Max Hardy Consulting

Results through collaboration

twitterlinkedinmailby feather
  • About
  • Authentic Co-design
  • Services
  • My experience
  • Courses
  • Links
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

How safe is it to participate?

27/07/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Something we don’t discuss much is the importance of the ‘do no harm’ principle when engaging the community (especially relevant now with the Covid-19 pandemic). Anthony Boxshall and I identified ‘people feeling unsafe’ as one of the key challenges to co-design. We rely on bringing together a diverse community of interest, but what do you do if alternative views are not welcome, or indeed people fear the consequences of participating and expressing unpopular or inconvenient points of view? This can be even more challenging than just ensuring physical distancing at this time.

People do feel unsafe to participate – for a variety of reasons.

Before considering potential tactics to address this, it’s important to understand that fear can be well-founded.

While working in Northern Queensland with agriculture extension service providers, I heard of a farmer who decided to get more serious about sustainable agriculture practices, only to be shunned by other farmers in the district. She became known as the ‘witch on the hill’, and many would no longer talk to her. They believed she left their tribe; a very sceptical tribe when it came to acknowledging climate change impacts, or damage to the Great Barrier Reef their farming practices may have been contributing toward.

On another project, about 7 years ago, which involved exploring options to secure power supply to an inland region, two shop owners decided to support a particular option that others were concerned about. The result was that their township turned on them, to the extent that people would not shop there, and young people were warned not to apply for work there. Ultimately it put them out of business.

On another occasion, I managed to talk a council officer out of his plan to overwhelm opponents of his ‘pet project’. He wanted the council to construct an off-road cycle path from a seaside town to a village in the hills. The only difficulty was that the path would go through several farms, and the farmers had never been spoken to about it. The council officer wanted me to facilitate a large town-hall meeting, because there were several hundred cyclists who would attend, and they would ‘drown out the voices of those farmers’. We ran quite a different process, of course, but this could easily have led to divisive, unpleasant consequences.

There have been other projects where people have been physically threatened. On one occasion, at a public meeting, I attended as an interested citizen (not as the facilitator, for a change), there was a punch-up between two young men who had opposing views. Although not much damage was done physically it had the effect of dissuading community members to continue being involved. It felt scary and polarising.

During a Core Values Renewal process for the International Association for Public Participation, for which I was the process team chairperson in 2008, Australian members proposed an additional core value, one that said something like this:

During a Core Values Renewal process for the International Association for Public Participation, for which I was the process team chairperson in 2008, Australian members proposed an additional core value, one that said something like this: “Public Participation aims to leave a legacy of a stronger and more cohesive community of interest as a result of the process.”  I was surprised when we failed to gain the support of the majority of members attending the session, held in Montreal. Members from the USA in particular felt it was going too far (code for, it sounded a bit pink – or socialist!?!?!). I left scratching my head, thinking, ‘surely it is not ok to engage communities and leave them more polarised, feeling less safe, and less confident to be able to shape the world they lived in.’

Of course, many thought such a Core Value had merit, and it is something I know that many community engagement practitioners pay attention to. There are quite a few practical measures to improve safety, though we can probably never guarantee it will always feel safe to be involved. Being involved will change things, and choosing not to participate will also come at a cost, let us not forget that.

Of course, many thought such a Core Value had merit, and it is something I know that many community engagement practitioners pay attention to. There are quite a few practical measures to improve safety, though we can probably never guarantee it will always feel safe to be involved. Being involved will change things; and choosing not to participate will also come at a cost, let us not forget that.

So what can we do to help participants feel safer?

Here are nine tips I have learned along the way.

