Blog | Page 3 of 11 | Max Hardy Consulting

Rethinking Democracy: Strategies That Put Citizens at the Centre

25/02/2019 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Thrilled to be part of the Tamarack Learning Centre Rethinking Democracy: Strategies That Put Citizens at the Centre webinar with Sylvia Cheuy. The recording of the session is now available online from their webpage. Or you can see it directly here: .

You can also download the presentation slides.

Please share these links freely with your networks, colleagues and friends.

Take Your Learning Further:

Learn more and register for Citizens at the Centre: A Community Engagement Thought-Leader Series
Watch a previous webinar Co-Design in Collaboration: Moving From Buy-In to Shared Ownership
Read Sylvia’s paper Community Engagement: A Foundational Practice of Community Change

Learn more about the examples and case studies from the Webinar:

I also mentioned the Synthetron Platform for online citizen engagement

Citizens at the Centre

May 1-7 | Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver

The Tamarack Learning Centre is planning a trip to five cities across the country, and I’ve been invited along to help you bring new and innovative tools and methods for meaningfully engaging communities and citizens back to your organisations. Join us to strengthen your community engagement practice throughout the lifespan of your project.

Bringing art into engagement

17/01/2019 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Introducing and interviewing Jade Herriman

I have known Jade for over 10 years. She’s smart, creative and soulful. Her journey has been fascinating, and if you are keen to discover how art and democracy go together then read on.

Max:
We co-wrote a paper together with some Canadian academics/colleagues a few years ago (You can download here). What do you think was useful or significant about that research?

Jade:
That research looked at the way that public participation processes involve individuals to participate as citizens, compared with inviting people to participate as representatives of stakeholder groups. I think the research was useful in highlighting quite carefully and in some detail, the different design choices open to public participation professionals in relation to who is at the decision-making table, and in what capacity.

Max:
In more recent years you have been exploring the world of art and providing art therapy services. What have learned about yourself from your adventure in art therapy?

Jade:
I have realised that I love working with groups, way more than working one on one with individual clients. I enjoy the diversity of outlooks and feel so moved when I see the flow of insights, kindness and connections between participants.

I have learnt that listening with an open heart and mind is extremely valuable and a lot harder to offer than it sounds. I have learnt at a deeper level that there is so much of the human experience that is shared: no matter our situation, status, financial situation, or physical or mental health challenges we all long to connect, to be understood, to be treated respectfully, to experience humour and compassion.

I have also learnt that my own experiences with anxiety can actually be an asset in certain work – for example I love creating safe and welcoming spaces and experiences that people can relax into, and I probably pay a lot more attention to the details of making a space comfortable and a process clear for that reason.

Max:
So now you are looking to integrate your love of art, and art therapy, with your long-held interest in renewing democratic processes. How do you think they might work together?

Jade:
I am quite excited by the not-knowing of how exactly that might unfold! In the past I’ve used creative methods in community engagement processes to help people input to strategic planning, place making and local environmental projects. So, this future work might build on that. I think that art therapy tools are useful for so much more than what we might think of as ‘therapy’ – they can be tools for wellbeing, for personal reflection and insight, they can be tools for relaxation, for team building and for developing leadership skills.

In the context of public participation in decision making I think that creative methods are a great way to get beyond our day to day scripts and dip into the deeper and more complex set of views that we each hold. They are also great tools for inviting in the personal and emotional dimensions to a dialogue, and for helping us spark new ideas and innovation.

Max:
What kind of opportunities are you now looking for?

Jade:
I would like to continue to bring creative methods not just to the process of healing and personal growth, but also to leadership and complex decision making. Any work where I get to help people have honest conversations and make it safe to bring all of who they are to the table make me happy. I also love projects where there is an opportunity to give people first-hand experience of making things with their hands and the way that creative expression can ground us, challenge us, comfort us, and provide another way to know ourselves.

Max:
Thanks Jade. I’m looking forward to exploring some opportunities with you, and I look forward to you throwing me some questions for Part 2 of this blog.

You can contact Jade Herriman through https://jadeherriman.com/ and see her in action in this video.

