Till The Ground

A Metaphor From The Midwest

Once you have your field, the next step in preparing for the harvest is to till, or cultivate, the soil. This means preparing the soil for planting, which includes both plowing to break up the soil and fertilizing to add nutrients. Both of these help the seeds you subsequently plant to grow.

In our political field, trust – a respect and belief in the integrity, good intentions, and capabilities of others – is the soil that helps us grow and flourish as a society.  The trends discussed in our last post have depleted our communal trust.  Using the rubric of “trust taxes” and “trust dividends” described in Stephen Covey’s “Speed of Trust“, these trends have resulted in a destructive tax on the citizenry. This is evidenced through the growing number of citizens who view those not of their own political party as “the enemy”, the excessive defensive posturing and legal positioning by our political parties, and the general level of venom used in discussing differences of interest or information. All of these factors suggest a “trust tax” of 60% or more.  This is a very high burden.

So how might we use dialogue to remediate some of the damage that has been done? Below are three actions that can help break up the hard crust of fear and anger that has formed, followed by two that can help prepare the ground for new growth.

1. Invite.  Invite others into dialogue. Simply choosing to use dialogue rather than debate – to move beyond the right/wrong, win/lose framing used in debate and actually explore the complexities of intersecting issues —  is a step towards building trust. By choosing dialogue you are moving from an “Us” v. “You” competitive dynamic into a more inclusive “we are in this together and will be stronger together” partnership and problem solving mode. You might begin by acknowledging differences in values or interests while also exploring similarities, by exploring the different questions being asked, or by comparing and evaluating the different sources of information that are being used.  An invitation can be as simple as asking questions like “How would we like it to be? Why?”  Although you can introduce dialogue in everyday conversation, there are also many resources and organized efforts you can connect to and invite others to join.  Two current efforts include the Kettering Foundation’s annual “A Public Voice” collaboration and the Better Angels “One America” bus tour.
2. Align.  If you are going to invite others into dialogue, once you are there you need to act like you mean it.  The communication patterns that promote dialogue are the opposite of competing factions spitting “trigger words” at each other or ridiculing, rather than engaging with, other points of view. No one likes to be attacked, dismissed, or shamed. If you are going to sustain a dialogue, you will need to act in ways that show interest in, and care and concern for, the others in dialogue. This means aligning your comments with a focus on the relationship, not just the issue being discussed. You can also think about how to align your narratives and questions with stories of wisdom and the common good.
3. Listen: Often we ‘listen’ simply to find the gap in the conversation in which we might insert our own views, or to harvest fragments of statements to use in our rejoinder. This is not what we mean by “Listen”.  Instead we mean listening in ways that attend to the speaker.  This includes reflecting back an understanding of the speaker’s emotions and concerns, and inviting further thoughts on what might help the speaker move forward.  This kind of reflective listening calms emotions and enhances the speaker’s ability to process new information.  It also strengthens relationships and builds trust by demonstrating respect for the speaker’s presence in the dialogue.
4. Educate.  John Dewey once said, “Democracy must be reborn in every generation and education is its midwife.”  Oliver Wendell Holmes observed that “The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size.” As the last election showed, many citizens lack an understanding of how their government actually works, use very different sources of information, are unsure of their own ability to influence the decisions that are made, and might benefit from additional skills in the areas of communication and critical thinking.  Dialogue can help in all of these areas.  Note that in dialogue, education occurs through asking open-ended questions, sharing resources and experiences, and inviting reflection, not through lecturing or proselytizing.
5. Commit.  Studies in different fields demonstrate that taking personal responsibility for one’s views and actions improves how information is processed, shared and evaluated. It also  builds trust.  This kind of commitment and willingness to be accountable for what one says and does is aligned with sincerity.  It is the opposite of the “bullshit” discussed in the last post. Taking responsibility for what you think and say, admitting what you don’t know, and inviting others to do the same, is the essence of effective dialogue.

How Do You Measure Trust?

How do you know whether your civic engagement efforts are working or not?  How do you know where to start?  Is there sufficient trust to begin deliberation on a difficult issue, or do you need to build trust first?  How do you know if civic engagement would help or hurt?  Research has shown that civic engagement can increase trust leading to

• increased civic participation
• increased capacity for collective action
• enhanced responsiveness of government, and
• greater social cohesion across groups within a community.

Conversely, poor public engagement can erode trust, and even lead to political retaliation or increased division within the community.  (Gaventa and Barrett, Oct. 2010. So What Difference Does It Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement.  Institute of Development Studies).

