Stakeholder Mapping for Collaboration – A tool for inclusiveness & diversity

This post was submitted by NCDD member Michelle Miller of MMBD Consulting via the Add-to-Blog form at www.ncdd.org/submit.

When mapping stakeholders for various initiatives, I found that existing stakeholder maps do not help identify all of the voices in a system – they do not help me as a facilitator in my quest to create the diversity and inclusiveness I need for an initiative. They do not help ensure that the whole system is represented and, even worse, they often use the language of control. As most facilitators know from experience, you cannot control stakeholders. Levels of control can vary, but control in general is anathema to collaboration. We need a fit-for-purpose stakeholder mapping tool that helps foster collaboration.

The stakeholder map for collaboration is based on three main ideas:

1) We can identify the stakeholders of a system by the questions they help us answer about an initiative.

  • Why are we doing this?
  • What are we doing?
  • How will we do it?
  • What’s possible?
  • What’s going on in reality?

2) Using a traditional symbol of the whole system, a circle, we indicate the (permeable) boundaries of a system

3) These questions create a set of “Voices” which categorize perspectives by their role in regards to an initiative:

  • Voice of Intent
  • Voice of Customer/User (or Citizen)
  • Voice of Experience
  • Voice of Design

Read the blog for the basic idea: http://bit.ly/17NFXWb

For full detail, read the paper presented at the 2013 ISPIM Conference in Helsinki: http://bit.ly/19tq51P

StakeholderMap

Kettering Resident Journalist Reflects on Press & Democracy

kfThe Kettering Foundation recently shared an interview with Duran Angiki, an indigenous journalist from the Solomon Islands who just finished his six-month residency with KF who faced persecution from his government for his role in exposing corruption as a citizen journalist. In his interview, he shares details of his own harrowing story, discusses the role of journalists and the press in advancing democracy, and reflects on how that role is changing.

We’ve shared a few choice excerpts from the interview below, but you can read the interview transcript in its entirety by visiting the Kettering Foundation’s blog at www.kettering.org/kfnews/kettering-conversations-duran-angiki.

Jack Becker: You describe the mission of Duranangiki.net as “to check the leaders of Solomon Islands and our province, Rennell and Bellona, and expose corrupt leaders regardless of who they are. Our purpose is to encourage transparency and accountability in the public sector without reservations, and expose corruption where it exists.” Can you talk a little about doing this? What kinds of barriers do you face in this pursuit?

Duran Angiki: The mission statement of Duranangiki.net is a labor of love that is based on conviction and sacrifice, but also an ongoing commitment to the ideal of promoting good governance. It is difficult as someone who had the opportunity of being educated and living in Western countries to see our people and communities being exploited by our leaders. Daring to speak in a nation where your allegiance is first to protect the image of your island, ethnic, and cultural group, before the nation, is not only suicidal, but also plain madness. It is one of the most unpopular jobs that yielded no personal gains for me, let alone my immediate family members, who indirectly, suffered the consequences of my work. Many times in my career, I’ve often questioned myself about the logic of this mission, but I often comforted myself with the knowledge that if I’m not to do it, who else.

If we want a better country and future for us, someone has to step up to the plate. Unfortunately, my traditional obligation has put me in this position. I become a journalist in the hope of making a difference. It is a commitment that I made to my people to represent them. …At times, this role seems to be travesty in a country where political and government institutions are highly corrupt. This situation has created a working environment where journalists and citizens often succumb to threats, harassment, bullying, and intimidation by politicians. I could have chosen an easy path, but I choose to take this daring path, instead of silently moaning the injustices. Despite the personal cost to my life, I have never given up hope about my mission and committed to the course. I’m hoping that this mission will inspire other young people to realize the importance of openly contributing to the broader conversation about building a secure, stable, and better future for our people and communities. We need to break away from the culture of silence and engage in open dialogue. I guess history will be our best judge.

And later in the interview…

JB: You mention that your work is based on a commitment to people in your community; one of Kettering’s core concerns is a lack of alignment between how citizens make decisions in community and the way institutions—including media institutions—go about their work. What should the relationship between journalists and a community be? How does journalism fit into a citizen-centered democracy?

