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

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 229

out it important aspects of the problem and the impact on stakeholders may be ignored.

Exploratory research includes:

•Identifying key organizations, persons, or other information sources and developing a strategy for obtaining necessary information from them.

•Using exploratory techniques for obtaining information from the sources, such as on-site observation, unstructured interviews, focus group discussions (Krueger and King, 1998), nominal group technique (Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson, 1975), and the snowcard technique. Reviewing previous studies may also be quite useful.

•Attending to interpretive schemes or problem frames, stories, gaps, categories, values, indicators, comparisons, triggering events, and feedback. Discussing these factors and noting similarities and differences across groups, as well as what seems to be missing that might significantly affect problem formulation, are also recommended. The team should pay attention to people’s stories. Rather than asking informants to define the problem, researchers can ask them to talk about their experiences that relate to the problem. After these stories are collected, the team can construct a timeline of key events and record answers to the journalist’s questions (what, when, where, how, and why). Constructing such an “issue history” helps guarantee that the right problem gets solved in the right way. As time allows, the team should explore other aspects of relevant history, in particular the history underlying important presumptions and the history of relevant organizations or institutions (Neustadt and May, 1986).

Exploratory research sets the stage for more detailed research, which includes these steps:

• Identifying information sources and developing a research strategy for obtaining information from them. If necessary, plan to hire experts who are knowledgeable about the problem area or appropriate research methods and who are credible to key stakeholders. Organizers of the African American Men Project did this. The project benefited not only from the experts’ knowledge but

230 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

also from their credibility in the eyes of various stakeholder groups. Using experts from several disciplines is usually a good idea, especially in any area where policy experts from various fields disagree. The areas of disagreement are likely to be where the “real” problem is found.

•Using structured techniques to collect information (survey research, structured interviews, structured group meetings, detailed analysis of literature and data).

•Analyzing and discussing the findings, including similarities and differences across groups and possible prompts to further action by these groups. In particular, focus on whether the problem appears to be important enough, from the standpoint of key stakeholders, to make policy change necessary and its implementation likely.

Look at the Role of Sectors in Formulating a Problem

Consider what the information you have gathered indicates about government, market, and nonprofit successes and failures. Identify how these sectors are part of the problem as well as part of potential solutions.

Favor Forums in This Phase

Be sure the emphasis in this phase is on designing and using forums, with a secondary emphasis on arenas. A combination of special-purpose forums and general forums is likely to work best. In general these forums should bridge organizational boundaries so discussion can foster shared meanings that can guide collective action in subsequent phases.

Special-purpose forums can be convened by a task force or other working group to gain insight into specific aspects of a problem or to consult groups of stakeholders. For example, the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) organized multiple task forces (on issues such as sustainable management of commercial forests) in preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit. Organizers and supporters of the AAMP conducted focus groups of African American men; sponsored a roundtable discussion among five prominent sociologists and psychologists on the emotional, spiritual, and psychological well-being of African American men;

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 231

and held meetings with leaders from government, business, and the philanthropic and spiritual communities.

A general forum can be used to bring together and integrate the results of special-purpose forums and to publicize the emerging or agreed-upon problem definition. For example, the BCSD established a liaison group, which held frequent meetings to consider the results of the issue-focused task forces. The AAMP sponsored a community town hall early on to discuss the experience of African American men; project supporters made presentations at the Juneteenth Festival, the Eleventh Annual Festival of Fathers, and a variety of other community events and meetings.

As you plan the forums, use and update the participation planning matrix (Exercise 6.3) developed in the initial-agreement phase to decide who should participate in the forums. Remember the advice in Chapter Four about ensuring these forums are accessible for those who should participate. The power-versus-interest grid (Exercise 4.2) developed in the initial-agreement phase can also help forum organizers strategize about how to strengthen the voice of people who have high interest in the change effort but little power, and how to awaken the interest of influential people who could use their power on behalf of beneficial change.

Focus on Problems and Desired Outcomes

Be sure the focus is on the problem or need and desired outcomes, not solutions. Leaders must constantly ask themselves and the others involved whether they are focusing on the problem or whether they have become captives of a particular solution. If they have succeeded in fostering among their supporters a belief that the problem is important and urgent, they may feel tremendous pressure to converge quickly on a specific solution (Nutt, 2002). Policy entrepreneurs may therefore need to summon strength and courage to follow this guideline. As Nancy Roberts suggests, giving adequate time for stakeholders to work on problem definition may be particularly difficult for a public official who is expected to solve the problem expeditiously (Roberts, 1997, 2002). Policy entrepreneurs should keep in mind that effort spent on problem identification is a key determinant of a change effort’s success. One study found that change efforts are significantly more likely to succeed when

232 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

participants engage in extensive problem definition (Bryson, Bromily, and Jung, 1990). In contrast, the amount of effort devoted to searching for solutions did not significantly increase the likelihood of success. Other studies have reached much the same conclusion (Nutt, 2002).

