52 months gone by
That’s how long I’ve been at CPI.

CPI stands for Centre for Public Impact
We reimagine government — it’s been quite the ride, that’s a fact.

I will never look at government the same.
Because I’ve learned more than one name

Of the compassionate, talented humans behind our public institutions.
And their passion goes beyond what’s written in any constitutions.

Motivations for working in government are diverse,
But there’s one thing I’ve found unites this public universe:

Public servants care deeply about the people and places they serve.
No matter what comes their way — whether a fast ball or a curve —

They will fight to innovate and to preserve
The things that we all deserve.

Access to universal rights, fair economic conditions, and opportunities.
A place to belong, a hometown that welcomes diverse communities.

Coming from privilege, I used to think opportunity was the key.
I had it good — why can’t everyone have the same privileges that helped me?

But working with governments made me realize,
With the help of friends who look through different eyes,

What worked for me may not for everyone in my community.
We are different and should celebrate diversity.

The system that benefitted me has produced inequities that are vast.
And while this work takes time, we need to change, fast.

Government can be more than a deliverer of services.
They can help people and places co-create shared purposes.

But to create better outcomes for all, government can’t do it alone.
Communities, companies, and individuals have all shown

That the more we realize our own power,
The more our systems can change, like a flower.

A flower that thrives most when those around it do too.
A flower that is part of an ecosystem that is connected to me and you.

So the question is — what can you do?
How can you change systems — are you the disruptor, the volunteer, the glue?

I’ve learned more about the role I can play at CPI.
But after 52 months, it’s time for me to say goodbye.

While I will no longer be an employee,
The lessons will always stick with me.

Learning has led to change — I adapt and adjust.
I am more civically engaged, I consider what is and isn’t just.

I’ve found that what I value most in a job is the people you’re working with.
The people on our team make me better — beyond just a helpful wordsmith.

They love to celebrate success but don’t shy away from calling me out.
These are relationships that will last, that is something I don’t doubt.

With that, a final toast:
To the public servants in every town, on every coast
To learning from the past, being present, and shaping a post-
Modern era that future generations will proudly boast
About for people & planet flourish, with government serving as a kind host
For and with the communities they serve, who matter the most.

This Year’s Super Bowl of Social Impact

Over the past season, many NFL players gave their time, energy, and resources to make a positive impact. I wanted to celebrate three athletes who used their power to change the world for the better: Rodney McLeod, Emmanuel Sanders, and Malcom Jenkins. This trio demonstrates the powerful platform athletes have to drive change.

Rodney McLeod. Safety for the Philadelphia Eagles, McLeod’s impactful work in the community won him the NFL Players Association Alan Page Community Award. The prestigious award is given to the player who demonstrates a profound dedication to positively impacting his team’s city and communities across the country. A few of his accomplishments off the field include:

• Organizing an inaugural Art & Sole Sneaker Ball through his Change Our Future Foundation, raising over $205,000 to update STEM and Black history curriculum in local schools
• Hosting a listening session with students at Constitution High School and Hill-Freedman World Academy to identify areas of need, and pledging $20,000 toward those areas, including educational programs, focus groups, and curriculum at the school
• Helping launch the Eagles’ End Philly Gun Violence Campaign as part of the Eagles Social Justice Leadership Council

“I didn’t realize that I had a voice that would echo to so many people. I couldn’t just sit back and do the bare minimum. I had to stand up for what I believe and what’s right.” — Rodney McLeod

Emmanuel Sanders. Wide Receiver for the Buffalo Bills, Sanders wasted no time making a difference in his new home of Buffalo. He relaunched his foundation, The Emmanuel Sanders Foundation, in Buffalo, and over the past season, his work in the community has included:

• Building a new game room for the Boys & Girls Club of Buffalo in memory of his former teammate, the late Demaryius Thomas, inspiring Bills fans to donate to the Boys & Girls Club of Denver in honor of Thomas
• Becoming a spokesperson for Field & Fork Network, which provides healthy food to communities in need
• Visiting Harriet Ross Tubman School and donating $20,000 to support children from financially disadvantaged families

“When I entered the NFL, I knew I wanted to give back because so many people gave back to me when I was growing up.” — Emmanuel Sanders

Malcolm Jenkins. Safety for the New Orleans Saints, Jenkins has long been once of the NFL’s greatest social activists. This past season, his foundation, The Malcolm Jenkins Foundation (TMJF), delivered a range of programming that helped close the racial wealth gap, address food insecurity, and advance educational attainment. A few examples include:

• Launching an initiative focused on financial freedom to help close the racial wealth gap, including opening savings accounts for 1,000 students
• Hosting his annual Get Ready Fest, which provided food and resources to 1,200 families, marking over 10,000 people served since the event started in 2004
• Awarding 12 students scholarships through Project REWARDS, totaling over $175,000 in scholarships given since 2012

“I have a responsibility to our youth to be a positive role model.” — Malcolm Jenkins

An Ode to Athletes Making a Difference

I’ve written a short ode to honor these great athletes and human beings:

The Superbowl of Social Impact
is all about athletes giving back.

