Dalberg Catalyst

?? 2025 Learning Series | Final Part (of 7) Thank you for following along with our learning series. You can find all the posts on the Dalberg Catalyst page. Over the past weeks, we’ve shared key lessons from our experience as practitioners of systems change—reflecting on the most transformational insights from our work in 2024. We've explored specific initiatives, examined the dilemmas we face, and unpacked what it takes to drive meaningful, systemic shifts. At Dalberg Catalyst, learning isn’t just something we do—it’s embedded in how we work. Systems change can’t happen in isolation, and real progress requires experimentation, iteration, and even failure. We believe in learning by doing: testing ideas, analyzing outcomes, and staying agile enough to adapt in real time. We see this as a quadruple-loop learning journey: 1.?Tactical learning – Using results to refine our portfolio and approaches; 2.?Operational learning – Using insights to continuously adapt our coalitions and partnerships; 3.?Strategic learning – Using findings to continue to sharpen our narrative and framing; and 4.?Existential learning – Using deeper reflection to continuously interrogate the dilemmas at the heart of our work. Continuously assessing all four loops allows us to challenge assumptions, adjust course, and ultimately build more effective initiatives. We are committed to learning together—openly sharing what works, what doesn’t, and how we collectively make sense of the complex challenges we face. Now, we’d love to hear from you. What have you learned about systems change through your work? What insights have been most transformational for you in achieving real change? Join the conversation in the comments or reach out to us directly at [email protected]. Let’s keep learning, together. #DalbergCatalyst #SystemsChange #TransformationalLearning #Collaboration ?Dalberg Catalyst Jordan Fabyanske Aaron Mihaly Robyn van den Heuvel Juliana Lopes Sauaia Chris Devairakkam Sumedha Rowel Charlotte Baylis Sandy Majola Katie Baldassar ?

?? Learning series (part 6 of 7) In last week’s post in this series, my colleague Robyn van den Heuvel underscored one of our team’s deepest lessons learned: that strategies for transformative change must be collectively owned. Those strategies also need to be actively managed to ensure momentum. When Catalyst is invited to undertake stewardship of an existing or emerging field’s strategy, we recognize that the role we are called to play is as much about ensuring a healthy and adaptive field as it is about a robust and well-supported strategy. After all, “a system is what it does”—it makes little sense to say a field of actors has a strategy or represents a portfolio if they do not follow through with any fieldwide coherence or momentum. Over the past five years, we've come to realize that when a whole field is healthy and adaptive, it operates as a sort of Transformation Flywheel Ecosystem—a "flywheel" in the sense that diverse actors collectively power a self-reinforcing feedback loop that gains and sustains momentum over time. Exemplary Flywheel Ecosystems include the fields of actors who have, collectively, managed to significantly turn back the AIDS epidemic as well as those who have rapidly accelerated solar power, for example. Segments of a functioning Flywheel, in our view, include the entire, multi-layered stacks (plural) of actors working to: Invite and Engage, Build Strength, Do and Learn, and Nurture the Narrative. The absence or isolation of any of these segments limits an entire Flywheel's ability to power exponential change. And, at the center of these segments, are co-owners of the field's strategy, including those with direct stakes in the consequences, relevant technical expertise, a transdisciplinary view, and the authority and resources to act. A fieldwide Flywheel is able to adapt and gain momentum over time because, critically, its trusted orchestrators have an unbiased, stable base from which to operate--including strategic, accompanying support and flexible, multi-year funding--a base often distinct from the orchestrator's original organization because it's hard for a field to fully trust an orchestrator whose institutional home is bent on scaling its own services or otherwise actively competing for funding with the field of partners calling for orchestration. Looking across our platform, we recently used a version of this Flywheel framework to check the pulse—and detect the palpitations—of the mission-led fields we serve. (Spoiler: we and our partners could be doing much more to elevate collective success stories, nurture narrative change, and inspire more audacious mobilization.) Suffice to say, we’re still learning … which is the topic of our next and final post in this series. #collectivechange #systemschange #transformation #scalingimpact #exponentialchange #narrativechange #socialinnovation Dalberg Catalyst, Sonila Cook, Robyn van den Heuvel, Aaron Mihaly