Participants in forums during this phase should be encouraged to identify specific behaviors, exchanges, or transactions “on the ground” that are either problematic or desirable. Thus, in a way, the focus is on the end of the policy change cycle—that is, on the desired outcomes of proposed policy change, or on harmful or ineffective behavior linked to previously implemented policies. In a shared-power, no-one-in-charge situation, leaders are far more likely to effect useful policy change if they “map backward” from desired behavior to proposed policy changes than if they “map forward” (Elmore, 1982).

Despite the need to emphasize problems rather than solutions in this phase, policy entrepreneurs recognize that negotiation over problem definition also involves discussion of the potential course of action or solution (Nutt, 2002). Problem formulation cannot be completely divorced from the search for a solution. Indeed, policy entrepreneurs may have to explore several solution options before an effective and final problem definition can be formulated. Additionally, the problem formulation can always be refined after solutions are under consideration. You can use Exercise 7.1 to help your group move from a focus on solutions to desired outcomes that can guide problem formulation.

Exercise 7.2 can be helpful in identifying the type of outcome preferred by key stakeholders, and the power base the stakeholders could draw on as supporters or opponents of change. A planning team can use the exercise to produce a diagram of “bases of power and directions of interest” (goals) for each stakeholder. The technique is an adaptation of Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann’s “star diagrams” (1998; see also Bryson, Cunningham, and Lokkesmoe, 2002; and Bryson, 2004).

A diagram of this kind indicates the sources of power available to the stakeholder, as well as the goals or interests the stakeholder seeks to achieve or serve (see Figure 7.1). Power can come from access to or control over various support mechanisms, such as money and votes, or from access to or control over various sanc-

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 233

Exercise 7.1. Developing Objectives from Preferred Solutions for a Problem.

This exercise builds on humans’ natural tendency to jump to solutions. The facilitator helps the group see that many narrow solutions can fit into broad-scale objectives, whereas a narrow objective limits the number of solutions that might be considered.

Part One

Directions for a group:

1.Work silently and individually.

2.Take out a sheet of paper and divide it into two columns.

3.In the left-hand column, write down solutions to the problem being dealt with.

4.In the right-hand column, record the results you expect from each solution.

Part Two

1.The facilitator collects the solutions in round-robin fashion and records them on a flipchart sheet.

2.The facilitator collects the expected results round-robin and records them on a second flipchart sheet.

3.The facilitator helps the group rank the expected results (for example, by giving each participant three or more colored dots and asking the person to place a dot by his or her top three results).

4.The facilitator then helps the group decide which solutions could fit with their favored results. The facilitator explains that these favored results are, in effect, the group’s objectives.

Source: Adapted from Nutt (2002).

tions, such as regulatory authority or a vote of no confidence (Eden and Ackermann, 1998).

Exercise 7.3 can be used to determine which interests or themes stakeholders have in common. In this exercise the planning team examines the diagrams of bases of power and directions of interest, constructed in Exercise 7.2, to identify which interests are sought by a significant number of stakeholders. These “supra-interests” are given a thematic label that captures or integrates the interests they include. After identifying the themes, the team constructs a map of

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 235

Exercise 7.3. Constructing a Map of the

Common Good and Structure of a Winning Argument.

An individual can perform this exercise, but greater understanding and more accurate or useful outcomes are likely to result from group work.

1.Start by constructing a diagram of bases of power and directions of interest for each key stakeholder.

2.Once all of the diagrams have been created, search for common themes that unite the individual stakeholders’ interests. These common themes are called supra-interests.

3.Decide on a label that appears to capture or integrate the specific interests that make it up. Identification of common themes is an exercise calling for creativity, discernment, and judgment.

4.After identifying these common themes, construct a map that indicates what appear to be the strongest relationships among the supra-interests. The final map represents the supra-interests that tie together the individual stakeholders’ interests as well as what the relationships among the supra-interests appear to be.

5.Discuss what the common good (the supra-interests) appear to be for this group of stakeholders. Talk about how arguments probably will need to be structured to tap into the interests of enough stakeholders to create a winning coalition.

relationships among the supra-interests. This map is called the “common good and structure of a winning argument,” because it suggests what the common good is for a group of stakeholders as well as how arguments will have to be structured to tap into the interests of enough stakeholders that a winning coalition can be created (Bryson, Cunningham, and Lokkesmoe, 2002).