Jenkins, Sanders, and McLeod
are stars who make us proud.

Stars who use their tremendous platform
to help a better, more equitable world take form.

From healthy food to education,
they use their gifts and imagination

to make lives better for people far and wide,
to build community and a sense of pride.

This Superbowl, let’s celebrate these players’ munificence.
Here’s to all the athletes making a difference!

“We got this,” I reassured my family before the The Philly Special, a daring fourth down play at the end of the first half. I will always remember that moment: the anticipation, where you can’t tell if it’s anxiety or excitement eating at your stomach, followed by pure joy at a successful outcome.

Whenever I come back home, my family watches a clip my Mom recorded of us celebrating. Before the play, you can hear grumblings of doubt, but I kept the faith, trusting our team.

I had hope because this was a special team. Larry Platt has argued that these Eagles were one of the most community-minded teams in all of sports. Known for a culture of servant leadership, they believed that doing well off the field was linked to their success on it. Malcolm Jenkins advocated for criminal justice reform; Torrey Smith paid for 46 animal adoptions at a shelter; and they all supported each others’ goals. While I didn’t know how that play would unfold, I wanted my 17 relatives I was watching alongside to believe in this team, just as I did.

And sure enough, the play was a success! Jason Kelce — our sixth round center who was criticized for being too small — snapped it to Corey Clement — our undrafted, fearless Running Back — who then pitched it to Trey Burton — our undrafted, third-string Tight End — who then then tossed a perfect pass to Nick Foles — our Superbowl MVP Quarterback, who was ready to retire a year ago. It was a miracle that will go down as one of the greatest sports plays of all time.

Honoring the 2018 Eagles: Superbowl of Social Impact

So, what does my family photo and the 2018 Eagles have to do with the Superbowl of Social Impact? As the 2018 Eagles demonstrated, athletes can make a big difference, especially given the special relationship they have with their fans. Chris Long, a member of those 2018 Eagles, demonstrated the power of this relationship: he donated his entire $1M annual salary to educational charities and, because of the trust he had earned from his supporters, raised an additional $1.3M from those inspired by his work.

In honor of Long and my 2018 Eagles, I want to try to recognize other NFL players who are making a difference in their communities through what I’m calling the Superbowl of Social Impact. On Superbowl Sunday, I’ll be publishing a list of NFL players who have used their immense power for good over the past 2021–2022 season.

If you have any nominations for athletes you think should be included, send them my way on Twitter or email. I’m excited to recognize some of the athletes who are using the great power of sports to make the better world a better place!

Many argue that on the other side of the pain and sadness that has marked this pandemic crisis could be a chance to shape a ‘new normal’ for our societies across the world. What has been described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to drive badly needed reform and change.

Things that once seemed unrealistic — cancelling student debt, covering paid sick leave, pausing bill collection for those with too much on their plate — are becoming a reality overnight. We must reflect on how we want the world to change and importantly, who has the power to help bring this new world about.

As Arundhati Roy describes:

“Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.”

But who will be leading the charge?

At a time like this, though, who has the time, resources, and headspace to “imagine their world anew”? My fear is that those who will have the privilege of shaping the new normal will be people who have remained healthy, economically secure, and not burned out from crisis response. To be brutally honest, I fear that new systems, policies, and structures will be shaped — like they have been for so long — by people like me: white, heterosexual men from upper / middle income backgrounds.

I fear that those who will not have that opportunity are the ones who should be leading the charge. The people who represent the reason why the world needs reimagining in the first place. Unfortunately, these are the people disproportionately affected by the crisis — from the racial disparities in cases in the US to the economic hardships rocking those who already earned the least to the frontline workers who are experiencing overwhelming trauma.

Given the horrific strain these groups currently face, how can we create opportunities for them to not only contribute, but indeed lead, the shaping of the new normal?

