Archives for September 2012

Like/Unlike

September 18, 2012 By Otis White

Thinking is hard work, and if we had to think our way through every thing we did, we couldn’t keep up. That’s why we use mental shortcuts, which come in two forms: Framing for making sense of things and models that give us strategies for action.

Most of the time, these things work so well that we hardly notice them. We see something new (merchants complain about teenagers loitering near their stores), we frame it (public safety threat) and know what to do (send in the cops to warn the teens and, if that doesn’t work, write tickets). But what if the usual models don’t work or if the thing that pops up doesn’t appear to fit any previous frames? That’s when it’s time for something I call “Like/Unlike.”

To understand why this is helpful, you have to know how the shortcuts work together. The key step is the framing, which is a fancy way of saying we’ve put something into a category (teens loitering = public safety threat). The point of putting things into categories is to limit our options for response. There’s nothing wrong with that—it gives us a manageable list of actions to take—and as long as we put things in the right categories, these actions should work. Mind the caution: As long as we put things in the right categories.

If you look around, you can see this framing process at work in cities. One of my favorites is the dilemma posed by food trucks for city regulators and health inspectors. Are food trucks more like restaurants or hot dog carts? If you put them in the hot dog cart frame, then you should regulate where they operate but not worry too much about health inspections. If you put them in the restaurant frame, then you shouldn’t say much about where they operate but you should be diligent about health inspections. (My suggestion: Consider them a third category with their own set of regulations.)

The key is to pause before applying the frame. And Like/Unlike will help with that. It’s a simple way of checking your assumptions. You can do it through a quick mental checklist or you can pull together a group and do it more formally.

Either way, it involves listing attributes and categories, then asking whether the attributes fall into any of the categories. In the food truck example, food trucks are like hot dog carts in that they do business on public rights of way (which raises concerns about location) but like restaurants in that they prepare food in non-standard ways (which raises concerns about public health).

If you have enough attributes and categories, you can make a grid and do check marks. When you’ve finished, you should be able to stand back and see if the evidence points toward an obvious category (and resulting set of actions) or if you should approach the problem as something entirely new. (Don’t be too surprised if you find that you need more information. After all, why are those teenagers standing on that corner?)

Again, the key is the pause. The best leaders are those who are thoughtful, who don’t rush to judgment, who see dimensions to problems that others don’t. The thoughtfulness doesn’t paralyze good leaders. They understand full well the need for action, but they want to be sure the analysis that drives the actions is as accurate as possible.

And what makes it accurate is putting things in the right categories from the start. Like/Unlike will help.

This is part of a series of brief postings called Rules for Reformers. For an introduction to the series, please click here.

“What” Before “How”

September 11, 2012 By Otis White

Many communities fight the same old battles over and over. And even when there’s something new to consider—a solution that could improve the downtown, say, or a big economic development opportunity—the city can’t seize it because everyone is squabbling about the details. How do places get stuck in such unproductive debates?

There can be many reasons, some involving deep unresolved conflicts (dealing with race and class or other social and political divisions). But a surprising number of times, the reason is simpler: The community is talking about the issue in the wrong way. Leaders have jumped into a discussion of “how” before talking thoroughly about “what.”

Confused? Bear with me. Most leaders are problem solvers by nature. Show them a problem, and they’ll work through as quickly as possible to a solution, then pour their energies into selling that solution. On one level, it’s refreshing to be around such quick thinkers. And if the leaders are extremely powerful and can bulldoze opponents (think of Mayor Daley at his zenith in Chicago), it might work. Otherwise, it’s a recipe for disaster.

Here’s a better way: Spend at least as much time talking with other leaders and the public about the problem and why it’s worth solving as you do on actual solutions. Help everyone agree on “what” (the problem and the benefits of its solution) before moving to “how” (the solution itself).

Yes, this requires quick thinkers to show some patience, but it will pay off in two ways. First, it will dampen divisions. Most of the big battles in communities are over “hows,” not “whats.” (People generally agree on the need for better mobility, just not on that road in that place. They agree on the need for city services, just not on that tax at this time.) If you start with a thorough discussion of “what” (mobility and its benefits, city services and their benefits), you make it easier later on to accept the sacrifice of the “how.” Second, spending more time with “what”—and inviting many people into that discussion—may open the door to a better “how.” In complex environments like cities, thinking about problems from many perspectives usually improves solutions.

