Creating Change: Are the Right People in the Room?

At Cause Communications, we often ask: Are the people in the room the “right” ones who can do anything about the problem we want to solve? And are we even clear who the “right” people are?

The audiences we are trying to influence and the communities we aim to serve need to be represented, to be sure our messages and materials resonate. But too often, especially in the issues and advocacy space, we focus on what we WANT to say versus what we NEED to say to reach and influence others.

Being clear about our goal – what we are trying to accomplish and the purpose behind whatever we are creating – ensures we consider all audiences and voices. Who has a stake in our cause? Who will feel its impact? Will it be positive or negative? Who can shine a light on unintended consequences, and which potential funders and policymakers can help push our cause forward?

What follows is a set of questions we are developing – first, as a collaborative exploration, and then ultimately, as a capacity building tool for the field. This is not a checklist, rather a set of prompts to invite deep thinking, reflection and discussion. It is a foundation for a process that can help us all build the rooms where change happens. Read on and then let us know what you’d add.

What is the ecosystem of our cause?

Every cause has a context and moves within an ecosystem of social change. To understand the ecosystem of your cause, start by asking: Who are we trying to reach and why? How has progress been made in the past? Who is doing the same sort of work or complementary work? Cause Communications offers free tools and mini-courses to identify the people you want to reach, understand the landscape of your cause, and uncover potential networks and collaborators.

Are we being inclusive?

Too often we enter conversations with preconceived ideas or a point-of-view that diminishes the opportunity for new solutions. But real change takes a village. And we can’t talk at the groups we want to reach: authentic communications are a two-way conversation. A recent discussion on building people-powered movements reminds us, “It’s critical to not only attract engagement broadly, but to also proactively go out, identify communities that are most impacted, and invite them to work with you without tokenizing them.”

Who is defining the issue or the problem?

The first step towards inclusive problem solving is inclusive problem defining. Do the people we’re trying to help think there’s a problem? If so, how do they define the issue? What do they think is causing it? What is their experience? This is an opportunity to learn from and honor different perspectives, and even different ways of processing information.

Are we “pretend listening”?

Engaging different perspectives early on helps avoid the trap of presupposing a solution. As the authors of “Problem, person, and pathway: A framework for social innovators” published by Harvard’s Social Innovation and Change Institute say, “A problem statement loses its potency when it is actually a solution in disguise.”

Where are decisions made?

Studying shared community problem-solving, The Kettering Foundation sometimes suggests that people make maps of where decisions are made within their communities. One way to imagine if the right people are in the room is to engage all those you’re working with — beneficiaries, collaborators, and partners — in such a map making exercise. Based on the resulting maps, you may be better able to see whether you’re engaging with everyone you need to be.

Where are our movement’s power sources?

Where do advocates for your cause have influence and agency? Power doesn’t have to be financial or governmental. It can be personality and experience or a vast network of friends. Do you recognize your power sources and apply them fully? Are you making room for others to use their power?

Look around: who’s here now who wasn’t here before?

Now, ask yourself: Have our ideas about “the room” and “the right people” changed? In this process, have we uncovered solutions we never would have thought of on our own? Can we take these lessons forward into our work the next time we ask: Are the right people in the room who can make a difference?

These questions are never answered only once. They can and should be revisited again and again as connections, needs, and the work we do evolves. Equally important, we want to be open to discovering and incorporating new questions that support new explorations.

If you have other questions to add to this list, we hope you will share them with us by emailing vschnaidt@causecomm.org. The insights we gain from this process will inform the development of a new tool to help cause communicators know if those who need to be engaged really are. We can’t wait to hear from you.