DA: Realistically, the idea of alignment sounds good, but in practice, it is a huge challenge. In my experience in developing and developed communities, the majority of the people couldn’t care less about what the media and institutions are talking about or will talk about. The sad reality of this situation is this: citizens are often left to their own demise when decisions are taken and later impacted negatively on them. Global media tycoons more often than not control the news media in Western countries, which becomes a hindrance to the role of journalists. The case of US journalism is unique because news media outlets and their journalists are either conservative or liberal. There is no middle ground in American journalism. This situation has created distrust by citizens and communities of the media, especially the role of journalism as a watchdog. The watchdog role has replaced agenda setting. Despite public cynicism of the media in this country, America is the only country in the Western world that enshrined in its Constitution, under the First Amendment, freedom of the press. In Australia and other democratic countries, freedom of the press or media freedom is an implied right under Common Law. Sadly, in the case of the United States, the constitutional recognition of media freedom has not provided any greater access by citizens to the news media. The new culture of agenda setting has simply taken away authentic journalism, which grounded on the presumption that journalists and the news media will provide objective, fair, and balanced coverage of issues that are affecting communities. One of the reasons that journalism is still thriving in the states is it is protected by the Constitution. It is on this basis that citizen groups and communities are always fighting to be heard. The biggest threat to journalism in America is how the profession and educational institutions are entangled in the issue of allegiance to right-wing and left-wing politics. In my observation, this is the major blight to authentic journalism in America.

Group Decision Tip: Straw Vote

In principle, the best group decisions are based on shared understanding of everyone’s perspective, and a good way to get a quick read of where everyone stands is to take a straw vote. A straw vote is not a real vote; it doesn’t count over the long run, like straw. Someone might say, “Let’s just see how people feel about the latest idea. All those who tend to like it, show a thumb up. If you tend not to like it, show a thumb down. If you are neutral or undecided, show a horizontal thumb.” Count the thumbs in the three categories. That’s a straw vote.

Group Decision Tips IconIt lets everyone in the group see, in a quick and general way, if the latest idea is worth more group time and energy. It also shows where the concerns are (the down thumbs) so we know who to call on to hear concerns.

Some groups use color cards for straw votes. Some use high-tech remote keypads and the results are graphed instantly on a screen in front of the room. The most efficient groups use straw votes often and with ease.

Practical Tip: Don’t hesitate to call for, or participate in, a straw vote. Before calling for a straw vote, make sure the question is clear and simple; you don’t want to waste group time haggling about: “What are we voting on?”

When calling for a straw vote, remind everyone that it does not count over the long run; that everyone has the right to change their mind later; that it is simply a quick and blurry snapshot of how we feel at this moment. Still, even a snapshot can be worth a thousand words.

New Public Agenda Paper on Clickers in Deliberation

PublicAgenda-logoHere in the 21st Century, technology is continuously shaping and reshaping the way that we engage with each other and how we govern ourselves.  But striking the right balance between using technology to improve our engagement and letting it get in the way can be difficult. That’s why we wanted to share the article below from our friends at Public Agenda (long-time organizational member of NCDD) that shares findings from their new report on a piece of technology that can help practitioners strike that balance correctly while improving the quality of our dialogue and deliberation.

You can read the full article below, or find the original post here on the Public Agenda blog.


4 Ways Clickers Can Improve Group Discussion and Deliberation

Though tech innovations can be helpful in improving communication and engagement, especially when immediacy is necessary, some make the mistake of relying too heavily on technology as a stand in for other communication practices.

Keypads, or “clickers” as they are called in higher education, are certainly no exception to that rule. Using these types of audience response systems alone won’t support better interactions between people, but they do have the potential to immensely improve engagement practices when used appropriately.

Click to Engage: Using Keypads to Enhance Deliberation,” a new paper from Public Agenda’s Center for Advances in Public Engagement, supports the work of public engagers seeking to improve their use of keypads in group discussion and engagement.

Here are some ways clickers can complement small group discussion:

