Apologies to the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, but I’ve stolen your great presentation to the Obama Administration’s Open Government Directive group. I’m applying it to decision-making processes within authentic organizations…. Tell me how well you think it works.
In previous posts about layoffs, alternatives to layoffs, and organizational decision-making processes, I’ve argued that transparency, participation and a democratic approach are important for building confidence in and commitment to the decisions made. But,
What does it really mean to have an open process for decision-making within an organization?
Is it just getting everyone together in the big conference room to listen to some presentations, ask a few questions, and not argue with the conclusions? Or is it using lots of great tools , like Dotmocracy? Or is it something bigger?
Obama has advocated that government processes reflect "Transparency, Participation and Collaboration". These are important, big-picture guiding values, and they need to be be translated into more specific principles that can be put into practice by designing an effective decision making process.
Listen to the real experts on open processes
There are experts out there, lots of them, who specialize in creating conversations between groups engaged in deep, entrenched bitter conflict, among assemblies of individuals trying to coalesce into movements, and within communities that need to be heard by their government. These experts have gotten together to product the Seven Core Principles for Public Engagement. The immediate goal is to encourage the Obama administration to craft its open government initiative in ways that reflect these principles. The longer-term intent is to create a basis for other efforts to engage individuals in serious dialogue about important issues.
The Core Principles are kind of the ‘lowest common denominator’ of group conversations that are authentic and embracing of differences. Check out the Seven Principles, below …
The Seven Core Principles for Public Authentic Engagement
In practice, people emphasize or apply these principles in many different ways, and often embrace additional principles. These seven principles reflect the common beliefs and understandings of those working in the fields of public engagement, conflict resolution, and collaboration.
1. Careful Planning and Preparation
Through adequate and inclusive planning, ensure that the design, organization, and convening of the process serve both a clearly defined purpose and the needs of the participants.
2. Inclusion and Demographic Diversity
Equitably incorporate diverse people, voices, ideas, and information to lay the groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.
3. Collaboration and Shared Purpose
Support and encourage participants, government and community institutions, and others to work together to advance the common good.
4. Openness and Learning
Help all involved listen to each other, explore new ideas unconstrained by predetermined outcomes, learn and apply information in ways that generate new options, and rigorously evaluate public engagement activities for effectiveness.
5. Transparency and Trust
Be clear and open about the process, and provide a public record of the organizers, sponsors, outcomes, and range of views and ideas expressed.
6. Impact and Action
Ensure each participatory effort has real potential to make a difference, and that participants are aware of that potential.
7. Sustained Engagement and Participatory Culture
Promote a culture of participation with programs and institutions that support ongoing quality public (organizational) engagement.
Why are these principles important?
At first glance, the principles are simple and unsurprising… but look again.
What’s striking to me is the wisdom that is condensed into what appear to be very simple principles. In practice, very few managers think about how the decision making process — not just the decision itself — can create something important and lasting. The process can get you a decision, and it can also generate such things as "democratic legitimacy", meeting everyone’s needs (not just those of the organization), and making sure that everyone is away that the process can actually make a difference.
I was tipped off to these Core Principles by Pamela Zivari, at Network for Peace through Dialogue. The Network for Peace through Dialogue is a non-profit organization dedicated to connecting grassroots communities, both local and global, in order to identify and research common issues and solutions in the areas of making peace and promoting just action.
I bet that if we looked closely at the processes where even the choice of layoffs leads to increased trust, commitment and contribution by organizational members, such as the process at Beth Israel Hospital, we’d find most of these principles in action.
Are they as simple to use as they seem? Are these principles something that we can borrow from non-profits and apply effectively to business organizations? What do you think….
I am an organizational consultant, change advocate, and organizational identity/reputation scholar with a PhD in leadership & organizations. I research, write about, and consult with organizations on the relationships between organizational identity, actions, and purpose. I teach Technology Management, part-time, at Stevens Institute of Technology.
My current research focuses on how social technologies in the workplace can drive organizational change, generate meaning, and catalyze purpose. See the 
{ 1 comment }
The question is if there is a difference between for profit and not-for-profit in our networked world. Can a business today afford to be “just-for-profit?” In how far are sustainability and networked thinking just different sides of the same medal? – thanks for pointing to my blog above and do join the discussion at Shaping Network Society (www.philippmueller.de).
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }