Thanks to Max for having me as a guest on his blog. It’s been a pleasure to know and work with Max overthe years, as I know it has been for a large number of people.

I want to talk today about innovation. Innovation is one of the over-arching themes of Open State, this exciting event that’s being held in Adelaide in October. It’s also a central theme of an Open State workshop I’m helping to organise: Beyond the Vote. Democratic Innovation in Australia.

Innovation is a thing I have a mixed relationship with. Having done research on emerging technologies and science and technology governance, I’ve studied innovation. I also worked for several years in the federal Department of Innovation (it always had other things in its title, which changed over time). Like other people, I’ve used the term innovation or innovative to make something I’m doing sound better.

On the other hand, I am something of a neo-Luddite and a late adopter. I do now have a smart phone, but I’m still weighing up whether to sign up to Facebook. This is partly because I am a highly sensitive person and deeply reflective. I’m not risk-averse, as such, having made some brave (possibly crazy) choices in my life, but I’m easily over-stimulated and I actively seek to keep my circle of concern close to the bounds of my circle of influence.

So, for me, new is not necessarily good; new can be and often is stressful, so the good it brings has to be clear.

I’m therefore sceptical about the innovation buzz word, and I’m also aware that a lot of innovation is actually old stuff being dressed up as new. This is true for our ‘democratic innovation’ workshop. Deliberative mini-publics have been around for decades, as have co-design processes and principles, grass-roots movements even longer. Many of these ‘innovations’ trace their roots back to the beginnings of democracy.

Recognising this, I think the kinds of questions we need to ask are:

• What is new and disruptive about these processes and approaches as they are emerging in contemporary contexts (citizens juries influencing state politics, co-design reshaping delivery in traditionally technocratic policy areas, grass-roots movements competing with popularity politics at a federal level)?
• What good do they bring? What problems and challenges do they bring?
• How can we learn from what has come before?

The Beyond the Vote workshop will bring practitioners and researchers together. As well as showcasing and exploring great practice cases, this will bring an academic perspective, to the workshop and to Open State. As a person working at the nexus of engagement practice and academia, I’ve really seen the value an academic perspective can bring. I’ve also experienced the tension.

Social science scholars bring both empirical rigour and a critical lens to the study of practical developments. This can be uncomfortable, especially when we’re busy getting excited and patting ourselves on the back about the great work we’re doing. But it’s really important.

As well as doing great work in democratic innovation, practitioners are making mistakes, reinventing the wheel, working at cross purposes, and competing where they could be collaborating or complementing. Academics can point this out, not only in the context of better practice, but from a bigger picture perspective. They can see practice from a system perspective, and give advice about the integration and implementation of practice interventions to give better outcomes at a whole system level.

At the same time, practitioners can give academics unique perspectives on real-world developments, access to empirical cases to test and build theory, and can teach academics a thing or two about celebrating their work.

I’m really looking forward to working with practitioners and researchers at Beyond the Vote, including John Dryzek, Gerry Stoker, Carolyn Hendriks, Simon Burall, Emily Jenke, Nicole Hunter, Chad Foulkes, City of Melbourne, new Democracy Foundation, Voices4Indi, CAPaD, and hopefully, Max Hardy!

I’m also looking forward to the IAP2 conference and all the other exciting events at Open State, and to catching up with friends, old and new.

—

Dr A. Wendy Russell
Principal consultant
Double Arrow Consulting,
Two-way engagement for robust decisions
E: a.wendy.russell@gmail.com

There is growing debate in the Australian parliament and media circles about the planned plebiscite concerning the potential legalisation of same sex marriage. Opinion is divided as to whether the plebiscite is necessary, whether it is worth the money, and whether it is likely to do more harm than good.

There is growing debate in the Australian parliament and media circles about the planned plebiscite concerning the potential legalisation of same sex marriage. Opinion is divided as to whether the plebiscite is necessary, whether it is worth the money, and whether it is likely to do more harm than good.

• Influence: Citizen involvement can be substantial in terms of activity, output, feedback and connecting with each other; but it can hardly be deemed satisfactory without influence. A plebiscite does not guarantee influence (unlike a referendum), although it would be a ‘brave’ government that ignores the result of a plebiscite – even though some MPs have declared their intention to ignore the plebiscite on same sex marriages if they don’t like the result.

• Representativeness: Public involvement in decision-making is considered weak if it is monopolised by powerful interest groups and individuals. Representativeness is about inclusion; about a statistically valid process, and where everybody’s contribution counts. Plebiscites are certainly representative, but representativeness on its own does not equal a good process.

