Why Am I Doing All of This?

OK, I'm a devotee of collaboration as the practice of democracy...and idealistically a blog can be seen as a collaborative endeavor. But more often, it is just a bulletin board for journal entries. So what am I really hoping to accomplish by posting these ramblings to a blog?

That's a very good question.

I guess I'm doing it for several reasons. The first is self-serving in the immediate sense -- I want to work with organizations that are looking to become more democratic, to encourage their members to accept democratic action as a responsibility in the 21st century. In short, I'm looking for organizations to hire me as a consultant that can support their efforts at collaboration.

The second is still self-serving, but in the longer view -- I want to find myself surrounded by democratically minded people as I live my life. I want to have folks in my vicinity who feel democracy to be worth a little elbow grease and personal discomfort, so that when the tough times hit, we can get through them because of the strength of our sense of the common good.

The third is somewhere in between those two. Democracy is such a large concept, and it's easy to think it's something that just kind of magically happens somewhere between "here" and Washington, DC. Personally, I think it exists in a much more concrete and useful form in the grocery story, at the local county fair, at school board meetings, and local water districts. I think the way we practice it in our families and amongst friends is much more an indication of the strength of our system of government than is how it plays out in Congress or at the ballot box.

So I post. I ponder. I ask questions. I observe.

Want to join me?

It's So Easy...

Whoa.

I like to think that I am pretty devoted to the concept of collaboration as democracy. And I am proud of how I work with groups to discover mutually beneficial outcomes to challenging situations.

Yet last night, in a group I was working with, I made a rather unilateral decision without thinking about what I was doing. As the program coordinator for this group, I had made a similar unilateral decision about 5 months ago regarding a fundraising opportunity that involved sales on the part of the membership (i.e. selling candy to benefit the larger organization). Given that I did not put the option out to the group for deliberation, it should not have surprised me that folks were not extremely eager to help me get rid of the stuff.

And given that I had skipped that very important step of seeking input those 5 months ago, I should have known better than to make yet another bad decision last night when I said out loud in the meeting that we could modify the sale to benefit individual sub-groups rather than the larger group. Those folks who HAD been helping me sell candy to benefit the whole organization muttered and grimaced when I said small pieces of the organization could now benefit if they pitched in.

No question, no discussion, just my sense of being in a tight spot and wanting to get out of it.

Again, whoa.

How easy it is to get so wrapped up in the pursuit of individual ease of distress, so challenging to remain focused on the common good. No wonder our elected officials get into so much trouble. We're all just human, and therefore bound to get ourselves into tight spots, even if with good intention. And in our attempts to wriggle out of those tight spots, we corner ourselves into even tighter ones.

Having realized this, I will go back to the group and proclaim that I have recognized my goof. Actually recognized both of them. I'll ask for their understanding, and suggestions as to what should happen next.

This democracy stuff is tricky -- so much so that I remain convinced that regular practice is what we need. Wish me luck.

Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself

Hmmm.

Last night, I represented my organization at a meeting of the board that oversees a major event we participate in. It is a board known for conflict and hard feelings, so I wasn't looking forward to the experience. We have one of our own folks who has been elected to regularly represent us at these meetings, but this particular session was scheduled just next door to my office, and between two other meetings I had to stay in the office for anyway. In other words, I had no excuse to miss it.

What I observed was fascinating.

The feeling of contention in the room emanated not only from the board members and their staff person, but also from our rep. There was no shortage of people interrupting each other. The body language of all involved was almost comical, with heavy sighs, hands slamming down on the table, eyes rolling as heads looked up and back over shoulders, and mouths dropping open in expressions of shock at the words of others.

As the meeting wore on, and the topic of discussion turned to my program, I sat wrestling with feelings of concern and amusement. They were talking about my program, expressing all sorts of worries, complaints, demands, and questions -- and it took over 10 minutes for them to turn to me and ask if I had anything to say.

Granted, they are used to dealing with our regular representative, and maybe everyone thought I would offer up my own dose of contention, but it seemed odd that they didn't readily break from their group roles to find out.

When they did finally offer me a chance to speak, I did my best to recognize the concerns of all those in the room as a way to make some connection. And then I worked to basically introduce myself, my program, to the board. It felt as if they were operating on some very incorrect assumptions about our membership, our goals, and our policies. I only had a few minutes, but I think I was able to do a little education about who we really are instead of who they have believed us to be.

I left before the meeting was over, to get to my next meeting, so I have no idea what was said after my efforts. But I can say that after I spoke, I at least saw some smiles and felt a little less animosity toward my program.

So I've gone on for quite a while about this -- what did I learn? And what does it have to do with democracy or citizen engagement?

I learned that while disagreement can create discussions that end up helping all parties come up with appropriate, creative approaches to challenges, unmanaged conflict can create arguments that distract groups from healthy progress. It can lead group members to lower their standards of behavior, rather than raise that standard - and unfortunately, all group members seem to get caught in this negative movement. It seems a cycle that is difficult to break.

I also learned, or was reminded, that finding the things that you agree on first, can help move discussions in a more positive direction -- even if you ultimately need to confront issues on which you disagree.

Those basic communication skills of introducing yourself before engaging in discussions, and of listening for things you share in common with those you are wanting to speak to -- they really are important. And completely within our reach. Here's to the practice of them.