  1. Keypads can reveal who is and who isn’t in the room. Using keypads to field demographic questions enables discussion participants to understand who is in the room and situate themselves with the group. It also provides an easy way for the discussion facilitators and organizers to look back at the data. Using keypad responses for recording demographics can motivate those hosting the group discussion to improve their recruitment of persons from diverse backgrounds as well.
  2. Keypads can be conversation starters. Keypads can be a great way to break the ice among discussion participants. Asking a couple of neutral, even comedic, questions can set a comfortable tone and allow for some low-pressure conversation to begin. Incorporating this sort of ice breaker in the beginning typically generates more inclusive and robust dialogue. Another bonus: such questions help discussion participants get used to the device.
  3. Keypads can show variance in opinion and illuminate minority views. With divisive issues, each side may assume it has the strong majority and the opposition is merely an uninformed but vocal minority. Keypads have the power to provide a more accurate count of the splits and give voice to minority views that might not otherwise enter the conversation. This is not fool-proof though, and can have an adverse effect if audience members do not come from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. Organizers should take care in designing the discussion so that those with minority views do not end up feeling alienated. If a room predominately holds one perspective and only a few disagree, allowing those dissenters to have the floor, if they’re willing, can be a powerful means for exploring divergent viewpoints in a reasonable way.
  4. Keypads can assist facilitators in allocating remaining time. Identifying areas of agreement and disagreement through quick polling using the clickers can help a facilitator better allocate precious remaining time. If a topic reveals sharp disagreement, perhaps that topic warrants further, and deeper, discussion. Alternately, participants may not be ready to take on an issue if not enough time remains and the best option is to table it for more research.

The benefits of using a tool like the keypad to engage a diverse room of people far outweigh the drawbacks. Its immediacy and ease of use make it a powerful aide in deeper engagement. But thoughtful preparation, care and attention to design are crucial to using keypads successfully.

For more pointers on how to use this tool, including a breakdown of best practices and strengths and limitations, download our new paper here. For other tips on engagement practices, visit our Center for Advances in Public Engagement. We’d love to hear your successes, words of caution, and other tips regarding the use of keypads send us an email to Michelle Currie at publicengagement@publicagenda.org.

See the full post at www.publicagenda.org/blogs/4-ways-clickers-can-improve-group-discussion-and-deliberation?qref=http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/our-blog%3Fcurrentpage=1#sthash.hFeGCFli.dpuf

Announcing the Successful Communities Contest & Conference Call

CM_logo-200pxWe are pleased (and somewhat saddened) to announce the last conference call in the three-part capacity building series being hosted by our partners at CommunityMatters and the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design. This final call, titled “Secrets of Successful Communities”, is coming up on Thursday, August 22nd from 3-4pm EST and will feature CIRD’s own Ed McMahon:

Last year Barbara Walters asked four billionaires for their Top 20 Secrets of Success. The #2 secret? “Always be True to Yourself.” It turns out that applies to communities, too. Join national thought leader Ed McMahon of the Urban Land Institute for an inspirational conversation: Ed will share this and other secrets of successful communities that he has gleaned over the course of decades working in towns across the country.

We encourage all NCDD members to register here to participate in the call.

This call is all the more exciting because it is the feature of the first CommunityMatters Listening Party! Participants are being encouraged to organize groups to listen in on the conference call and use CM’s discussion guide to facilitate conversations about how to use the knowledge gained from the conference call in their own communities.

Listening party organizers will also be entered to win  the first Successful Communities Contest! The contest will award four $500 prizes to listening party groups that submit a plan for taking action that comes out of the call. More details on the contest are available here.

You can find out more details about the call, listening parties, and how to enter the contest at the CommunityMatters page here: www.communitymatters.org/event/secrets-successful-communities. Good luck in the contest, and we’ll look forward to “seeing” you all on the call!

The Importance of Conversation (reflections from Katy Byrne)

This reflective piece was submitted by NCDD member Katy Byrne, MFT Psychotherapist, columnist, radio host, and public speaker, via the Add-to-Blog form at www.ncdd.org/submit.

We, the people, can create a new world, but not separately. We need community to heal, to be heard in safety and courage no matter what the circumstances.

It’s not easy to listen well or respectfully or to speak up. I ask myself “Should I bring it up?” or I wonder if what I have to say might be too hurtful. Sometimes I go home wondering what was really said, what did they mean, what I could have clarified or what was I thinking by saying what I said?

There are many reasons not to speak up but knowing our true intention and stating it helps clarify that. And many of us already know that it is also very helpful to make “I” statements so as not to blame and to state your needs. I know I have talked about all of this in my book, “The Courage To Speak Up, Getting Your Hairballs Out” (found at my website, www.conversationswithkaty.com) already, but I can’t help drawing a synopsis. In other words constructive conversations could change the world.

Speaking up can occur in tiny moments each day, in thick spaces of tension when we know what is not being said, but we brave saying it, or in larger arenas when we take a deep breath and stand up for what we believe it.

No one wants to go to jail for speaking, lose a marriage, a friendship, or a job. So, what to do? We need to talk to each other more than ever before. Conversation needs to be valued. We might find answers to big questions if we hung in there together, without the constant use of machines and technology. In large groupings or small, in neighborhoods, within the United Nations and everywhere, hairballs for days! The big world ball depends on us.

