{"id":2881,"date":"2013-08-30T10:38:23","date_gmt":"2013-08-30T17:38:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/eekim.com\/?p=2881"},"modified":"2013-08-30T10:38:23","modified_gmt":"2013-08-30T17:38:23","slug":"networks-and-enrollment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/2013\/08\/networks-and-enrollment\/","title":{"rendered":"Networks and Enrollment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/eekim.burdenslanding.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2013\/08\/los_angeles-union_station.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone  wp-image-2882\" alt=\"Los Angeles Union Station\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/eekim.burdenslanding.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2013\/08\/los_angeles-union_station.jpg?w=580\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/eekim.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2013\/08\/los_angeles-union_station.jpg?w=1200&amp;ssl=1 1200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/eekim.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2013\/08\/los_angeles-union_station.jpg?resize=300%2C225&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/eekim.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2013\/08\/los_angeles-union_station.jpg?resize=768%2C576&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/eekim.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2013\/08\/los_angeles-union_station.jpg?resize=1024%2C768&amp;ssl=1 1024w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px\" data-recalc-dims=\"1\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>I spent this past Wednesday with <a href=\"http:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/eekim\/sets\/72157635289373140\/\">some of my favorite colleagues<\/a> talking about networks and social change. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.garfieldfoundation.org\/\">Garfield Foundation<\/a> had brought us together to surface our collective mental models about networks and to see where they overlapped and where they diverged. The day was rife with wonderful twists on familiar topics, and I learned a tremendous amount exploring different nuances with the others.<\/p>\n<p>One of the important themes that emerged was enrollment.\u00a0The classic careless way to approach design is to say, &#8220;Let&#8217;s just get\u00a0<em>everybody<\/em>\u00a0into a room together and see what happens!&#8221; There&#8217;s an element of openness here that should be encouraged, but beyond that, this approach is likelier to create more problems than solve them. It&#8217;s critical to think through the following questions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Whom do you want to engage in your process?<\/li>\n<li>How do you enroll them?<\/li>\n<li>At what stage do you enroll them?<\/li>\n<li>How do you want them to engage with each other?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/funderservices.movementstrategy.org\/directory\/taj-james\/\">Taj James<\/a> shared a wonderful metaphor for how to think about enrollment: Picking people up at the train station. Do you want to pick people up at the first stop? The second stop? The third? What would happen if you had picked up the people from the third stop at the first stop instead?\u00a0What if you want to pick up a group of people at the first stop, but they&#8217;re not ready to travel? Maybe they&#8217;re not packed yet, or maybe they don&#8217;t want to travel with people they don&#8217;t really know.<\/p>\n<p>Here are three examples of how I dealt with issues of enrollment in previous projects:<\/p>\n<h3>Wikimedia Strategic Planning<\/h3>\n<p>The purpose of the <a href=\"http:\/\/strategy.wikimedia.org\/\">Wikimedia Strategic Planning process<\/a> (2009-2010) was to build a movement-wide set of priorities through a bottoms-up process. We had to navigate around two conceptual myths:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;We have to work in small, closed groups before we can open up the process. Otherwise, it will be too chaotic, and we&#8217;ll never get anything done.&#8221;<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;Once we have something to show people, we&#8217;ll put it out there, and thousands of volunteers will magically start working on it.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The first myth is a common one. It <em>is<\/em> easier to get things done and build relationships when working with small groups. But should the first stage of a process like this be about &#8220;getting things done&#8221;? Who gets to be part of that initial small group, and what will be the impact of the people you leave behind at that first station? Also, is &#8220;closed&#8221; truly a prerequisite for working in small groups?<\/p>\n<p>When I came on board, the team had already drafted a plan that did not open up the process until three or four months into a 12-month process. I immediately changed that, and two weeks later, we were engaging with the community in an open, large-scale way. My reasoning was this:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The end goal was co-creation and broad-scale ownership of the strategy. If you don&#8217;t give people the opportunity to get on board early, then it won&#8217;t be co-creation.<\/li>\n<li>Even if you gave people the opportunity to get on board, why would they? Wikipedians are overwhelmingly young (in their teens and 20s, many of them students). Most of them had never heard of strategic planning, much less participated in a planning process. Many of them didn&#8217;t even know what the <a href=\"http:\/\/wikimediafoundation.org\/\">Wikimedia Foundation<\/a> was or that it even existed. They were there because they liked writing carefully crafted, thoughtfully researched articles about areas of interest. Why would they spend time participating in a strategy process?<\/li>\n<li>We already had a small group of people who were committed to working on strategy, and we had some norms and relationships in place. Given that core, I was confident in my ability to open up participation while maintaining a high-level of productivity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>We engaged our core community immediately around questions that mattered to them, and we\u00a0<em>listened<\/em>. The initial question we asked was, &#8220;If you had the opportunity to change anything, what would you change, and <em>why<\/em>?&#8221; The &#8220;why&#8221; question pushed people to start thinking strategically, because it forced them to connect tactics to purpose. It helped <em>everybody<\/em> \u2014 not just us \u2014 understand what people were seeing and thinking, and it also surfaced people who were already thoughtful and engaged whom we could more actively target in later stages of the project. Because it was many-to-many conversation as a opposed to something like a survey, people were building relationships with each other while they worked through these questions.