Home > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
Inherent struggles
It’s no secret that measuring progress presents fundamental questions about what we value. The problem for me is that too often we rush through these questions because they raise imbedded conflicts, make us incredibly uncomfortable, reveal different world views – or because we miss them.
David Hooker, the vice president for community building at the Center for Working Families in Atlanta, raised one such dilemma in his comments. He asked,“What if the measures we can make and the measures that are acceptable to funding sources either don’t inform our work or, worse yet, are fundamentally incompatible with the long-term success of the community?”
I suspect that his simply asking this question has many of you jumping up and down, exclaiming, “Yes, what if…!” Part of the issue here is how different people define progress. Indeed, can we articulate what is most important to each of us in making progress?
More to the point is the matter of how we even conceive of progress – what might it look like and what is the nature of the pathway forward we can imagine? I consistently find that we need more rigorous and explicit thinking on these questions.
For instance, there is often an assumption that the path between different points is relatively straight or clear; but what if it is more likely to be circuitous? If it’s the latter, how do we account for that and reflect it in our work? Over and over again I find that our own assumptions must be revealed and aired out.
This leads to Nancy Wilson’s helpful thoughts. Nancy is the director and associate dean of the University College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University. She starts off her comments with insights from her dad (they never leave us, do they?), someone who has studied what makes managers effective, and she reminds us that to measure anything, we must first be clear on our goals.
Easier said than done, which is precisely why her point is so important. In my own work, I find that people tend to bypass fully exploring notions of “purpose” and “goals,” skipping right to the implementation phase of their work.
Why? Maybe it’s because so long as we’re in motion, we feel OK. But I find that if we focus more clearly on understanding and knowing the essence of what we seek to do, then we can actually cut out much of the activity that consumes us.
Nancy also wrote the following:“There is one trick, however. As in any community venture, the prime goal is rarely the only goal. And, secondary goals are sometimes easier to measure. So the trick is to keep the focus on the prime goal, while still counting and reporting and examining the consequences of other outcomes – families sheltered, children nurtured, symphonies performed – without losing the focus on the prime goal: building community.”
So, here we have another key to this work – understanding the interdependence of different factors. We need to be clear on what those factors are, how they relate to one another, and how they need to evolve and develop in order for us to fulfill our purpose and goals. For me, this takes understanding the complexity of the work in which we’re engaged and identifying the right levers for generating change in that complex system. And at all times we must be searching for clarity of complexity, so we don’t lose sight of the end-game.
There’s one more essential point to make today, which is raised by Reggie Lewis, the executive vice president of the United Way of Essex and West Hudson in New Jersey. Among his comments, Reggie puts before us a key word to consider: “legitimacy.” Here’s what Reggie said:“After all, I must have built-in legitimacy since I am a trained professional who hails from the very community I serve, right? Prior to the Nevada experience, I would have never raised a question so profound. As I continue to reflect on the experience of the conference, I move forward knowing that perhaps legitimacy must always be earned (if not demonstrated) when attempting the kind of community engagement that inspires folk to want to talk and create change in the first place.”
I couldn’t agree more with Reggie. In today’s world, none of us can claim legitimacy simply based on our title, or position, or education level, or any other such dimension. And yet, as Reggie points out, this can be a blind spot for many of us. We can fail to keep his notion in front of us in our daily words and deeds or, worse yet, his point never truly emerges on our radar screen.
But it is precisely this challenge – the one of legitimacy – that will enable us to engage with and ultimately answer the very questions of essence that David and Nancy ask us to consider. It is questions like these that call us to think hard about what we do and why, and that will increase the likelihood that we can make real progress on the challenges before us. -
Legitimate engagement - Reggie Lewis
My recent participation in a two-day discussion in Nevada on a unique opportunity to convene a community to deliberate on the use of charitable dollars led to some unexpected soul-searching. Just how does one have authentic conversations in a given community? How do you invite a representative group to a table with the premise that all will have equal say and enjoy the ability to act as equals?
The Community Conference, co-sponsored by The Harwood Institute and the Nevada Community Foundation, in March provides a useful framework to consider for any community faced with similar questions. In responding to these questions, I offer my insights gained from the experience.
