In yesterday’s post I suggested volunteering locally or running for local office.
Here’s a story from a time I did that, in which my high level of communication skills made a difference.
The scenario
I was appointed by our county government to serve on a committee creating a 20-year plan for the area in which I live. The other people on the committee represented a spectrum of values, viewpoints and perspectives.
We had had one meeting in which we established our internal “rules of business” which stated that we would arrive at decisions by consensus, with majority voting as a last resort backup.
However, we were not given a facilitator, and the Chair of the committee, who was in charge of facilitating, did not have any background or skills in group process. We did have a liaison from the county planning office who knew the existing code like the back of his hand, but who also was not a group-process person.
Besides revising and deciding what to incorporate from the previous plan – not a simple task in itself – the scope of work included all land-use policy, all infrastructure including roads and utilities, community and capital facilities (fire stations, community centers, libraries, etc.), as well as economics and jobs.
We were told that we would meet once per month, for two or three hours at a time, for five months (i.e. five meetings total) to complete our work. Everyone led busy lives, so there was little to no time to work on the plan outside of our meetings.
Various factors — the scope and complexity of the work, the 20-year planning horizon, the mix of perspectives and values in the group, the lack of a facilitator, and the fact that we had five meetings in which to accomplish this seemingly vast and complex task — left me feeling discouraged about a quality outcome.
During our second meeting, already with a full agenda, I decided to speak up.
What I said
I raised my hand out of order, and when called on, I said:
“When I notice the scope of the task we’re being asked to complete and the limited time we’re given in which to accomplish it, I feel discouraged with regard to achieving a quality outcome. I propose that we ask our county planning liaison to approach the County Council and request a year-long extension to accomplish our committee’s work. What I’d like right now is to see a show of hands of anyone on the committee who has a concern or objection about my proposal.”
What I did not say
I did not say:
– this is ridiculous (I had that judgment but was clear that it wouldn’t serve to share it)
– we’re set up for failure from the beginning (I did think this)
– who made the decision for us to do this in five meetings? They need their head checked!
– I did not complain, judge anyone, or make anybody wrong.
Breaking down what I said
Notice that what I said had four components: an observation, a feeling, a need (or value), and a request.
Observation: “When I notice the scope of the task we’re being asked to complete and the limited time we’re given in which to accomplish it” (just the facts);
Feeling: “I feel discouraged” (this helped people connect to where I was coming from emotionally, and was a way of making myself vulnerable in a positive way by being authentic);
Need/Value: “a quality outcome” (something to which people could relate);
Then I made a proposal and followed it up with a request. This is a key distinction, because in many meetings people throw out a proposal, and wait to see others’ reactions. But a request is actionable in this moment. So we have to follow up our proposals with something that the group can do right now.
Request: “What I’d like right now is to see a show of hands of anyone on the committee who has a concern or objection about my proposal.” It’s not enough to know what information we’re wanting. It helps everyone if we know how we’re wanting it as well (in this case via a show of hands).
Key points about my request
I did not leave it open to discussion right away. I asked for a show of hands so that I could get a quick read on the group.
And I did not ask to know who supported my proposal, and this is a key point. I asked to see concerns and objections, because that would tell me who to address.
What happened
After I spoke four people raised their hands. There was some discussion along with clarifying questions. We did not easily reach consensus, the decision went to a vote, the committee voted in favor of my proposal, and County Council granted us a generous time extension. Suffice it to say that in the ensuing months our committee was thorough enough to come out with a product of much higher quality than if we had just accepted the conditions that had been given to us.
I knew that in our committee’s work I wouldn’t be able to effectively advocate for everything I really wanted, so I went in with three priorities: (1) all local communities linked via bike lanes or bike trails, both for recreation as well as alternative transportation, (2) the creation of a local park as a focal point for community-building (something my rural community currently lacks entirely), and (3) an emphasis on local community economic development. At the end, out of 57 action items, the three priorities I came in with were in the top 10.
(As of this writing the document is still making its way through the regulatory maze. But once it makes it through it will still be a better document than if we had simply acted like we had no choice with regard to the timeframe we were given. This ability to not simply take as given what we are told is a key mindset. Bureaucracies don’t make decisions. People make decisions.)