Collaboration in Professional Settings

Nonprofits, if I had to build corporate partnerships from scratch today, here’s the real playbook: 1. Stop begging. Start collaborating. Your opening line to a company should never be: “We’re looking for sponsors.” Instead, it should be: “We’re building a movement around [cause]. Want to co-author the story?” Shift your posture from “needing help” to “offering opportunity.” 2. Ditch the gold-silver-bronze garbage. Create partnership experiences that feel custom-built: Fund an innovation lab Co-host a thought leadership series Launch a branded scholarship program Make them the hero of a tangible impact, not a logo on a step-and-repeat. 3. Play offense on LinkedIn If you’re waiting for CSR managers to stumble onto your website, you’ve already lost. Connect with CSR, ESG, HR, and Marketing leads at 50 dream companies. Post 3–4 times a week showing WHY your mission matters to their brand narrative. Share wins with attribution: “Thanks to partners like [Company], we [result].” Visibility builds familiarity. Familiarity builds trust. Trust builds checks. 4. Build a Corporate Advisory Council. Invite 5–10 execs from different companies to join a “founding circle.” No donation required upfront. What you’re asking for: • Their insights • Their network • Their pride of ownership Once they feel bought in, the dollars will follow. 5. Make it ridiculously easy to say yes. No 17-page decks. No committee calls. No 90-day “we’ll get back to you” limbo. Your ask should be crystal clear: “We have a $25,000 project funding gap.” “Here’s what you’ll get in return.” “Here’s how your brand will be celebrated.” Simplicity wins deals. Period. 6. Follow up like a human, not a robot. No “just circling back” emails. No “checking in on my proposal” DMs. Send them micro-wins: “Just wanted to share, we hit 100 youth served this month!” “This story made me think of your team’s values.” Stay top of mind without being top of inbox spam. In 2025, partnerships are won by building narratives, not asking for charity. You’re not selling sponsorships. You’re offering legacy. Act accordingly. Want to learn how we’re helping nonprofits land $25K–$250K partnerships without begging? Comment “Build” or DM me. We’re opening a private training soon.

Female economists are twice as likely to be denied tenure as their male colleagues. Yet it's not a productivity gap—before tenure review, men and women publish at similar rates in journals of comparable quality. One explanation lies in how collaborative work is recognized. When economists publish solo, women and men have identical tenure success rates. Every solo-authored paper raises the probability of tenure by about 8–9% for both. But once coauthored papers enter the picture, the two paths diverge. Men receive just as much credit for collaborative research as for solo work. Women, however, receive less than half as much credit when collaborating with other women. When women collaborate with male economists, those publications provide virtually no measurable boost to their tenure prospects. This is one of the examples we explore in The Science of Science: credit is not a direct readout of contribution. It's a judgment the scientific community makes, shaped by bias, familiarity, and status—and it can diverge sharply from who actually did the work. So what can we do? One approach is to make contributions explicit. Sociologists typically order authors by contribution rather than alphabetically. Tenure rates in sociology are comparable across genders, suggesting that making contributions explicit leaves less room for assumptions to shape evaluation. Another is to make credit allocation measurable. New computational tools can estimate how the scientific community attributes credit among collaborators. These tools don't completely eliminate bias, but they make an otherwise invisible process visible—helping us understand, and eventually improve, how recognition is distributed. As science becomes increasingly collaborative, improving how we allocate credit may be just as important as improving how we produce knowledge.

Too often, I’ve been in a meeting where everyone agreed collaboration was essential—yet when it came to execution, things stalled. Silos persisted, friction rose, and progress felt painfully slow. A recent Harvard Business Review article highlights a frustrating truth: even the best-intentioned leaders struggle to work across functions. Why? Because traditional leadership development focuses on vertical leadership (managing teams) rather than lateral leadership (influencing peers across the business). The best cross-functional leaders operate differently. They don’t just lead their teams—they master LATERAL AGILITY: the ability to move side to side, collaborate effectively, and drive results without authority. The article suggests three strategies on how to do this: (1) Think Enterprise-First. Instead of fighting for their department, top leaders prioritize company-wide success. They ask: “What does the business need from our collaboration?” rather than “How does this benefit my team?” (2) Use "Paradoxical Questions" to Avoid Stalemates. Instead of arguing over priorities, they find a way to win together by asking: “How can we achieve my objective AND help you meet yours?” This shifts the conversation from turf battles to solutions. (3) “Make Purple” Instead of Pushing a Plan. One leader in the article put it best: “I bring red, you bring blue, and together we create purple.” The best collaborators don’t show up with a fully baked plan—they co-create with others to build trust and alignment. In my research, I’ve found that curiosity is so helpful in breaking down silos. Leaders who ask more questions—genuinely, not just performatively—build deeper trust, uncover hidden constraints, and unlock creative solutions. - Instead of assuming resistance, ask: “What constraints are you facing?” - Instead of pushing a plan, ask: “How might we build this together?” - Instead of guarding your function’s priorities, ask: “What’s the bigger picture we’re missing?” Great collaboration isn’t about power—it’s about perspective. And the leaders who master it create workplaces where innovation thrives. Which of these strategies resonates with you most? #collaboration #leadership #learning #skills https://lnkd.in/esC4cfjS

