Exploring the unexplored is fundamentally, a learning process.
“Divisive issues.” We hear a lot of those words today. *BUT* what has become bogged down and untenable, is actually an opportunity. Intentional Centrism. NPO’s and NGO’s are positioned to act on issues from the middle. Forest Management is the subject that inspired this essay. However, there are many other issues to work on like housing, crime and corrections, transportation, energy, climate… a long list of issues awaits our help.
Centrism is an undiscovered frontier organizations should aim to explore.
What can be ignited by bringing opponents together?
A strategic plan I recently reviewed had this statement:
“The two main areas of needed development that the Board supports are (resource) Policy Development and Engagement with the public and communities.”
An Executive Director should serve the purpose of driving organizational development and advocacy concerns from a human capital perspective. Volunteers and paid staff. Develop and refine policies processes and procedures that engage agencies, donors and the general public.
Over communicate. Under-promise and over-deliver.
These aspects center on and revolve around what it means to be (what I call) a “learning organization.” Fundamentally, exploring the unexplored is a learning process.
Creating a learning, organically inspirational team is the path to building a sustainable entity. One that will be increasingly relevant into the distant future. And centrism, as a principal, suggests that neutrality informs the headings of any outline. Doing so is not easy and nor inexpensive. It requires real sponsor commitment. An example follows.
The influence of tone / language on authoritative capital.
A quote from a Strategic Background Information DRAFT circulated in 2021:
“A wildly swinging pendulum of management practices that includes damaging historic (resource extraction) practices of yesteryear, to more recent inactivity on these landscapes, have greatly altered the historic diversity of the resource”
First point. While the word ‘damaging’ is accurate and an adjective I absolutely agree with, a more diplomatic, visionary characterization might be ‘obsolete.’
This instance – and I’m not being critical – demonstrates how suggestive preconceptions are sneaky, very hard to catch. They leak into communications. First impressions are hard to overcome. But the issue with tone goes further: Not only should public documents be ‘sanitized’ for ‘inflammatory’ or ‘polarizing’ verbiage, but the organization’s private deliberations should be restrained and influenced by diplomacy. True collaboration requires such constraints. Tolerance and inclusive results commence with sponsors in the boardroom.
The second point. That the scope of the statement isn’t inclusive. The resource being discussed is timber. Forest lands represent much more than harvestable wood. Water, recreation and carbon sequestration are but a few that come to mind.
Muting messaging that infers fault, accusation, incompetence, deceit, sloth, etc., is essential. Being consciously aware of including each constituency is essential.
There will always be perceptible flashes of bias, perhaps – at the least – draft material always has them. It’s hard to eliminate having a point of view. I’m suggesting a practice of conspicuous vigilance and a conscientious form of empathy.
Why elaborate this matter to such an extent? Simply: Polarity and divided constituencies will not engender buy-in. A much more inflammatory issue is Climate Change. How does one (combat) (address) embrace science denialism?
This is not a zero sum game where detractors are ignored and supporters groomed.
Mark Twain is wrongly quoted for having said “No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.” It seems to have been a paraphrase of how the truth is easy to kill, but lies seem to be immortal. I think it’s important to understand how to encounter such problems.
The epistemology of conspiracy has been widely studied in recent years1. The real opportunity for an organization is to establish itself as the central, trusted authority, highly regarded at all points of the compass. Most organizations can’t occupy that ground. Bias and thinly veiled innuendo at the poles persistently accuse their opposites in ways that reinforce resentments.
But tolerance doesn’t last if it’s based on grin-and-bear-it. Actual empathy for another’s worries, fears and negative experiences must exist or centrism fails. This requires the suspension of condemnation and doing so is very hard. Valuing other’s views versus criticising their position? Gulp. Finding worth instead of fault.
Once in the middle, once there, expect skirmishes. Threats to credibility are cancerous, need diagnosis and treatment without delay. Imagine each incident as if it were crisis communication: Take responsibility first. Never apologize. Lead.
If science informs an agency’s policies it should also inform how they conduct conversation.
Narrow Way Cafe 