?? 2025 Learning Series (part 5 of 7) Did you miss part 4? See Jordan Fabyanske's reflections on the importance of system orchestration. Systemic change doesn’t happen through isolated projects. It happens when a whole field of actors moves together, with a shared strategy that they co-own. At Dalberg Catalyst, we’ve seen time and again that transformative change requires collectively-owned strategies. When strategies belong to just one organization, they live and die with that organization. But when strategies are co-owned, they align funders, decision-makers, and implementers to move with greater cohesion, agility, and impact. The Climate Smart Forest Economy Program (CSFEP) is an example of this. Between 2020 and 2023, CSFEP launched 15 ambitious projects around the world to test forest economies that could work for people, nature, and climate. But when we looked back a year later, we saw a mixed bag of results. Some projects had thrived. Others had faded. Why? Because instead of developing co-owned strategies with our partners, we had largely invited?partners?into projects that advanced our own agenda. That strategy worked to complete those projects, but it didn’t build momentum, support other projects, or unlock systemic change. So in 2024, we made a major shift. Now, we build coalitions in different regions, bringing together stakeholders to develop collectively owned strategies built on the collective wisdom?of all partners. Here’s what we’ve learned so far about how to develop these co-owned strategies: 1. Bring the right people to the table—local leaders, experts, and those who have a direct stake in the outcomes. 2. Foster shared understanding and collective agency—so everyone feels invested and empowered to act. 3. Ensure strategies evolve with the movement—keeping the momentum going as new challenges and opportunities arise. When we build co-owned strategies in this way, it’s possible to drive momentum through tough, interconnected global crises. Dalberg Catalyst dives deeper into the importance of co-owned strategies in our recent article published in?Stanford Social Innovation Review—you can check it out?here: https://lnkd.in/dqaVWjRD Stay tuned for the next article in our series, where we’ll reflect on the importance of stewardship for these agendas. Dalberg Catalyst Sonila Cook Jordan Fabyanske Chris Devairakkam Aaron Mihaly Katie Baldassar Charlotte Baylis Bongiwe Shongwe Nelly K. #SystemsChange #CollectiveAction #ClimateAction #Collaboration #ForestEconomies #CoalitionBuilding

?? Learning series (part 4 of 7) ? What do we look for, when we look for a system orchestrator? In last week's post for this mini-series, my colleague Aaron Mihaly reflected on the power of fieldwide collaborative action, noting that success hinges on strong lateral relationships, among other conditions. ? When developing lateral relationships within a given field, it is generally more effective (and easier) to enlist the support of a system orchestrator. When developing lateral relationships across multiple fields, it is essential. In fact, we have yet to see partners across fields make meaningful progress on a transformation agenda without an orchestrator or orchestration team—in part because it takes a broader view of what would-be partners could achieve together, to recognize the value of investments in outside-the-box partnerships. ? The roots and drivers of complex global challenges almost always span across multiple fields. And yet if we pick two or more of the 17 SDGs out of a hat, we are likely to find actors working in silos despite the interrelationships between the challenges and between the opportunities they face. ? In our experience, the demand for orchestration often arises before the individual or team of would-be leaders-of-leaders recognizes the role they could play. The most promising candidates tend not to self-promote. Rather, they are invited by actors across the relevant fields, to step up. Trust, in our view, is such a critical success factor that it typically makes more sense to first consult across fields to see who could be a trusted orchestrator than to invite interested candidates to make the case for themselves. We have found it necessary to invest in the search for and recruitment of individuals and teams who can play the orchestration role—both at the outset and when it comes time for leadership to transition (as leaders inevitably must). ? What do we look for??Relevant technical knowledge, network connections, influence and integrity are obvious table-stakes qualifications. We’ve come to appreciate that a systems lens, exceptional facilitation and coalition-building skills, the ability to foresee and combine complementary partner strengths, and ability to inspire movement-generous partner behavior, are often the ultimate differentiators—and these can take decades to develop. ? To be sure, system orchestrators are much more like rotating leaders in a jazz ensemble than conductors of an orchestra: some of the qualifications of an orchestrator we look for (technical knowledge, connections, influence, etc.) are both agenda-specific and dynamic, because the portfolio of activities and partners are subject to change over time. ? In short, while the key differentiators remain the same, the optimal profile of a system orchestrator co-evolves with the field's strategy—which is the topic of our next post in this series. #socialimpact #systemschange Dalberg Catalyst, Sonila Cook, Robyn van den Heuvel, Aaron Mihaly

Hello Sharers, We are looking for a Program Manager to join our team at Sharing Strategies! This is a fantastic opportunity for someone to take on a key role in shaping and expanding the Sharing Strategies platform and network. The role is fully remote (GMT-1 to GMT+3) and runs from May 2025 – Nov 2026, with potential for extension. We have attached the job description with more details about this exciting role. If you or someone in your network might be a great fit, please share or reach out! Find more details and apply here:?https://lnkd.in/diCZjgCp Thank you for helping us find the right person! Dalberg Catalyst