<\/p>\n<p>We also continued doing our preparation work, but we did it openly, inviting others to jump in and participate. The deluge of distracting volunteers that people feared never came. Instead, the people who did come helped shape and improve the work that we were doing, and many of them became critical leaders later in the process.<\/p>\n<h3>Delta Dialogues<\/h3>\n<p>With the <a href=\"http:\/\/delta.groupaya.net\/\">Delta Dialogues<\/a>\u00a0(2012 and still continuing without me), we were dealing with the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wicked_problem\">wickedest of problems<\/a>: California water issues. One of the ongoing dynamics was the lack of inclusion in existing planning processes. People involved in planning feared disruption, and so they would either exclude stakeholders from early stages of the process, or they would try to control their participation through a set of discouraging ground rules. That simply reinforced the rampant mistrust that already existed in the region, especially when the resulting plans felt one-sided, which made those stakeholders even more disruptive. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.<\/p>\n<p>We originally proposed a joint small-group \/ large-scale engagement process, but for a variety of reasons, we ended up focusing on a small, representative group of stakeholders. It was a network leadership play. Our goal was not to &#8220;get things done.&#8221; That approach wasn&#8217;t working, because people were not taking the time to listen and understand to each other. Our primary goal was shared understanding.<\/p>\n<p>Once again, our biggest challenge was going to be enrollment. There was severe planning fatigue in the region, and the people we were targeting were extremely busy. The exact timing (beyond our control) was even more challenging, because it came in the heart of harvest season, when farmers in the region were literally working around the clock, seven days a week. How were we going to get people into the room? How could we keep them coming back?<\/p>\n<p>We played a number of cards:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>We focused on people, not just organizations. People didn&#8217;t really know much about our organizational client, the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.deltaconservancy.ca.gov\/\">Delta Conservancy<\/a>. But everybody knew, liked, and trusted its Executive Director, Campbell Ingram. People came the first few times because of their relationship to him. It was our responsibility at that point to keep them coming. If he had not already been such a trusted <a href=\"http:\/\/www.networkweaver.com\/\">network weaver<\/a>, we probably could not have gotten this process off the ground.<\/li>\n<li>We bet that participants would buy into the goal of shared understanding versus something like planning.<\/li>\n<li>We invested a considerable amount of time creating a space that was safe, inviting, and transparent. Instead of hosting the conversations in a &#8220;neutral space,&#8221; we rotated locations among the stakeholders. That deepened empathy and relationships, because people were not only talking to each other, they were immersed in each other&#8217;s worlds. It was also far more inviting to spend a day on a farm or in a nature preserve than it was to be stuck in an office building.<\/li>\n<li>We thought explicitly about people we wanted to bring on board at future stations, and we tried to set the stage for that. We produced artifacts that people could easily share outside of meetings, all centrally located at a public website that anyone could point to. We assigned each other buddies, and we encouraged people to talk to their buddies between meetings. We also had a leadership development component to encourage people to have these same kinds of conversations outside of our process. (This part of our process wasn&#8217;t working, and we quickly scrapped it. We were trying to do too much.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Our ongoing challenge was making sure people kept coming back. And, at each meeting, people would consistently say that they had felt swamped and had considered skipping, but that they were glad they came and that this was their favorite time of the week.<\/p>\n<h3>Organizational Change Initiatives<\/h3>\n<p>I don&#8217;t really differentiate an &#8220;organizational approach&#8221; from a &#8220;network approach&#8221; in my mind, because an organization is simply a type of network, and the same principles apply. I&#8217;ve been in a few large-scale organizational change efforts, and enrollment was always a huge, sometimes overlooked challenge. People don&#8217;t necessarily think this is the case, because if you&#8217;re working with C-level leadership, they can essentially &#8220;force&#8221; people to &#8220;participate.&#8221; The power dynamic here is similar to what many foundations experience. They can easily get people into a room. However, getting people into a room is not the same as enrollment.<\/p>\n<p>Many organizational consultants make \u00a0two mistakes in their processes. First, they spend all of their time with leadership, which simply reinforces both a narrow perspective as well as a power dynamic that gets in the way of broad participation. Second, they focus entirely on the meetings. Again, you can leverage power dynamics to get people to a meeting, but your success depends on what people do outside of those meetings.<\/p>\n<p>I always apply the same principles of participatory processes to my organizational work, and I invest just as much time building relationships with people at all levels of the organization. Those leaders are critical in getting other people on board at future stops.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I spent this past Wednesday with some of my favorite colleagues talking about networks and social change. Garfield Foundation had brought us together to surface our collective mental models about networks and to see where they overlapped and where they diverged. The day was rife with wonderful twists on familiar topics, and I learned a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[275,361,396,481,482,561,650,1079,1277,1279,1358,1376,1577,1642,1746,1780,1882,1937,1973,1975],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4cTFX-Kt","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2881"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eekim.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}