In one of our Spring calls we reviewed our Civic Health Diagnostic Workbook and several other resources people are using in their efforts to measure outcomes of civic engagement and ensure that those build, rather than erode, trust.  Our workbook is specifically designed to help civic leaders turn their subjective interpretations of community strengths and weaknesses into a data set that can be monitored.

Another tool we like is the “4 cores of trust” checklists in The Speed of Trust. These can be adapted to apply to community interactions, and the concepts of “trust dividends” or “trust taxes” which are also outlined in the book are concepts that we find groups readily understand and are interested in discussing.  We have found that introducing these concepts by drawing a continuum of tax to dividend (with definitions), and asking citizens to mark where they think the community is and why can spark some very interesting discussions.

Several other tools for developing an effective system for evaluating trust in your community were recommended during the call.  These included The Empowerment Manual,  using ripple mapping to measure both how people are taking action or taking on new roles because of engagement, and resources from Living Cities.

If you have had success with a particular resource, or have a question about evaluating trust, we invite you to share that in the comments.

TRUST: 10 Things That Erode Trust – Part 2

In this post, we continue to look at things that public officials sometimes do which erode trust.  The following 5 behaviors round out our list of 10:

6. Presenting false choices: Presenting limited “either/or” choices– particularly when the “options” are overstated or when neither is of much interest to the public — while ignoring or limiting discussion of other options that are available, inevitably leads to an erosion of trust. This erosion is generally evidenced by citizens complaining of “poor leadership” or “lack of vision.” In our own home city in the recent past, voters were told that they had to approve new funds for improving sewer infrastructure downtown or “no new development could occur.” The funding issue did not pass. Development downtown continues. Leaders suggest it was all a misunderstanding due to “poor information”. The resulting decline in trust continues to reverberate through other issues.

7. Misleading statistics: I recently heard a local elected official quote an inflammatory statistic without any context and then declare “Now that’s reality!” Actually numbers devoid of context and without any explanation of how they were calculated (starting point, end points, methodology, exclusions, etc.) are pretty much meaningless. And most of the public knows that. The public continues to be interested though in information that is fairly presented as shown by the success of the Marquette Law Poll.

8. Saying one thing and doing another:  This one needs no explanation. When the “action” also benefits groups that are perceived as monied special interests distrust becomes active cynicism.

9. Dismissing portions of the public: How many times have you heard a civic leader say something like this about a group that disagrees with one or more proposals on the table: “They’re just a small group”; they’re not well informed”; “they’re just against progress”, or even worse “they’re not the ones that matter”. None of this builds community. One doesn’t have to agree with a group to acknowledge their concerns and share other information, to sympathize with emotions, or to recognize their voices should be heard. There is always some level of the message being offered that can draw a response which demonstrates respect. Respect builds trust; disrespect erodes it.

10. Grandstanding: There are many ways in which officials pander to the interests of a particular group, generating distrust among others in the community. This includes championing options that are simply not feasible. One example would be encouraging the public to demand that a building site that is privately owned and being developed be instead used as a “public park” even though there are no public funds available for purchase, the owner has already contracted for sale, and the property is legally zoned for development. Other examples of “grandstanding” include dramatic gestures such as county officials ordering flags to be flown at half-mast to protest a court decision that they dislike, or an elected leader demanding to know why the public is not more “outraged” by the “disgusting” or “vile” action that a person or organization on the other side of the political spectrum has said or done. Most of the public correctly dismisses such grandstanding as “sound and fury, signifying nothing”; and refuses to engage.

TRUST: 10 Things That Erode Trust – Part 1

I have met several civic leaders who complain that the average citizen is “apathetic”, and that only the “angry” citizens show up when public meetings are scheduled. These leaders have not had very positive experiences interacting with the public and are therefore reluctant to invest time and effort in public engagement. Most of us are familiar with the aphorism that “the only person’s behavior you can really control is your own”. Changing one’s own behavior often has the salutary effect of changing the behaviors of those one interacts with. In this post and the next, we discuss 10 behaviors that are often seen in the public sphere and which lead to citizen distrust and disengagement. Changing these behaviors can lead to more productive public engagement. The first five of these behaviors are:

1. Failure to adequately engage:  Engagement does not just mean showing up to “listen” or to “provide information”. Think of the ways in which gears engage in a mechanical process – they work together to move a process forward. Public engagement efforts that are sporadic, limited to specific groups, or fail to involve the public in defining the issue to be discussed, all erode trust. Making key decisions with no engagement at all also erodes trust, especially when the public is both surprised to find out that the decision was pending and unhappy with the result.

2.”Window dressing” engagement:  This term references efforts to demonstrate  “public support” by inviting and “selling” a decision to part of the public.  It also includes efforts designed simply to gauge potential opposition to a decision already made. The following comments from participants in our June 25, 2015 “Trib Talks” forum illustrates this type of behavior and the distrust that results:

“With the trash issue, the city asked for opinions, and then it appeared they were definitely going to use roll carts. At that point I stopped responding to surveys.”

“Was the city really “up in the air” about rollcarts, and wanting to gauge opinions, or were they trying to find out “If we do this thing, how many people will hate it?” I am being facetious but the perceptions were there that participation was meaningless.”

3. Ineffective outreach: Even when the effort to engage is sincere, failure to effectively invite the public into dialogue erodes trust. These failures include such things as scheduling public input on school issues at times when most parents can’t attend, using small signs and posted notices not placed where the public is likely to see them, and choosing meeting places not accessible by public transit. This problem is addressed humorously and well in this Ted Talk by Dave Meslin.

4. Failure to report back: If you ask for public input, it helps to report back to the public on how it was used. This is especially true if the ultimate decision is somewhat at odds with the public input received. By reporting back you can at least demonstrate that the feedback was respected, considered, and not simply ignored. The public can also, in the process, learn new information about constraints -whether legal or budgetary, and other factors that led to the decision made. This promotes an ongoing dialogue.  A close cousin to failing to report back is reporting back on information the public thinks is irrelevant. You can read a good analysis of how such a disconnect erodes public trust in Public Agenda’s report, “Don’t Count Us Out”.

5. “Punting”: Have a difficult issue? You can always “punt it” to a board, committee or newly formed task force and hope it disappears. When the task force is never convened, or its work and recommendations are largely ignored, the public will notice and it will become harder over time to interest the public in working on or with such groups.  Punting also erodes trust that leaders are ready, willing, or able to work through the hard issues our communities face.

Check in next week to see our final five of on our list of 10 things public leaders do that erode trust.

 

TRUST: How It Develops

As we noted in out first post in this series on trust, building “trust” with the public requires thinking about a range of factors.  Earlier this year we invited a number of different people working on civic engagement in different fields, including politics, agricultural policy, water policy, urban planning, and health, to share thoughts about their work.  Participants were initially asked to think back to their recent work on public engagement, and consider whether the stakeholders had either shared or divergent perspectives on the success of the process once it concluded, and why.

Factors identified as leading to shared perspectives included:

• clear assertions of values and expectations for the process upfront.
• a clear process for follow-up (tasks and communications).
• careful “check-ins” with participants throughout the process.
• increases in learning, awareness and motivation.
• dialogue and trust.
• projects that went well.

Factors identified as leading to differing perspectives included:

• different (and unreconciled) goals for the process.
• premature focus on end goals without understanding or exploration of shared values or intermediate steps that might be taken.
• not keeping higher-ups up to speed about the process.
• personal factors, emotions, reactions

Tips for effective engagement included those relating to hope and productivity, such as engaging people from the beginning of a process with activities they can  sign up for as they answer surveys or attend open meetings and start working on immediately. As one speaker pointed out, this kind of active participation helps participants see that something is occurring, shows them they can make a difference, and also helps them to understand what is going on.   Another observed that “being able to show the value of change makes change much more plausible” and that citizens want to know “what’s in it for them.”

Still another speaker emphasized respect and listening, saying that “trust is generated by people at the highest level listening and having faith in people to generate their own solutions.”  He further observed that “people LIVE the problems we discuss and we can’t ignore their solutions.” Others talked about knowing your audience, dressing for acceptance, having facilitators that reflect audience demographics, and responding in a way that the community finds valuable.  Another, referencing work being done through the Orton Foundation, emphasized the importance of storytelling:

Policies and frameworks have become formalized and disconnected from the human component. Storytelling is the key tool for gathering data and building relationships.  Building relationships takes many different forms.

Another factor emphasized was flexibility of process and willingness to shift directions as more is learned.  As one speaker pointed out, part of what the public contributes is context  which is often overlooked by those who are focused on data or the “correct” analysis:

We have to acknowledge that there are context experts and content experts.  It takes both and you have to communicate you value both entering into learning together and view that diversity in experience and skills as an asset.

Community values, interests, and history are all important parts of the context that makes for wise decisions.

How do you build trust?  Regardless of the field you are working in, key elements include clarity and coherence of process; connections to meaningful work, people, and resources; and sincere respect for the contributions of all involved.