  1. Meeting with individuals and small groups on their turf is a good way to start. Learning what they care about and how comfortable they feel mixing with people with different views. This is still possible in a COVID world by arranging a call or video call at people’s places at a time that suits them.
  2. It’s worth doing some research to consider what has occurred before. Not just reading about it, but also talking to people who have worked with the community previously.
  3. ‘Dialogue for understanding’, something a colleague Paul Waite specialises in, can be really worthwhile. You can read about this approach here. It’s a process that does not aim to reach agreement, or to see who can win a debate. Dialogue provides a safe space for people to share their view of the world, and to listen to others. Listening for understanding can help prepare people to participate in a co-design process; they may even find they have more in common than they first thought.
  4. Involving randomly selected participants in a process to work through a controversial issue, can moderate the behaviour of those with more extreme views. It is not uncommon for participants to call out the aggressive behaviour of others if deemed inappropriate.
  5. As a facilitator I have found it much more useful to encourage the participation of more people than to try to ‘manage’ or ‘control’ those who are trying to monopolise a conversation and behaving aggressively. Focusing attention on how to elevate the participation of all seems to be a more effective way of not giving too much power to the most aggressive participants.
  6. There are methods that make it safer for people to express their views; digital polling methods, using applications like Poll Everywhere, Menti and Slido, record and display collective results while ensuring individual anonymity. Jason Diceman’s Feedback Frames is another method for making it safe to express feedback on different ideas.
  7. Using video so people can share their views (their faces can be hidden and voices altered) is another way for people to share views and stories, in a way that doesn’t require them to be in the same physical space with others who disagree.
  8. We are not more accustomed to using Zoom and other online meeting tools, which can also help people to feel safer. This can also be used in conjunction with digital polling tools, and other programs. It is one of the benefits derived from Covid-19 restrictions.
  9. Finally co-designing the process with a range of people will help to factor in safety measures. There is no ‘one-size fits all’ process when it comes to community engagement. Working it out together helps to prepare the space where people can deliberate safely, and work toward enduring solutions.

Now it’s your turn. What are your reflections on safety issues related to community engagement, especially co-design processes?

If you are interested in joining our Authentic Co-design Community of Interest, then sign up here.

If you want to hear about how Anthony Boxshall, Susan Carter, and I have responded to a range of other challenges you may like to tackle our self-paced online training course, Authentic Codesign. More information about that here.

Filed Under: Co-design, Community Engagement Tagged With: authentic codesign, codesign, Collaboration, Community Engagement

Learning from Covid-19. How what we are learning now can transform how we engage into the future!

30/04/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Engaging communities at a time of physical distancing presents some real challenges for local government. In an earlier article, I asserted that doing sophisticated engagement online, even deliberative community engagement, is possible. I really believe it, but I am not pretending it is straightforward, nor that it is adequate on its own. It does mean doing things differently though and seizing the opportunities that exist.

Let’s face it, community engagement is never perfect. It is never perfectly representative; the processes are not perfectly supported by organisations, nor is the output perfectly considered. It is always a matter of making trade-offs with our processes, limited by budget, time-frames, and the capacity of communities to be involved. But we have come a long way in the last 20 years. Here are some things that I’ve noticed are much better.

  1. Organisations no longer consider a once-off public meeting as being an adequate community engagement process.
  2. There is more effort made to connect with the ‘harder-to-reach’.
  3. Organisations no longer focus their efforts on just trying to placate those who are well organised and most vocal.
  4. Organisations provide a broader range of opportunities for communities to be involved; we don’t usually just provide one way to contribute.
  5. Organisations are generally clearer about genuine parameters and constraints; and open to putting more ‘on the table’ that can be influenced by the process.
  6. Organisations ask better questions, and scope engagement more thoughtfully.
  7. We make more space for deliberation to occur, where complexities can be appreciated, and well-informed, considered judgments can be made by a diverse range of participants.
  8. Organisations are more confident of citizens rising to the occasion, generating great ideas, exercising sound judgment, and being central to building solutions – they view communities as an asset rather than a problem to be solved.
  9. Organisations make more of an effort to explain how engagement has influenced decision-making, strategies and plans. They close the loop better than before.

We do not want to lose these gains at this time. In fact, I would suggest it is even more important we engage authentically right now. But what are some of the challenges? Here are a few.