Let’s use an example: how to help your downtown. Let’s say that you’ve been thinking about this for a long time and have decided your downtown needs a business improvement district, which allows commercial property owners to tax themselves for special improvements such as streetscaping and security. If you do what many leaders do and simply announce your solution, you open a free-fire zone. Property owners may not like it (why should they pay for additional services the city ought to provide?), citizens may be suspicious (isn’t this just privatizing our downtown?), downtown residents may object (why don’t we get a seat at the table?), and on and on. Six months from now, you may still be bogged down in the debate . . . if the idea isn’t already dead.

Why not take those six months for a discussion of what downtown could be if its biggest problems could be solved? How it could look and feel. Which new businesses or attractions could be there. How young people or older citizens might use it.

After—but only after—a vision is in place, then move to the problems standing in the way (we need streetscaping and better security) and how they could be solved. The groups you’ve assembled might quickly take up the idea of a BID, or they might choose another solution. But they’ll come to it with a far better idea of what they’re trying to solve and why it’s important, and they’ll come to it collectively. You won’t have to argue with property owners, citizens, or downtown residents about why it’s important to take a first step. They’ll be among those demanding it.

And they’ll be demanding it for the best of all possible reasons: They own the problem. They believe in the benefits of solving it. They’ve thoughtfully explored the solutions.

And they’ve done it in the right order.

This is part of a series of brief postings called Rules for Reformers. For an introduction to the series, please click here.

A Formula for Change

September 6, 2012 By Otis White

Is there a way, before starting out on a change process, to know how much change the community will accept? Not really, because, as in card games, luck and your skill as a player will have a major bearing. But there is a way of thinking about what causes communities (or organizations or even individuals) to accept change. And if you use this simple formula as a guide, it should increase the odds that, luck and skill aside, the change should be significant.

It’s called the Harvard Change Model, and it has three elements:

Dissatisfaction with the status quo
A model or vision of how things would work if the issues were fully resolved
A plan for getting to that vision

When written as a sentence it looks like this: The level of change (that’s the delta symbol above) is equal to the amount of dissatisfaction times the clarity of the model (or vision) times the acceptance of the plan for achieving the model. Change = D x M x P

I’ll explain in a minute how the formula works, but first a note about how I learned about it. It was from David Connell, who was head of corporate education at a large utility company based in Atlanta. We had started work on a regional economic development project when he took out a marker and, on a flip chart, wrote down the formula and explained it to me. He had learned it from consultants from the Harvard Business School; hence, the name. We used the formula in that civic project and several others in the next few years, and I’ve used it ever since. (By the way, David is now the president and CEO of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce in suburban Atlanta, so civic work apparently agreed with him.)

Now, about the formula: It is based on the commonsense notion that no one accepts change unless he’s unhappy with the way things are, has faith that things could be better, and knows what will come next (and what might be asked of him). So the work of those who want change is to:

Increase the level of dissatisfaction (push up “D”).
Help people arrive at an appealing model of the future (push up “M”).
Win broad acceptance of a plan for reaching the model (push up “P”).

But what’s with the multiplication? It’s there, David explained, because each element amplifies the others. The greater the level of dissatisfaction, the greater the desire to find an appealing vision. The clearer the vision, the more people are motivated to take the first steps toward it. And so on.

If you plug in some numbers, you can see more clearly how it works. If you have significant dissatisfaction (7 on a scale of 1 to 10), but don’t get much buy-in on a vision (2) or a plan (again, 2), here’s how much change you’ll get: 7 x 2 x 2 = 28.

But let’s say you could somehow double the acceptance of the vision and plan (that is, from go from 2 to 4), here’s what you’d get: 7 x 4 x 4 = 112 or four times as much change. And if you could do equally as well with the vision and plan as with the dissatisfaction? 7 x 7 x 7 = 343, which raises the level of change by a factor of more than 12.

The numbers, of course, are illustrative. I’m not sure I could distinguish what separates people at level 6 dissatisfaction from those at level 7. But the point is that each element is important and connected. And by working hard on each part, you multiply your effectiveness.

After David explained it to me, he wrote down another version of the formula. This time, he said, let’s imagine you had the highest level of dissatisfaction possible along with an almost universal acceptance of how things could work in the future . . . but had no plan for achieving it. In other words, 10 x 10 x 0. What level of change would you get, he asked me.