2 — Solving Goal & Priority Misalignment with Is/Is Not + Perspective Circle.  SOLVING THINGS with SYSTEMS THINKING (STwST) — a series of mini, real-world applications of DSRP. When a team says, “We’re working hard but not pulling in the same direction,” it’s usually not a motivation problem. And it’s rarely a communication problem. It’s a distinction + perspective problem. Different people are carrying different mental pictures of what the goal is and is not, and different perspectives on what actually counts as a priority. So even when everyone uses the same words, they’re not aiming at the same thing. They might be reading the same page but interpreting it differently. Two simple thinking moves fix this. The first is an Is / Is Not list. Take the goal and the priorities and make them explicit: what this goal is, what it is not; what matters now, and what does not. This forces clarity where assumptions usually hide. The second is a Perspective Circle. You don’t need everyone to think the same way—but you do need everyone looking at the same picture. Different roles, levels, and functions can keep their own viewpoints, as long as they’re all anchored to the same shared view. Then keep that shared model on the table. Revisit it at the start of meetings. Use it when tradeoffs show up. Let people argue with it, stress-test it, and refine it. Don’t laminate it. Put it to work. Alignment doesn’t come from hearing the right words once. It comes from people rebuilding their own internal picture until it matches the shared one. When that happens, language cleans up, decisions get faster, resources line up, and the friction fades—because action always follows the mental model. If you listen carefully, misalignment announces itself in sentences that shouldn’t exist if the goal were truly shared. Those sentences are the signal. #STwST #SystemsThinking #CabreraLabPodcast #SystemsThinkingStandardsInstitute

Why it’s time to use reskilling to unlock women’s STEM potential: "Women make up just 28% of the global STEM workforce and only 22% of artificial intelligence (AI) professionals. Left unaddressed, this deficit will restrict innovation and economic growth during the reskilling revolution. Fostering collaboration, cultivating mentorship and delivering tailored solutions to country-specific challenges will close the STEM gender gap. Reskilling provides an opportunity to rethink how we are planning for the future of work. We must reconsider not only how we work, but who works. If the Fourth Industrial Revolution is rewriting the rules of work, now is the time to rewrite the rules of opportunity. Enrolment among women in STEM-related university programs has stagnated over the past decade, with the causes of this disparity differing across industries and regions. If left unaddressed, however, it will compound reskilling challenges that are already expected to cost G20 countries more than $11 trillion over the coming decade. Multiple inspiring stories have shown how these barriers can be broken. Ritu Karidhal, one of the 'rocket women' of the Indian Space Research Organization has inspired a rise in the number of women pursuing STEM fields in India. And she is not alone: From Esraa Tarawneh’s work on mitigating flash floods that's helped multiple communities tackle one of our century’s largest environmental threats, to Ayanna Howard’s assistive technologies that are revolutionizing accessibility for children with disabilities, women are pioneering ground-breaking innovations. Gender-diverse teams are also more profitable and productive. Companies in which female representation exceeds 30% are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with less. Gender diverse R&D teams are also more likely to introduce new innovations into the market over a two-year period. The case for closing the gender divide in STEM is clear, but it will persist without deliberate interventions. Women face a variety of barriers to accessing STEM fields and solutions must reflect this reality. In some regions, there will be a need to break stereotypes that dissuade girls from pursuing science. Elsewhere, the challenge will be infrastructure and ensuring access to resources and learning tools. Addressing these intersectional challenges demands localized strategies, which are essential for creating interventions that have enduring impact." Read more 👉 https://lnkd.in/eryKvFxp #MentorMonth #WomenInSTEM #GirlsInSTEM #STEMGems #GiveGirlsRoleModels

