The Practice & Power of Authentic Community Engagement An introduction to the transformation of institutions & their communities 2010 Jack Ricchiuto Think about the institutions in your community: the government and public entities, schools, churches, and non-profits. Think about how anxious they become when they realize that “need to involve the community” but dread doing so because there have been so few design models of thriving examples. Well, there is good news. Not only is pain on either side of the microphone unnecessary, there are very effective models and principles around. Let’s start with some simple distinctions and guidelines. Authentic community engagement is an invitation to community conversations that give a community the gift of faith in itself. When a community is authentically engaged in conversations that matter, the conversation engages their assets in the realization of their dreams. In authentic engagement, the community becomes author of its own future. The opposite of authentic engagement is lip service to engagement. It is an invitation to conversation that simply engages the community’s voices of victimhood and entitlement. Lip service engagement loudly proclaims commitments to change, but has no power to bring it about and is ironically the shortest distance to sustaining the status quo. The questions of authentic and lip service engagement are as contrasting as it gets. In lip service engagement, we ask the community questions that sustain their sense of victimhood and entitlement. What are your problems, issues, complaints and grievances? How would you like us (the parent figures) to take better care of you (the child figures)? What suggestions do you have for us so we can create more that you can consume and feel entitled to? In authentic engagement, we ask the community questions that sustain their sense of abundance and commitment to a future different from the past. What would you love to make possible and contribute to in the future of this community? What talents and resources do you have that might help bring these possibilities to reality? What are you committed personally and together to doing to realize these possibilities? Notice the incredible difference in these two sets of questions. One confronts people with their helplessness and the other confronts people with their freedom. One invites the community to give responsibility for their future away and the other invites them to share responsibility for their future. One treats people as problems to be fixed and the other treats them as gifts to be engaged. Authentic engagement is an art and as such must be well-designed for its success. The process doesn’t require courage as much as a well-designed approach. Institutions have two kinds of opportunities to invite and engage authentic community engagement: When they want the community to initiate action on an issue or vision When they want the community to contribute to an issue or vision the institution will be taking action on. If an institution wants community action on an issue or vision, several things must occur: The “right people” in the community need to be invited into the conversations, including anyone who can contribute expertise, sensitivity, and creativity to the conversation The conversations begin with engaging people in describing “the future they want to see and create” People are invited to multiple concurrent actions that have the power to engage their assets in the realization of these desired futures People are reconvened to share success stories and invite more of the first 3 conversations. If an institution wants community participation in any decision on an issue or vision, several things must occur: The community believes, minus the usual conspiracy theorists, that there are no pre-conclusions the institution has “up their sleeve” that would pre-empt community engagement. The community understands clearly all of the decision’s constraints and requirements - financial, technical, social, institutional, political The community is engaged in the development and critique of multiple “right ways” to address the decision The institution clearly demonstrates, post-decision, to the community exactly how its contributions played into the final decisions and their impact going forward When communities have a long and active history of victimhood and entitlement, they naturally lack faith in institutions and their leaders to engage them authentically. This faith must be built one layer at a time. So it becomes important for institutions to start small, create quick and compelling success stories. And then as the community develops both faith in itself and its institutions, everyone become more willing and adept at larger engagement opportunities. When this happens, institutions become authentic sources of their own transformation and the transformation of their communities. Imagine that.

The Practice & Power of Authentic Community Engagement

An introduction to the transformation of institutions & their communities

2010 Jack Ricchiuto

Think about the institutions in your community: the government and public entities, schools, churches, and non-profits. Think about how anxious they become when they realize that “need to involve the community” but dread doing so because there have been so few design models of thriving examples.

Well, there is good news. Not only is pain on either side of the microphone unnecessary, there are very effective models and principles around. Let’s start with some simple distinctions and guidelines.

Authentic community engagement is an invitation to community conversations that give a community the gift of faith in itself.

When a community is authentically engaged in conversations that matter, the conversation engages their assets in the realization of their dreams. In authentic engagement, the community becomes author of its own future.

The opposite of authentic engagement is lip service to engagement. It is an invitation to conversation that simply engages the community’s voices of victimhood and entitlement. Lip service engagement loudly proclaims commitments to change, but has no power to bring it about and is ironically the shortest distance to sustaining the status quo.

The questions of authentic and lip service engagement are as contrasting as it gets.

In lip service engagement, we ask the community questions that sustain their sense of victimhood and entitlement.

✦What are your problems, issues, complaints and grievances?
✦How would you like us (the parent figures) to take better care of you (the child figures)?
✦What suggestions do you have for us so we can create more that you can consume and feel entitled to?

In authentic engagement, we ask the community questions that sustain their sense of abundance and commitment to a future different from the past.

✦What would you love to make possible and contribute to in the future of this community?
✦What talents and resources do you have that might help bring these possibilities to reality?
✦What are you committed personally and together to doing to realize these possibilities?

Notice the incredible difference in these two sets of questions. One confronts people with their helplessness and the other confronts people with their freedom. One invites the community to give responsibility for their future away and the other invites them to share responsibility for their future. One treats people as problems to be fixed and the other treats them as gifts to be engaged.

Authentic engagement is an art and as such must be well-designed for its success. The process doesn’t require courage as much as a well-designed approach.

Institutions have two kinds of opportunities to invite and engage authentic community engagement:

1.When they want the community to initiate action on an issue or vision
2.When they want the community to contribute to an issue or vision the institution will be taking action on.

If an institution wants community action on an issue or vision, several things must occur:

1.The “right people” in the community need to be invited into the conversations, including anyone who can contribute expertise, sensitivity, and creativity to the conversation
2.The conversations begin with engaging people in describing “the future they want to see and create”
3.People are invited to multiple concurrent actions that have the power to engage their assets in the realization of these desired futures
4.People are reconvened to share success stories and invite more of the first 3 conversations.

If an institution wants community participation in any decision on an issue or vision, several things must occur:

1.The community believes, minus the usual conspiracy theorists, that there are no pre-conclusions the institution has “up their sleeve” that would pre-empt community engagement.
2.The community understands clearly all of the decision’s constraints and requirements - financial, technical, social, institutional, political
3.The community is engaged in the development and critique of multiple “right ways” to address the decision
4.The institution clearly demonstrates, post-decision, to the community exactly how its contributions played into the final decisions and their impact going forward

When communities have a long and active history of victimhood and entitlement, they naturally lack faith in institutions and their leaders to engage them authentically. This faith must be built one layer at a time.

So it becomes important for institutions to start small, create quick and compelling success stories. And then as the community develops both faith in itself and its institutions, everyone become more willing and adept at larger engagement opportunities.

When this happens, institutions become authentic sources of their own transformation and the transformation of their communities.

Imagine that.