text

Case Studies

Real Stories. Real Impact

Transformative Community – Building Journeys

Join us in a world of achievement and inspiration. Our Case Studies and Success Stories showcase the transformative journeys of individuals, organizations, and communities we’ve worked with. Discover how overcoming challenges and leveraging the power of community can literally change lives and the world!

text

Case study 1 Business org

A Change Process in a Business Organization

Faced with the need to establish and strengthen professional communities, our strategy included team training and personal coaching for change agents, creating a comprehensive ‘Toolbox’ for community leaders, and aligning community goals with organizational objectives to raise members’ sense of belonging, engagement, and commitment. The result? A structured approach, enhanced collaboration, and a shift towards embracing a culture of belonging across divisions, building long-term expertise and know-how within the organization.

Building Professional Communities Within an Organization: A Journey of Transformation

The Challenge:

The organization approached us with a need to establish and strengthen professional communities focused on the areas of training and content development. They wanted these communities to foster collaboration and innovation within the organization. The key questions we started with were:

How can we unite members of the professional community around a common mission?
How can the professional community enhance the sense of identity and belonging towards the organization?
How can we bring forward and leverage community members’ assets to benefit the community and the organization?

To address these questions, these were the Key Actions Taken:

Training for the Organizational Development Team: We introduced the team to the language and concept of a “Culture of Belonging.” This was the foundation upon which all other efforts would build.
Personal Coaching for the Training Executive: This coaching aimed to enhance their leadership in community-building and ensure they could effectively guide the process.
Creation of a ‘Toolbox’ for Building Professional Communities: Together with the organization, we developed a comprehensive toolbox designed to assist community leaders in their work. This toolbox included practical tools and strategies for fostering community engagement and collaboration.
Training for Community Leaders: Based on the toolbox, we conducted training sessions for both existing and new community leaders. The goal was to instill a community-building mindset in professional community leadership. These sessions included defining tools and metrics for success and creating initial change plans.

Throughout this journey, we encountered several challenges:

Organizational Prioritization: Initially, professional communities were highly prioritized. However, after management changes, the focus on professional communities decreased. This shift led to less attention and fewer resources, which slowed down their growth, development, and impact.
Cultural Shift: The organization and its employees were very task-oriented. While the importance of connections was recognized, it took significant time for this mindset to shift and become part of the daily routine.
Influence of Change Agents: Those leading and driving the process were not always in positions of sufficient influence to ensure the changes took place effectively.

Our Community-Building (CB) expert collaborated closely with the change team to align the goals of professional communities with the organization’s objectives. Community-building concepts were introduced incrementally to management, fostering buy-in and highlighting the value of professional communities based on Culture of Belonging principles.

Key change agents were empowered with tools, resources, and support tailored to their strengths and experience. The collaborative outcome of this process was encapsulated in the organization’s Professional Communities manual. This manual, a result of our joint efforts, includes concepts, implementation tools, and best practices, advancing a shift towards embracing a culture of belonging across divisions and building long-term expertise within the organization.

This journey, while focused on the professional communities, has the potential to also advance a stronger Culture of Belonging across the organization that will continue to evolve towards a wider, long-term impact.

text

Synaguge Case Study

Building Bridges: A synagogue that builds community.

When a synagogue found itself struggling to retain members and build lasting connections, they knew something had to change. The challenge was clear: how to shift from simply offering religious services to creating a vibrant, engaged community. Through innovative leadership, community-building practices, and a focus on fostering relationships, this synagogue was transformed. Discover how a renewed focus on participation, personal connections, and inclusivity turned occasional attendees into dedicated, active members of a close-knit community.

The Challenge:

The synagogue we met was struggling to bring in new people or to retain those that did come. “We often have new people walk through the doors, but they last for a week or two and don’t return”. They noticed that they were not succeeding in getting people involved for the long term. People mostly came only when they needed something (for example: a Bar Mitzvah celebration or a place to observe a holiday) and once they received what they came for, they left, or if they did remain, they were not active in the congregation.

The Question we Started With:

The question we set out with was: how can the synagogue be transformed from an organization that provides religious services into one that builds a community around it? In other words, how can we change the relationship between the synagogue’s leadership and the community from a “provider-customer” model to one of partnership? so that people stay, step up and show commitment to the place.