One of the clearest signals of whether a transformation is working isn’t in the plan - it’s in the conversations happening in your teams. So pay close attention to the frequency of healthy debate, constructive challenge and openness to new and divergent ideas that takes place. If the frequency is low… …there is the risk of creating the illusion of performance because people readily ‘understand’ each other, agree on everything, collaboration seems to flow smoothly and there is a collective sensation of progress. However, the opportunity cost is teams gets trapped in their own paradigms, opportunities get overlooked, risks ignored - and ultimately their output becomes derivative not innovative, performance diminishes as opposed to improving and compounding. If the frequency is high… …there is a level of psychological safety that allows for team members to be more objective, to speak up with relevant ideas, to constructively challenge each other, and bring their diverse perspectives and experiences to the table - in the knowledge it won’t be held against them. This opens up the opportunity of reframing the paradigm, and connecting different perspectives and ideas. Ingredients for creativity, innovation, resilience and performance. You see homogeneous teams might feel easier, but easy doesn’t translate into Performance. Here are a few ideas to experiment with your teams… 1. Intentionally foster a team environment that replaces scepticism with intellectual curiosity, an open and learning mindset.   2. Consider how you can create a ways of working that allows all ideas and perspectives from everyone in the room to be heard. 3. Encourage dissenting perspectives. Surrounding yourself with people who are willing to disagree with you and challenge your perspectives and each other. 4. Consider whether you may need to invite others to that creative or idea generation meeting to ensure you get a broader perspective. 5. De-stigmatise failure through sharing past mistakes and celebrating lessons learnt. 6. Institutionalise a team culture of healthy candour. Candour is one of the key attributes to improving the quality of output, levelling up creativity and enabling effective collaboration. What would you add? #transformation #culture #psychologicalsafety

“Why are you doing this?” vs. “How can this move us forward?” One shuts people down. The other sparks progress. A few months ago, I sat in on a tense team meeting. A deadline had been missed, and frustration filled the room. The manager, arms crossed, looked directly at one team member and asked, “Why are you doing this?” Silence. One looked down, scrambling for an answer. Others shifted uncomfortably. The energy in the room had shifted—from problem-solving to blame. I’ve seen this happen countless times. When conflict arises, our instinct is to question, defend, or assign blame. But what if, instead of shutting the conversation down, we opened it up? Now imagine if the manager had asked instead: “How can doing this progress us forward?” The impact is immediate. This simple shift in words changes the energy from defensive to constructive, from looking at the past to focusing on the future. Conflict isn’t the problem, it's how we approach it. Teams that handle conflict well don’t avoid it—they reframe it. They shift from blame to solutions, from frustration to collaboration. This approach is backed by research—high-performing teams aren’t the ones with zero conflict, but the ones that use conflict to drive clarity, alignment, and better decisions. Try this the next time conflict arises: 1️⃣ Pause before reacting – ask yourself: am I looking for blame or a way forward? 2️⃣ Reframe the question – instead of “Why are you doing this?” try “How can we solve this together?” 3️⃣ Turn conflict into clarity – use tension as a signal that something needs adjusting—not a reason to divide. This is part of the COMBThrough series, where we help teams untangle real challenges and turn them into opportunities for collaboration, agility, and performance. So, the next time frustration builds in your team, ask: Are we stuck in the problem, or are we working toward the solution? Would love to hear—how does your team handle tough conversations? ********************************************************************************* Hi! I’m Cassandra Nadira. I help teams unlock their potential to increase performance with proven tools and practices. 🚀 Let’s elevate your team: ✅ Workshops & Trainings – Build self-awareness and leadership agility ✅ Custom Programs – Enhance team dynamics and performance ✅ Speaking Engagements – Inspire with actionable insights 📩 Message me to explore how we can work together! #team #humanresources #workforce #challenges #leadership #learn #development #cassandracoach

Great partnerships don’t echo you. They elevate you. Same strengths. Same blind spots. Same limitations. Smart collaborators do the opposite. In 1958, Peggy Lee needed an arranger for "Jump for Joy." She didn't pick another vocalist. She picked Nelson Riddle. Lee brought raw versatility - switching between jazz and ballads like changing clothes. Riddle brought structural genius - orchestral arrangements that made her voice soar. The result? An album so powerful it's been remastered and reissued for 65+ years. Here's what this teaches us about strategic partnerships: 1. Find Your Musical Opposite • Lee's spontaneity needed Riddle's precision • Your creative chaos might need operational structure • Your technical depth might need storytelling flair 2. Versatility Wins Markets • Lee mastered up-tempo songs AND intimate standards • Range made her irreplaceable across different contexts • Multi-skilled professionals command premium rates 3. Quality Outlasts Everything • Mediocre work gets forgotten in months • Exceptional work gets reissued for decades • Invest in partnerships that create lasting value The strongest partnerships aren't about finding your twin. They're about finding your complement. ♻️ Share this with someone ready to stop hiring their mirror image 🔔 Follow Kabir Sehgal for frameworks that turn partnerships into advantages

