Systems thinking: giving people time to get there

By the time a communications plan is presented, the person who developed it may have spent weeks considering questions that others are encountering for the first time. Often, the proposal arrives with recommendations and a timeline, although the people expected to carry it out may have had little opportunity to shape it.

I encountered this in a volunteer role with a small nonprofit, where I am vice-chair of the board. I developed a communications audit along with a three-year communications, public relations and marketing plan. The work examined who the organization was reaching and who it was missing, with recommendations connected to its strategic plan.

The work did not reach the full board, as staff had not been involved in developing it and were not yet resourced to carry it out. I had considered what the organization could do without spending enough time with the people whose knowledge would help determine what was useful and possible.

This is a problem for communications planning because developing a recommendation involves learning. The person doing the research follows questions, considers alternatives and gradually forms a view. Presenting the result gives others access to the conclusions, with much less opportunity to participate in that process.

People need time to examine the questions through their own responsibilities and experience. Their participation can reveal something the research missed, challenge a proposed priority or suggest a more workable approach. Making room for those contributions is part of developing the plan.

In my graduate studies, I examined readiness for dialogue on both sides of a conversation. People need enough information to participate, and the organization needs to be prepared to consider what they contribute. That work connected patient listening with understanding what matters to people and identifying opportunities to co-create.

For a communications plan, this has practical implications. Staff may know why information is difficult to maintain or where people encounter problems accessing a service. Board members may bring knowledge of previous decisions and competing priorities. Those contributions can affect the purpose and scope of the proposed work.

Co-creation requires room for people to help develop that direction. Asking for comments on a completed plan leaves less open to discussion. Earlier conversations can help establish which problems deserve attention and what a useful response might involve.

The person bringing the research still has work to do: explain the findings, make the reasoning understandable and consider how other people’s knowledge affects the recommendations. The organization also needs to be clear about who can make decisions and how proposals will be considered. People should be able to understand what they can influence before being asked to contribute.

The Strategic Systems Thinking course, part of the Professional Certificate in Management and Leadership at Royal Roads University, gave me a way to examine how I had approached the nonprofit’s communications work. Using Dave Snowden and Mary Boone’s Cynefin framework, I questioned my assumption that a thorough, well-supported plan would help move the organization toward action.

Cynefin distinguishes complicated situations, where expertise and analysis can establish an answer, from complex situations, where learning comes through interaction and limited actions that can be adjusted. In my course reflection, I considered whether I had relied on analysis for questions that needed to be explored with others.

Research could help identify gaps in communication channels or examine how audiences were being reached. Understanding how the organization could respond required conversations with the people involved. Their existing work and relationships would affect what could be undertaken.

A plan can describe how tasks connect while leaving those dependencies unexplored. A proposed website improvement, for example, may depend on someone obtaining program information, someone else checking it and another person publishing it. Discussing the work with them can change the recommendation before it becomes an assigned task.

In my course reflection, I considered beginning with a smaller task, such as updating a public service listing. I had not tested that approach. At the time, I saw its value as a limited action with a visible result.

The discussion around the task could also help determine whether it was worth undertaking. The people involved could consider who needed to find the organization and what information would help them. Whoever maintained the listing could explain how the task was handled and what made it difficult.

If they chose to proceed, they would have something concrete to review together. They could consider what the update required, whether it addressed the need they had identified and what to examine next. A larger direction could develop through those decisions.

That approach takes time, including time from people with existing responsibilities. It needs to be manageable for them. A focused question or small piece of work can provide a starting point without requiring everyone to respond to an entire strategy at once.

The co-creation work is still ahead, and the existing research can contribute to it. I will need to leave room for others to question the recommendations and help determine what we undertake.

Before commissioning the next communications plan, identify who needs to participate in developing it. Bring them into an early question connected to their responsibilities, while their answers can still affect the proposal. Allow time to work through what they contribute.

Further reading

• Dave Snowden and Mary Boone, “A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making,” on choosing an approach that fits the situation.

• Paolo Mefalopulos, Development Communication Sourcebook: Broadening the Boundaries of Communication, a resource included in my communication for development graduate work on dialogue and participation.

About the author

Alesha Hayes, MA, APR, is principal of A. M. Hayes & Associates, a communication and public relations practice based in Victoria, British Columbia. Her work brings together strategic communications, organizational development and public engagement, with attention to how decisions are made, how people become involved and what it takes to earn their trust.

Subscribe to Insights for new writing on communication, organizations and public life.