Content area
Full Text
During the past several years, local governments have assumed a more aggressive leadership role in the area of community engagement. Author Robert D. Putman (Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, 2000) refers to this as building social capital. The idea is simple. Invite stakeholders into the decision-making process and help them understand, develop, and eventually own the outcomes.
The reality for some communities can be different. This article discusses a number of techniques that process owners-elected officials and management staff-can use to avoid the pitfalls of community engagement efforts and the unfortunate dynamics that can sometimes emerge. It offers a number of practical suggestions on how to lay the foundation for building community consensus.
WHAT COMMUNITY CONSENSUS MEANS
Community consensus is often driven by misdefined expectations. A common trap that communities tend to set for themselves has to do with how consensus is defined or is misdefined. Somewhere along the way, citizens can come to believe that consensus means that everyone agrees with everything. If that definition emerges, the process and the process owners are doomed.
True consensus actually develops a much more mature sense of discourse and engagement. It recognizes that people, given the right assurances and mutual respect, will act for the greater good. To help set that stage, process owners must accept that consensus is reached when mutual understanding is established and decisions are reached openly and fairly. This model does not ensure consensus, but without it, success is elusive.
Today, most process guides have been well schooled in brainstorming techniques used to obtain as many ideas as possible to help with the decision-making process. Often, people state their ideas, which are then written on a flip chart, or they write their thoughts on a note that is then secured on a wall map.
These idea-generation techniques are all well...