Aspiring for equitable outcomes is not enough

Many are calling for a fairer world to emerge out of this crisis. In his recent viral post on how powerful forces will convince us to return to the way things were, Julio Vincent Gambuto implores us to “Marie Kondo the shit out of” our old ways, getting rid of all the bad, and proving “we care deeply about one another”. The New York Times’ editorial board has launched an initiative on inequality, arguing: “it may not feel like it now, but out of this crisis there’s a chance to build a better America.”

If we want a better world, with more equitable outcomes, we need to design a more equitable process to bring that world to life.

Key to the reforms we have seen from previous crises has been the power that has been taken by those driving change. The Black Death helped end serfdom in Europe because serfs finally gained the power to leave lords who did not pay them fairly. World War I, in addition to the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, gave women more power as they started taking jobs that men could no longer fill. This economic power in turn led to greater advocacy for women’s rights, such as the right to vote.

If we would like to come out of this crisis stronger, more resilient, and ultimately more equitable, groups that have been historically marginalised and disproportionately impacted by coronavirus must be given the power to shape the new normal. If we want our new normal to work better for everyone, then the change has to be led by those who wouldn’t normally lead it.

How to share power

I would argue that those in positions of power — whether a company, a government, a philanthropic organisation, or even an individual like myself — have the responsibility to enable these groups. We must recognize our outsized influence and privilege, and do all we can to create the conditions where those who have been marginalised feel safe and confident sharing their perspectives and growing their ideas.

If you are someone like me, who has free time, go research how a vulnerable group — people experiencing homeless, victims of domestic abuse, people with disabilities — is being affected by this crisis and put yourself in their shoes. How can you help raise their voices? Who are the nonprofits and organisations working closely with them? What support do they need?

If you have a platform people follow, consider how you can leverage it to shine a light on others’ stories and speak truth to power. For example, the Chicago College & Career Collaborative (C4) brought together leaders from across Chicago’s education sector to listen to first generation college students share the real challenges they were facing and what support they would find most helpful in this virtual community forum. Students shared how they had to abruptly leave campus and quickly find jobs back home, as their parents lost their jobs and they lost their summer internships. Balancing providing for your family with adjusting to virtual classes was no easy feat, and certainly something leaders in Chicago’s education sector could do a better job of supporting.

If you are in a position to provide funding or support, join the growing list of funders who are loosening their requirements. Provide flexible funding for community-led responses in areas most affected. Form advisory committees with the most vulnerable among us to steer your decision making. Listen to what people need and give what you can, without any questions or strings.

What we are doing at CPI

These are just some initial ideas. I am sure they are not exactly right and am keen to hear from others, particularly those who have been marginalised, on how we can create the right conditions and spaces. Drop me a line if you are interested in sharing a story or working together on this.

A few things we at CPI have done and are planning to do:

• Amplifying stories we are hearing through our coronavirus page
• Collecting innovative responses via this survey and sharing responses live here
• Sharing our relevant resources & research, such as our Tackling Challenges Together report on how technology offers us ways to talk and to listen and to deliberate over new approaches, and case studies, such as Estonia’s Citizens’ Assembly
• Starting a blog series that explores how marginalised groups are experiencing this crisis and in what ways we can support them in leading the charge. If you are interested in being featured or supporting this, let us know

As tragic and terrible as this crisis is, it will inevitably lead to lasting change. To make the most of it, we need to start thinking creatively now about how we can better lift up the voices of those who have been shut out for too long.

We’ve partnered with OPSI to explore innovative approaches to tackle Coronavirus.

Find out more here

Who gets to shape the new normal? was originally published in Centre for Public Impact on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We know it can be hard to stay positive and constructive during this time. Yet, at the same time, we have been deeply moved by individuals and organisations across the world asking themselves how they can be most helpful. We are seeing incredible displays of humanity — people adapting, innovating, and caring for one another. Over 400 community groups have sprung up across the UK to help those most vulnerable in their neighbourhood, a postcard bid to help self-isolating neighbours has grown wildly, and a GoFundMe for hygiene essentials has exceeded its goal.

To provide a way to collect and share similar types of stories and lessons learned, we have partnered with the OECD’s Observatory of Public Sector Innovation Team to launch a short survey, which you can find HERE. All responses will be immediately available for public view and comment HERE.

