If you work in government at any level, advocate on policy issues or work with government agencies regularly, you’ve likely heard about or even been part of a specially formed group addressing one or more complex issues. The names may change depending on the purpose, the authority it holds or even just who created it but whether it’s called a work group, task force, blue ribbon committee or special commission, these collaborative decision making bodies have incredible potential to inform bold, consensus based action. 

Realizing the potential of these groups requires a thoughtful, intentional and strategic approach to every aspect of their creation, structure, management and work. Done well, these efforts can lead to breakthrough progress in finding common ground on some of the most contentious and complex issues. They can be the nexus of a strong base of support for system change, the key to buy-in among diverse stakeholders and the backbone of sustainability for new approaches, policies, systems and solutions. If any aspect from creation to facilitation misses the mark, they can at best become a frustrating waste of time and at worst, can lead to distrust in the sponsors and leaders or lead to even more divisiveness.

The good news is that getting collaborative decision making processes right isn’t itself a complicated process. With an appropriate amount of forethought and planning, purpose driven structure and intentional membership led by the right support team, I’ve seen common ground reached among people who have long histories of opposition.

In the 15+ years I have been facilitating groups, I have seen first-hand the best the approach can yield and I’ve seen the worst examples of poorly designed or run efforts. 

From smartly designed and well run processes, I’ve seen:

• Groups and individuals who fundamentally disagree on key issues set aside their differences to find the issues they agree on rather than focusing on where they differ;
• Consensus reached after years of impasse because a leader was willing to put people with radically different ideas together and trust a process;
• Research driven conversations change opinions on even deeply held beliefs;
• Experts and affected stakeholders come together to make progress where partisan bodies were not able to get past ideological gridlock; and
• Historically marginalized, disproportionately affected and voices in the minority on an issue be given an equal seat at the table and opportunity to influence.

On efforts that missed the mark in design or management, I’ve seen:

• The unnecessary politicization of processes that led to even greater distrust and dysfunction; 
• Lack of clarity on the mission, authority or decision-making process that turned passionate group members frustrated and that wasted the opportunity presented by their involvement;
• Bias in the design and substance of conversations, the composition of the group and the topics, experts or ideas given space that limited the boldness and potential of the work;
• Heavy handed involvement by the executive sponsors of the group and tone setting that led to skepticism of the authentic interest in diverse viewpoints;
• Bias in the project leaders and facilitators that either sent a message to stakeholders of a dominant and preferred viewpoint or that twisted the group’s work to fit their beliefs and agenda.

All of these positive outcomes are possible in nearly every scenario and each pitfall was 100% avoidable. We’ve engaged over 15,000 stakeholders, planned close to 500 meetings and managed more than 30 work groups and task forces that have led to over 100 changes in policy and regulations. 

What made each of these possible and what have we come to believe are the most critical elements to success in a work group or task force?

#1. Structure. Defining the role, governance, decision-making process, authority and scope of inquiry with intentionality and clarity of outcomes.

#2. Membership. Designing the composition of the group to ensure diversity of perspectives, expertise on the subject matter and trust among affected stakeholders.

#3. Process Design. Creating a process that drives effectively to the outcomes, is efficient in the use of participant time, anticipates the unexpected and builds credibility for the group’s recommendations.

#4. Management & Facilitation. Allocating appropriate resources for the project team and ensuring the skill, neutrality and expertise of group facilitators.

I don’t just believe task forces or work groups can be effective, I believe they are the most effective tool we have to advance meaningful change on the most complex and contentious issues we face in our towns, states, nation and global community. That’s why we’re launching this series of blog posts from our team addressing each of these elements and later this fall will publish a white paper on best practices for task forces and work groups.

We hope by sharing what we’ve learned, work group and task force sponsors, leaders and participants will be able to design, manage and contribute to more effective processes on the issues they face. If you are considering forming any type of collaborative decision making body or process, we would be happy to schedule a time to talk and to be a thought partner to your effort.