Stop Serving and Start Affecting

I sit on the board of an organization called Creating the Future. The tagline is ‘Change the questions, Change the world.’ The underlying principle is that we can create more equitable and healthy strategies to create and sustain a thriving world by basing our decisions and actions on a different set of questions than we often are conditioned to asking.

In my own practice as a coach, consultant, and educator, I spend most of my time trying to figure out the question, not the answer. (I think that is actually what I earn a living doing…)

 So here is the one question we absolutely need to change.

Stop asking about whom you serve

Start asking about whom will you affect

In my experience working with organizations around strategy, design, and programming, people with decision-making power spend a lot of time thinking about whom the organization serves - whom the client or customer is and what their needs are. This is not an inherently bad question. Who doesn’t want to help improve circumstances for people who may be experiencing conditions that limit thriving in their lives.

The catch - this question externalizes the impact/benefit of the organization’s strategy and approach. It starts by focusing thinking on those outside the organization and how they are served and impacted by what the organization does (or will do). A pattern that often generates a bias that then prioritizes benefit for them over harm (or lack of benefit) to others, especially those inside the organization.

But that strategy, that approach, that decision, that action impacts far more people than those who are served by the organization -- people who often aren’t considered until later on in the process, if at all, at a point when energy, commitment, and promises are already prioritized for the group we serve. A point where making accommodations or changes for others affected is now a limiting factor that will likely face resistance.

What happens to the thinking pattern when we shift that first question to who will be affected by…

Rather than starting with a frame of us/them or an implied priority or preference for one group, we start with an objective, neutral ‘everyone who is.’ This framing of the question, encourages us to take stock of everyone that well be affected by our potential decisions and actions, in this moment – before we even make a decision about strategy or action. We are no longer thinking them/us or external/internal or haves/have-nots. We are simply thinking whom!

Who is in that list of who will be affected? It is staff, volunteers, donors, neighbors, partners, community members, legislators, contractors, vendors and their employees, AND ourselves.

By making the first stage simply recognizing the breath of all of those who will be affected, we start the planning and decision making from a place of inclusivity. It lays the groundwork for advancing equity. We now have the ability to ask about whether a potential decision/action/strategy will benefit or dis-advantage each of the affected ‘whoms.’

This leads to the real power that comes when we add the following prompt for each of the parties that will be affected…

What is the (desired) highest potential benefit for each of them as a result of the decision/action/strategy we will take?*

• What is the highest potential benefit …

to staff?

to volunteers?
to me?
to our vendors?
to our vendors staff?
to our partners?
to those we will support/serve
to…?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, we now have more people to consider and may not know the answer to the question ‘what is the highest potential benefit for them.’ So, go ask them!

At this point you may notice that a greater part of the list of ‘whoms’ is connected to the internal elements of an organization as opposed to the external program outcomes. It is the staff who will bear the work load, it is the vendor who is impacted by the procurement practices, it is the business owners and employees impacted by our venue choice, …

Now that we are asking about these people, we are acknowledging them, we are positioning ourselves to ask if we are honoring our values in relationship to all of them AND to consider the types of decisions/actions/strategies that actually create those desired benefits for all who will be affected as opposed to just the subset of whom we serve.

In changing the question from served to affected, we increase our ability to achieve better and more effective benefits and to limit unintended detrimental or imbalanced benefit that results form our decisions!

 

PS: Some will argue that it is still possible to get to all affected even if we start with those served. I don’t disagree. It is just that the all affected is then an afterthought that could be missed. So rather than relying on us to remember to come back around, we can start with acknowledging and considering them from the start – then we won’t forget or overlook or under-value them.

 

*This is the core of the Catalytic Decision Making™ framework. To learn more visit www.creatingthefuture.org