You can use the survey to share an idea or approach you have tested and what you have learned as a result. This survey is itself a test we are trying out. If people like it and submit responses, our team will come up with other ways to share responses in an engaging, accessible way. We want these posts to serve as inspiration to others — a centralised place for information and knowledge sharing. So please, feel free to share the survey and our team’s page to your networks so that they too can add their thoughts and highlight how in the face of extreme adversity, humanity is coming together.

We’ve partnered with OPSI to explore innovative approaches to tackle Coronavirus.

Find out more here

Capturing the creativity in the face of COVID-19 was originally published in Centre for Public Impact on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The unsung heroes of local government innovation

When you hear the term ‘city innovation’ in government, what do you envision? Does a major skyline creep it’s way into your imagination, with tantalizing technologies and curious creatives dancing about? Do the New Yorks and Los Angeles come to mind as the premiere examples of cities who are boldly bringing new ideas and approaches to life? Or is there a chance that the little guy, cities like Portland, ME or South Bend, IN, come to mind?

There is an assumption that big cities are best placed to innovate, given they have robust talent pools, larger budgets, and major private and social sector partners at their fingertips. This misconception fails to account for the unique advantages that small cities have when developing cultures of innovation within their government and across their communities. Despite some very real challenges, local governments in cities with under 100k residents demonstrate that small cities are well placed to innovate and to creatively involve residents in public problem solving.

The challenges local governments in small cities face are unique, and urgent. Their residents face similarly complex problems as larger cities, such as transportation, childcare, and digital inclusion, but local governments in small cities lack the funding, workforce, and infrastructure that their larger peers have. Despite these limitations, small cities and towns are doing more with less.

Relationships over bureaucracy

While traditional metrics may indicate larger cities are more innovative, there is a magic we see in small cities that is worth emulating. For example, the large number of major philanthropic and private sector partners in big cities could be seen as an advantage — access to a range of funding and capabilities helps drive cutting edge innovation. However, having a crowded space of big players can come with it’s own challenges.

Someone who has a unique perspective into the different challenges between local governments in small and big cities is Santi Garces. Santi recently left his role as South Bend’s Chief Innovation Officer to serve the same position for a city three times the size, Pittsburgh, PA. Santi describes the challenges larger cities face collaborating with larger social and private sector organizations, “bigger organizations make it harder to do stuff. More time is spent navigating around bureaucracy and system constraints.”

Due to the tight knit nature of the communities in small cities, key actors have forged strong relationships across sectors that allow them to navigate complexity efficiently and effectively. Denise Reidl, who has taken over Santi’s role as South Bend’s Chief Innovation Officer, describes the benefits of building these types of relationships, “there are more partners and assets in a larger city, but at the same time, you can get things done faster in a small city. Because it’s a smaller ecosystem that’s relationship-based, it’s faster and smoother to stand things up. It becomes much easier to gain trust. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the pace of innovation in this city.”

This trust can be won not just between government and outside partners, but also within government agencies themselves. In larger cities with many departments, you are likely to encounter human barriers in introducing a new idea or way of working. While these still exist in small cities, Denise observed that the smaller local government team in South Bend has “healthy relationships with people at all levels, from department heads to frontline workers. There is a shared willingness to rethink how we approach problems.”

These strong relationships forge the path for ideas and lessons to spread in all directions, creating an inclusive innovation environment that enables good ideas to come from anywhere. One of the systems behaviours that Toby Lowe and other researchers hypothesize you would expect to see in a healthy system is “open, trusting relationships” that “enable effective dialogue.” While larger cities may boast a higher number of relationships, it is the quality of relationships — something more difficult to measure — that makes those living in small cities well equipped to bring new ideas to address complex problems.

A shared vision for innovation

The presence of high-quality relationships within local government in small cities makes it much easier to define and practice a unified innovation philosophy. Because larger cities are more likely to have dedicated innovation offices with highly skilled teams, many assume they have a powerful and coherent innovation strategy. However, in reality, it is much more difficult to ensure their approach to innovation is diffused across the large number of departments, each of which brings its own values and practices. In contrast, Denise describes her experiences in South Bend, “in a smaller city, it’s easier to build a culture of innovation across departments, especially if there’s executive support.”

Lena Geraghty joined the City of Portland, ME earlier this year as the city’s first ever Director of Innovation and Performance Management. To help co-create a vision for innovation across the city, Lena took time to meet with members of all 17 city departments and better understand how they could benefit from innovation efforts. Lena reflects on the impact of these conversations, “my position has given people license to do something new.” She has since instituted bimonthly sessions, where representatives from every department join and share new techniques they are using — whether embracing a new technology, introducing a new methodology, or launching a new idea.

