Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Part 3:Adventures in Multi-stakeholder Engagement

Yvon Chouinard, founder of outdoor clothing retailer Patagonia, often said, “It's not an adventure until something goes wrong.” 

A reluctant businessperson, Chouinard often took lengthy sabbaticals to embark on climbing and surfing expeditions. When asked about the habit, he explained how guru Tom Peters advised business leaders to practice “management by wandering around.” Chouinard says he personally preferred “management by wandering away.” 

But when talking about adventure, Chouinard was deadly serious, saying, “Real adventure is defined best as a journey from which you may not come back alive, and certainly not as the same person.”

In our first post, we described establishing the conditions for successful multi-stakeholder collaboration, and in the second, we discussed setting up the right structures for process and governance. 

But in many ways, executing or participating in multi-stakeholder collaboration is an unpredictable adventure. Of course, everyone comes home alive, but the actual process can be unpredictable enough that facilitators need to be vigilant about the well-being of the participants, the process and the governing structures.

It’s a profound challenge for us as professional facilitators. We’re responsible for creating safety when we convene discussions, but we also need to monitor whether the structures and processes we design are effective. That means ensuring we accomplish what the group sets out to do and making changes if it isn’t working.

There are added complexities to consider. Multi-stakeholder collaborations often tackle complex topics and problems for which several equally good (or bad) solutions may exist. There may be underlying conflicts in the background or differing levels of commitment among participants. All these factors contribute to the adventure.

We facilitated a multi-stakeholder process assessing an environmental network during the pandemic. When the online process started to lag, we sensed something wasn’t right. Still, we were surprised to receive a frustrated email from a participant complaining about the technology we were using. The concern revealed deeper issues, and we had to pivot to in-person meetings despite the costs and logistics.

So why is multi-stakeholder collaboration sometimes such an adventure? And how do we cope with the surprises that we encounter?

‍A different starting point

‍Clients often approach us with a clear outcome in mind. They want to create a strategic plan or develop a project charter. These projects take place inside a single organization and have well-defined deliverables. We can predict how the process will unfold and when the deliverables will be complete.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is very different. More than one organization is involved, and the participants will likely have differing views. For instance, in a project to develop a new public park, community members might prioritize protecting the existing amenities, while park planners might focus on creating new amenities to maximize public use. These differing perspectives can lead to conflicts.

Sometimes, the key to a healthy process is starting slowly. We often see how participants in multi-stakeholder collaboration benefit from extra time to create relationships, set goals and objectives, agree to an acceptable process, and decide on deliverables before they start on the “real work.”

‍Different cultures

When participants express their perspectives openly, they reveal their beliefs and perceptions, and stark differences may emerge. Their underlying values and interests often reflect their education, experience, and the communities they work or live in.

Think about creating a new streetscape. Drivers might ask for better traffic flow, while cyclists may want more access to safe spaces to ride. Business owners will demand parking for their customers, while ratepayers want the project completed on time and budget. All these preferences reflect underlying and potentially conflicting values and interests.

Regardless of how good the process is, different groups of participants will bring different expectations formed by the cultures they live or work in. Recognizing these differences is essential to helping the group move forward together, but sharing our respective visions (and creating a shared vision) for the future is a more compelling way to reveal where our common interests lie.

‍Different communication styles

‍Differences in communication style and the prevalence of jargon across organizations and communities can create confusion and distrust. However, holding principles and establishing practices for maintaining open communication are powerful tools for addressing potential misunderstandings. 

For example, a group we worked with established a simple “go for coffee/pick up the phone” rule. This rule encouraged participants to engage in informal one-on-one conversations outside our formal meetings. Participants were encouraged to take the time needed to work out issues one-to-one. This rule helped build personal relationships and foster understanding among the participants.

‍Different levels of access to resources and capacity

‍Multi-stakeholder engagement can be especially challenging when participants don’t have the capacity or resources to participate fully. 

We sometimes see volunteer community organizations overwhelmed by consultants and technical experts who have full-time jobs working on the project. Community volunteers need help keeping up with lengthy pre-reads, learning the technical subject matter, and understanding the process for making decisions. 

On these assignments, we ask consultants and experts to invest extra time to accommodate their needs. It may be as simple as preparing plan language documents or presentations or as complex as introducing training and interpretation services to help participants build capacity. A backbone organization can take responsibility for this kind of support.

‍Different levels of authority

The power structures surrounding a multi-stakeholder collaboration might mean that some participants have (or appear to have) more authority than others. 

For example, in a project involving the development of a new public park, government officials might have more decision-making power than community representatives. If we ignore these power imbalances, disenfranchised participants may choose to derail the work because they don’t feel they can’t influence the outcomes. 

It can be as simple as reminding stakeholders about how they can influence existing decision-making structures more effectively. However, it may require alternative forms of governance that provide a better balance of decision-making power. That might be striking a governance committee or introducing stakeholders to existing decision-making bodies.

‍Settling on accountability

The biggest challenge is what happens when the process is complete. The group may form a consensus about what should occur next, but ensuring it happens requires consistent commitment and agreed-upon decision-making mechanisms. 

Any multi-stakeholder collaboration should conclude with a frank conversation about sustaining governance and accountability when the process concludes. This includes looking at the changes that have been made, how they support the group’s objectives and whether they’re supported by the governance structure. Participating stakeholders also have the duty to communicate the results and decisions to the people they represent.

Photo by Alexander Lyashkov on Unsplash.