and government community relations managers on “Achieving High-Powered Community Partnerships.” The workshop, sponsored by the Community Building Institute, will take place at the Cintas Center. More information can be obtained by contacting Trina Jackson at 513-745-3348 or jacksont@xavier.edu.