Collaboration, contracts and covenants

Earlier this year, over breakfast, a long-time mentor and friend asked why organizational leaders in his community struggled at exercising the particular kind of leadership needed to achieve meaningful change on civic priorities, such as safety, housing and economic development.

I gave a long, unsatisfying answer. The women and men who excel at leading banks, universities and law firms struggle to lead their communities to resolve wicked, persistent challenges because:

-          They’re used to being in control and complex, civic  issues cannot be “controlled.”

-          They don’t know how to share power with others.

-          Their leadership techniques don’t work when power is diffuse.

-          They’re comfortable in organizational settings, not in the messy civic arena.

-          The problems of business are less complex than civic priorities.

-          Their individual egos, logos and line items are more important than those civic priorities.

On and on the list goes, but it’s just a list of complaints. I’ve struggled to find the language that helps leaders approach the work of addressing civic priorities differently from how they approach their day jobs.

Recently, a colleague in another community wrote an essay that just might provide some of the language needed to help organizational leaders transition to being collaborative leaders within the civic realm.

Aaron Anderson’s essay contrasts contracts from covenants and builds off the wisdom of Rabbi Johnathan Sacks. Anderson writes: “Contracts…are the market tools for mediating business between strangers.” Organizational leaders excel at many things, including contracts.

In contrast, Anderson writes: “Covenants are the results of meaningful relationships.”

Covenant comes from the Latin “convenire,” meaning to come together, unite. In biblical contexts, “covenant” can refer to the special bond constituted by God’s offer of salvation. In the 1600s, Scottish Presbyterians used the term “covenanter” to describe “one who enters a solemn agreement.”

To some there may not be a meaningful difference between a contract and a covenant, but I value Anderson’s modern adaptation. He writes: “Covenants are reserved for parties that know, love, trust and express fidelity to one another. In a covenant, like a marriage, or even a neighborhood covenant, you seek a common good that includes the well-being of other parties and your own.”

Two essential elements of civic collaboration are the ability to co-create solutions together and to collectively decide how to implement such solutions. Contracts rarely create room for co-creation and collective decision-making. Contracts lay out the terms of what will happen and who will decide ahead of time. They don’t allow room for emergence. When dealing with complex civic issues, solutions cannot be known in advance, so they cannot be embedded into a contract. Rather, the interested players must enter a covenant that allows for answers to emerge over time as they strengthen their relationships and learn together.

Contracts have time limits and can be broken. Indeed, a talented organizational leader that I worked with was fond of observing that a written contract is only useful when it is broken. But as Rabbi Sacks said, “A covenant is a binding commitment, entered into by two or more parties to work and care for one another while respecting the freedom, integrity and difference of each…It is about…coming together to form an ‘Us.’ That is why contracts benefit, but covenants transform.”

We cannot bring a contract mentality to the work of transforming our civic systems. Being a member of a civic collaborative shouldn’t be viewed as entering a contract. It’s a covenant. A covenant that the collaborative’s shared purpose will be paramount. A covenant that we will not break. A covenant that we will not tire of. A covenant that we will not get distracted from.

Undoubtedly, plenty of organizational leaders will roll their eyes at such language. The language of covenants can be easily dismissed as zealotry. But the evidence is clear. Contracts have not resulted in all our children succeeding. Nor have they assured that all our neighbors have stable housing, etc. We need to build the relationships, love and trust necessary to enter a covenant if we are to catalyze the enduring, positive change we want for the communities we care about.