Long before positions like the Director of Innovation existed, leaders in small city’s local governments were coordinating efforts across departments. Kirsten Wyatt, the executive director of ELGL, the growing network of local government leaders, called out one position in particular, “Assistant City Managers are the OG Innovation Directors…ACMs have long been working cross departmentally, have the authority to implement and purchase for whole-organization initiatives, are tasked with understanding the governing board’s priorities, and also have the ability to convene multiple departments to work on solutions.”

Absent legacies of tension and fractions across a large number of departments, local governments in small cities have a blank canvas from which they can shape their approach to innovation. While this vision may be stewarded by senior leadership, it is importantly shaped and refined by actors at every level into a coherent whole. Denise describes how this plays out in South Bend, “innovation permeates across city government, with champions existing in every team.”

Community-driven problem solving

A final differentiator that makes local governments in small cities well placed to innovate is their ability to meaningfully involve residents in decision making. Reflecting on his experiences in South Bend, Santi describes this ability to engage the community, “it’s easier for a local government to identify and engage the entire universe of people who are affected by a problem in a small city.”

Some may argue that larger cities have the advantage when it comes to people. They attract more skill and talent than their smaller counterparts, giving them a big pool of smart people they can draw from to innovate. This observation overlooks the portion of people who are actively participating in public problem solving. Residents in big cities with high paid jobs may give much of their money away to far off causes, but be less likely to input into their community.

Residents in small cities, in contrast, feel a real sense of connection to their neighbors. This pattern is consistent with another behaviour you would expect to find in a healthy system, “people view themselves as part of an interconnected whole.” Denise describes the phenomenon, “in a smaller city, there’s a sense of community I really love. It’s never a long journey to talk to the person who can help you solve the problem.”

What can we learn from local governments in small cities

Our conversations with small cities has revealed that despite not always gaining credit for their innovative work, local governments in these places are impressively adept at addressing complex problems collaboratively. While they may not fit the traditional narrative of what an “innovative” city looks like, their unique characteristics are worth celebrating and replicating in government more broadly.

At CPI, our emerging vision for the future of government is one that accounts for complexity, cultivates strong relationships, and develops feedback loops with residents to drive continuous learning. It is a government that values empathy, humility, and trust over control, efficiency, and targets. The patterns we have observed in small cities — building lasting relationships, crafting a shared innovation philosophy, and harnessing the power of the community — are consistent with this vision.

These may be more frequent in small cities, but certainly should not be limited to them. How might central government strengthen relationships among departments? How might local governments in bigger cities better partner with those living in their city to address problems? While local governments in small cities may not have some of the more catchy tools and techniques of larger government bodies, they take a more human approach to innovation. And that’s an approach worth emulating at all levels of government.

Big innovators in small places was originally published in Centre for Public Impact on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We’re speaking with government leaders, civil servants and public sector workers around the United Kingdom to understand how they’re developing stronger relationships with residents they serve. The examples we spotlight are part of a broader movement towards a more human government that holds values such as empathy, trust and openness.

On a rainy Saturday in early November, a group of 9 Barking and Dagenham residents, known as the Resident’s Panel, gathered to discuss ideas to improve their neighbourhood. The panel listens to pitches for local projects aimed to strengthen their community and ultimately determines whether or not they should receive funding. The Neighbourhood Fund, an initiative set up by the local council in early 2019, has already provided over £110k to 13 local community groups for a range of projects. Further, it provides a safe space for a diverse group of residents to meaningfully contribute to civic life, changing mindsets and attitudes towards their relationship with government.

A borough of over 200k residents, the problems Barking and Dagenham face are interconnected and complex. When even a minor change happens at one place within the system, the entire community can feel the effects. Given this interdependence, it is critical that the linkages between community members are strong. The Resident’s Panel provides just one way the council is strengthening those linkages, by working with residents to create the conditions in which deep relationships can form.

The panel represents a new form of engagement that is about more than just ticking a box to say residents were consulted in the process. It is about truly giving residents a voice in decision making processes so that they are heard, understood and valued. The group feels trusted and supported to use their local knowledge to determine what’s best for their community.

