Whither Organizations?

July 22, 2007

Citizen-centered approaches underscore the importance of individuals, but does that mean that organizations are becoming less important in civic and political life? If so, why?

Allison Fine, author of Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age, believes that technology helps to “break down the walls of institutions” in ways that promote more collaboration and reciprocity among diverse groups of individuals and groups. It also provides the grease for more rapid and efficient social problem-solving. “When you have the ability, even as a single individual to see a problem like an oil spill on a lake and can tell thousands of people about it instantly," Fine says, "you can mobilize more people faster and more effectively.” As a result, the role of organizations shifts from agenda-setting leaders to supporters or diffusers of information and resources across wider networks. The thousands of people who left their offices and schools in early 2006 to participate in immigration marches, Fine points out, were fueled less by formal organizations and more by the buzz created among peers using cell phones, text messaging, and blogs.

Recently, Idealist.org launched a new international initiative that underscores the increasing power individuals can have by simply flicking their keypads. The brainchild of founder Ami Dar, Imagine! is a worldwide effort to “create a global network of people who want to build a better world.” To get there, Dar says, “we need to reach out, connect, and plug in.” Imagine! then gives people a range of ways to do just that, including attending or hosting start-up meetings in their neighborhoods, schools or workplaces during the week of April 23-29. So far, thousands of people from scores of countries around the globe have committed to holding meetings.

So, where do organizations fit into that? Some believe that thinking that “it’s all about individuals” is naïve and unfeasible. As one critic said in response to an email blast regarding Idealist’s initiative, “This assumes that people will sign up and things will just naturally sprout up and happen.” Based on her own experience in attempting something similar, she said that “it isn’t going to happen without some kind of more formal or structured organization behind it or, at the very least, involved in some way.”

I decided to ask someone with deep experience in working with communities what she thought about this question. Martha McCoy, director of the Study Circles Resource Center didn’t disappoint, offering this thoughtful response: “If the equation is formulated as individuals instead of institutions, then we run the risk of losing the possibility of individuals engaging with institutions-–and of losing the possibility of institutions engaging with individuals who provide them with accountability--and in ways that support the public good.” To do that requires opportunities for people to get together and talk about things first, which can lay the groundwork for more participation and effective action.

But dialogue isn't a magic bullet for such partnerships. McCoy’s found that while, indeed, such exchanges can and do often result in “new energy, new participation, new relationships, and even some problem-solving,” it often isn’t enough. “Time and again, we’ve heard formal and informal leaders express the need for more intentional organizing that will lead to the creation of diverse public spaces and we know that this won't happen without intentionality, due to historical patterns of residential segregation, varying senses of civic efficacy, and longstanding barriers to participation." McCoy said that dialogue also leads to a desire among participants to create meaningful links to institutions (via people working at all levels in schools, police departments, municipal governments, social service agencies, etc.) that can open avenues for institutional and policy change. And there's also a desire then to link people’s engagement with public work aimed at creating change-– including institutional and policy change.

Indeed, it’s a refrain I’ve also heard, especially among community organizers (see last month’s blog, “The Power Equation in CC’d Work”). McCoy says to address meaningfully the complex social and political issues that advocates care about, the avenues for participation need to be clearly linked to opportunities to take collective action and create more responsive and citizen-centered institutions, policies and governance. “This requires a kind of community organizing, but not the usual 'either/or' top-down, elite-driven approach or bottom-up strategy, but the give-and-take of side-by-side organizing that would be greatly enhanced by the kind of network and platform that groups like Idealist are providing. I think of it as the needed formation of democratic capital that draws on--but that goes beyond--the formation of social capital.”

In short, it’s institutions and people working together but as somewhat more equal partners than has been the case previously. Traditionally, institutions have tended to leave out the public (think public schools, foundations, government, public agencies) in their decision-making processes. The public, in turn, has drifted away from institutions, thinking either that they have nothing to offer the experts and professionals that dominate institutional ranks or that they, as individuals, can and should do it themselves.

McCoy thinks it would be helpful for groups like Idealist.org to think about how their networking platforms could tie into and enhance the other democratic dialogue-to-action efforts happening on the ground, are generating energy and change. “Ultimately, platforms like Idealist’s could be critical to linking community efforts with each other, and to providing a critical piece of an infrastructure for a more citizen-driven democracy. In fact, this is something the folks at the Deliberative Democracy Consortium have been talking about.”