Frame Problems in Need of Solution

Focus on interpretive schemes that frame problems so they can be solved. The way a problem is framed structures stakeholders’ views of and interest in the problem, the debate surrounding possible solutions, and the coalitions that develop to oppose or support those solutions. Therefore policy entrepreneurs must articulate the view of the world that lies behind their problem definition and make sure this worldview is one that draws significant support from key stakeholders. The worldview a leader should seek is one that calls up widely shared concepts of what constitutes the common

236 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

good or public interest (Stone, 2002). Further, it clarifies how the problematic situation violates a widely shared vision of how society ought to be, and it taps constituents’ deeply held values and aspirations in such a way that they see the problem as a challenge to be overcome and an opportunity to call upon their best selves to realize the kind of world they want to create.

Policy entrepreneurs can use Exercise 4.3 (“Analyzing Interpretive Schemes, or Problem Frames”) to identify how stakeholders are framing or likely to frame the problem. Remember that how a stakeholder frames a problem may arise from its connection to other problems or issues (Rochefort and Cobb, 1994). This exercise can be used in conjunction with the diagrams of bases of power and direction of interests to analyze stakeholder support for changes associated with a particular framing of the problem. In the final step, in which participants seek to develop a more comprehensive frame, the map of supra-interests can be helpful in identifying a frame that resonates with stakeholders’ shared goals (Bryson, Cunningham, and Lokkesmoe, 2002).

Unravel Old Frames

Actively seek to undo old problem frames that hamper progress toward the outcomes you seek. The organizers of the Vital Aging Network, for example, intentionally set out to dismantle the notion that older adults are frail and dependent. They use data to bolster a more complex view of older people, and they host events that showcase people who are active in their community for decades after they turn sixty.

Report Preparation, Review, and Dissemination

Policy entrepreneurs should strategize about the best format for reporting findings on the problem that concerns them and how to promote an optimal problem frame in a report. They should be sure to leave adequate time for reviewing initial drafts and be willing to prune some problem dimensions or connections. They should also develop a strategy for sustaining media attention to the problem.

Preliminary Report

A working group should bring together the planning team’s research and distill the findings into a draft report that outlines problem dimensions and makes recommendations for next steps. The

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE PROBLEM DEFINITION TO GUIDE ACTION 237

draft should define the problem neither too broadly nor too narrowly and rigidly. Definitions that are too broad offer little guidance for the solution-search phase. Those that are too narrow are likely to focus on symptoms and not causes, and definitions that are too rigid destroy needed flexibility. A calculated degree of vagueness in problem definition is necessary to garner broad stakeholder support for working on the problem; room for revision allows policy entrepreneurs to respond to unforeseen changes in the situation.

You can use several techniques to arrive at an optimal problem statement:

•Break the problem into manageable subproblems that are amenable to “small win” strategies or solutions (Weick, 1984).

•At the same time, treat the subproblems as a system so that adopted strategies have a better chance of being effective (Senge, 1990; Oshry, 1995).

•Indicate the complexity of the problem (Bryson, Ackermann, Eden, and Finn, 2004).

•Be clear as to what is known and unknown about the problem (Dror, 1987).

•Check for unwarranted assumptions (Senge, 1990; Argyris, 1982).

The statement should emphasize the problem frame that seems best calculated to gain stakeholder support for an effective solution, and it should impart direction for next steps, such as listing goals, outcomes, or benchmarks that indicate progress on resolving the problem and general ideas for how the solution search should unfold.

A template for a draft and final report is presented in Exhibit 7.1.

Review Process

The draft report should be reviewed by planning team members; key decision makers, including the coordinating committee; relevant governing boards; and other selected stakeholders. The review should follow a “SWiM” approach, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and modifications that would improve the document. Page 238 gives a possible agenda for the review sessions.

238 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Exhibit 7.1. Generic Problem Statement Format.

•Title page, indicating content and sponsorship of the study

•Executive summary, highlighting problems or needs, desired outcomes, and recommendations

•Table of contents

•Statement of purpose and sponsorship, along with brief historical background

•Review of relevant literature

•Study design and methodology, including brief description of research staff and their qualifications

•Data sources, including people, organizations, and data banks

•Data analysis

•Findings

•Conclusions and recommendations for further action

•Appendices

1.Overview of the document

2.General comments on the document and reactions to it

3.Brainstormed list of strengths

4.Brainstormed list of weaknesses

5.Brainstormed list of modifications that would improve on the strengths and overcome the weaknesses

6.Agreement on next steps to complete the document

By focusing initially on the strengths of the document and asking for modifications, a process such as this forestalls the all-too-likely scenario in which reviewers tear apart the original document and offer little or no help in improving it.

Defer Other Problems

Policy entrepreneurs often need to resist the temptation to include other important and somewhat related problems in their change effort. For example, some participants in community forums sponsored by the AAMP argued that difficulties faced by African American children and young women ought to be a part of the project. The organizers, however, argued that a focus on better outcomes for young African American men would ultimately help their children as well as young African American women. In some cases, policy entrepreneurs may be able to refer related problems to other groups or organizations that are responsible for them.