Crosby B.C., Bryson J.M. - Leadership for the Common Good (2005)(en)

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 219

•Each problem is unique. Although current problems and previous ones may share some aspects, the differences are likely to be significant.

•The problems may be symptoms of other problems. Wicked problems are messy; they are an interconnected set of problems (Ackoff, 1981).

•The problems can be explained in many ways, and the choice of explanation largely determines the solution chosen.

•Leaders have no inherent right to be wrong. If a chemist constructs a careful experiment and her hypothesis is disproved, helpful learning occurs nonetheless. Leaders, on the other hand, are theorists who often pay (or exact) a high price for being wrong. They bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and if people don’t like the consequences the leaders may be punished. More importantly, the people who are affected by the leaders’ actions can be hurt. Policy entrepreneurs have a dual responsibility: to seek widespread gains and to minimize losses for their communities.

In all four cases featured in this book, policy entrepreneurs have undertaken or overseen extensive research (1) to present evidence that the problem concerning them exists, (2) to deepen their understanding of its causes and effects, and (3) to support a particular way of framing the problem. Each effort was a kind of action research (Krueger and King, 1998; Eden and Huxham, 1996), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987; Cooperrider and Bilimoria, 1993), and participatory policy analysis (Durning, 1993).

The definition of a public problem conveys a message about social significance, urgency, causal mechanisms, framing, and implications for stakeholder action (Rochefort and Cobb, 1994). Astute policy entrepreneurs attempt to build support for action by emphasizing the social impact of the problem, the likely cost of inaction, and the need to do something about the problem as soon as possible. They offer multicausal explanations and frame the problem in a way that appeals to multiple constituencies. They attend to categorization of the problem, any value judgment that may be applied to it, warning signals from indicators, troubling comparisons, triggering events, and feedback on previous efforts to deal with the problem or others like it (Kingdon, 1995). They build a compelling case for pursuing a solution, and they help their constituencies develop a direction and plan for their solution

220 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

search. This work strongly affects whether uninterested stakeholders begin to realize that they do have a stake in the problem or that it should move higher in their list of concerns (Rochefort and Cobb, 1994).

Social Significance and Urgency

Policy entrepreneurs become involved in a policy change effort in the first place because they are convinced that the problem concerning them is severely threatening the well-being of (or closing off opportunities for) themselves and their fellow citizens. In the initial-agreement phase, they have convinced like-minded supporters to begin a change effort. Now they must make their case to a broader, probably more skeptical set of stakeholders. They need to marshal additional evidence that the problem exists and is causing (or is highly likely to cause) widespread losses. They have to highlight the gap between what they believe is happening, or will soon happen, and what they think can or should be done about it.

Multicausal Explanations and Complex Problem Frames

To make a plausible case that a problem can be remedied, policy entrepreneurs must also help constituents understand what is causing the problem. As we have noted, the problem is often actually a set of interconnected problems; thus investigators might have difficulty deciding what causes what. Moreover, the problem could evoke preexisting interpretive schemes, or frames that supply ready-made causal explanation.

The most important interpretive schemes for defining a public problem are stories deeply rooted in culture (Mandelbaum, 2000; Stone, 2002). These stories constitute a communal world, and the most powerful are widely shared and believed “myths” (de Neufville and Barton, 1987; Innes, 1990; Delbanco, 1999). A myth proposes an analogy to simplify a complex reality and give a rationale for perceiving and behaving in a certain way. Also, because a myth takes a dramatic form and taps deeply seated values, it generates a strong emotional response that can prompt public action. New versions of old myths, or even new myths, may be created over time, but many themes remain almost timeless in a particular culture because they are created or recreated out of the culture’s fairly stable repertoire of images, symbols, characters, and action styles.

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 221

Interestingly, and perhaps fortunately for policy entrepreneurs, one society’s myths may be quite different from another’s. For example, the United States is often identified with what Robert Reich has called the myth of the “triumphant individual,” which depicts Americans as hard-working and self-reliant conquerors of the land, competitive winners, and people responsible for their own fate (Reich, 1987). At the same time, U.S. citizens also believe in the myth of the “benevolent community,” in which neighbors or other groups of citizens band together to fight off a disaster; raise a barn; or care for the destitute, sick, or vulnerable. Each myth carries a moral theme. The myth of the triumphant individual evokes individual responsibility (the buck stops here; look out for number one), whereas the myth of the benevolent community evokes communal responsibility (love thy neighbor; care for others). The myths also evoke causal attributions. In one, a person’s success is due to his own efforts and his failures are due to laziness, bad luck, or incompetence. In the other, a person’s success in large part is due to the support he or she receives from society; his or her difficulties, in turn, are often caused by collective failures. Which myth is evoked by a policy entrepreneur’s framing of a public problem makes a big difference in whether citizens will decide that a public problem requires a communal response. Because both myths are so powerful and because each has beneficial and problematic components, wise policy entrepreneurs find a way to tap the beneficial aspects of both. During the early U.S. AIDS crisis, health care professionals emphasized communal responsibility as they tried to attract resources so as to investigate the mysterious disease affecting their patients and provide adequate care for the patients. At the same time, they highlighted individual responsibility as they called on gay men to change their behavior.

