Been There, Heard That
A significant part of the 1000 Feathers approach is the intentional and strategic connection and engagement of stakeholders. What connection and engagement mean differs from project to project, community to community, and topic to topic. But one thing that is always true is our commitment to proximity; getting as close as we can to those most impacted by decisions being made and lifting up their voices and opinions.
The early stages of connection and engagement look like listening sessions for many people. Other times, connection and engagement look like one-on-one interviews with people with lived experience or community conversations where people lead the facilitation with lived experience. Sometimes even observation within and outside organizational structures. The processes are always fascinating and impactful. Taking the data back to identify through lines and “so what, now what” is one of our favorite co-creation activities. But the reality is that occasionally, we find our organizations, clients, and even ourselves saying, “But we didn’t learn anything new.” So, I started to wonder, is that true? And if so, why are we still spending so much time and effort asking community members these questions if we aren’t learning anything new?
I recently challenged our Director of Research, Dr. Melissa Strompolis, a community psychologist by training, with this question. Here’s part of our conversation and her thoughts on the matter. Let us know if you’ve experienced this in your work and what insights you have come up with.
Forrest: Every time I hear “but we didn’t learn anything new” on one of these projects, it’s like I am hearing it for the first time – I’m just so shocked and surprised. Then I must remember that I’ve probably said it too. So, if we aren’t learning anything new, why are we continuing to do this type of work in communities?
Melissa: First, I need to start by stating what might be obvious. We shouldn’t ever do this type of work, speaking directly to those community members most impacted by our decision-making, if we aren’t going to be open to their ideas. This is the bare minimum, a commitment from organizations to listen and react to what we hear. Otherwise, we are amplifying issues of distrust and tokenism.
That is more than fair. But what about this “we haven’t learned anything new” response? If we keep hearing the same things over and over, is there really value in continuing to do this level of engagement?
The frustration is real when it comes to “nothing new,” “been hearing that for 20 years”, etc. But listen, I think we should shift the lens here to ask, “Why aren’t we learning anything new?” It’s like when you read the same book for the tenth time; there’s always something you missed the first nine times. Are we sure that we’ve come to the table with an open mind? By the way, I would suggest there’s a hindsight bias on the “nothing new” more often than not. I believe that is an easy response to say after the results were presented. But again, are we really listening?
And probably more importantly, rather than questioning whether we should continue connection and engagement processes, we should be asking ourselves, “Why aren’t we doing anything about it?” or better yet, “Why are we still doing the same thing about it?” In other words, if you (as an organization) already knew all these things that we heard from our community members, why have we not been able to change the conditions?
So, this is fascinating. You know that one of my soap boxes is the difference between communities serving people and solving problems. I think this distinction matters here. In other words, if we just continue to serve without actually solving the underlying issues, then maybe it’s not so surprising that issues aren’t going away.
Leaning into the serving versus solving distinction makes a lot of sense. Going back to “why are you still doing the same thing,” I tend to think a lot about programs here. Social service entities, by and large, are set up to implement programs. To serve. Programs make us feel good. They make everyone feel good. Never, though, do programs alone solve social problems.
I think coalitions, organizations, and consulting firms like us that are interested in the solving side of the equation need to better position ourselves – meaning how we think, how we ask questions, how we connect and engage – and move our clients beyond programs. This will, hopefully, transform all our lives and communities for the better.
I hear you about changing the way we all position ourselves. So, what does that mean for us at 1000 Feathers firm and our approach?
I have two thoughts that come to mind on this. First, one author I have really enjoyed reading recently is Urmitapa Dutta (Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts, Lowell) and her thoughts on community and community practice. In part, she has said, “… this means that we have to learn and foster what it means to accompany people and movements.” What does that mean for 1000 Feather, then? We need to lean into accompanying people. Hearing from clients, their partners, their community members, etc., makes us feel good too. Rarely, though, does just hearing from people change processes, policies, and/or power structures. We should position ourselves not just to listen but to genuinely share power and decision-making. This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum positioning but one that is tailored to each client and community.
Second, we would be remiss not to think about how we communicate our data and information. And I’m thinking about how we can improve setting the stage each and every time we present. One strategy is to remind everyone about the why – not just the why are we doing this work, but why did we specifically collect this data? Why is this information important today? We say this a lot at 1000 Feathers (thanks, Sinek!), but it is true that every time we remind ourselves to start with why the outcomes are always more meaningful and robust.
Wow. Thanks for the deep dive on this today. More to come, for sure!