Key Actions Taken:

Meetings with both the leadership team and the Board of the synagogue to assess and maps trends that can explain the challenge.
Establishment of a leading team: This team included representatives from the synagogue’s leadership as well as lay leaders and other active community members.
Training for the leading team: Familiarization with the language, key concepts, and work principles of community building, and how they apply within the synagogue and its operations (the difference between a community-building synagogue and a service-providing synagogue).
Guidance and support meetings with lay leaders, rabbis, and the process’s change agent: Each role was assigned specific actions that could be taken in accordance with the principles of community building.

Changes that were Implemented in the Organization as a Result:

During services, the time was used to not only pray, but also to introduce new members and visitors, as well as recognize existing members.
During an “aliyah”, one called up anyone who had a birthday the preceding week. People stopped being “just called up for an aliyah”, but rather one used the opportunity to introduce the person stepping up with an additional personal detail.
Different people took part in leading parts of the service – singing, leading prayer or reading something. Member’s strengths were recognized and leveraged.
Committees: Committees changed their structure and started working as “Bonded Community Teams” strengthening the sense of belonging and community resilience where every voice was heard.
New families welcoming process: The synagogue created structures for welcoming new families, which included opportunities for the families to get to know others and for the congregation to get to know new families, one paired the families with a mentor family, who accompanied them during the first months and helped them connect them to the synagogue’s activities.

Challenges in the process: Participants wanted quick solutions, practical tools and clear tips on how to solve the challenges, without delving deeply into the mindset change. As a result, the change cannot always be sustainable and systemic. Generally, people dislike long processes or lack patience for such processes.

text

A-Jewish-Day-School-in-the-USA

A Jewish Day School in the USA

Faced with the challenge of building stronger connections among families, staff, and students, a group of Jewish day schools set out to create a “Culture of Belonging.” Through collaborative training, school-specific initiatives, and creatively leveraging internal strengths and assets, they transformed decision-making, deepened relationships, and established new support systems—all while navigating the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Challenge:

A number of Jewish schools in a region approached us with the challenge of strengthening the connection of student families to the school and attracting new families to join the school.

The Question We Started With:

How can we enhance the sense of community (meaningfulness, belonging, and commitment) among school attendees (families, staff, students) and build the school as a community? In other words, how do we create a “Culture of Belonging” among families, staff, and students within the school framework?

Key Actions Taken:

Joint Training Sessions for Multiple Schools: Each school sent 2-3 leading professionals (administrators, senior staff) to participate. These sessions included topics such as community-building language and tools, and discussions on issues and challenges through the lens of a “Culture of Belonging.”
School-Specific Initiatives: Each school identified the areas and mechanisms they wanted to change in order to raise the level of community, and initiated a project to implement one significant change.
Implementation of Changes in Schools: The schools began applying the changes they had planned and measured the the sense of community and belonging for all players.

Changes in the Organization as a Result:

Enhanced Connections: People formed new connections with each other that didn’t exist before.
Collaborative Decision-Making: Decision-making processes became more inclusive, involving multiple stakeholders rather than being made by one or two individuals.
Utilization of Human Capital: There was an increased use of internal human resources for leading processes and initiatives, such as personalized invitations for volunteer work based on individual skills, the establishment of new committees, and internal professional development for teachers instead of hiring outside experts.
Support Mechanisms: New mechanisms were established to provide care and support for community members (families, educational staff), demonstrating a multidimensional view of the entire community.

Challenges in the Process:

COVID-19: The process began during the COVID-19 pandemic, making in-person meetings impossible. This hampered process leadership and participant commitment, as they were preoccupied with pandemic-related challenges. On the other hand, the immense need for togetherness during this time accelerated the understanding of the importance of a “Culture of Belonging” and motivated actions to strengthen bonds and community.
Leadership Changes: Several administrators changed during the process, creating difficulties in maintaining continuity, connection to the process, and organizational commitment.
Participant Disparities: There was significant variability in approaches within the schools. Some felt they were already practicing a “Culture of Belonging” and did not see what was new about the process. Others did not understand the relevance of the content to school management. Meanwhile, some participants immediately embraced and connected with the process. This required leading and managing a process involving participants with different mindsets.