  1. Not all councils have IT systems that allow staff to collaborate in online platforms (such as Google docs, Basecamp and Trello).
  2. Councils have often invested in one online platform (such as Engagement HG or the Hive) and are reluctant to spend money on different ones. As a result council officers may not be able to offer the range of digital opportunities they’d like.
  3. Not everyone in the community has access to reliable internet services, or the skills to use digital platforms. Whereas previously support could be provided by library staff, that service is not available right now due to physical distancing restrictions.
  4. Transitioning existing community engagement processes to digital only engagement is proving to be more time consuming than expected. Practice sessions, revisions to presentation material, negotiating authorisations from IT, and requiring multiple people to be available during video meetings (in case someone has a bandwidth problem), all take time.

My recent experience has shown that worthwhile engagement can still be undertaken. It is important to remind ourselves that people can adapt; we can be creative, we can experiment and we can rise to a challenge. One of the ways to proceed has been to invite stakeholders, community members and project teams to work out the process together. Staying humble and asking; “How can we continue to work on projects that are important to keep progressing? Let’s learn to do something different together. Let’s not aim for a perfect process, just one that we can help us to keep moving in the right direction.”

This asks for a special kind of leadership too, and leaders can be found all over the place. It involves holding the space within which we can work things out together. It certainly means being gracious when things don’t work out as planned – avoiding the blame game, and seeing what we can learn from every experience.

What is evident with this kind of approach and leadership is it is the same kind of approach that works best in a pre and post Covid-19 world too. Let’s make sure we take these kinds of attitudes and mindsets when we have more options available to use for future engagements.

Filed Under: Community Engagement Tagged With: Community Engagement, COVID-19, Engaging Communities

Community engagement – definitions applicable to systems change

21/10/2019 By Max Hardy 2 Comments

I’ve been pondering how we understand this term ‘community engagement’ and realising how important it is that we develop an agreed understanding of it before designing a community engagement process. There is no single universally applied understanding of the terms, community engagement, public participation, or citizen involvement. The terms are used interchangeably. Perhaps, the most widely used definition comes from The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) definition is widely used.

“Engagement, or public participation, is a process for making better decisions that incorporates the interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders and meet the needs of the decision-making body.”

The IAP2 Spectrum describes five different levels of engagement, Involve, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Each of these levels refers to the extent to which participation influences decision-making. Even the term ‘empower’ in the IAP2 context, is about delegated decision making; it does not align with the community development concept of empowerment.

Although a useful framework for decision-making, the IAP2 definition and the Spectrum, do not relate well to systems change. It is more than just influencing a decision; and one that is set largely by a single sponsoring organisation.

Here are some other definitions:

‘Simply put, community engagement seeks to engage the community to achieve sustainable outcomes, equitable decision-making processes, and deepen relationships and trust between government organisations and communities.’ Crispin Butteriss, Bang the Table (who also writes about this in his article ‘What is community engagement, exactly?’.

‘Community engagement seeks to better engage the community to achieve long-term and sustainable outcomes, processes, relationships, discourse, decision-making, or implementation.’

Center for Economic and Community Development

And how about this definition for employee engagement.

‘Employee engagement is the emotional commitment the employee has to the organization and its goals. This emotional commitment means engaged employees actually care about their work and their company.’ Kevin Kruse, Forbes

We know that community engagement is not only about decision making. Capire developed the engagement triangle to show that engagement can also be about capacity building, and strengthening relationships. This is helpful, and yet when working on a suicide prevention strategy it was apparent to me that we did not only want to engage the community to merely inform decisions, build skills or strengthen relationships. The engagement itself was the solution. We were seeking to help communities to discuss the taboo subject of suicide; and thereby enable everyone to get the help they need, or offer the support required, in a new way. It was about changing a system, and engaging people in conversations about this topic was the vehicle. So, we reframed ‘Engaging the community to help prevent suicide’ to ‘a Citizen-led strategy for suicide prevention’. The engagement was the means and the end. Engaging communities to transform how we talk about, think about, and behave regarding suicide ideation, means something quite different to engaging a community, for instance, about a new parking policy. The kind of engage is different. Engaging that primarily informs a decision or policy may not require ongoing engagement. Once the decision is made and is implemented we just get on with our lives. For systems change the engagement is ongoing; it is iterative, and it informs behaviours, attitudes, builds social capital, and become synonymous with the solution itself.

The Tamarack Institute definition of community engagement is one that sits better for this kind of engagement:

… people working collaboratively, through inspired action and learning, to create and realise bold visions for their common future. (Tamarack, 2003)

This definition works better for ‘systems change’, and for ‘movement building’. There is an opportunity to flesh out this nuance; so that it is clear when we refer to engagement or participation it is this kind of meaning and aspiration.

What is important is that we don’t say one definition is superior to any other. It is simply getting agreement about what it means for a particular situation. No definition works for every kind of engagement. Perhaps the big lesson here is that we don’t just assume we share the same meaning or intent when we talk about engagement. One way to help do that is to ask the question, what might be the most positive legacy this process would leave us with? For the engagement that informs a decision it might be, ‘participants know their input has been valued, understood, and have clarity as to how their input has contributed to decisions made’. For a suicide prevention strategy, the legacy might be ‘a community is more capable and confident in talking about suicide; and that people are better connected, less isolated, and better able to support each other and ask for help’.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever found yourself talking at cross purposes with other people when discussing community engagement?

Filed Under: Community Engagement Tagged With: Community Engagement, community engagement process, IAP2 Spectrum, public participation

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:

  • Australian Citizen’s Parliament
  • The Queensland Plan
  • The Dandenong Creek Program
  • The Brimbank Youth Council

I also mentioned the Synthetron Platform for online citizen engagement

Citizens at the Centre

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.

Filed Under: Community Engagement

Bringing art into engagement

17/01/2019 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Introducing and interviewing Jade Herriman

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.

Filed Under: Community Engagement

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Search

Authentic Co-design

Deliver better projects, build trust and involve multiple stakeholders productively…

authentic co-design

Find Out How

Subscribe to my newsletter

Recent Posts

  • Engaging to make a difference. A conversation with Ben Neil. 01/02/2021
  • It’s time to do stakeholder mapping differently! 28/10/2020
  • Common objections to committing to collaborative (co-design or deliberative) engagement processes 30/09/2020
  • Facilitating Public Deliberations 28/08/2020
  • How safe is it to participate? 27/07/2020
  • Debunking myths about ‘deliberation’ 14/07/2020
  • What is your approach to consulting? And… which one best works for co-designing solutions with the community? 06/07/2020

Contact Details

Max Hardy Consulting
Email: max@maxhardy.com.au
Phone: 0418 217 261
Twitter: @maxchardy
Skype: maxhardy
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/max-hardy/11/339/a4b

Testimonials

Craig Wallace

I have worked with Max Hardy on two complex projects which took deliberative democracy and applied it to new problems. In 2007 at a ceremony in Arizona, USA Max along with the ACT Disability Advisory Council was awarded the IAP2 (International) Award for "Project of the Year" for our Citizens Jury project which provided scorecard

Ian Dixon, Dixon Partnering Solutions

'I have worked with Max on many occasions and have great respect for his skills and knowledge around community engagement and collaboration. He is an expert trainer and a strong advocate for Appreciative Inquiry approaches.' Ian Dixon, Principal, Dixon Partnering Solutions

Becky Hirst

'Max is one of the leading superstars of community engagement and collaborative governance in Australia. Since I first met him as my trainer in Adelaide back in 2007, I've admired his approach. He's passionate, dedicated, admired in the field and I look forward to seeing the next steps of his career unfold. Watch out world!'

Lara Damiani

'I had the wonderful opportunity to watch Max in action facilitating the Citizen's Jury for People With Disability Australia in Sydney last month which I was filming. Max's tagline "results through collaboration" is spot on. It was pure magic watching Max create collaboration and results from a randomly selected jury - 12 very unique personalities

Kellie King

'I have had the pleasure of both being a participant in a fantastic training session run by Max, and also as a client. Max was of tremendous assistance navigating through a challenging engagement process with great support, advice and good humour. Thank you Max.' Kellie King General Manager – Community & Corporate Services, Wannon Water

