Political Will

A few weeks ago on 60 Minutes, the show did a rare interview with the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. It was a good interview with some helpful insights. But the most telling insight of all was this comment that is taken from MSNBC's reporting of the interview, "Asked about the biggest potential dangers now, Bernanke suggested a lack of "political will" to solve the financial crisis."

This word is very popular these days and so I thought it would be worth taking a look at it. The more I have worked in nonprofit leadership circles and on partnership efforts, I have realized that this issue of political will is crucial to success.

In a paper submitted to the 2008 Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, political will is defined as follows:

"Our ideal-type definition of political will requires that a sufficient set of political actors with a common understanding of a particular problem on the public agenda genuinely intends to support a commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution. This definition includes four different components, which we deem necessary conditions:

(1) A sufficient set of political actors

(2) With a common understanding of a particular problem on the public agenda

(3) Genuinely intends to support

(4) A commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution."

Just as the government is struggling with a "lack of political will," I think that many partnership efforts among ministries are dealing with a similar challenge. This definition takes a very abstract concept and really helps us to look at our associations, partnerships and organizations and consider whether we have garnered the political will to make the changes necessary to innovate and survive in these challenging times. Lets take each one and apply it to the nonprofit arena:

(1) A sufficient set of political actors
These words imply that the right people are at the table in order to process the challenge ahead. It also implies that there are enough people at the table to affect change. When you face some of your great challenges in your settings, are the right people at the table? The right people will be those who are influencers, who have a significant stake in the problem and those who represent your internal constituencies.

(2) With a common understanding of a particular problem on the public agenda
Do those gathering to process and consider your challenge have a common and solid base of information on which to begin discussions? So many times these discussions are punctuated with a lack of basic understanding. But that is the fault of the convener of the meeting as well as the participant. Think about what you can do to bring people to the table with a common understanding of the problem you are wanting to solve.

(3) Genuinely intends to support
One of our greatest mistakes is that so many times we sit down at the table to work out a solution when a group present does not support the basic premise or issue at hand. Now we should not take this line of the definition to mean that we need a group of "yes-people" bobbing their heads in a meeting. The way I read this is that those who gather must all agree that the problem is real and that a solution is needed through this effort. If all parties agree to that, then the compromise and planning will take place to come up with a direction. But if there are groups of people who attend without any expectation of supporting the initiative, then political will cannot be achieved.

(4) A commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution."
This is the toughest part. As I read this definition, for political will to be exerted there has to be an understood solution presented ahead of your deliberations which can bring understanding and general support to your discussions. This last piece involves a lot of homework by the sponsor or champion of the process. Before a group can be brought together to discuss options and build political will, the homework to define in broad strokes what the possible solutions are must take place. This seems backwards. So many times we bring people together with some basic facts and challenges and ask the group to design the solution. But what I have found every time is that a group does not have the time, knowledge or skills to define solutions in a meeting. This must be done ahead of time (with interaction with others) and presented for crafting, modifying and compromise. In this instance, the pre-meeting homework is critical. Unless you have defined the potential solutions and given your participants the chance to interact, they will not be ready to coalesce behind a solution.

Conclusion
So many times in our nonprofits we ask the wrong people to come to the table, without the key information that would inform their participation, unclear of their support for the general direction and withholding the potential solution that we are considering. This is a recipe for disaster in our innovation efforts.

So lets turn this around positively. What should we do when faced with a major initiative that requires significant political will within our organization or cooperative partnership?

1. We should get those with influence, decision making ability and representative authority at the table.

2. We should make sure that everyone at the table has the background and resources to be knowledgeable about the issue at hand.

3. We should do our footwork and make sure that everyone at the table has a vested interest in a solution and is genuine in their participation.

4. We should bring a proposal to those negotiations based on all the above so that the group can get to work on creating a viable way forward.

Little Things That Make a Difference

As I attended the conference, one thing came out over and over - little things make a big difference. Here is what I mean. When you are talking about relationships with people all over the world, little things that seem insignificant can mean a lot, for good or for bad.

One example is the conference call. When you schedule a conference call with a group from around the world, who picks the time? Is the US office getting the most convinient time during business hours?

So many times we are in a hurry to get something done. In our haste we overlook things that show another culture that they are not valued. This happens between any two cultures but as we try to work together it keeps us from building trust.

Those silly little mistakes communicate more than hundreds of hours of meetings and thousands of airline miles logged. So how can we pay attention to the little things?

Majestic and Messy

Devotional thought for Friday
Marv Newell - President of CrossGlobal Link

Ecclesiastes 4
Four Advantages of Working in Unity
1. Better success - the advantage of a better yeild
2. Better stability - the advantage of helpful assistance
3. Better chance of survival - the advantage of companionship
4. Better security - the advantage of additional strength

How do we apply the concept of 2 being better than one in missions? What does it mean for our organization. Marv made a point that partnerships are better, but not easier. Essentially relationships honor God but are very messy. Are we willing to do the hard work of partnership even when it is much easier to do our own thing?

So are you ready to dive in?