??2025 Learning Series (part 3 of 7) In our last post in this series, my colleague Jordan Fabyanske highlighted the power of embracing integral solutions that advance multiple SDGs at once, even if they appear second-best when viewed through a single-objective lens. If integral solutions are key to systemic impact, how can we galvanize and lend structure to the collaborative action needed to advance them? Should it be driven from the top down or the bottom up? We’ve learned that top-down versus bottom-up is not a design choice; it’s a creative tension to continuously manage. Highly effective collaborative action networks integrate and dynamically flex between the two, depending on the moment. And they are most successful when: 1. ??Network members have a common understanding of their situation and a shared sense of purpose 2. ??Network culture balances individual agency with collective responsibility: members aren’t required to take actions but can be firmly encouraged to and then held accountable via social enforcement 3. ??Lateral connections are strong: members trust one another and engage in movement-generous exchanges of intel and support 4. ??The (virtual) space where members meet is facilitated by someone everyone trusts We have seen these ingredients work well in practice with Sharing Strategies, a global climate/development advocacy network in our portfolio. Hundreds of “Strategy Sharers” have coalesced around the goal of reforming the global financial architecture to jumpstart progress on the SDGs and climate goals (shared sense of purpose). As the external context changes rapidly, they meet in large monthly plenary calls (virtual space) to swap intel, make sense of the evolving situation (common understanding), and plan for upcoming global moments. Subsets of Strategy Sharers periodically peel off to form catalytic action clusters around focused sub-agendas. In these smaller cluster meetings, partners align on a joint strategy, coordinate actions (strong lateral connections), and hold one another accountable across meetings (social enforcement). And this dynamic process is orchestrated by a seasoned, widely respected advocate (trusted facilitator). This isn’t just nice-sounding social change theory - it yields results: Sharing Strategies network partners are driving systemic tipping points. Financial architecture reform has risen to the top of the agenda at global summits and international financial institutions are making real changes. Much hard work lies ahead, especially in today’s geopolitical environment, but this agile movement gives us cause for optimism. In our next post, we’ll unpack our learnings on the trusted “systems orchestrator” role: what profile of individual is best suited to facilitate a collaborative action network? Stay tuned... #SystemsChange #LearningAgenda #CollaborativeLeadership #CollectiveAction #SDGs #ClimateAction Dalberg Catalyst; Sonila Cook; Jamie Drummond; Robyn van den Heuvel; Sandy Majola

?? 2025 Learning Series (part 2 of 7) In our first post (by Sonila Cook) in this mini-series, we reflected on the merits of framing interconnected challenges as dilemmas to be navigated, as opposed to problems to be reduced, divided and conquered. Funders and the social innovators they support often focus on individual parts of problems, careful to distinguish (and stay out of) each other’s lane. Collectively, we stack up these parts and assess large gaps in financing, debating which gaps should be addressed soonest. Funders dangle prizes and promote competition to see which solutions represent highest value for the money—all while our collective success hinges on many context-specific and interdependent efforts moving forward in harmony. What does an alternative to this approach look like, when it’s working? The aim of each of our portfolio initiatives is to meaningfully move the needle on multiple SDGs at once. From our experience, this intention is not merely aspirational—it’s necessary. Solutions that are integral to achieving multiple objectives are often overlooked. Because these integral solutions often look second-best (at best) or off-strategy (at worst) when they are viewed through the lens of a single objective or silo of expertise. For example, as co-creators of the Adaptive Cities initiative (www.adaptivecities.org), we’ve found tools and platforms for data integration and prescriptive analytics are not necessarily “first-best” solutions on any specific agenda. And yet, they are on the critical paths to investing in all kinds of solutions that involve prevention—such as solutions to mitigate the risk of extreme heat events and their health impacts—because it is otherwise difficult to assign value to investments that mitigate risks of future loss. While co-creating Adaptive Cities through the 17 Rooms process with Rockefeller Foundation and Brookings Institution, the words of our Brookings colleagues resonated: the SDGs are not “17 silos”, and we can think of any SDG-specific challenge as an entry point to working across the SDGs. And not merely in the sense that one solution’s contributions to an SDG also have co-benefits for others—co-benefits are often an afterthought, at best. Rather, our collective efforts ought to revolve around solutions that are integral to achieving multiple SDGs at once. When we embrace this approach, we’ve found, the solutions tend to be more visionary and more systemic, often involving deeper shifts in how we see ourselves and how we think, make decisions, and work together. Stay tuned for the next installment of our learning series next week—we’d love to hear what our reflections spark for you! Dalberg Catalyst; Sonila Cook; Chris Devairakkam; Aaron Mihaly; Robyn van den Heuvel; Robert Kirkpatrick; Harvey Rubin, PhD, MD #SocialImpact #SystemsChange #TransformativeChange #SDGs #CollectiveChange #AdaptiveCities?#LearningAgenda