If you enjoyed this post, please share with your network. If you’d like to receive get my newsletter, you can sign up here.

Are you stuck trying to address ‘wicked problems’ with your community?

09/01/2019 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

A Social Scientist, Design Thinker and Science Impact Practitioner walked into a bar. The Social Scientist asks “how can we work together to solve the most complex problems with communities?”

Two hours later and here are their 5 top killer tips for inter-disciplinary approaches to solving wicked problems with communities.

@Robyn Mansfield @Anthony Boxshall @Max Hardy

1. Embrace complexity – break up the complexity of the issue and use common language to drive a “level” playing field among participants. Welcome complexity as “wicked opportunities”. #wickedopportunities #complexity #scienceimpact #reframe

2. Inter-disciplinary collaboration leads to solutions that are bigger than the sum of the parts. Welcome in all disciplines and be curious about what might be co-created. Queen used opera to redefine rock. What is possible in your situation? #bohemianrhapsody #becurious #gocrazy

3. Look past disciplines and utilise skills – your participants are more than just their discipline or sector. When you invite people to bring all their skills, you get a richer conversation, an owned solution and potentially a transformative experience for all participants. #interdisciplinary

4. Generate a worthy question – devote time to consider the best question to collectively answer. Use participants to frame a question so that everyone can bring their expertise to co-designing the solution. It can take a while to generate a great question that will inspire the active participation of a diverse community. #codesign #problemsolving #whatisreallygoingonhere #strategicquestioning #communityengagement

5. People will rise to the occasion – community is not a problem to solve, rather they are an asset to draw upon for finding solutions. The community is part of your interdisciplinary team. They have their own expertise to bring. Set up the environment for people to bring their creativity to break through sticking points. An empowered community empowers decision-makers. #decisionmaking #empowerment #getunstuck #codesign

What’s worked for you?

Co-authored by Anthony Boxshall, Robyn Mansfield and Max Hardy

Channelling Fran Peavey – generating strategic questions for those who sponsor community engagement and collaboration

04/10/2018 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

As many of you will know I have long been a fan of Fran Peavey; especially her work in developing the concept and practice of strategic questioning. Fran put forward the power of questions that make it impossible for the status quo to remain. Questions that create movement; questions that cannot be answered immediately, without giving serious thought. Questions that sometimes shake our foundations and certainty. Questions that make change inevitable and necessary.

If you want to know what I’m talking about check this article of Fran’s. And what I’m really curious about it is how strategic questioning can help to shift the practice of community engagement, especially those who commission it, and ultimately make decisions which are meant to be informed by community engagement.

I’ve been experimenting for the past 20 plus years; having been confronted with remarks such as these:

“I don’t really believe in community engagement. Nothing useful ever comes of it.”

“Where is the evidence that this is useful at all?”

“We have worked so hard to find an answer to this. We have years of collective experience. Once we go out to the community we are likely to have it all thrown out the window!”

“What we need is a process that delivers us a sensible outcome. We have to be able to persuade the community that this is the best possible result.”

“We have to be very careful. Very careful about certain people who we know who do not like us – who have an agenda!”

Now, it’s not as if there isn’t some validity to such concerns about community engagement. If decisionmakers/executives/sponsors of community engagement have only seen it undertaken poorly, and as a ‘Decide, Announce and Defend’ process, it is hardly surprising they have not experienced value for effort (however misguided).

Anyway, let’s bring back Fran. I have often asked myself, what questions might Fran ask of leaders and decisionmakers who are required to do community engagement, but don’t believe in it’s value. Here is a collection.

“What would you like the community and stakeholders to say about your organisation as a result of being engaged about this issue?”

“What might be the consequences of your community feeling like you are just going through the motions/ticking the box?”

“How differently would community engagement be undertaken if we believed it was valuable and useful?”

“What might it take for the community to appreciate the knowledge and skills of your organisation?”

“What is the most useful insight you have gained from someone outside of your organisation – about your business/ priorities?”

“If you have to do community engagement, what might make it a rewarding and useful experience for your organisation?”

“What might it be like to work with your community if much greater trust was established?”

