In today’s issue, I’m going to show you the difference between defeatable and undefeatable strategy, and how it relates to making effective change.

Understanding the difference between these two approaches is critical when trying to make progress on social problems like poverty, homelessness and crime.

One type of strategy (defeatable) will often generate a lot of interest, collective outrage about the problem, and support for a brand new solution. What it won’t create is positive impact.

Undefeatable strategy is different. 

It uses a two-pronged approach that simultaneously works inside the system to engineer reform, while organizing in the community to create pressure for change. By positioning yourself to work on both sides of the problem, you separate yourself from the countless us-versus-them activists. This approach, often called the inside-outside game, is where real impact gets made.

Defeatable strategy demands. Undefeatable strategy influences.

How many times have you seen social change approaches like this?

• “We demand action!”
• “The system is broken – let’s blow it up.”
• “If you aren’t with us, you’re against us.”
• “Stop [problem] now!”

Strategy like this is easily defeatable. While supporters love the desperation, urgency, and all-or-nothing thinking, the other side hardens and won’t give an inch.

The masses will hop on the bandwagon – on one or the other side – with yard signs or symbols in their social media profiles. Interest and outrage will soar.

But the approach won’t make a meaningful impact because it immediately triggers resistance inside the system. And the system can outlast the movement. 

You need something more effective: undefeatable strategy.

Here’s how to do it.

Find shared interest within problems

To generate effective change in how a community manages a problem, you have to find shared interest in a particular aspect of the problem among different actors.

One of the easiest ways is to seek more information about the problem.

For example, I used to lead a philanthropic initiative focused on reducing unemployment and improving outcomes of publicly-funded job training programs. There was much disagreement among legislators, bureaucrats, and nonprofits about the best ways to accomplish these goals.

When the initiative started, I had trouble getting my hands on reliable outcome data for training participants. Without outcome data, how could I improve outcomes?

So, instead of telling everyone about the problem of unemployment training programs and how my initiative wanted to improve things (which would have immediately generated resistance inside the system), I asked everyone about how they used outcome data.

It turned out that most actors – even those on very different sides of the unemployment issue and what to do about it – had similar challenges with access to training outcomes.

Shared interest in particular aspect of problem: lack of reliable outcome data

Challenge the blame game mindset

A lot of activists shine light on problems, but then they fail to develop an undefeatable strategy.

For example, a defeatable strategy might look like this:

Once we learned that outcome data for training programs was a problem, we understood that the whole system is focused more on enrollment (i.e. revenue) than outcomes.

We need an entirely new system that puts participant interests first. 

The solution we demand is that all programs report their data publicly.

Who wants to join our coalition to force this change? 

Oof. This strategy would be destined to fail because it would alienate all stakeholders at once.

Legislators don’t want to be heavy-handed in requiring reporting. They blame the state agency for the data problem.

The state agency doesn’t want training providers reporting their own outcomes because the data might be unreliable. They blame nonprofits for poor recordkeeping.

And nonprofit training providers don’t want to spend more time reporting data back to funders. They blame funders for always demanding so many different kinds of data.

This strategy – which in theory could solve the data problem – would have resulted in finger-pointing that only cemented the status quo.

Instead, what if we took a completely different approach that wasn’t riddled with system transformation cliches and preconceived solutions? What if we approached it with a little more thought and intention to bring opposing stakeholders together around shared interest?

Undefeatable strategy: Throw the traditional systems change strategy in the trash and talk with each stakeholder about shared challenges

Develop relationships on multiple sides of the issue

If you’ve hit on a particular aspect of the problem that you and a stakeholder share, you’ve probably got their attention.

But the best way to get them on your side isn’t to blame other stakeholders or convince them of your solution.

All you do is ask a question: 

I wonder how we could overcome this challenge we share?

And then you spend time listening and developing a relationship with them.

This is exactly what I did to solve the outcome data problem.

I worked with system insiders (legislators and state agency leaders) who controlled the rules. I talked with each of them separately about how they could engineer reform that got them the outcome data they wanted.

In different meetings over the same time period, I worked with system outsiders (many nonprofit training providers) to coalesce around how data reporting and access could be easier. 

In both sets of meetings, I listened more than I talked. Whenever I was asked about what I thought should be done, I suggested that win-win solutions (e.g. changes that differing stakeholders could both support) had the best chance of being enacted.

As it turned out, stakeholders on all sides of the issue agree that standardized outcome metrics would be a positive change. And most agreed that legislators should choose the metrics while the state agency assisted nonprofits in publicly reporting outcomes.

It wasn’t quite as easy or “Kumbaya” as that. It took two years of hard work, but our collective work resulted in an online outcome reporting dashboard that is still used today.

The system isn’t perfect. But most agree that it’s better than it was before.

When you demand change, you bolster the system’s resistance. When you seek relationships on both sides of the issue, you succeed in making win-win reforms.

Impact accomplished.

TLDR

• Find shared interests within problems
• Stop demanding systems change or looking for whom to blame
• Develop relationships on both sides of the issue and listen for pragmatic win-win reforms

See you again next week.

==

Whenever you’re ready, there are two ways I can help you:

→ I’m a strategic advisor for the toughest societal problems like poverty, crime and homelessness. People come to me when they want to stop spinning their wheels and get transformative, systems-level change.

→ I’m a coach for emerging and executive leaders in the social and public sectors who want to make progress on their biggest goals and challenges.

Let’s find out how I can help you become transformational.