First, one must be prepared to have a real conversation in a community, particularly with those most affected by challenges and issues of concern. A conversation is “real” or authentic when the sponsors of the discussion want to listen and hear the views represented in a community, even if such thinking does not coincide with one’s own. Moreover, a real conversation is one that is “legitimate” in that the sponsor/facilitator does not come to the table having already reached a conclusion on the issue at hand. Such conversations require parties to thoroughly listen and engage in mutually-beneficial ways, leading to new and more relevant levels of understanding.
Legitimate (authentic) engagement must be truly representative of community. Beyond the all too often “scan” of sectors and leaders, full representation necessitates bringing folk together within and across boundaries who otherwise would never meet. As such, the roster of participants must delve deep to identify the traditional and non-traditional “players” to bring to a table. Hence – some of my soul-searching: Just how often do I bring in the head of the chamber of commerce along with the local tenant association leader?
Yet, failing to ensure that a broad, cross-section of individuals are present can often lead to missed opportunities to gain a critical understanding from those outside of one’s comfort zone – perhaps the very perspective needed to leverage meaningful support to change a condition or circumstance.
Finally, legitimate (authentic) engagement must ultimately lead to a form of give and take that culminates in the sharing of power and authority. So, more germane to the second question above – it becomes a table among equals when each individual can equally weigh in on the direction of resources and dollars usually left to a small, select (often well-intentioned) group of individuals who profess to know what is best.
Well, sometimes I do think I know what’s best. After all, I must have built-in legitimacy since I am a trained professional who hails from the very community I serve, right? Prior to the Nevada experience, I would have never raised a question so profound. As I continue to reflect on the experience of the conference, I move forward knowing that perhaps legitimacy must always be earned (if not demonstrated) when attempting the kind of community engagement that inspires folk to want to talk and create change in the first place.
Reginald Lewis, guest blogger, is the executive vice president for community impact at the United Way of Essex and West Hudson, Newark, NJ. -
The prime goal - Nancy Wilson
My father has spent a career exploring what makes managers effective. The quote of his that rings in my ears is, “Without a goal, you can’t plan. Without a plan, you can’t manage.” And, in my 20 years of for-profit and non-profit work experience, management and measurement go hand in hand. The question for me from the Las Vegas Community Conference isn’t “to measure or not to measure?” The question is, “What to measure?”
By all means they need to measure, and the starting point is their goals. After informing themselves on the many challenges faced by their rapidly growing city, Community Conference members seemed to identify one goal as the first among many priorities, and that is to build the sense of community that will allow the community to understand itself, to care for itself, to make tradeoffs for itself. The assumption underlying their goal setting is that shared values and commitment to sense of community is the sine qua non without which all of the other problems cannot be solved, no matter how much money or time everyone invests.
In that light, their management need is to measure sense of community and strength of community. Happily, there are many proxies for community capital – levels of citizen participation in elections, in neighborhood gatherings, in school events, in sports leagues, and more; surveys of how many neighbors people report knowing; surveys of attitudes about community; charitable giving for community related organizations; and the list goes on. I’m sure there are items that would be most relevant to Las Vegas, and the Community Conference can define those things.
In addition, as it makes funding decisions that prioritize community building, the conference can engage their funding partners in identifying their own measures of success – not in how many symphonies performed, or even in how many families are housed, but in how many people gathered before or after the symphony to mingle and how many neighbors lent a hand to the family in need.
There is one trick, however. As in any community venture, the prime goal is rarely the only goal. And, secondary goals are sometimes easier to measure. So the trick is to keep the focus on the prime goal, while still counting and reporting and examining the consequences of other outcomes – families sheltered, children nurtured, symphonies performed – without losing the focus on the prime goal: building community.
Nancy E. Wilson, guest blogger, is director and associate dean of the University College of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University. -
Expanding on metrics - David Hooker
Rich, I fundamentally agree with everything you have said and the concerns you have raised. I actually want to expand on those concerns. During my 20+ year career as a conflict transformation specialist and community convener, I have often argued that there must be some (I would suggest high) value placed on process measures — transparency, efforts at collaboration, values driven processes. And yet, good process is never a substitute for process.