How to Ask Questions

In a couple of weeks, I'm going to be doing some facilitation for one of our County Commissioners. He is interested in hosting regular "Town Hall Meetings" as a way of keeping residents up to date on what decisions are being made in the county -- so that they can be more engaged with the making of such decisions.

He has invited the County Budget Director to the first of these meetings, so that citizens can learn more about where county funding sources come from, how they are distributed, and what limitations there might be on spending them.

What a great opportunity for us to all learn how to ask questions! So often, we barge into meetings with complaints and loud suggestions about "what they ought to be doing." I wonder if it possible that we might all feel better about the running of our local communities if we were to first make some connection with others...if we were to first gain some understanding of what they have been asked to do and what their constraints are.

What if facilitation was designed to not only move folks smoothly through a discussion process, but also to give them room to practice new skills of democracy?

This first meeting will be a new experience for all of us. Want to be a part of it? Let me know and I'll send you the date/time/location information (I'll at least tell you now that it will be on Camano Island, Washington.)

Value of Prevention? Or Value of Collaboration?

The organization for which I work is currently requesting an increase in funding from our county government. In hopes of strengthening our chances of getting that increase in funding, we did a rather involved presentation for our county commissioners, describing all of the many activities and events we sponsor and how such activities and events make their job of governing more efficient and effective.

One of the points we tried to bring home was the value of prevention of problems. Our argument was that if the commissioners are charged with the task of making policy on certain issues, our educational outreach efforts reduce the need for enforcement of their policies. To us this makes sense, because even if you have the money to enforce a law/policy, once it has been broken you cannot undo the damage that has been caused. You can only punish those who caused it and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Prevention, on the other hand, allows you to not only save the money that would otherwise have to be spent on "catching" policy breakers, punishing them, and monitoring them to avoid repeat offenses -- but it also allows you to avoid the damage caused by such offenses in the first place.

So far, their response has not been encouraging. We won't know our final funding amounts until Monday, but it doesn't sound like we should expect much. The main reason? The state mandates that they provide "public safety" in the form of a maximally staffed sheriff's department. It does not mandate that they provide "public safety" in the form of prevention.

The interesting point for me, comes with the thought that we are in essence competing with people's fears. And against such a basic element of the human psyche, we will never win. However, if we strengthen our relationship with those in law enforcement, beginning from a point of understanding why the public feels such fear, we have the potential of becoming collaborators with law enforcement. Through a relationship with the department that doesn't see our value, we can begin to establish our role of support for their basic mission - a public that not only feels safe, but IS safe because it has informed and interconnected itself.

Part of our challenge, I believe, is in reframing ourselves as a community organization that invests in all aspects of our environment - social, economic, and natural. Until we deeply acknowledge that personal safety is perceived as a more basic human need than salmon population counts, we won't be able to strengthen either one -- even though they are actually interdependent.

Competition over funds is not going to get us anywhere. Collaboration to uncover and meet basic community needs will.

Leaders Follow

Today I co-led a training session for a non-profit organization on how to make a presentation. It seems that in the past, even though this non-profit environmental program offered training to residents specifically in exchange for their help in educating the public about issues of local concern - often the trainees were surprised by requests for such help once training was complete. The coordinator of the program recognized this, and stepped up to better prepare them for their role as educators.

It was a great session! As we worked through the information we wanted to impress upon them, members of the training class piped in with bits about their own experiences with adult learning, presentation styles, and how to gently cover controversial topics. It was a great reminder to me, and a wonderful example for the group, that so often the expertise and resources we need are actually embodied among us.

We have only to tap into such resources by beginning the conversation. Basically, as leaders, we have only to facilitate. The need for more preparation and training was raised by the group...in this case, the larger group, not necessarily those who have just begun the training. If it had not been, the coordinator might have been premature in offering the session on presentations.

Why do I say that?

I recently heard a snipet of a presentation given by Savory (?) in which he said that leaders do not instigate change...they support those who accept them as leaders, once those supporters have recognized the need for a change and have developed ideas about what that change should look like.

I think that is what this particular program coordinator did, and I believe that is why the session was so well received and why it will be effective in positioning the program for deeper efficacy within the community.

What do YOU think?

Competition? Collaboration?

I had an experience today that has me intrigued about the potential for organizations to move from competitive world views to collaborative ones.

I was talking with someone from a very successful environmental non-profit about what I thought might be an exciting possibility for some integrated, collaborative, community-based programming with a couple of different non-profits (who all share a common big picture mission of sustainability). Up until that point in the conversation, there had been much agreement about the power of teaming up with other groups in order to reach a broader audience, and about the need to address local issues from multiple perspectives in order to more effectively support public understanding of them.

But as soon as the conversation touched on funding, grant writing, and integrated programming, resistance popped up. It made me wonder if we get ourselves into more competitive mindsets because we have a basic assumption that resources are finite, and if we don't "win" them, we "lose." I could see how fear of being caught short on resources (time or money) could establish and perpetuate such a sense of competition.

If instead, resources are perceived as being actively generated FROM a group working on a common need, would collaboration more naturally emerge? In other words, if resources were not seen as finite, but only as limited as the group, would competition be seen as counterproductive? If so, how do we move to such a perception?