Max Hardy Consulting

Results through collaboration

twitterlinkedinmailby feather
  • About
  • Services
  • My experience
  • Courses
  • Links
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

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!

Filed Under: Community Engagement Tagged With: Collaboration, Community Engagement, Fran Peavey, strategic questioning

How to ensure the ‘community’ helps frame the shared agenda

17/07/2017 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

collaborationOver the last month, Liz Weaver, Vice President, Tamarack Institute and I have been engaged in an email exchange puzzling out the answers to many wicked questions about collective impact and community change. Below is part I of V, where we discuss how to ensure a community agenda not just a shared agenda.

How do we ensure that it is truly a ‘Community Agenda’ not just the shared agenda of folks around the collective impact (CI) table?

MAX HARDY:

I believe in going in ‘messy.’ Generating conversations with the broader community of interest before a project has a name; before objectives have been written up and before any business case has been developed for funding. The temptation for organisations meeting together to discuss an issue is to scope the project, work out some key messages, make sure organisations are not falling over each other, and to identify resources.

All good reasons to get all the ducks lined up. However, it’s risky. By the time there is a project announced, and key partners identified, it can look like it’s just another government or NGO led project designed to fix a problem. The rationale is then sold. The importance of working together is marketed. From the community’s perspective, they have not yet got their fingerprints over the project. This looks like another thing that will be done for us or to us.

Going in messy means there is genuine intent to frame the project in a way that is meaningful for those who are meant to benefit by, or contribute, to an initiative. Going in messy means the project can be shaped. Every project has to start somewhere. But don’t go too far without knowing your community has had genuine involvement in identifying the purpose, and the key questions to be answered.

What advice do you have Liz?

LIZ WEAVER:

Being comfortable with the messy, being open to different perspectives allows us to really unpack the problem.

Many collective impact initiatives start as a response to a community need, issue or opportunity of some sort. There are usually two or three people who get together and say, this is not right or this is an opportunity that we can’t miss out on. Their conversation usually leads to other conversations about who we need to connect with whether there is support for at least moving this conversation forward.

Keeping the conversation open at the beginning is challenging. Many of us want to jump to the solution quickly given our area of expertise. But what we have learned is that collective impact issues, problems or opportunities are often very complex. There are multiple players in the system, multiple perspectives and multiple solutions. Being comfortable with the messy, being open to different perspectives allows us to really unpack the problem.

But there will be a time where clarity is required. This is when data disaggregation and community mapping become useful. What is the data telling us about the complexity of the problem and how it is impacting different individuals in our community? Who is already delivering services and how are these services connected? Who cares about this issue and how are they connected?

Approaching complex challenges is tough and messy work. In collective impact approaches, we can’t jump quickly to solutions. We need a tolerance for ambiguity, for learning about how forces are impacting the problem, and then we can bring in tools that help to bring focus and clarity. If we do this well, the issue becomes owned, not only by us, but by the community.

Do you agree with their perspectives? Do you have other questions they should consider? What are the challenges you are facing as you engage in collective impact? We invite you to add your comments and join the conversation here. 

Click here to view the publication.

To view subsequent discussions, click on the discussion below:

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Filed Under: Collective Impact Tagged With: Collaboration, Collective Impact

How do we measure progress in collective impact, when most measures are lag indicators?

17/07/2017 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

collaborationPerspectives from the field: A conversation about collective impact and collaboration from Australia and Canada

Over the last month, Liz Weaver, Vice President, Tamarack Institute and I have been engaged in an email exchange puzzling out the answers to many wicked questions about collective impact and community change. Below is part II of V, where we discuss how to ensure a community agenda not just a shared agenda. You can view Part I here.

How can we measure progress when so many of the measures or indicators are lagging indicators?

MAX HARDY:

This is a really important question to consider, especially in the early days of an initiative. I’m a big believer in the power of appreciative inquiry; and the saying ‘What you focus on will grow.’ The question then becomes more specific; what kind of behaviours and practices would we like to see more of?

We need to be wary of indicators that measure a range of things. For instance, simply measuring, ‘What percentage of meetings does a certain organisation or individual attend?’ will give you some data, but not information. If someone attends very regularly it may not necessarily tell you whether they are committed. It could mean they are there because they don’t trust others at the table and they want to see what is going on, for instance.

So, we need to pay attention to, and yes, measure, more than simplistic data. Perhaps it would pay to measure things like, ‘What additional information is being shared to help our collective endeavours?’ ‘How much are we all learning from each other?’ ‘To what extent are we following through with commitments we each make in between meetings?’ ‘How much do we enjoy, or at least look forward to, our gatherings?’ ‘To what extent are we confident we are working with our community of interest rather than just designing another way of delivering services?’

These questions are not always that easy to measure, but they might be easier than people think. For instance, noticing the body language as people arrive, and how willingly people stay longer to have a one on one conversation, may provide really useful information about the level of enthusiasm.