• Deliberativeness: This condition is about being able to weigh up options, or choosing a preferred solution. If an issue is a complex one then people need to time to think. They require solid information from a range of perspectives; time to discuss, reflect, and consider the implications. Deliberation is about forming a collective judgment. It not about gathering individual opinions with little time spent thinking about the issue. Deliberation is essential for complex issues. Some are making a compelling argument we don’t require further deliberation about same sex marriages. Is the issue really a complex one? If the issue was complex then plebiscites do not guarantee deliberation in any case. If it isn’t complex, then perhaps a plebiscite is suitable, though this brings in the question as to whether the expense is warranted.

• Community strengthening (or at least ‘doing no harm’): Any process involving citizens has the potential to strengthen communities or weaken them. Even worse, processes have the potential to polarise, incite prejudice, and further marginalise certain individuals and groups. It is possible to have an influential process, have excellent representation and yet do damage. With regard to a plebiscite on the subject of legalising same sex marriages there is reason to believe, by conservative estimates, that the debate could do real damage. Plebiscites might meet some conditions for citizen involvement – community strengthening is unlikely to be one of them!

Plebiscites then are good at being representative; probably useful for influence. Not so good, on their own for ensuring deliberation over complex issues. They are weak when it comes to community strengthening. So, with regard to same sex marriage my conclusion would be this; it would be representative and perhaps not require a great deal of deliberation. However, it is the sort of issue that would lend itself to a political debate which could do adversely impact on the mental health of people’s whose sexuality and sexual preference is being questioned and debated in the public arena.

Some commentators, indeed several politicians, have argued the issue is too important for politicians to decide on behalf of all Australians. Are they saying that politicians therefore should only make decisions about minor issues? If we thought plebiscites were an expensive way to make decisions about straightforward matters it is odd that we would ever feel good about paying for them.

So where does this leave us? Are there alternatives? Fortunately there has been one innovation in democracy that is worth considering; the Citizens’ Initiative Review Process.

The Citizens’ Initiative Review is an innovative electoral reform first established in the state of Oregon in the United States in 2009. This is how is works; a random sample of 12 citizens gather to analyse a single ballot measure on which the broader public will vote. They study that measure for 3-5 days, while hearing from experts and advocates from diverse points of view. At the end of their deliberations, they write up a one-page summary of key facts and arguments on the issue, and those are then passed along to the rest of the electorate. Oregon has now held six reviews, two every two years, and three other pilots have been held in an Oregon county, the state of Colorado, and the city of Phoenix, Arizona. The latest research has shown that voters who read the report of the deliberative process find it helpful and instructive.

The benefits of such a process in my view are as follows:

• It would be much cheaper as voting on the measure would coincide with an election; rather than being held on a separate date.
• It does allow for deliberation to inform how people might vote on the measure.
• The result would be binding; more like a referendum – therefore more influential.
• It would not be sole focus of public debate, as many other issues would be discussed at this time. Hopefully this would make coverage of this measure less divisive and polarising; but this is something I am not completely confident about.
• Coverage of the Citizens Initiative Review process could help build more awareness and understanding of the issues involved and the rationale for their advice to fellow voters (hopefully building more understanding and respect – much as the SBS series ‘Go back to where you came from’ did with regard to asylum seekers and the ‘stop the boats’ debate).

I believe this approach offers quite a lot around complex policy matters. But a question remains as to whether even this process is warranted. If polling confirms that the vast majority of people already support the legalisation of same sex marriages, and we are satisfied people have already thought about it for long enough, then perhaps a plebiscite or citizens’ initiated review process is completely unnecessary; where the potential risks outweigh the benefits. But if politicians really don’t think they can pass this legislation without a voting measure then perhaps the Citizens Initiative Review process would be more appropriate.

A lot has been written about new forms of leadership.

There’s a mounting pile of evidence pointing towards the merit of an adaptive, collaborative approach to leadership.

But shifting into this kind of behaviour and approach invariably proves to be more than difficult. Many leaders I’ve worked with have gone so far as to say that they feel inauthentic doing leadership differently.

When Bowie left the planet, we didn’t just lose a great musician; we lost a great leader. Anyone aspiring to contemporary leadership should take inspiration and build upon his courageous capacity to shape, inspire and lead culture at a global level.

If you are up for the challenge here are seven ways to channel Bowie in your leadership.