As we usher in the new year and reflect on the 5-year anniversary of our initiative portfolio, our team at Dalberg Catalyst is pleased to launch a series of posts about lessons we've learned as practitioners of systems work for societal change. The UN Sustainable Development Goals are meant to be achieved by 2030, yet despite progress in some areas, we remain woefully off-track. The way we’re collectively thinking and working isn’t working.?We believe prioritizing transformative change is more urgent than ever. Complex challenges like pandemic prevention and climate change cannot be addressed without systemic shifts. Breaking problems into quantifiable, attributable metrics may yield small wins, but won’t solve the polycrisis. Instead, framing interdependent problems as dilemmas allows us to embrace complexity and invite would-be partners into dialogue.?And it allows for the emergence of better narratives about the case for systemic change.?Often, our work begins with dialogue amongst a small group of catalysts who spot a contradiction, creative tension, or paradox – points of view that seem to be valid yet incompatible. Through dialogue, we build shared understanding—where we are, where we need to go, and how to get there. Take our Preventing Pandemics at the Source (PPATS) initiative. When others asked how to stop an outbreak from becoming a pandemic, we asked: how do we stop outbreaks from happening at all? That meant looking at root causes and broader systems. It meant addressing a key dilemma: how do we prevent pandemics for everyone—including frontline communities—rather than relying on containment solutions that mainly benefit wealthier nations? How do we reduce viral spillover risk when economic incentives drive greater human-wildlife interaction? The complexity of this challenge requires diverse perspectives and a multidisciplinary approach. Similarly, the cascading crises that engulf our world will persist and worsen as long as we think that siloed, piecemeal problem solving will suffice to address them.?A reductionist approach risks trapping us where we are—playing a zero-sum game, failing to make real progress because we focus on individual trees rather than the catastrophe slowly decimating the forest. Over the next six weeks, we’ll share a lesson on each level of our theory of change. Stay tuned—we’d love to hear what our reflections spark for you! Dalberg Catalyst, Jordan Fabyanske, Chris Devairakkam, Neil Vora, MD, Charlotte Baylis, Aaron Mihaly, Robyn van den Heuvel, Juliana Lopes Sauaia, Sandy Majola, Katie Baldassar, Sumedha Rowel #SystemsChange #TransformationalChange #SocialImpact #ContinuousLearning #LearningAgenda??

How can philanthropy and funding strategies shift from being dominated by funders (funder-owned) to being collectively owned (co-owned) in order to address global and systemic challenges more effectively, equitably, and sustainably? Recommending a highly insightful article in Stanford Social Innovation Review by our strategic partner Dalberg Catalyst. As the article highlights: "It is common practice for major funders to shape agendas, set priorities, and determine how funding is allocated—in short, to “own” strategies for social impact. In competition for funds, would-be partners submit proposals tailored to reflect a prospective funder’s strategy, often conforming to donor expectations and requirements, rather than speaking from their own expertise." As rightly concluded: "Funders’ domination over strategies may be limiting the field’s potential to address the world’s most significant challenges." The article highlights three major consequences of funder-owned strategies: 1. Too siloed: funders talk past each other based on their different understandings of the situation and what matters; 2. Too shallow: funders prioritize short-term, measurable results that can be directly attributable to their investments, often making assumptions about how those results might eventually contribute to something larger; 3. Too rigid: funders fail to adapt their objectives and approaches over time as circumstances change. As concluded: "we as social innovators and funders must evolve the ways in which we collectively think and plan, with an openness to working outside our usual silos. This includes a willingness to yield power and to rise above incentives to compete. This also includes a mindset that asks questions such as “How are my strengths valuable from the perspective of the whole system?” and “With whom can I combine strengths and have multiplicative effects?” The cascading crises that engulf our world—from pandemics to rising inequality to the climate emergency—are rooted in systemic issues that require us to ask these questions. These crises will persist and worsen as long as we pretend that individual strategies to address them are the solution." Our gratitude to the lead authors, Jordan Fabyanske, Sonila Cook, Mariah Levin, and collaborators, including Peter C. Goldmark, Jr. and Robyn van den Heuvel, for eloquently arguing that the way forward for #philanthropy is (a) collaborative narrative development; (b) rebalancing power; (c) aligning goals and resources of all stakeholders; (d) strategic facilitation and leadership (leaders should prioritize humility, generosity, and shared responsibility to drive collaboration); and (e) sustained commitment to systems change. Invaluable food for thought for #philanthropy!???????? Read the full article below or download it using the following link: https://lnkd.in/d9HQKWHu

We are thrilled to see Climate Smart Forest Economy Program (CSFEP) continued evolution as an organization. Based on years of learning-by-doing, they have successfully evolved their organization to focus on supporting coalitions in different regions around the world, developing co-owned strategies. We look forward to continuing to steward this program through the next stage of its journey, and are excited to be a part of the transformative impact it is aiming to achieve. Learn more here: https://www.csfep.org/ #foresteconomies #communities #coalitions #sustainability #biobasedconstruction? Robyn van den Heuvel Katie Baldassar Bongiwe Shongwe Nelly K. Charlotte Baylis