Thesis

Local government must stop thinking that we can solve big problems alone, like gangs, addiction, homelessness, failing infrastructure, civic divisiveness, and affordable housing, to name a few. By acknowledging this fact, local government will free itself to create essential and indispensable coalitions and partnerships with multiple stakeholders to effectively begin solving these big problems.

Context

The big problems mentioned in the previous paragraph are complicated and challenging to accurately define. As a result, it is equally difficuilt to develop holistic solutions. These problems are not and will never be the responsibility of just one governmental entity or organization. Resolution requires effective collaborative efforts by a multitude of stakeholders. Local government does not have sufficient resources, knowledge, expertise, or assets to solve these big problems alone.

These problems will not be solved by assigning them to a department or even a team of local government departments. We all know the saying: “It takes a village to raise a child.” We need to apply this same thinking to our big problems: “It takes a community of stakeholders to solve our big problems.”

What Are the Barriers to This Approach?

Getting a large group of stakeholders together takes careful planning to avoid the barriers created by local government and stakeholders alike. Those barriers identified here must be addressed before any serious problem solving can commence.

1. Unfortunately, many city and county leaders, including elected officials, believe and state that they can solve these problems. Accordingly, the public expects local government to assume total responsibility.

2. The silos within and between governments prevent effective solutions to our big problems. Similarly, turfs, egos, and control issues separate government from other important stakeholders who are necessary to solve these problems.

3. Stakeholders may have conflicting needs or objectives, making problem-solving more challenging.

4. Historically, we have done an abysmal job of involving our residents, NGOs, businesses, faith communities, educational institutions, and philanthropic groups. We don’t have a track record of effectively involving these groups in problem solving, which may make them wary of this approach.

5. We have rarely asked stakeholders to help solve problems. Some may be reluctant or not have experience working in collaboratives.

We Pretend to Involve Stakeholders

Figure 1, the Stakeholder Model, is a good example of how we see the world and the various stakeholders. We list and acknowledge all of the stakeholders, but do we really involve them as equals?

By putting ourselves in the center of the diagram, we are indicating to our stakeholders that we are the responsible party. They see us in the center and assume that they have no responsibility or accountability to help resolve or mitigate problems. They assume that it’s the job of local government to “fix” the problems. This attitude is explored in depth in my August 2015 PM article about the “Bitch and Fix” model of local government.

Once we have clarified with all stakeholders that we cannot solve these problems without their involvement, only then will they begin to understand that they have a responsibility and role to play in mitigating these problems.

We Need to Embrace the Partnership Model

Figure 2, the Partnership Model, resembles Figure 1, but there is a significant difference. In the Partnership Model, local government is just one of the many stakeholders.¹ The “problem/issue” is in the middle, not local government. This model shifts the focus of all stakeholders to the problem, not on local government having total responsibility to solve the problem.

This approach requires a significant shift in both attitudes and behaviors by local government and stakeholders. It is the responsibility of local government to start the dialogue to make this shift. The discussion among stakeholders must include the following:

• We must admit that local government is responsible for the current mindset that we are solely responsible for solving all problems.

• We must acknowledge that stakeholders have skills, assets, and perspectives that local government doesn’t have.

• No one group or organization caused these problems; however, our disconnectedness is part of the challenge in mitigating these problems.

• Collectively, we are powerful. Individually, we lack resources.

• Egos, turfs, control issues, silos, and past behaviors prevent us from forming effective collaborations.

• Stakeholders need to acknowledge that they have a role and a responsibility as part of the solution.

• All parties have thought-provoking ideas and theories that need to be explored.

• No stakeholder gets a pass to refuse to participate and own some part of the problem.

• All parties must acknowledge that together we succeed and separately we fail.

Each stakeholder may have a different lens in viewing a problem and how best to mitigate it. Collectively, the best lens will emerge, and it’s this collective lens that is powerful and will lead to effective mitigation of the problem.

Local Government’s Role in the Partnership Model

Local government must change its role from sole problem solver to facilitator of problem solving. Our role should be to convene and facilitate a group problem-solving process.

What does that look like? It involves bringing together a divergent group of stakeholders and facilitating a process that includes:

• Gathering data and current research on the issue.

• Fully and accurately defining the problem and its causes. Problem definition must precede the development of possible solutions.

• Getting agreement on the problem definition, as well as agreement that all parties should play some role in the mitigation efforts.

• Preventing “group think,” old theories, and past practices from dominating the discussions.

• Developing numerous actions that will be needed to mitigate the problem. There is never one “silver bullet” but rather a plethora of “silver actions.”

• Allowing, not controlling, the group to assign the various action steps to different and appropriate stakeholders.

• Securing agreement that the group owns the problem definition and the proposed actions steps if the effort is to succeed.

Facilitating such a process is difficult and time consuming. It takes a skilled facilitator with patience and perseverance to work through the conflicts that will arise. It also takes relinquishing some of our control needs if we are to genuinely involve others. If a local government does not have such facilitation skills, then it needs to hire a professional facilitator.

At times, this process will be complex, frustrating, and arduous; however, big problems are not for the faint of heart and quick solutions almost never work.

A Tranformational Approach

Yes, this is a daunting approach for solving our big problems. Without question, it is an approach in which most of us don’t have a lot of experience. Yeah, it is complicated and slower. At first, you may feel uncomfortable and a bit overwhelmed.

Alternatively, we can keep on doing what we do, keep repeating old processes, and keep failing to solve our big problems. This new process will bring community skills, assets, resources, and broader ownership to the problem. It will yield other significant benefits to government and the community, including:

• Creating the best chance of actually solving the problems that have been negatively affecting your community for years.

• Developing trust and transparency between the community and government.

• Providing a process that can be used in addressing many issues in your community.

I guarantee you will make mistakes, screw up, take a wrong turn, and upset some folks. But, you will learn, get better, and ultimately change the problem-solving culture of your community. That might be the most important thing you do in your entire career and it’s a powerful legacy.

Again, I offer to consult (at no charge) with any local government willing to try this approach. Good luck!

 

ED EVERETT, ICMA-CM (RETIRED), is a retired city manager (everetted@comcast.net).

 

 

Endnote

¹ This model was first developed by Ray Pachett, retired city manager of Carlsbad, California. I have modified it slightly to apply to this topic.

Author’s Note: An update from my previous article on performance evaluations: Only one local government contacted me and said they were throwing out their old performance evaluation system and implementing a system focused on employee development. If you would like to learn more, contact Sam Anselm, city administrator of West Plains, Missouri. Way to go, Sam!