Blog
Partnerships: Scarcity-minded or Abundance-minded?
Author: David Hackett
Date: 23.03.2010
Category: Partnership
Translations
I am quite drawn to this “Scarcity vs. Abundance Management” chart, which I’ve replicated from a recent Wired Magazine article, on how people environments work differently when they perceive themselves to be working in Scarcity as opposed to Abundance.
I think this phenomenon happens in networks and partnerships as well. Scarcity-thinking partnerships assume only permitted actions are allowed. Abundance-thinking partnerships assume all actions are allowed unless some particular action has had to be forbidden.
Abundance-thinking partnerships continually reinforce that we are all equals; there is no “boss” in the partnership. On the other end, Scarcity-thinking partnerships devolve authority into a tight group that believes it knows what’s better for everyone.
Though partnerships don’t operate with a profit plan, Scarcity-partnerships build more rigid approaches that attempt to plan every element in advance. Abundance-thinking partnerships are able to figure out emerging situations as they go along.
These lead to top-down and command-and-control approaches in process and structure for Scarcity-minded partnerships, while Abundance-minded partnerships cherish bottom-up process and a structure that seems, at times, out-of-control.
What has been your experience with partnerships? Are they driven by a sense of scarcity or abundance?
Keywords: partnerships, scarcity, abundance, David Hackett, networks, visionSynergy
- Networks benefit by bringing together practitioners from a variety of approaches
- "Partnership" in Major Global Mission Declarations
- Sure-fire ways to kill a partnership
- The Four Key Questions of Collaboration
- Full Online Copy of "Well Connected" Available
- Get Monthly Partnership Development Encouragement
- On-the-Grounders Missing Media-Generated Inquirers
- Nurturing a Culture of Exchange
- Crossing the Will/Skill Divide
- Are You a Network Owner or a Network Steward?
- A Partnership of Two is Inherently Unstable
Reach Map and Statistics
Views: 9757
Comments: 3
Recommendations: 2
One Click To Action
Connect me with people interested in this resource:
Join related conversations
- The Diaspora Dollar
By gatheredscattered
- The Diaspora Dollar: A response
By al_lee
-
- The Diaspora Dollar: A response
By jpayne
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | The Lausanne Global Conversation is powered by World Wide Open | What is World Wide Open?
Conversation Post Comment
United States
The abundance-type networks I’ve seen create more of an atmosphere where "volunteers" (that is, regular attendees who aren’t in formal leadership) are encouraged to launch out with initiatives. Anyone can start anything. This, by the way, is very much like Web 2.0: Anyone can start a blog, anyone can highlight an article, anyone can propose a new project.
This empowerment has a very positive effect on attendees. They’re not just led around or being done to (being training, being oriented, being there); rather their giftedness is welcomed. They’re given access to the whole group.
A vast difference!
16.06.2010
South Africa
Dear David, thanks for contrasting these interesting different ways of working in partnerships.
What has been your experience in collaboration with volunteers? How have you seen them becoming active participants in the abundance-type partnerships?
23.03.2010
United States
@ rkabutz: This actually is a trickier question to answer than it first appears, Rudolf, depending on what you mean by volunteer!
All of the networks I am in active conversations with and am consulting with (25+ mostly global networks) are made up of "volunteers" - that is, ministry workers from their own organizations who come and volunteer their time/energy/thought to the network. No one is paid (or very few are, perhaps a paid part-time facilitator) to contribute energy to the network. So the dynamic is clearly common of volunteers stocking the person-power in almost all networks. My experience with these volunteers is that we see rings of commitment, higher for those who clearly see the vision, are energized to help fulfill it, who believe in the power of collaboration, and who feel they are well-received in the network so have a sense of belonging and even importance.
Others are less committed, come to glean the occasional bit of helpful information, and do not actively take part other than attend the, say, annual meetings. Others come for ulterior motives, such as coming only to meet up with a funder or even register and come but don’t even attend most of the meetings.
Yes, I’d have to say that I routinely see volunteers successfully becoming active participants in abundance-type partnerships. I think abundance-minded partnerships are better situated to receive and incorporate volunteers - there’s more of a role for them (whereas scarcity-minded ones will restrict significant involvement to an elite or the ones "who know most and decide most."
The other possible meaning of your question is regarding volunteers who are not even sent as a representative of their organization, but who attend on their own. These, too, I have seen successfully incorporated into the significant life of networks. They may be businesspeople, or individual philanthropists, or those who are very drawn to the network’s focus. The wonderful thing about networks is that anyone with a passion for the topic can be a valuable participant and find a helpful way to be of service. I highly recommend it!
24.03.2010
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).