Some additional thoughts on this issue appeared last year in the Kettering Review (Spring 2006). Ernie Cortes of the Industrial Areas Foundation, in “Toward a Democratic Culture,” echoes McCoy by contending that it’s going to be up to citizens to start rebuilding institutions in ways that encourage broader deliberation among diverse groups of people and organizations in communities and, ultimately, help undergird action. In the same issue, Editor Noelle McAfee, agreed: “For democratic communities to work, there need to be longstanding public institutions through which people can come together, institutions that are not shy about standing up for what citizens are coming to, nor of building relationships with officials. These institutions could convene public deliberations and serve as venues for public action, convening with officials, and even advocating for the public wills.”

Now the challenge is figuring out how to do it.

Issues: Catalyst for or Results of Citizen Centered Work?

Some research has shown that people, especially young people, are more inclined to be civically engaged when they become interested in a specific issue or cause. I know that was certainly true in my case. This has raised questions about whether citizen-centered processes, which are deliberately cast as more open-ended or as public meetings that do not have a narrow or pre-determined issue focus, will be effective in inciting more civic engagement. As one colleague who’s a staunch believer in the power of issues as catalysts for longer-term engagement put it: “Who wants to come to a public discussion in which you have no idea what’s going to be discussed?”

Well, maybe some of us would. In fact, I know many people who are tired of complex issues or problems being labeled in ways that immediately shuts off discussion or exploration. Think of abortion. Most Americans are decidedly moderate on this issue; yet, most public forums about it tend to be defined as either “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” Where do those who lie somewhere in between go to talk about the issue in ways that respect what they have to say? Not to mention that there are always a swath of people who are just genetically wired to be interested in issues or causes. And there’s always a group of folks who want to volunteer.

But are there spaces for the rest of the community who may not be interested in specific issues but who may want to weigh in on the larger health or well-being of their neighborhoods? So, there are interesting questions about the role of specific issues in citizen-centered processes. Do issue-specific efforts among a smaller set of players who are interested in them lead to the likelihood that the larger communities in which these issues play out are more connected and interested in working together—across ideological differences—for the larger common good?

What happens after the issues is resolved, won or lost?

Does the Public Deserve a Voice in Philanthropy?

Those of you who have been following this blog know that a favorite topic is whether or not philanthropy can follow in the footsteps of other institutions—such as schools and local legislatures—that are understanding that to be successful, they need to have the involvement of “real people” in their efforts.

Last month, there was an opportunity to explore that issue, thanks to a story in the Chronicle of Philanthropy about foundations using online voting as a way in which to involve the public in grantamking decisions. The story was good, but I wanted to pose a question that I thought was missed in the piece, specifically, whether foundations have a responsibility to the public from which they derive significant tax benefit. Do they owe the public a voice in the decisions these institutions make?

So, I wrote a letter to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, raising these questions, which elicited some interesting feedback. But I think it's time for a much larger forum in which to air these important questions.

Why? Because these significant and thorny issues are rarely discussed publicly and when they are, it’s usually under the aegis of accountability, transparency or other issues that may be related to, but not necessarily synonymous with, whether foundation have a public responsibility to do all these things. When public participation is the focus, it’s usually framed either as a “nice thing to do” (on one side) or “something that should be required” (on the other) with little exploration as to what may lie in between or beyond.

There is even less discussion about whether public participation should be seen as a tactic (one of many) that philanthropic institutions can or should use to achieve their goals or whether public involvement is an ethos or value that could or should be embedded more deeply across the philanthropic community. If so, how can philanthropy move toward that goal?Given increasing animosity between grant seekers and grant makers — and a parallel increase in the amount of suspicion bubbling up in the public domain about what foundations do and how — perhaps it’s time for the philanthropic community to throw open the doors and explore these questions more fully and substantively.

Specifically:

• Why should private institutions be compelled to involve the public in their efforts? What incentive is there--and should there be an incentive?


• What is the value of public participation to philanthropic institutions? Does it enhance their effectiveness or impact? If so, how? If not, why not? And does there need to be evidence of it having an impact or is it something that should be done because it reflects the value or mission most institutions have on serving the public good?