What impressed me at the Nevada Community Foundation’s Authentically Community Advised Funds Conference was the constant struggle with the questions concerning what to measure and how to measure it. But there was another question that has concerned me even more since I left the conference: What if the measures we can make and the measures that are acceptable to funding sources either don’t inform our work or, worse yet, are fundamentally incompatible with the long-term success of the community?
This is an example of what I mean: In a community building effort, where a marginalized or previously disenfranchised community is trying to organize in the face of rapid (and often aggressive) gentrification, demographic measures, which are practical and often acceptable, are uninformative at best, and possibly deceptive. While an increase in percentages of home ownership, high school and college graduation, and constant employment among residents may actually reflect improved conditions for the previously disenfranchised populations that are the focus of the work, it is equally likely that the improved statistics reflect the depths of gentrification.
Without attention and good intentions on the part of the funding source and those with oversight responsibility, it might be possible to allow the community builders to declare victory and go home without having ever improved one life. Often we measure what we can and the measures are uninformative and/or deceptive.
The second issue is a more systemic question. Often the acceptable and practical measures of success and the standards of program and process evaluation are ways of comparing the disenfranchised or marginalized community with the general population and establishing strategies to equalize the marginalized community within the same paradigm and framework as the dominant culture.
My question arises from my experience in a collectivist communal context or from my theological position arguing for a beloved community. Often the measures of success of the dominant paradigm – accumulated wealth, property ownership, consumptive capacity – are actually measures of the willingness and success of those participating within the exploitive and oppressive systems that created the marginalized communities in the first place.
Increased homeownership is important; however, large homes with high heating and cooling costs and large yards contribute to (sub)urban sprawl, environmental degradation, and reinforced glorification of excess consumption. In order to allow greater numbers of people access to this life style, we have to acknowledge that both in our back yard and on the other side of the globe, we will of necessity contribute to someone else’s exploitation and environmental degradation.
So my question is this: In our Metrics “R” Us organization, do we have a place for a values and standards committee that reminds us that just because we can measure it does not mean that it is for the up building of the kingdom or the eventual repair of the breach?
David Hooker, guest blogger, is vice president for community building at the Center for Working Families, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. -
Metrics "R" Us
Here’s the conundrum for us. Suppose someone were to give you a pot of money to work on a key challenge in your community. How would you know you’ve made a difference? How much change would you be willing to bet could be created in maybe two to three years?Every day we are told to be successful. We hear this relentless mantra in TV ads, magazine stories, even from Donald Trump and Martha Stewart. Indeed, we’re expected to create change seemingly overnight, and all with aplomb. In the world of civic change, the notion of metrics – of being able to measure success – is everywhere. The guardians of money want to know they’re getting a big bang for their buck.
I’ve long condemned the metrics mongers who oftentimes demand unrealistic results from change efforts. But I have been equally critical of those who say that outputs from civic work cannot be measured because somehow we’re engaged in “God’s work” – endeavors too important to be put to the measurement test. To such folks I would offer this retort: It is because our work is so important that we owe it to ourselves and others to gauge our efforts. Without clear measurements, how else will we know we’re on the right path?
But what are clear measurements? Recently, The Harwood Institute co-hosted with the Nevada Community Foundation a national convening on a new community-driven funding system called the Community Conference. One might argue that the Las Vegas Community Conference would be successful if it helped to improve public schools, health care, or some other pressing concern through its small grants.
But what if we were to say the Community Conference would be successful because of how it did its work – for instance, because it spreads to other groups new ways to think about civic engagement; or entices new funders to come forward who otherwise wouldn’t; or generates new trust in the community because it acts with transparency; or finds ways to amplify the community’s voice on key concerns?
And lo and behold, what if the Community Conference did all these things and still didn’t move the needle on public schools or health care or any other community concerns? What would we say then?
Our task is to find the right balance between two seemingly competing goals that are in reality inextricably intertwined and interdependent. Here’s what I mean. In our efforts to build more connected and vibrant communities, we must never lose sight of pressing concerns that affect people. For me, I’m in this work because I believe we must repair breaches in our society, such as inadequate public schools, so that all kids can get a good education. And yet, without developing the relationships, structures, norms, and leaders in our communities, the chance for any real progress on such pressing concerns is slim to nil.