The panel comes from all walks of life — a social worker, a student, a retiree, and more. The local council intentionally invited a diverse group of residents who are representative of the community, and these nine residents happily responded to the call. While they all bring different backgrounds and experiences, they are united in their passion for where they live. Estelle, one of the members of the Resident’s Panel, describes why she first joined, “it’s exciting to know we can volunteer our time to give back to the community and make a real difference.”

On this Saturday, the group heard pitches for a variety of projects, including a women’s centre that supports survivors of male violence, an organization that coaches those with learning difficulties to develop independent living skills, and others. The panel asks important questions to better understand the support the groups will provide — who will they serve, how will they use the money, and what impact do they ultimately aim to achieve?

After the groups leave, the deliberations begin. The panel, brought together through this opportunity, debates serious topics, such as what type of support women who have experienced violence need. While the conversations can become quite intense, the panel is remarkably empathetic — relating to the community group, those they seek to help, and each other.

Through their conversations, it becomes clear that the people who live in the community are best placed to make key decisions that will impact the community. For example, one project sought to develop youth through music and dance programming. As the panel discussed whether or not the project should receive funding, they raised that there are already similar opportunities that youth have in Barking and Dagenham. They also know exactly where those other activities take place and determine that this new project fills a gap those other activities don’t meet.

This local knowledge is critical to helping them make funding decisions on behalf of their community. The panel lifts up the voices of their fellow residents to ensure they’re heard by the council.

This approach reverses the trend we see all too often — where decisions are made by someone far removed from the actual problem. Whether it’s a wealthy philanthropist or someone at the top of government, solutions are often designed without input from those impacted by the problem, who will ultimately have to live with the consequences.

While it makes sense to involve those closer to the problem, engaging residents in decision making can be challenging. First, governments often fail to move beyond the surface level in their engagement. A community member may provide some feedback, voice a concern or vote on a policy option, but they do not actually attain meaningful power over decisions in the public sphere. Second, once you begin the initial contact with residents, how do you sustain it over time so that it becomes ingrained within the culture of the community? How do you enable residents to feel they can serve as leaders in public problem solving?

The approach of the Resident’s Panel addresses both of these challenges by offering a substantial opportunity to a diverse group of residents. Rather than just inviting them to a one-off public meeting, the panel provides a chance for meaningful change — deciding how to allocate public dollars. This type of opportunity incentivizes the group to deeply engage, giving up their entire Saturdays for the cause.

Further, participation includes sustained engagement, with residents being able to serve on the panel for up to three rounds of pitches, allocating hundreds of thousands of dollars to projects in their community. After their three rounds are up, the council has a variety of other opportunities they can become involved with, and residents, energized by their experiences, are eager to contribute.

The Resident’s Panel serves as an excellent example of how local governments can share power with those they serve. It demonstrates that local governments, placed closest to the community, can form lasting relationships with their residents who they trust to make key decisions. Other boroughs in the UK and across the world can emulate this model to strengthen the decision making power among those living in their communities.

Barking and Dagenham’s Resident’s Panel — Sharing Power with Residents was originally published in Centre for Public Impact on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Hierarchy’s influence on our lives

Structures influence how we relate to each other. A structure is an arrangement of interrelated elements in a complex system. Whether we are navigating the educational system, the professional world, and social opportunities, the dominant structure in today’s world is the hierarchy. At the top sit a small number of people who make decisions that influence the many beneath them. While this structure allows for control and organisation among large groups of people, it concentrates power unequally and does not facilitate deep human connection among those within it. The grip that the hierarchy has on our organisations and systems rob many people of their voices and instead confines decision making to a limited number of people.

Concentrating power at the top of the hierarchy restricts others from realising their potential. We see this at the organisational level, where good ideas from junior staff or middle managers are killed by layers of bureaucracy, stifling intrinsic motivation. And while it may not be as explicit, we also see this at a systems level, especially as inequality widens. Certain groups benefit from privileges that grant them intergenerational power — access to elite schools, exclusive clubs, and high paying jobs at the top of the ladder, while large swaths of the population feel relatively powerless.

In a hierarchy, the pursuit of upward mobility becomes paramount to one’s success. Rather than consider how to give more people a chance to succeed, people consider how they can join the elite few who hold concentrated power. Relationships, trust, and human connection give way to transactions, calculation, and competition.

This may of course seem like an extreme description. In many hierarchical organisations, managers do a good job of letting their teams shape their own ideas and make important decisions. But the fact remains, you will always be above and/or beneath someone else in a hierarchy, and that structured power dynamic will inevitably influence the way you interact with each other.

