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.
You can ping this entry by using http://www.theharwoodinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/119 .
Reggie, I agree with your statement, that "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". The challenge that arises, is how to get the appropriate people in the same place at the same time.
Bringing members of the external community into an online community can help break down those barriers of time and space allowing people to read and analyze other's contributions and engage in the discussion at their own pace. Online, people can take the time they need to arrange their thoughts and craft their responses, away from the intimidating stares of others, those with superior titles, and those that may not agree with them. This form of discussion helps address your tenet, that "legitimate (authentic) engagement must ultimately lead to a form of give and take that culminates in the sharing of power and authority." In an online discussion, everyone has a chance to be heard and everyone's voice is captured for others to see and respond to.
I've been in the online community space for the last 6 years and have helped large corporations and non-profit organizations use online communities to help meet their business objectives. I am always amazed at the quality of interactions and the passion of the people that contribute.
David Woodrow | VP, Groups
Gather Inc. | www.gather.com
info@gatherinc.com
It is very tempting to believe we have all the answers, that we can see more clearly than anyone else. Only by truly listening on a regular basis to those whose views are different from ours, at least on the surface, do we realize how little one person knows and how important all those voices are to complete the whole.