• What is the role of private philanthropy in the public domain?


• What is the role of the public in relation to private philanthropy?


• Is there a middle ground between involving the public in philanthropic processes as one of many tactics institutions use to achieve their goals or something that could or should be embedded as an ethos or value across institutions?


• What are some of the many ways in which philanthropic institutions can involve the public in their processes?

Add your questions to the list. And your ideas about how to get them on the agenda!

CNN: Missing the Point

I live for the day when we have presidential candidate forums that feature thoughtful discussion, rather than tiresome “debates” (the Latin derivative of that word is “to beat down” and that’s what we get in the current format). You know, events that aren’t scripted by the candidates’ hacks or the celebrity newsreaders at the networks. The ones that ask tough questions or call candidates on being unresponsive when they lapse into their stump speeches rather than offer thoughtful answers. Dream on, you say! Ok, but don’t call me—or the millions of other Americans, especially young people who are particularly savvy at boring through the spin that passes as discourse—“cynical” or “disengaged” when we tune out.

But what would happen if real people were able to engage directly with candidates in a conversation? And if they were able to do so unscripted and unfettered by “rules”? And (gasp!) they were allowed to follow up if candidates didn’t respond to the question. Who wouldn’t tune into see what could be TV’s hottest and most interesting reality show—especially if it’s live? A step, admittedly a baby one, has been taken by CNN toward that vision by asking people to make videos of questions they want to ask the candidates and then send ‘em in to the network.

Working in partnership with You Tube, CNN claims the effort gives the public the chance to ask the candidates questions “directly.” But how direct is it when CNN’ still gets final say on whose videos appear? And where’s the interaction between asker and respondent? Evidently, CNN, is like lots of others who think that because they “use technology,” they’re promoting cutting-edge democracy. Uh-uh. What makes technology democratic isn’t the technology. Technology is merely the vehicle for a larger process that invites open and free communication among all those engaged in the discussion—sans traditional institutional mediators and filters. If that’s not democracy, I don’t know what is.

Alas, most politicos don’t get that and continue to view technology as just another platform to push out their messages to a public they assume has no opinion (none that they want to hear, anyway). According to Andrew Rasiej, co-founder of TechPresident, a bipartisan group blog that tracks online campaigns, in a recent Washington Post piece, “The problem with the format is it's not fully embracing the culture of how the Internet determines what's of value….Look at Wikipedia. The 'wisdom of the crowd,' as it's known, is not only a technological phenomenon, it's a cultural phenomenon." Too bad CNN doesn’t seem to understand that—yet.

On the bright side, at least they’re doing something relevant, which is more than we can say for their compatriots at the other networks. Still, don’t be surprised if the ratings for this latest extravaganza aren’t the chart-toppers CNN may be anticipating. The wisdom of crowds suggests that most folks, especially young people, will see through this as nothing more than old wine in new bottles and continue to look to alternative sources for their news—the ones that care more about democratic participation than ratings. We can only hope that might change things down the road.

The Power Equation in Citizen-Centered Work

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to sit down with a group of community organizers to talk about the citizen-centered concept. A rich conversation ensued but what stood out was the concern some organizers had about where the concept of power fits in public deliberation and problem-solving. Echoing a common critique, they said that public deliberation can seem elitist because it tends to attract the kind of people who are already interested in talking bout these issues in a very intellectual way, namely “white, educated, and already-engaged people.”

Others agreed that to get disenfranchised populations to these meetings requires much more than putting up a sign in the grocery store. “Lots of work is needed to get the people we work with to be interested in larger public deliberation,” they said, and “it starts with engaging them around issues that affect mostly them and their own communities--like discrimination--rather than larger issues that may cut across other groups." Inattention to this, they added, inevitably results in "the same people who already have power being those who are going to be more inclined to participate in public deliberation," perpetuating the problem such work is trying to solve.

Is this true and if so, what can we do about it? Alison Kadlec and Will Friedman of Public Agenda recently decided to tackle those tough questions in a thoughtful article that appeared in the Journal of Public Deliberation. Specifically, they respond to the characterization of public deliberation as a process that disregards the presence of structural inequalities and entrenched notions of power that can undermine the development of meaningfully inclusive deliberative forums. Instead, they argue that public deliberation work, if done right, can actually be enhanced when practitioners and participants acknowledge power imbalances and structural inequities.