1.    Choose to believe that you are capable of reinventing your approach and your style.
Bowie demonstrated an amazing ability to reinvent himself by creating roles. Bowie said he actually found it much easier to play other people, like Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane and Thin White Duke. Sometimes Bowie seemed indistinguishable from the characters he created. Of course these characters reflected parts of himself.

Bowie found this to be liberating, and he shunned the somewhat nebulous challenge of finding and revealing his true self.

2.    Be open to viewing your identity as something that evolves, capable of being reimagined and as being multifaceted.

The idea we have an essential, unchanging identity is appealing to some extent. It means we can excuse ourselves from attempting to adapt. However, it also means we may not give ourselves permission to explore new ways of being. If we are feeling insecure we can also allow others to determine for us what is authentic or not. Playing it safe will likely be at the expense of being more flexible, and being more effective.

3.    Reflect on those times when different aspects of your personality surfaced – and as you do affirm to yourself you are not one-dimensional.

I recall being a young consultant, working hard to carve out my niche in the industry. I found myself so determined to please my clients that I ended up behaving like a contractor.

I was so keen to show how much expertise I had. I delivered some reasonably worthwhile services, but I didn’t attempt to transfer skills or build capacity within the organisations who’d engaged me. Even more concerning, external stakeholders and communities would comment on how much they appreciated me. But they still didn’t trust or respect the clients who had engaged me.

The penny dropped. I was getting in the way of respect building, or sustaining real change. It took some courage on my part to change the pattern. I had to challenge some of my own assumptions and fears. I had to find a new way of being a consultant, where my emphasis was much less about trying to be indispensable. The focus needed to shift toward helping others to be at their best, and to develop their skills and confidence.

Change doesn’t come easily. It does pay dividends.

4.    Explore new collaborations – Bowie could not have evolved without forging new close working relationships without other musicians and vocalists.

Bowie was an edgy collaborator. Viisti Dickens writing fro the Australian financial Review observed that ‘Bowie liked to harness the passion, skill and voices of those around him, which led to successes such as Let’s Dance, Under Pressure, Walk on the Wild Side and Fame, to name but a few songs’. He refused to play it safe; he explored new genres with different people. It meant he could more fully express a new edginess to his music. His collaborations enhanced his creativity; it didn’t moderate or lessen it.

5.    Be willing to recognise and let go of, or at least temporarily suspend, assumptions about yourself, others and what works.

Having worked extensively in collaborative approaches to addressing complex issues for many years, I observe leaders playing roles that are constraining, and no longer terribly useful. I hear leaders expressing statements reflecting their assumptions, or their view of the world.

The community will never understand or appreciate the constraints we work within.’

“If I share responsibility things just won’t get done right!”

‘If I am truly open to collaboration, or co-designing a solution with others, I look weak, indecisive, stupid or possibly regarded as a shirker. Even worse, we end up with watered down solutions where no-one is completely happy.’

‘I have reached the position I now hold by being seen as having all the answers. It is important to continue to at least pretend to have the answers if people will still look to me as a leader.’

‘To minimize risk it is best not to tackle potentially controversial issues. If I wait long enough, chances are it will become someone else’s problem.’

Are any of these familiar?

6.    Try stepping into a new persona (remembering you are not becoming someone else; rather you are allowing other parts of yourself to emerge – become your own Thin White Duke, or Ziggy Stardust).

American writer Will Wilkinson writes about this.

“Rather than demanding authenticity, which is inherently paradoxical–trying to be real is embarrassing and fake. Bowie-ism instead asks for playful imagination in the artful construction and performance of persona…. The question is not who you are but what connects, how much courage you have, how much guile, what you can manage to get away with.”

7.    Resist the temptation to revert to your default settings when the going gets tough, when others disapprove or when challenged.
Remember, others like it when you are totally predictable; being different means others become a little off balance. Whoever is the least predictable has the most influence.

There are reasons why changing your approach to leading, planning and problem-solving are difficult. It is because such assumptions have served you reasonably well, most of the time, in the past. It takes enormous courage to let them go.

It’s up to you of course. It may seem much safer to keep doing what you’ve been doing. However, I believe it is much less safe in reality. Leadership through complex challenges will require more than new skills. It will require revisiting assumptions and daring to throw them away – at least for awhile. It may involve you giving permission to your other characters to emerge.

Behavioural flexibility, after all, is an attribute to being successful over time.

Bowie showed us the way.