Considerable research is often needed in this phase, if stakeholders are to move beyond the simplistic causal explanations offered by cultural myths. In the early stages of the AIDS case, people who preferred the individual responsibility frame were likely to say that the toll of AIDS was due to the sexual practices of gay men. People who applied the communal responsibility frame argued that the cause was more complicated and included discrimination against gay people and failure of a public health system to take the disease seriously.

222 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Moreover, once a problem is connected to other, possibly more familiar, ones, people are likely to think about it in the way they have thought about the related problems. They may attribute the same causes to the new problem and frame it in the same way as they do an old problem. Thus many gay activists in early 1980s reacted with outrage to warnings that a dangerous new disease was being transmitted by practices in gay bathhouses. In their eyes, the warnings signaled another effort to discriminate against gay men. In a sense, they focused on what they considered the real problem: efforts to punish gay people and control their behavior.

In thinking about problems, policy entrepreneurs should keep in mind that some formulations miss the mark. All too often, policy advocates simply frame a problem as opposition to their favored solution. Thus environmentalists might fall into the trap of asserting that the main problem they face is industries that refuse to get on the renewable-energy bandwagon. Or advocates for older adults might argue that the big problem is a health care industry that stands in the way of their favored reforms, such as lowpriced prescription drugs or greater public funding of in-home care. Such problem formulations are likely to prevent advocates from in-depth exploration of the problem that their solution is intended to solve, and keep them from considering problem frames that might allow them to find common ground with diverse stakeholder groups.

Additionally, problem formulations serve differing purposes (Volkema, 1986). Some formulations clearly define the problem (rightly or wrongly) and delineate a solution set. Some simply get a group working on a problem area. Some are intended to protect or advance the interests of the people who propose them. Certainly some critics have complained that the problem frames emphasized by the WBCSD tend to project an overly benign image of polluting businesses. The WBCSD downplays environmental damage caused by business operations in favor of focusing on how businesses can become eco-efficient. By implication, the problem seems to be that businesses just need more information and encouragement in order to improve their operations (Najam, 1999–2000).

We cannot overemphasize the importance of ideas about the causes of a public problem (Mandelbaum, 2000; Stone, 2002). As Rochefort and Cobb note, “To name a problem’s cause is to dispel

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 223

its disconcerting mystery and to turn in the direction of certain kinds of remedies and away from others” (1994, p. 163). They add, “A decision about problem causality can be a linchpin to a whole set of interdependent propositions that construct an edifice of understanding about a particular issue.” A focus on one or two causes may certainly be attractive, because a course of action then seems simpler. Rochefort and Cobb, however, argue that “depending on the circumstances, multicausal explanations and the multipronged solutions they engender can also be among the most sophisticated policy endeavors and also those that have the greatest chance of building support” for tackling complex public problems (p. 17). Wise policy entrepreneurs consult diverse stakeholders in order to obtain as many views as possible about the causes of the problem concerning them.

Rochefort and Cobb also note that using levels of analysis— from individuals to social systems and dominant cultural beliefs— enhances the opportunity for effective intervention into public problems. In the AIDS case, public health officials who wanted to stop risky sexual behavior needed to understand how diverse individuals would react to educational campaigns; they had to consider how gay-rights organizations and family-values organizations, among others, would respond; they had to recognize that dominant U.S. cultural beliefs included both a commitment to personal privacy and tolerance of sexual behavior among consenting adults alongside continued antagonism toward homosexuality.

Policy entrepreneurs also should consider how the different sectors affect the problem at hand. That is, they should investigate the failures and successes of government agencies, businesses, and nonprofit organizations in dealing with the problem.

Categorization, Value Judgments, Warning Signals, Troubling Comparisons, Triggering Events, and Feedback

Problem framing inevitably leads to, and flows out of, decisions about which category “contains” the problem (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001; Stone, 2002). Analysis cannot proceed, nor can action be mobilized, until a public problem has been placed in the proper category. For example, is the need for enabling older adults to lead satisfying, productive lives an economic problem, a health problem, or a discrimination problem?

224 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Values tell people what is worthwhile and important. When faced with a complex, problematic situation, an individual is likely to assess how it relates to what he or she values. A Minnesotan nearing retirement, for example, is likely to place a high value on her future economic security. When she learns that combating discrimination against older workers is one of the aims of the Vital Aging Network, she is likely to think VAN has something to offer her. The political importance of values is clarified by David Easton’s classic statement that “politics is the authoritative allocation of values” (1965, p. 21). Politics defines which values are supported and which are not, which public actions are justified and which not. Not all values are equal; some are more important and worthwhile than others, and politics determines which is which.

Categories and values, in turn, shape indicators and comparisons that people use to assess the health of a system, signal the existence of a problem, gauge the size of the problem, and trace its development (Kingdon, 1995; Stone, 2002). Various organizations and people around the world routinely monitor thousands of indicators. For example, indicators of climate change have helped a large and increasing number of the world’s citizens realize that the problem of global warming exists and will have alarming, widespread consequences. Studies of the age composition of the Minnesota workforce have alerted planners in government, business, and nonprofit organizations to a looming shortage of experienced managers as baby boomers retire. Statistics about high school graduation rates, incarceration, home ownership, and mortality were used to supply evidence that young African American men in Hennepin County were being cut off from opportunities to build a satisfying, productive life.