But the fear of sharing is real. Shame lurks close by when I speak up. One night, out with friends, I mentioned the name of a book I was reading and was corrected abruptly. I mispronounced the title. I was quiet for the rest of the evening, wrestling with my inner “bun lady “(the critic.) “Did I sound silly? Was I too loud? Was my excitement out of place?”

Sometimes we’re resentful, paranoid or confused. Recently with an old acquaintance, I blurted out; “I’d like to clear up our misunderstandings.” That’s all it took. In that one moment, we opened a new relationship and grew closer again. Inside, I heard” don’t rock the boat.” But, I carried my hairball down the field, taking a deep breath and it paid off.

Often, we put up walls when we are afraid to talk to one another .The national defense is not different than our own armor. Isn’t it time to drop it and do something else? Yes, there are times to say “no” and step out of harmful situations, but we also have to learn as a species to dialogue in conflict. If we are going to change a world that is full of huge hairballs, can we be pro-active?

Here’s where the personal becomes political. If we don’t learn to deal with our differences daily and speak up for our values, will we have the power and strength to talk and listen to each other about global issues?

Some say conversation is not enough. The problems are too big. Or, you could argue that talking isn’t going anywhere, we have to “do “something. Yes, we do. But, I believe that moving forwards with vision emerges from deep dialogue. What we have not done, collectively, is come together and put our cards on the table. It is only out of brainstorming and sharing that we unify. Safety is built from the ground up, as we speak “our peace.”

The very fabric of our society is fragmented now. Isolation is predominant. This is the time to value connection – we need each other more than ever before.

I often think about the way ants carry a bread crumb up a hill. (Odd that insects work together better than we, the people.) Couldn’t more conversations produce new systems, new ways of being, create a world for the common good?

Please, let’s all keep speaking up for the voiceless ones, the earth, the animals and children who need our words to protect them and provide for a future.

It is my contention that conversation can change the world.

E. Coast Forums on Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy

NIF-logoFor those of you working on the East Coast or in community preparedness, we recommend you check out a recent post from the National Issues Forums Institute on a series of public forums being hosted by WHYY and the Penn Project for Civic Engagement.  The goal of the forums is to engage local communities in discussion on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and what individuals, communities, and governments can do to be better prepared next time. With two forums already having been hosted, the next forums are slated for August 27th along the Jersey Shore.

The project description, dates, and locations for the forums can be found at WHYY’s website here.  You can read NIFI’s coverage of the project and find links to the audio commentary below, or you find the original post here.


Engaging the Public to Talk about the Jersey Shore after Hurricane Sandy – Listen to Audio Commentary by Chris Satullo at WHYY

Listen to “Restoring the shore is about emotions as well as engineering”
Listen to “Ready for next time? Rethinking the Jersey Shore after Sandy”
Project description with dates and locations

This summer in Philadelphia, WHYY/Newsworks is sponsoring a series of public forums titled Ready for Next Time? Rethinking the Shore after Sandy. Five public forums are being held during July and August 2013 in a variety of locations around Philadelphia. Forums are free to attend but registration is requested.

Chris Satullo, executive director of news and civic dialogue at WHYY, Inc. describes the public forums project in a number of brief audio, print, and photo pieces including:

Restoring the shore is about emotions as well as engineering (An audio file posted July 21, 2013):

Restoring the Shore is not just about flood maps, building codes and economic multipliers…

But as this nostalgia inspires, can it also blind and distort? Might we throw good money after bad, ignoring the storm’s clear evidence about where unwise risk lies?  In striving to hang onto what we love most about the Shore, might we strew too much treasure right in the path of the next storm.

Because there will be a next storm.

These questions sit at the heart of WHYY’s community forum series called: Ready for Next Time? Rethinking the Shore After Sandy…

Rethinking the shore forum zeroes in on better planning leadership (a slide show and article posted July 16, 2013)

It was a night for expressing hopes, and the skepticism that undermines them.

About 60 people gathered at WHYY Monday night for the first event in our summer-long civic dialogue project: “Ready for Next Time? Rethinking the Shore After Sandy.”

The group divided into four smaller breakout sessions, each led by a moderator from the Penn Project for Civic Engagement and using an issue guide we prepared. Folks talked through the long-term choices facing New Jersey as it responds to the challenges left behind by the storms known as Irene and Sandy….