“Can you recall the most memorable positive experience you have had when asked to contribute to resolve an issue being managed by another organisation? What happened? What made it so memorable? What might we learn from that experience you had?

Notice here that there are no ‘why’ questions. Questions starting with ‘why’ may be useful for understanding a situation; but they are not helpful for creating movement. ‘Why’ questions usually encourage people to dig in where they are; to be defensive; demanding a justification. ‘How’ and ‘what’ questions are a much better way to make space for movement.

It’s important to remember that Fran said there is no guarantee any question will always be strategic. It will depend on many factors. But you know it’s a really powerful strategic question when there is no immediate answer; when it compels people to think, to reflect, and to challenge their assumptions. Often, it’s like a ‘deer looking into the headlights’, where they become frozen and immobilised, even for just a second or two. When you have that kind of response you know you have landed a truly strategic question.

Whether or not you are familiar with the art of strategic questioning I’m curious to learn what questions you have posed to facilitate a shift. Or even a question you have been asked that had a profound effect on you, and your practice. Feel free to share!

The potential for Digital Deliberation

30/08/2018 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

As someone who has advocated for, and designed/facilitated, deliberative engagement process since 1998, I can honestly say I’m a fan. Time after time we see everyday citizens rising to the occasion to consider complicated or complex issues, work together and to provide sensible, wise and well-reasoned advice to decision-makers.

Deliberative processes lead to citizens appreciating the challenges of government, the trade-offs, and the creative possibilities. Critical thinking is encouraged and often just happens organically. It’s what happens when people are invited to think about something important; and something that is hard to resolve politically. I love them and seeing what happens. Sceptical public servants and politicians who witness the process and the outcome are often converted. They say things like ‘we have never seen citizens being so considered, so constructive, and so interested!’

Yet, as much as it pains me to admit, there are two disadvantages to deliberative processes. Firstly, they involve a relatively small percentage of the population group affected by and/or interested in a particular issue. Even with carefully stratified group selection, decision-makers ultimately have to weigh up what 20 to 45 or so citizens have recommended against potentially thousands of emails, Facebook comments, and the dramatic statements broadcasted by shock-jocks cheered on by their faithful followers. Although I always argue that ‘it’s best to know what people are thinking when they have really been thinking’, there is no doubt, for politicians, that numbers matter.

The second disadvantage is cost. It’s hard to run a decent deliberative process for less than $30,000 (although I have done that several times). That’s not much money for a project or issue worth hundreds of thousands of dollars; but it can be for tricky smaller projects. Deliberative processes deliver outstanding value for money in my opinion. Having to start all over again costs money, and building trust is also worth money. But for some projects this is more money than is considered justifiable for community engagement. So, project managers stick with doing online discussion forums, and advisory groups, a survey and a few pop-ups (and there is nothing inherently wrong about that either).

This is where digital deliberation comes in. I believe this will be commonplace before too long. It is already starting. The digital platforms are there already, and the potential for this to be refined, simplified and made more interesting is immeasurable. But as with any method, the same principles need to apply. It needs a solid commitment by decision-makers to seriously consider the efforts of those deliberating. The question or remit needs to be carefully thought through. Diversity is needed. A broad range of evidence needs to be presented and critiqued. There needs to be sufficient time for deliberation to occur, and for critical thinking to be encouraged. The final recommendations or advice cannot be filtered; and it needs to be published unedited.

The benefits of digital deliberation done well are significant. The potential for hundreds, if not thousands, to be involved. The potential for more respectful conversations across a greater percentage of the community. Critical thinking on mass, with ways of capturing any shift of thinking after a period deliberating online. It also means we can draw on the output of digital deliberators and feed into face to face deliberation. The possibilities are endless.

There is a lot to learn and plenty of experimentation to be done. I believe it’s well worth exploring and I’m keen to share the adventure with you. Megan Girdler, of Future.Boutique, and I are offering 20 places for a part-time immersive program over the coming months. Join us if you can. We’ll be rolling this out to other cities in 2019 as well so look out. In the meantime, tell me what you see as being the benefits and challenges of doing digital deliberation well.

More info on the Digital Deliberation course is right here!