MUSINGS ON BETTER COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (& HOT BEVERAGES WITH FRIENDS)
The other day over coffee with a good friend, we chatted about our day(s) and began to reflect on projects that needed but did not always get community engagement or involvement.
We vented frustration over the many times that we know those involved meant well but were for whatever reason (usually, time and the need to demonstrate early successes) did not ensure that the people to be served were included in determining the service solution.
Why do we so easily snap back into answer mode even when we know better? I include myself in this because I’m not immune from doing it too. Why are we so ready with ‘the solution’ before determining if that is in fact what the community members need or want?
In more ideal settings my preference is to take the time to get to know the people for whom you are creating. Actually, even more optimal would be to create with them. While resisting the urge to implement cookie cutter solutions was more difficult in the past; as more people embrace user/human-centred design, yet still co-creating in its truest sense is an as yet unreached frontier.
Cookiecutter solutions
Just because X is working for Group(s) 1, acting as Groups 2 and 3 can also benefit from X (with a few tweaks) doesn’t embody optimal engagement. Particularly in complex contexts (which arguably anything involving people is) it is better to approach the ‘solutioneering’ from the perspective of those for whom we create and determine what they want. They may indeed identify X as what they need, but the journey to that outcome is so much more worthwhile than executing a ‘do and drop’ on the group(s).
Group 2 or 3 with their X may not achieve similar (visible) outcomes as group 1, and that is ok. Are we going to be ok with that or would it be considered a failure to achieve intended objectives? WE need to take the time ti unpack what is working for Group 1, we may find that underneath the visible outcome(s) there is a lot more going on and intervening that is not present in, or will not be workable for Group(s) 2 and 3 based on their specific and nuanced needs.
I’m sure there are those who subscribe to the ‘tell them what they need approach; (see Apple/ Steve Jobs “People don't know what they want until you give it to them”) but even this has been questioned outside of the narrow/niche context in which it applies (see 5 dangerous lessons to learn from Steve Jobs). Yes, this may work for consumer goods but may not necessarily have application in social change - particularly in contexts where problem identification is made more difficult when fraught with historical power, privilege and systemic discrimination dynamics that impact what may be seen and understood superficially as the ‘problem we are trying to solve’ (see social innovation alone can't solve inequality).
Getting Past Legacy
And then there is the ever-present desire to build long lasting ‘systems’. The school of thought that because something (big or small) is long-lasting that makes it what is needed is really something we need to question. WE need only look at empty churches, long forgotten schools and any other white elephants dotting landscapes physical and in human systems to see that this is something we might want to reconsider). Perhaps rather than looking to ‘build something’ we can focus our energy and efforts on building relationships that can nimbly shift and move with changing community needs, political agendas and funding program requirements. I know it is hard to let this go, we do love our things that we can point to in measuring (or showcasing success. However in the long term, the greatest buildings are nothing if not in use by the people for whom they are first built, or for purposes that are reimagined. We see this happening in cities all around the world. Abandoned buildings, lots and communities can be gentrified or reclaimed or renewed and great ideas (Reclaim Detroit).
What do I think we could do:
Take the time and yes it will take time to sit with, rather than build for people and ask them what they need /want.
Re-examine what is great about any solution that you consider redeploying in a new setting and fully examine what it is that you find about it that should be propagated. It may surprise you what you then choose to use - it may be partners and relationships rather than physical infrastructure. Or you may find that it is no longer feasible once you realize that the mechanics that make something successful in one setting may not work in another because of socio-economic and historic realities (income gaps, low trust, limited access to capital, and so on).
Get to know yourself; get to know the people for/with whom you are working. Reflect on what you are learning and seeing in this context. Be present , be in place. See ‘them’ and see with them.
Move into action from a place that acknowledges it is the people for/with whom you are acting that you are doing things. Not (only) the people funding the activity or the external actors who want to measure and showcase success. Particularly because it will be the same communities to which there will be future actions and cultivating trust and true collaboration benefits everyone in the long term.
Consider co-creation, and try it for your projects recognizing its value rather than it’s perils.
After we exhausted ourselves with our conversation we sat quietly and sipped our drinks enjoying the quiet and comfort of our friendship. And in my mind I asked: why do we keep setting the table with people while not paying attention to whether or not we have brought the right utensils or cutlery for the meal? Which led me down the path of more questions: who sets the table? Who picks the meal?
Perhaps we have a chat to have for our next coffee date (and another article.)
What are your thoughts on any part of this article? What else would you add to this list?
I’d love to hear from you.