Learning for Change | The secrets of successful boundary workers: bridging society and government
The starting point for this session on brokerage, as summed up by the session leader, Friso Coumou, is that boundaries are obstacles to transformative change, so we need to know how to work across them. The boundaries of concern here are those between society (social innovation organisations specifically) and policy. Much of the discussion centred on the bureaucratic rationality of government and its agents and the distributed rationality of social innovation organisations. When organisations reach a certain size they need a bureaucracy, so boundaries between government and society are to be expected, but there are significant differences between states in recognising the need to facilitate dialog at the policy-society boundary, in responding to that need by creating boundary spanning organisations and processes, and in promoting (or not promoting) active citizenship. The Netherlands is one of the more progressive countries in seeking to facilitate working across boundaries and support active citizenship, so Friso, who works in a government agency dedicated to boundary working, is well-placed to advise on strategies and give tips about engaging with government. Here, then, are some personal reflections on the session and what I took home from it.
The session was structured around a set of questions. In groups of two-to-four, participants discussed each question. Outcomes were then shared with the whole group – around 20 people – and the key points distilled. The opening questions gave everyone scope to explain their background and interest in this topic. What had drawn us to this group dialogue? What organization do we represent and how do we position ourselves and our own organization in relation to the bigger picture, the bigger system and other stakeholders? In what sense do we see ourselves as ‘activists’, politically active or revolutionary?
These questions led to useful discussions not only about our own initiatives, but also about the tools we use or can use to map the wider system of issues, stakeholders, networks, needs and interests. Landscape mapping adds to our understanding of the broader system of which we are part and that we seek to transform and can help in developing strategies and tactics and going about implementation: identifying issues, finding allies, creating advocacy coalitions, etc.
There was much discussion about positioning: how to balance conforming and confronting. Discussions focused around the need both to conform and to confront and the need – in any dialectic process – for a dynamic interplay between societal groups and government agencies with moments of confronting and moments of conforming. Pragmatism calls for both patience and impatience.
We discussed the importance of:
Reflecting on the whole system
Creating spaces for people to come together
Being open-minded about who to bring together: different people bring in their own part of the ‘ecosystem’ we are building and many different people are needed because they all bring in complementary pieces of what we are seeking to build
Understanding what we each need from the other
Finding common ground around common needs
Recognising this as a political process
Bargaining and working on the basis of reciprocity. If there isn’t enough common ground, there’s a need to build political power.
Focusing on the long term direction more than on individual projects: consistent efforts are needed over the long term, as this is a long term project.
And the main thought to take home from this? Maybe it’s that there’s a need for social innovation organizations and initiatives to understand bureaucracies and their dynamics better and also to recognise that diversity exists also within bureaucracies. It’s important for social innovation organisations to understand the role of public servants and to work with them to understand each other’s needs. There may be public servants who are sympathetic to the social innovation, but the nature of the political culture acts as a constraint. Confidence building can come from finding sympathetic public servants and working together to take small steps forward. Understanding that the public servant is sometimes forced by the system to make certain statements or act in certain ways can help to defuse anger and criticism. The key is to build relations based on an understanding of the pressures and constraints that public servants face that limit what they might say or do. In government ministries, like everywhere, there is diversity. While there are ‘hard-liners’ there are also people willing to listen, be creative and to compromise. It’s important we all reach out and find each other.