It has been a long time since I learned algebra, but even I knew the answer. When you place a zero in an equation, you get . . . zero. And if you neglect any element of the change process, that’s what you can expect: zero change.

This is part of a series of brief postings called Rules for Reformers. For an introduction to the series, please click here.

Three Ps of Public Policy

September 5, 2012 By Otis White

The most fundamental thing a leader has to know when trying to create change in a city is where to concentrate his efforts. You have only so much energy and attention. What should you pay attention to? That’s where the three Ps—the three big questions every major change has to answer—comes in handy.

How will we pay for this change?
How will we manage the politics?
How will we bring along the public?

Simple questions, but none will have easy answers. The first is a recognition that every important change has a cost, and nearly always it includes a financial cost. If you want to make your city more walkable, how will you pay for new sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and streetscapes? If your aim is to bring in new industries or encourage entrepreneurship, who will do this and how will you pay for their time? I could give a dozen more examples but you get the idea.

The second big question is about politics. Inevitably, every major change must be approved by someone, and that usually involves a political body (or two, or three, or more). Someone has to explain the changes and their benefits to elected or appointed officials and ask for their approval. And if you’re going to be persuasive, you have to understand these political officials and their interests and make a convincing case. That, in a nutshell, is managing the politics of change. How will you do that?

The final strategic question is about the public. Even if the change doesn’t require a referendum, it’s unlikely to succeed if the public is dead set against it. First, there aren’t many elected officials who will stand up to a large group of constituents who are enraged by a change. Second, there are simply too many ways for opponents to defeat unpopular policies. If they can’t get elected officials to vote it down, opponents will go to court. If that doesn’t work, they’ll turn to another government (say, the state or federal government). Or they’ll protest. Many an unpopular road project has been stopped by protesters chaining themselves to trees.

So before embarking on a change effort, work on strategies for each of the Ps. The bonus: They are mutually reinforcing. That is, the more the public supports a public policy proposal, the more political support you’ll gain. If you have a creative way of paying for a change, it makes public and political support that much easier. And if the public and politicians support an idea, others (foundations or private companies) are usually more willing to chip in.

Remember: Think through the three Ps. Do it from the start. And don’t neglect them along the way.

This is part of a series of brief postings called Rules for Reformers. For an introduction to the series, please click here.

Rules for Reformers

September 5, 2012 By Otis White

I’m beginning a series of short postings about how cities decide things and how leaders can help their communities make smarter decisions. I’m calling these brief essays “Rules for Reformers.” Each will have an illustration, some scribbled key words, or a hand-drawn chart that, I hope, will make the ideas stick a little longer with you. (If the drawings seem a tad childish, feel free to blame the artist, who is . . . me.)

The rules come from conversations I’ve had over the years with civic leaders. The best leaders I’ve known—from mayors and county executives to chamber executives and CEOs—operate mostly from tacit knowledge, a set of understandings about power, change, and human nature that they accumulate over a lifetime and which becomes instinctual. As a result, they know how to get things done, they just can’t explain how they do it, and they certainly can’t teach it. This is fine with me because I’m in the explaining business.

My caution is that this is that these brief postings are meant to be simple, and maybe even overly simple. They’re general rules, not a guide to every circumstance. More than anything else, I hope you’ll turn to them when you’re stuck on a civic problem or obstacle. By reading a few of these rules, you may come across something that helps you figure a way through the problem or around the obstacle.

And about the name . . . Some of you have already figured out it’s a play on the name that the legendary Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky gave to his 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” I’m not a fan of Alinsky’s or of his book. For one thing, I’m no radical. For another, his book isn’t actually helpful for people wanting to learn about community organizing. It’s more of a collection of war stories with a few philosophical musings (and even a sexist joke) thrown in. But it’s a great name.

So, with apologies to the late Mr. Alinsky, here are my “Rules for Reformers.” I’ll start with a few, add a few more, and we’ll see where things go from there. Please let me know what you think.

Here are the first Rules for Reformers: Three Ps of Public Policy, A Formula for Change and “What” Before “How.” Others will follow.

Like/Unlike

“What” Before “How”

A Formula for Change

Three Ps of Public Policy

Rules for Reformers

About Otis White

The Great Project

Follow Us on Mastodon