My recent research, which examines the adoption of emerging technologies through a gender lens, illuminates continued disparities in women's experiences with Generative AI. Day after day we continue to hear about the ways GenAI will change how we work, the types of jobs that will be needed, and how it will enhance our productivity, but are these benefits equally accessible to everyone? My research suggests otherwise, particularly for women. 🕰️ The Time Crunch: Women, especially those juggling careers with care responsibilities, are facing a significant time deficit. Across the globe women spend up to twice as much time as men on care and household duties, resulting in women not having the luxury of time to upskill in GenAI technologies. This "second shift" at home is increasing an already wide divide. 💻 Tech Access Gap: Beyond time constraints, many women face limited access to the necessary technology to engage with GenAI effectively. This isn't just about owning a computer - it's about having consistent, uninterrupted access to high-speed internet and up-to-date hardware capable of running advanced AI tools. According to the GSMA, women in low- and middle-income countries are 20% less likely than men to own a smartphone and 49% less likely to use mobile internet. 🚀 Career Advancement Hurdles: The combination of time poverty and tech access limitations is creating a perfect storm. As GenAI skills become increasingly expected in the workplace, women risk falling further behind in career advancement opportunities and pay. This is especially an issue in tech-related fields and leadership positions. Women account for only about 25% of engineers working in AI, and less than 20% of speakers at AI conferences are women. 🔍 Applying a Gender Lens: By viewing this issue through a gender lens, we can see that the rapid advancement of GenAI threatens to exacerbate existing inequalities. It's not enough to create powerful AI tools; we must ensure equitable access and opportunity to leverage these tools. 📈 Moving Forward: To address this growing divide, we need targeted interventions: Flexible, asynchronous training programs that accommodate varied schedules Initiatives to improve tech access in underserved communities. Workplace policies that recognize and support employees with caregiving responsibilities. Mentorship programs specifically designed to support women in acquiring GenAI skills. There is great potential with GenAI, but also risk of leaving half our workforce behind. It's time for tech companies, employers, and policymakers to recognize and address these gender-specific barriers. Please share initiatives or ideas you have for making GenAI more inclusive and accessible for everyone. #GenderEquity #GenAI #WomenInTech #InclusiveAI #WorkplaceEquality

🚨STORY TIME🚨 I just got off a call with a nonprofit (that I've sponsored before in my past career) that a brand I currently support is considering sponsoring. The nonprofit scheduled 30 minutes to introduce themselves and share updates on their upcoming event. Sounds promising, right? But here’s the reality: the call lasted 7 minutes. Time set aside by both organizations for the nonprofit to make a first impression, build a relationship, and align with the sponsor. And all they did was share event updates since their sponsorship application had slightly changed. No introduction of their team or mission. No meaningful conversation about impact. No attempt to understand the brand’s goals or how we could work together long-term. 👉 That was a wasted opportunity. Because let me tell you—getting any time on the calendar with a sponsor is a big deal. You have to maximize it. Here’s how this call could have gone differently: 1. Have a clear agenda and respect the sponsor’s time by planning key talking points: introductions, impact highlights, alignment questions, and next steps. 2. Introduce your team even if it’s just one or two people, humanize the conversation before jumping into the details. Sponsors want to know who they’re partnering with. 3. Share your “why" and go beyond event details. What community impact are you creating? Why should your mission matter to the brand? 4. Ask about the sponsor’s goals. Too many nonprofits forget this and sponsors aren’t there for charity—they’re there for alignment and ROI. 5. Highlight partnership opportunities and paint the vision for what is possible through partnership. Don’t just report updates—invite them into the vision. Show how their involvement could grow into more than a one-time transaction. 6. Confirm next steps and always leave the call with clarity: What’s the timeline? Who’s responsible for follow-up? When’s the next touchpoint? A 30-minute call could’ve opened the door to long-term partnership and curiosity to a future together. Instead, it left both sides empty-handed. In fact, one of the brand's staff members mentioned to me, "that was a waste of time, it could have been an email." 💎 Nonprofit leaders: if you’re securing time with a sponsor, treat it like gold. Don’t waste it.