Reviewing progress will be much richer if we talk about how much we are learning from each other and sharing with each other, than simply counting bums on seats. If we focus on some of these things we are likely to measure our progress in a more meaningful way; and if we focus on these things they are likely to grow.

How about you Liz?

LIZ WEAVER:

Lagging indicators are data points that are a few years old. This type of measure often is generated through a national survey. In Canada, every five years there is a national survey that Statistics Canada conducts which looks at several population indicators. The data is then analyzed and released a few years or more later. This data is helpful, and can be useful to determine population trends over time. But, the lag time is an important factor to consider. If your initiative is only a three-year initiative, national statistics data may not be carried out with the type of regularity that is required and therefore may not be relevant to your effort.

Some collective impact efforts also consider leading indicators. A leading indicator is a measurable economic factor that changes before the economy starts to follow a pattern or trend. Leading indicators are used to predict changes in the economy, but they are not always accurate.

In the case of leading and lagging indicators, the group must determine the relevancy of the indicator to the context of the initiative. Sometimes there just aren’t the right set of indicators in place and that is when the evaluation questions that Max suggests may be more helpful to determine how the initiative is moving forward. For shorter term efforts, focus on a small set of indicators but also ask questions to determine how behaviour is changing by key stakeholders over time. These short-term behaviour changes have the potential, if supported and encouraged, to lead to major impacts over time.

Do you agree with their perspectives? Do you have other questions they should consider? What are the challenges you are facing as you engage in collective impact? We invite you to add your comments and join the conversation here.

Click here to view the publication.

Filed Under: Collective Impact Tagged With: Collaboration, Collective Impact

Why is local context a critical success factor when engaging the community?

17/07/2017 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

collective impactPerspectives from the field: A conversation about collective impact and collaboration from Australia and Canada

Over the last month, Liz Weaver, Vice President, Tamarack Institute and I have been engaged in an email exchange puzzling out the answers to many wicked questions about collective impact and community change. Below is part III of V, where we discuss how to ensure a community agenda not just a shared agenda. If you would like to view previous posts, please click on the part you would like to view: Part I, Part II.

Why is local context a critical success factor in community change efforts?

MAX HARDY:

This is an interesting question as some might believe local context is important simply because every local context is unique. While that may be somewhat true, I believe what makes local context important is the extent to which the ‘community of interest’ have ownership of the solution they are co-designing. Having evaluated many pilot programs there was one feature that jumped out at me. Pilot schemes were often much more successful than when a fuller program was rolled out. I am convinced that one of the reasons for this is that programs or initiatives work when we rely on something new being developed. There is no ‘newness’ about being told that an initiative will be rolled out in a particular location because it was deemed to be a successful approach in another location. In Australia, I have observed some resentment in locations when told that government is tackling a certain problem using a ‘best practice’ model that worked somewhere else.

Local context is more than unique characteristics; it is about local ownership of the process. If the process is being ‘done to’ a community, it will not be welcomed. If it is being done by the community, or being led or actively influenced by a community, the energy is completely different. There is something motivating about trying something new without being certain if it will work or not. Being told something will work because it has elsewhere tends to kill motivation. Indeed, in Australia there is a tendency to try to prove the bureaucrats or professionals wrong about the promised success of some new model. The factor present, when pilots or initiatives work, is the excitement and curiosity in trying something new or different. This is something which is very hard to replicate or roll out. When pilots succeed, the very factor that led to its success is denied in other areas.

Beyond this, local context is important because it is about respect; identifying local strengths to build upon; and engaging the community as an asset to understand and work with rather than as something broken needing to be fixed.

So, here are my thoughts about it. What have you found to be important about local context?

Over to you Liz!

LIZ WEAVER:

I agree with you Max. Local context is more than unique characteristics, but it is also important to understand and leverage those ‘unique, local characteristics.’ Among the local characteristics to pay attention to include the demographic make up of the community; the degree and engagement of community leadership in the initiative; the history of collaboration in the community; the willingness and ability of key players to become engaged; the amount of financial and human resources it will take to move an issue forward; the community’s knowledge, commitment and passion around the issue being tackled; and, the initial convening leadership. There are likely many more characteristics but these are the ones that I have seen to be pivotal.

These local characteristics factor into key topic areas: leadership commitment and capacity; resources; issue passion, commitment and data knowledge; and community readiness. It is the mix of these ingredients that create a base for communities to be able to tackle complex problems. Many others have written about community readiness including Rich Harwood and Jay Connor. By understanding the readiness of the community to move forward, you can begin to work on the elements of what it will take to get to community change and impact.

That is where the co-design and co-development elements that you have highlighted Max are critically important. That is also where philanthropy may get it wrong. True community change occurs when the community is passionate about the issue and there is a sense of urgency to get things done. Having issues imposed by external, if well intentioned, forces does make it more challenging to get things done because it takes longer to build buy in. I experienced this directly when a funder offered substantial funding to my organization to build a community leadership program. While the idea was great, we needed to develop the leadership program to suit our local context and build broad-based leadership support around this idea. It took us two years of work to get from idea to launch and often felt like we were pushing against a boulder.