They recommend three areas in which greater awareness of these issues can serve as a driver for more inclusive, meaningful and egalitarian public work: control, design, and change. First, awareness of power issues should lead to the development of deliberative processes that are not controlled by any “single entity with a stake in the substantive outcome of the deliberation will be the main designer or guarantor of the process.” They recommend two possible interlocutors: nonpartisan intermediary organizations or multi-partisan deliberative leadership coalitions (a variety of groups with cross-cutting agendas joining together to check provide checks and balances to one another).

Second, these processes need to be carefully designed. Who will be recruited to participate and how, for example? How will the process be facilitated and structured? What are the goals of the process? To deliberate and hear other perspectives? Or to decide on action to address a specific issue? How issues will be framed is another key consideration, delineating between “framing for deliberation” (an open process) versus the more traditional “framing to persuade” (defining an issue in ways that attempts to encourage people to do “what I want them to do”). The latter has been the more prevalent practice, which Kadlec and Friedman believe precludes opportunities for people with diverse views on issues to have those views heard on a level playing field.

That doesn’t mean, however, that deliberation should necessarily lead to consensus among participants but rather, confluence. The authors define this as a “gathering together at a juncture [such as a] common problem around with alternative views may be voiced…and that encourages participants to reach across boundaries to explore multiple perspectives by focusing together on the examination of an issue from as many vantage points as possible.” This problem-oriented approach “seeks ongoing input…from a range of possible stakeholders in a process that clarifies serious differences as well as potential common ground, and suggests ways of moving ahead on an issue that are, if provisional, nevertheless practical and dynamic.”

Finally, practitioners should be clear about whether they are seeking a change in the substance and tone of civic discourse (civic capacity-building through open inquiry, discussion, and exploration of options) or whether they are seeking change toward a specific action or event (civic problem-solving). They argue that both are important. While achieving public policy change can affect the lives of many people across communities, there is also value in having civic spaces in which people feel they are able to voice their concerns, hear others’ points of view, and gain a sense of civic efficacy. It can also be a forum through which to bring professionals, experts, legislators and others with more traditional power together with grassroots citizens to share decision-making about larger community issues and direction.

About Cindy Gibson

I do lots of things... write, research, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, communicate, and educate. And I've worked with all kinds of organizations. Right now, I'm doing all that under the auspices of my own consulting firm, Cynthesis Consulting, which specializes in public policy research and analysis, program development, strategic planning, marketing, and communications for nonprofit and philanthropic organizations across the country.

Previously, I was a program officer for Carnegie Corporation of New York where I helped to develop and implement programs in "Strengthening the Nonprofit and Philanthropic Sector" (focused on enhancing the nonprofit sector's capacity-building and management infrastructure)and "Youth Civic Engagement" (focused on improving K-12 civic learning). Earlier, I was an independent consultant on nonprofit and philanthropy strategic planning, research, and communications for a variety of foundations and organizations, including: The Rockefeller Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation, Open Society Institute, Citizens Committee for Children of New York. There's a lot more, but too numerous to list here.

Little-known fact: My first job was monitoring the ultrafundamentalist preachers (Falwell, Robertson, et.al.) for People for the American Way and summarizing any/all outlandish comments they made and then distribute these to the public. Those comments, all of which were taped, became grist for several videos I made with TV producer (and PFAW founder) Norman Lear that raised millions for the organization.

I've also published and speak quite a lot about about nonprofit strategy, citizenship, education, philanthropy and social policy. Although I'm not technically an academic (more of a pracademic), I teach sometimes at the New School University’s Robert J. Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy and currently am a a senior fellow at Tufts University. I'm also on the boards of Public Allies, Idealist.org, and the Center for Voting and Democracy.

For those who care about these kinds of credentials, I have a B.A. in psychology from Pennsylvania State University (Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude); an M.S.W. from Catholic University of America; and a Ph.D. from Rutgers University. My dissertation focused on nonprofit advocacy, membership, and representation (“In Whose Interest: Do National Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations Represent the Under-Represented?”)

I live in New York, but my favorite place in the world is Maine.