Ready for next time? Rethinking the Jersey Shore after Sandy (listen to an audio file/read this piece posted June 24, 2013, describes the project and lists dates and locations of forums)

For the last year, a horde of Jersey Shore property owners have been muttering an F-word under their breath.

An F-acronymn, actually. As in FEMA – short for Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Post-Sandy, people down the Shore have had many complaints about FEMA – confusing rules, late-arriving checks and, above all, those flood maps.

FEMA issued revised maps last week, which sharply reduced the size of the highest-risk flood zones and let many homeowners sleep easier.

So perhaps this is a moment to invite some calmer discussion about how to respond long-term to the lessons of Sandy – and Irene before her…

For more information about this project, contact Chris Satullo at csatullo@whyy.org, or NCDD supporting member Harris Sokoloff at harriss@gse.upenn.edu.

IISD Announces Mark Farr as New President

IISD LogoIISD logoWe hope you will join us in extending a warm NCDD congratulations to Mark J. Farr on his recent appointment as the new president of the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue.  IISD’s work in fostering sustained dialogue here and abroad has made important inroads in our field, and we look forward to seeing how someone with Mark’s background will guide this important organization in its next chapter.

Founded by our friend Hal Saunders, IISD is a long-time organizational member and supporter of NCDD. You can read IISD’s official announcement below and find out more about Mark here.

The International Institute for Sustained Dialogue has announced the appointment of Mark J. Farr as its new president.  Dr. Harold ‘Hal’ Saunders, Institute Founder and senior U.S. diplomat in the Arab-Israeli peace process and the Camp David accords, will remain chairman of the board.

President Mark Farr, 53, is a former president of Capitol Hill’s Faith & Politics Institute, a Senior Director at President George H.W. Bush’s Points of Light Institute, and National Faith Director at General Colin Powell’s legacy foundation America’s Promise.

“The transformative power of this unique, life-changing approach can make a key difference: in our communities, in every campus and corporation, on Capitol Hill — anywhere where Americans are tired of our embattled civic space and want a more harmonious approach,” Saunders said. “It’s time for a change. We are thrilled that Mark will help lead us in that direction.” Learn more about Mark Farr’s experiences and background.

Group Decision Tip: Love

In principle, it is love that truly changes hearts and transforms people, not power or rules. It is love that compels sustained changes in behavior, not oaths or doctrines. It is love that provides a willingness to give and it is love that helps us accept, let go, and find peace.

Group Decision Tips IconMost group decision-making models encourage that we not include love in the mix. We’re supposed to be objective, rational, unemotional. This works well on the field of battle where the goal is to beat the other guys. But it doesn’t work well when we are trying to find win-win solutions, peaceful solutions. Peace asks us to love our neighbors.

Practical Tip: It’s okay to allow love into your group decision making. This means encouraging passion…and compassion. It means treating everyone as a valued contributor, and no one as an enemy. It means making decisions not just with your head, but also with your heart. It means paying attention not only to the best available knowledge, but to wisdom.

I once heard someone say that “Wisdom equals knowledge plus love.”

Looking to find common ground and get the whole system in the room

Please join the Future Search Network this December 9-11, 2013 and take advantage of your NCDD 25% discount!

FutureSearch-logoManaging A Future Search Workshop with Sandra Janoff is for facilitators, leaders, managers or anyone who wants to learn how applying Future Search principles enables a community, group, company, unit or organization to transform its capability for action. Participants will acquire the tools needed to organize and manage Future Search conferences with integrity in any sector or culture.

The workshop is built around a simulated Future Search. The simulation is planned by the participants as part of the learning design. The whole group then has a basis for a shared experience with the techniques for building community, developing a mutual world view, creating desired futures, finding common ground, expanding the range of choices, and moving into action. Included are interactive sessions on theory, history, planning, facilitation and follow-up. $1695. SPECIAL NCDD OFFER — save 25% off!

People have come from Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, the Caribbean, Europe, India, South America and the United States to attend this workshop. Participants from every sector, public and private, have gone on to stimulate positive social, technological and economic cooperation around the globe. The workshop goal is to give participants the tools, insights and support to manage successful Future Searches.

Learn more here or register today at https://www.futuresearch.net/frms/workshop/signup1.cfm.

Call Jennifer Neumer at 215-951-0328 or 800-951-6333 with any questions or to register over the phone. You can also email Jennifer at fsn@futuresearch.net.