Few of the organization leaders we interviewed considered deliberation—that is, people coming together to consider issues and weigh choices and trade-offs—as a viable strategy for working with communities. When pressed, most describe deliberation as an unwieldy endeavor, fraught with many potential pitfalls. Many suggested that sponsoring deliberation would run counter to their role in communities. And when pressed to further examine the possibility of using deliberation in their work, most leaders’ definition of the term grew so broad that it included any time any group of people make a decision.
Another risk for many leaders is the intense pressure they feel to represent a particular point of view when they do engage with the community. We found this is especially true for constituent- based organizations.
One leader of an advocacy-based organization explained, “Our job is to represent a specific viewpoint. By definition, we can’t lead a deliberative process. We can be at the table to represent the view of our members, but we can’t lead the process.” This leader went
W h y W e ’ r e h e r e
on to say that if the organization took a neutral role in a delibera- tive process it would lose allies. “The people we work with would consider it a betrayal if we didn’t stand up strongly for our views.” Leaders of program-based organizations feel a similar pressure. Professionals who have worked on an issue for years have often come to their own conclusion about best practices and are understandably invested both personally and professionally in those conclusions. To them, if the outcome of working with the community is something that doesn’t heed established best practices, then it is misguided or misinformed. Worse still, such an outcome would erode the organization’s credibility among colleagues. As one leader told us, “We know what works. The challenge is convincing the community what works.”
What we find is that leaders in organizations across the coun- try are anxious about opening up spaces in which conversations are neither controlled nor directed. Doing so risks incorporating new variables and slowing progress toward a manageable, specific solution. Opening up the process runs counter to one of the criti- cal goals leaders often seek from engaging their communities: “We need to know that we’re going to come out of [the meeting] with agreements for who is going to do what.” For many, engag- ing with the public is a process to gain buy in, assign roles, and advance their programs.
Stepping back, there seems to be an underlying “fear of the public” that is present among many organizational leaders. “The political stakes go way up,” said one leader in our study about convening everyday people in communities. He continued, “People who are important to [the organization] might not like the results.” Many of the organization leaders we interviewed said that the potential pay-off is far too low and the potential risks
far too high for them to pursue. Another leader said, “Either nothing happens or people become divisive. Either way, the organization that sponsored the process gets the blame. We can’t afford to take that kind of risk.”
Here are the types of “risk questions” organization leaders consider in deciding whether, or how, to be involved with a deliberative process:
• Can we afford to be associated with the outcome of the deliberative process?
• Can we commit to the choices people make in the process if we disagree?
• How will our allies or key constituents perceive us if we sign on to the outcomes of a deliberative process? Can we risk the potential of alienating them?
• Who will we have to work with in the wake of the deliberative process? Do we want to be associated with these groups? • Will the process serve the organization’s needs and interests?
Another risk is the increased expectations that come with sponsoring this kind of effort. Many leaders tell us they worry that sponsoring community conversations or engaging the community in other ways carries an implicit expectation for follow-up work— much of which may be beyond the mission of their organization and most certainly beyond its capacities. “The organization that sponsors deliberation is expected to take responsibility for
W h y W e ’ r e h e r e
implementing the ideas that come out of this process,” explained one organization leader. “It is sometimes possible to get funding to do [a deliberative process],” said another leader, “but it is very difficult to get funding to do any follow-up work. There seems to be an expectation among funders that whatever the community comes up with we can do that work in addition to what we’re already doing.”