Freeing ourselves from hierarchy’s grip

Despite the fact that I have benefited from this system as a white male college graduate, I know that it must be fundamentally changed if we are to make headway on the great problems facing our society. People at the top, with the power, influence, and money — those who look like me — are not incentivized to change the system that has rewarded them time and time again.

Why would we believe that those with the most know what is best for those with the least? Why would we assume that the tools, approaches, and philosophies of those who have climbed to the top will be effective in addressing poverty, climate change, and other problems that these very same methods have helped create? We must move beyond the control and compliance of hierarchy to give more people the power to shape our future.

While the hierarchy preserves an organizational structure among large groups of people, it ultimately is a constraining structure for humans. In complex systems, defaulting to this structure fails to tap into the potential that humans collectively bring. It fails to allow more voices to contribute to the conversation in a constructive, collaborative way. It fails to generate novel ideas that have the potential to address our most pressing problems. What’s our response to the failures of hierarchies?

One approach may be to do away with structures altogether. Instead of defining ways in which we must relate to one another, why not let more organic relationships and ways of interacting take root? The danger of this approach is the tendency for hidden hierarchies to creep up. Imagine an unstructured meeting with no purpose, no agenda, and no guardrails. I’m sure you have attended many of these. Void of all structure, do all voices have a chance to contribute? Or do a few voices dominate the conversation? Often, a select few pitch their ideas and push them forward, while the collective intelligence of the group is ultimately neglected.

Hierarchy represents a structure worth freeing ourselves from. But importantly, without a new form of structures, liberation is not possible. To truly create a space where everyone is free to contribute equally and have their voice heard, we need structures that liberate rather than restrict.

An alternative approach

Liberating structures provide inspiration for how we may reimagine the way in which we relate to each other. The 33 liberating structures share these common elements: a clear invitation, an equal distribution of participation among members, a purposeful arrangement of space and configuration of groups, and a thoughtful sequencing of time.

For example, take a typical meeting aimed at generating ideas to address a problem. Given a hierarchical structure, the highest ranking person in the room will likely be the one to either suggest the idea the team moves forward with or to determine whether or not someone else’s idea is the right one. Using a liberating structure called 25/10 crowdsourcing, everyone in the room is invited to write down at least one idea. The group then collectively and anonymously votes on which ideas they are most excited to move forward with, giving everyone an equal say in how to proceed.

While it may seem like a simple shift in structure, the results can be quite profound. Rather than being limited to the insights of one or two senior people, liberating structures, such as 25/10 crowdsourcing, work off of the principle that good ideas can come from anywhere. When the collective imagination of a group is unleashed, shared wisdom and creativity quickly multiplies to build imaginative solutions to complex problems.

From liberating our meetings to our systems

What if we moved beyond the confines of a conference room and thought about these structures at a much bigger scale? What if we considered how our systems can be structured to enable more liberation instead of restriction? Imagine if the core elements of liberating structures could be found within our systems:

• Thoughtful invitations to participate in collective discussions on important societal topics, such as education, health care, and climate
• Mechanisms to ensure equal participation, which may involve raising up some voices that have been historically excluded and quieting those who have been loudest
• Dedicated space and groupings to ensure people are comfortable sharing their insights and experiences
• A thoughtful sequencing of time and activities to ensure groups develop an output collaboratively

For these liberating structures to take root, the government would have to play a different role in our public discourse. Instead of being an enforcer of rules and regulations, government would become a convenor of diverse perspectives that builds relationships among people who collectively problem solve, ensuring that marginalized groups that are traditionally left out of this process would have structured opportunities to meaningfully contribute. Civil servants would become practiced in the skill of sustained collaboration — listening to others, empathizing with them, and supporting their ideas.

In a world where structures are highly influential, it is important to consider what a more liberating model might look like beyond hierarchies. By providing everyone an equal opportunity to contribute meaningfully, liberating structures provide an inspiring alternative that can spur a movement towards a more participatory, democratic future.

Structures worth liberating from was originally published in Centre for Public Impact on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In government, there never seems to be enough money to solve all of the problems residents face. The number of government staff and amount of taxpayer revenue fails to keep pace with the rapid emergence of increasingly complex problems. But what if only considering government budgets and staff is the wrong way to look at it? What if we considered the community the most valuable resource in solving public problems?

The litter problem: optimizing services may not optimize outcomes

Take a surge in litter on a city’s streets as an example of a public problem. Let’s say a city suddenly receives an overwhelming amount of requests to clean up polluted areas that were once clean. Given enough time and money, surely, the city should be able to provide the services needed to restore the cleanliness of the streets.