The people who call for metrics will not cede their efforts, nor should they. Their intentions are good, even if we may dislike the measuring sticks they wield. At issue is the lens through which people see change. And I believe that if we want to shift that lens, then it is incumbent upon us to propose new metrics – ones that reflects a deeper appreciation for how change comes about and what progress looks like.
So, let us declare that “Metrics 'R' Us,” and let us lead the way. -
Which leaders do you stand beside?
Wherever I go on my book tour, one of the most pressing questions I get is this one: How can we find the leaders we seek? People’s disgust with the quality of leadership in the country, and in their local communities, is palpable and deep. What can we do?
First off, I am always quick to say that our leaders in Washington, D.C., will not the lead the way forward. In fact, I believe they will be the last ones to join in building improved conditions in public life and politics. They are too mired in their acrimonious and divisive ways; and they are too concerned with pursuing their own personal agendas, personal interests, and personal vendettas. I believe they can hardly see their way clearly to alternate paths in public life and politics.
But I am equally quick to ask the following question of the rest of us: How well do we support the good leaders in our communities? For instance, how often, when a leader comes under fire, do we:- Step forward to literally stand beside the individual and vouch for their integrity, even when we do not agree with a particular position?
- Step forward to say clearly that the individual leader is a good person, and that we and others will not stand for scurrilous and mean-spirited attacks against them?
- Step forward to praise an individual leader for taking a tough-minded and principled stand – whether we agree with them or not?
So, please, take the test: What leaders do you stand beside?
-
A good man
A good man, Gil Thelen, the publisher of the Tampa Tribune, retired last week, and it’s worth pausing today to think about his work and our own work. In my travels, I have known few people like Thelen who have been able to so authentically combine a sense of integrity, grittiness, innovation, and commitment to his profession and public life.
Some of you know that Thelen serves on The Harwood Institute board. I tell you that not because I feel compelled to heap praise on one of my board members; rather, you should know that he is a board member because of his life-time worth of experience and the virtues he spreads daily.
In a statement he sent around to colleagues and friends last week, Thelen used the word “joy” to describe his work. He said, “There must be joy in making the paper if customers are going to find joy in reading it.” He then called his colleagues “joy makers.”
Thelen is 67 years old. I don’t know very many people – of any age – who think of their work as making joy. Indeed, think about the words we usually ascribe to the topsy-turvy world of the news media; two that come immediately to mind are “sensationalism” and “hype.” These are the polite ones! But what if more news professionals were like Thelen? What if they thought of their profession in terms of their affection for the communities they serve? Make no mistake; Thelen is a tough-minded journalist who demands good work from those around him, and above all else from himself. He doesn’t believe in vacuous feel-good news or gratuitously turning up the volume to get people’s attention. Instead, his affection for his community – his desire to make joy – infuses him with a sense of responsibility and obligation for how he carries out his daily duties. His sense of higher calling in journalism makes his job more difficult and complicated, not easier. It demands wrestling with tough choices about the meaning and effects of his decisions; and yet, his higher sense of calling offers the opportunity to make a difference in people’s lives.
I spend much of my own life trying to engage people in thinking about various nexus points in their work and lives, such as how to solve problems and build community at the same time; how to make progress and leave enough room for ambiguity; how to be ruthlessly strategic and pay attention to what gives people hope. In Thelen, we find an individual who has sought to discover and make real the tenuous nexus of making a newspaper hit its bottom-line performance and be a community asset. Far too often, we shy away from such nexus points in our work because they are so damn hard to understand and achieve. Thelen shows us what is possible.
I still remember the first time I met Thelen, some 15 or so years ago. I was conducting a focus group for Knight Ridder newspapers during the 1992 presidential campaign in Columbia, South Carolina, where Thelen was the editor. My first impression was to be intimidated by his sheer presence. But soon I discovered, and have come to know well, a man who is a thinker, an innovator, a doer, a risk-taker – and above all else, an individual who is guided by an ever-present spiritual compass and an unyielding, intense sense of integrity.
In so many ways, Thelen represents the notion of public innovator that we at the Institute talk so often about. He helps remind us that we, too, can be public innovators – we can be guided by our own sense of idealism; our own pragmatic desire to see results; and our own willingness to take risks and to calibrate them carefully.
Come July 1, Gil Thelen will be off to new endeavors. I plan to follow him. I hope you’ll come, too.