Theory vs. Practice: Finding the balance between time needed for understanding and internalizing the theoretical concepts (which serve the long term) and the participants’ need for practical tools (which serve the here and now) was challenging.

text

A leading social organization in Israel

Key Actions Taken:

Developing a shared professional language for all: providing the language, concepts, and approach of community building, while adapting to the organizational environment. The entire staff and lay leaders went through the process: from senior management, and up to the board of directors, to the last employee in the community centers
Creating role definitions and adapting the organizational operations to the new roles: Roles were created, adjusted and changed, and organizational structures, processes and field activities were developed and adapted to support the community building strategy. This was done both vertically (managers at different levels) and horizontally (the organization’s different areas of content).
Implementation of the language and actions: Actions were taken to promote the change and ensure that the change is sustainable. The actions were adapted not only to the geographic region, the type of settlement (city, town, village), and the different organizational cultures in the various districts, but also to the different types of objections that people had. All this, while maintaining the essence of the community building language and content.
Defining success criteria: After learning the framework and implementing the process, a tool for measuring success began to take shape. This tool is now called the ‘Community Index.’ It was developed by the Community Center Association, in collaboration with the ERI research institute, and is based on the sense of community index studied during the process.
Developing success models: Part of the learning and change implementation process included developing success cases. This was both part of a ‘learning from successes’ process, as well as building a model for ongoing internal learning and development. In this way, ‘model locations’ were created, neighborhoods where one could see what a neighborhood not only what a successful community-building process looks like, but also how a community center operates with a community-building approach.

A leading social organization in Israel. “From a building to a home, from a group of houses to a neighborhood, from a crowd to a community.”

Faced with an internal crisis and a disconnect from its founding mission to build strong, sustainable communities, a leading social organization in Israel embarked on a transformative journey. By redefining roles, developing a shared language, and implementing a “Community Index” to measure success, the organization reconnected with its roots. Despite challenges, including employee resistance, the organization successfully reshaped its vision, structure, and impact on local communities.

The Challenge:

We were called as the organization was experiencing an internal crisis – it felt it had lost its relevance to the broader community. There was a gap between the organization’s mission and the actual implementation of it. The organization’s original mission, as articulated by Chaim Tzipori, the founder of the organization was “From a building to a home, from a group of houses to a neighborhood, from a crowd to a community.” Over time, many of the organization’s activities had strayed from this mission and essence. In 2011, against the backdrop of the social protests of those days, various leaders in the organization sought to make changes that would reconnect the organization to its original mission, while adapting to the spirit of the times and the reality of Israeli society.

The Question we Started With:

How might we rewrite the mission and the vision of the organization in a way that will resonate with the original purpose, will be embraced by the organization’s employees, and will be reflected in changes in actions in the field?

Examples of Changes that were Implemented in the Organization as a Result:

Until today, years after the process was implemented, one hears a change in the organizational language. The vision and mission were rewritten and success criteria were altered. Lastly, roles were redefined and new roles were established (such as a local Community Building Facilitator in each district).

Challenges in the process:

Amongst the employees there were objections to this change process. Some objections were expressed openly (lack of cooperation and collaboration), and some objections were expressed covertly (employees who verbally expressed support of the change, but their behaviors spoke otherwise). In some extreme cases, employees did not agree or identify with the change and they left the organization. The big takeaway is that not everyone will support or identify with a significant organizational change – not everyone will continue to be part of the organization.

Key Actions Taken:

Developing a shared professional language for all: providing the language, concepts, and approach of community building, while adapting to the organizational environment. The entire staff and lay leaders went through the process: from senior management, and up to the board of directors, to the last employee in the community centers
Creating role definitions and adapting the organizational operations to the new roles: Roles were created, adjusted and changed, and organizational structures, processes and field activities were developed and adapted to support the community building strategy. This was done both vertically (managers at different levels) and horizontally (the organization’s different areas of content).
Implementation of the language and actions: Actions were taken to promote the change and ensure that the change is sustainable. The actions were adapted not only to the geographic region, the type of settlement (city, town, village), and the different organizational cultures in the various districts, but also to the different types of objections that people had. All this, while maintaining the essence of the community building language and content.
Defining success criteria: After learning the framework and implementing the process, a tool for measuring success began to take shape. This tool is now called the ‘Community Index.’ It was developed by the Community Center Association, in collaboration with the ERI research institute, and is based on the sense of community index studied during the process.
Developing success models: Part of the learning and change implementation process included developing success cases. This was both part of a ‘learning from successes’ process, as well as building a model for ongoing internal learning and development. In this way, ‘model locations’ were created, neighborhoods where one could see what a neighborhood not only what a successful community-building process looks like, but also how a community center operates with a community-building approach.