When we finally got there, the program was a success, but it was because we put in the time, built the relationships and did not just take something off the shelf. This experience, for me, emphasized the critical importance of connecting into our local context.

Do you agree with their perspectives? Do you have other questions they should consider? What are the challenges you are facing as you engage in collective impact? We invite you to add your comments and join the conversation here.

Click here to view the publication.

To view subsequent discussions, click on the discussion below:

Part IV

Part V

Filed Under: Collective Impact Tagged With: Collaboration, Collective Impact

What makes the status quo so challenging to change?

17/07/2017 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

collective impactPerspectives from the field: A conversation about collective impact and collaboration from Australia and Canada

Over the last month, Liz Weaver, Vice President, Tamarack Institute and I have been engaged in an email exchange puzzling out the answers to many wicked questions about collective impact and community change. Below is part IV of V, where we discuss how to ensure a community agenda not just a shared agenda. If you would like to view previous posts, please click on the part you would like to view: Part I, Part II, Part III.

What makes the status quo so challenging to change?

LIZ WEAVER:

The status quo is deceptive. We are entranced by the busyness of our work. Our days are filled with meetings, applications for funding, telephone calls and endless emails. This frenetic pace feeds our ego and makes us feel important and at times, invincible. And yet, the problems that our communities are facing are not going away and many are getting worse.

This frenetic pace feeds our ego and makes us feel important and at times, invincible.

We know that complex problems need the engagement of diverse stakeholders to get a deep understanding of the problem. We also need to move beyond the status quo, the partners we usually work with, to bring new partners to the table.

The status quo does not allow us to go deeper, to ask the difficult questions. A number of years ago my colleague and friend, Jay Connor asked me these provocative questions: Just who are you doing this work for? Are you here to maintain your job or impact the community?

The status quo does not invite provocative questions.

If we are dissatisfied with the growing inequity in our communities. If we are dissatisfied with going to work every day and seeing increases in the demand for services that meet crisis but are not preventative. If we want a change, we need to rail against the status quo. We need to do something different. We need to ask tough questions, engage in systems and work to impact policies. This means railing against the status quo.

MAX HARDY:

I reckon you’ve nailed it Liz. What I would add is that systems exist for a reason. Being explicit about the pay-offs for the status quo somehow makes it easier to change it. The status quo is working for some. It may be a CEO whose primary concern is to their own career and reputation, or to please their board (to keep their job or receive a pay increase). The status quo may serve organisations who are primarily focused on meeting KPIs set by their funding bodies. More provocatively, the status quo can also serve socially disadvantaged groups in a curious way. It may be easier to remain in a dependent, oppressed state and give up, or complain, than to accept the opportunity to be part of a solution.

I recall my work as a social worker reading extensively about family dynamics, especially Salvador Minuchin. He talked about homeostasis being the ‘tendency towards a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes’. Applying this concept to a family system Minuchin posed that while most people in a family will collude with the family dynamics, it will only take one player in the system to behave differently for the whole system to change. It may go into chaos, or a state of flux until a new, hopefully healthier homeostasis is achieved. I think the same applies to collective impact initiatives. There is a kind of collusion that occurs in the current system, otherwise it wouldn’t be there. Once understood, people and organisations can make choices because there is a higher purpose involved, or different pay offs, by daring not to collude.

 

Do you agree with their perspectives? Do you have other questions they should consider? What are the challenges you are facing as you engage in collective impact? We invite you to add your comments and join the conversation here.

Click here to view the publication.

Filed Under: Collective Impact Tagged With: Collaboration, Collaborative Governance, Collective Impact

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Search

Subscribe to my newsletter

Recent Posts

  • Community engagement – definitions applicable to systems change 21/10/2019
  • Citizens at the Centre: A Journey with my Tamarack Institute Colleagues 12/06/2019
  • Rethinking Democracy: Strategies That Put Citizens at the Centre 25/02/2019
  • Bringing art into engagement 17/01/2019
  • Are you stuck trying to address ‘wicked problems’ with your community? 09/01/2019
  • Channelling Fran Peavey – generating strategic questions for those who sponsor community engagement and collaboration 04/10/2018
  • The potential for Digital Deliberation 30/08/2018

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

Vivien Twyford

'I worked with Max for 17 years and appreciate his honesty, integrity and ability to connect with people at all levels. I learned much from him, particularly around Appreciative Inquiry, the appreciative approach and the value of deliberation. While I miss him, I have confidence that he will continue to be a wise advisor and

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

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

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  

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Lindy Fentiman

'I have had the pleasure of working with Max when he ventures up to sunny Queensland!  He is a generous, insightful and highly skilled professional who absolutely practices what he believes in.  Nobody understands the importance of collaboration, engagement and the challenges this brings for organisations better than Max!  He is an excellent coach, facilitator

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

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

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

Copyright © 2019