Amanda Newbery, Articulous

'Max Hardy has a unique ability to build the confidence and capacity of teams working in engagement. He brings a wealth of experience and insight. We have worked together on a number of deliberative projects and he is a delight to work with!' Amanda Newbery Articulous

Courtney Brown, Director, BDR Projects

'I have known and worked with Max for about two years, however I have been very aware of his career and engagement experience applied to major projects across industry sectors for a much longer period. Max has been at the forefront of pioneering new mechanisms and methodologies for genuine engagement and this resonates for his

Moira Deslandes

'Max is a democracy enthusiast. He finds ways to enable, empower and encourage every voice to be heard and designs processes that foster the principle: every voice is worth hearing.' Moira Deslandes Director, Moira Deslandes  Consulting  

Eugene McGarrell, FACS

'Max Hardy has worked with my senior executive team and local stakeholders to facilitate the co-creation of social wellbeing strategies. Max’s style is both collaborative and supportive and he gets the best from people involved. I highly recommend Max to anyone who is embarking on a process of co-creation.' Eugene McGarrell District Director, Northern Sydney

Liz Mackevicius

'Max worked with us to design and execute a series of workshops based on the citizen jury principles, to enable a conversation between community members about the growth and change expected to occur in a challenging inner city municipality. Max understood the key issues at hand, gave expert advice and worked with us to tailor

Amber James

'I have known Max for more than ten years. I was a student of his doing the IAP2 Certificate, engaged him as a consultant for in-house work in local government, and then worked alongside him on a consumer engagement capacity building project at the Royal Brisbane Womens Hospital. He is great to be around and

Barbara Dart

Max recently facilitated a two day course for us at Council about tackling the internal and external challenges of community engagement. Max is an exceptional facilitator and his ability to draw on experiences across such a broad and diverse background in CE is invaluable to those before him. I would highly recommend Max to anyone

Lisa Rae

I first encountered Max in Auckland when he delivered IAP2 training I was attending. Many years later, I’ve had the opportunity to work with him on two significant local government projects in Melbourne using co-design and deliberative engagement approaches. Max’s great strength was helping council decision makers understand their role in the engagement process and

Beatrice Briggs

'Max Hardy brings to his work a delightful combination of common sense, integrity, experience, laced with a sly sense of humour.'   Beatrice Briggs Director International Institute for Facilitation and Change (IIFAC) Tepoztlán, Morelos, Mexico

Jessie Keating

Working with Max is a delight. Max’s facilitation, collaboration and problem solving style is respectful and calm, along with being both accessible and professional. The most significant project we have worked on with Max was the planning and undertaking of a community symposium, focused on the drafting of our city’s 20 year strategy, MV2040. We

Crispin Butteriss, Bang the Table

'Max is a long time colleague, mentor and friend. He has a deft touch as a facilitator and collaboration strategist due his deeply developed empathetic listening skills, along with the experience and wisdom of many years of working on thorny problems with people from all walks of life'. Crispin Butteriss, PhD Co-founder and Chief Practice

Amy Hubbard, Capire

“Max is a trusted and respected colleague and friend of Capire. He is always able to provide us with a sound, strategic and independent perspective – even on the toughest projects in very complex communities” Amy Hubbard CEO, Capire.

Carol M Anderson

'If one were to ask me who was the best facilitator and facilitation trainer in the world, I would unequivocally answer “Max Hardy.” As the public involvement manager at one of the largest U.S.-based environmental engineering firms, I often took along my notes from Max’s facilitation class to meet with clients and, on their behalf, with the public.

The Honourable Andrew Powell MP

'I have always been impressed with Max’s ability to navigate and resolve the thorny issues through collaboration.  He involves all participants right from the beginning: asking “what’s the question that needs answering here”? His efforts alongside John Dengate in the journey that was The Queensland Plan were stellar and he was a significant contributor to

Anna Kelderman

'Max's extensive experience with deliberative engagement, as well as his uniquely calming facilitation style, has helped bring about a step-change in the type of public engagement expected in Western Australia. It has been an absolute pleasure to partner with and learn from the best in the business, and I continue to look for opportunities to

Copyright © 2021