Once indicators are established, comparison is possible, and one of the standard routines of politics is to compare how one group or program is doing in relation to others. Organizations, cities, states, and nations compare themselves to similar organizations, cities, states, and nations; women compare their status to that of men; working-class families compare their opportunities to those of the well-to-do. Thus, indicators of the status of African American men in Hennepin County were often dismaying enough in their own right, but when they were compared with those for “white” citizens they were even more distressing. Sometimes the comparison stimulates local pride or self-interest that prompts ac-

226 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

should understand and specify general outcomes or goals that these stakeholders seek so as to know how best to set directions for a solution search in the next phase.

Attention to Stakeholder Feelings and Attitudes

How a public problem is defined affects stakeholders’ emotional as well as logical response to a change effort (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler, 2002). Stakeholders often react to the symbolic nature of problem definition. For example, if environmentalists claim that polluted waterways result from corporate malevolence, corporate directors, executives, and managers are likely to react defensively. To the corporate stakeholders, this problem definition symbolizes an antibusiness attitude on the part of environmentalists. Similarly, if corporate spokespeople define pollution as simply a byproduct of development, environmentalists may erupt in anger over corporate insensitivity. Indeed, as Rochefort and Cobb (1994) point out, symbolic assessment affects rational assessment.

Agreement on Responsible Organizations

The coordinating committee should agree on which individuals, groups, or organizations should respond to which parts of the public problem they are tackling. A problem rarely corresponds to a preexisting organizational domain, so change advocates must agree on what existing organizations will do and which new organizations are needed. A temporary organization of some sort—a task force, formal or informal committee, special-purpose grouping of organizations—is likely to be necessary to consider the problem holistically and to ensure that causes, rather than mere symptoms, are addressed (Trist, 1983).

Direction and Plan for Solution Search

As already noted, how a public problem is framed determines the general range of desired outcomes and range of solutions pursued. The plan for further specifying promising solutions should include specific desired outcomes; it should foster opportunities (and as-

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 227

sign responsibility) for assessing the technical and administrative feasibility, legality, political acceptability, and ethical implications of potential solutions.

Developing the Outlines of a Supportive Coalition

The stakeholder analyses and forums that are conducted in this phase reveal which problem definitions are likely to appeal to key stakeholders. Policy entrepreneurs should construct problem definitions that reveal the intersection between their desired outcomes and stakeholder interests. Stakeholders who can see how their interests are served by a change effort are likely to agree to join a coalition supporting the change.

Clear Problem Statement

Once the entrepreneurial team has agreed on how it intends to frame the problem and on what evidence and arguments should be marshaled to bolster support for responding to the problem, the team should develop a clear, written problem statement (unless there are compelling reasons not to do so). The statement can take the form of an official report, a needs assessment, a press release, and so on. The group might draw on or refer to other reports compiled by think tanks, academic researchers, or the news media. The statement and relevant supporting documentation help set the direction for the search for solutions, bring focus to stakeholders’ subsequent action and involvement, and also instill a measure of accountability in the process. At the very least, the problem statement might serve as a trial balloon to help leaders gauge public interest in pursuing a policy change (Benveniste, 1989).

Leadership Guidelines

In the problem-formulation phase of policy change, visionary leadership skills continue to be especially important, as the entrepreneurial team stimulates and guides public deliberation about the nature of a public problem and a process for remedying it. The team focuses on creating and communicating shared problem definitions and appreciations that can inspire and motivate subsequent

228 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

action. Leadership guidelines for this phase fall into four groups: maintenance and expansion of the nascent advocacy coalition; problem formulation; report preparation, review, and dissemination; and caveats.

Advocacy Coalition

Think ahead about the advocacy coalition that will be needed to support specific proposals for change in the proposal-adoption phase. Seek to add new participants in this phase by, for example, convening a forum to deal with the part of the problem concerning them. As the coalition expands, you should pay continued attention to the various tensions inherent in collaborative work, around shared purpose, trust, power, membership, environmental pressures, procedures, and leadership styles (Huxham, 2003). You may need to make special efforts to bring new participants fully on board—for example, by connecting them to people who joined the coalition much earlier, providing them with written or other documentation of previous work, and giving them significant assignments. You may want to prompt discussion of overarching concepts such as leadership for the common good and public work, and offer training in such skills as focus group research (Krueger and King, 1998) and one-on-one interviewing (Boyte, 2004).

Problem Formulation

Problem formulation typically involves a search process in order to gain a fuller understanding of what is really going on in the area of concern.

Use a Two-Step Process Where Feasible

The starting point is to determine if a two-step problem-formula- tion process is desirable. When the real nature of a public problem is unclear, a two-step research process is advisable. In the first step, the entrepreneurial team conducts exploratory research into possible causes of the problem, stakeholders and their views, and effects of the problem. In the second step, the team undertakes more detailed research. The team should be careful to give adequate attention to the more open-ended first step, because with-