With funding to address the problem, the government could invest in better 311 technology to make it easier to respond to complaints and hire more staff to collect the litter. While this may seem like a common sense approach, it can have unintended consequences when met with complex reality.

If a simple call to 311 will quickly result in a cleaner street, complaints — and littering — may, in fact, increase. With an increased volume of complaints, you will need to hire more staff to keep up. The investment to optimize services will actually increase demand, making it financially unsustainable in the long run. Supplier-induced demand is a well-documented phenomena, where expenditure can increase without a commensurate improvement in outcomes.

This scenario is just one of many that could feasibly result, but it demonstrates that the public problems government deals with are increasingly complex. Results are often unpredictable, and relying on government resources alone excludes stakeholders best equipped to deal with complexity: residents closest to the problems!

Relationship building: a reimagined role for government & those it serves

Public problems require solutions fueled by an empowered public who feel supported to address challenges collectively. This does not mean shifting responsibility away from government, who should remain accountable to the communities they serve. Rather, it challenges the notion that government’s role is to collect taxpayer dollars and fund required services.

Instead, government’s role is to be a facilitator and relationship builder who helps local actors better understand and address problems collectively. As my colleague Adrian recently said, “a more human positive government…starts with a recognition that the quality of the system as a whole is determined by the quality of the human relationships within it.” Struck with increased litter in the community, the government could cultivate relationships among local actors closest to the polluted areas to identify and address what caused the surge in litter, rather than investing in services.

In Gloucester, for example, when residents grew dissatisfied with a private contractor tasked with maintaining landscapes, the city council commissioned a group of eight young people living in the community to look after their local landscapes. Instead of dedicating city staff to figuring out how to better manage the financially motivated contractor, the council deliberately shared power with those most impacted by the problem.

“It works better because people who do it actually care about it, and as a consequence everyone respects the environment,” says Jordan, the 17-year-old in charge of coordinating the working group. The young maintenance group is just one example of many local approaches Gloucester has adopted.

This community-based approach is certainly not a new concept, but it is increasingly taking root in pockets across the world — often due to necessity. In the United Kingdom, for example, austerity has decreased spending in local government by more than a fifth since 2010. With the combination of budget cuts and increasingly complex social challenges, forces familiar to anyone in local government, imaginative, collaborative approaches are required.

While this approach may have evolved out of financially constrained environments, the key takeaway should not be that we can now afford to underinvest in our communities. If something saves time and money, it is wrong to assume less investment is needed in the long run. Critically, I am arguing for the opposite.

If a community has innovated to create something extraordinary in the face of limiting constraints, we must invest in removing the constraints local actors identify and study the conditions by which that innovation flourished (e.g., greater autonomy, a culture of experimentation, feeling supported to take risks). This means more unrestricted support and funding from national to local governments and from governments to community members closest to the problems.

What next: the whole is greater than the sum of its most powerful parts

One of the core challenges that has prevented community-driven approaches from becoming more mainstream is how to make problem solving truly inclusive, particularly in areas with deeply entrenched inequality. Often a lack of time and money is not just a problem for governments, but also for community members.

When residents face barriers — whether financial, cultural, etc. — to participate in the problem solving process, it is not just the excluded residents who suffer. Their marginalization makes the larger whole less equipped to problem solve. In areas of greater inequality, power is further concentrated in the hands of the few, who, being the most removed from many of the most pressing problems, are less well positioned to solve them.

Rather than dedicate their time and money to tweaking existing services, those in positions of power should intentionally create more space for others, particularly those most affected by problems, to contribute. In addition to marginalized residents, frontline staff, who feel pressure to deliver mandated services they didn’t help design, should also be involved.

Redistributing power means examining structures that unfairly reward some and lead others to feel disempowered. It means giving greater permission and room for frontline staff and residents to speak up, spark the public imagination, and creatively co-create brighter futures. While time and money will always constrain public problem solvers, reimagining public problems as opportunities for the public to work together can break down divides, enable greater creativity, and increase the chances of addressing the most pressing needs of those experiencing the problems.

Some questions that can move the public problem solving conversation beyond time and money:

• Who is most impacted by the problem? How might we involve them as protagonists in solving this problem?
• Who is on the front lines addressing this problem? How might we better support them?
• Who has the most influence over the problem? How might they redistribute their resources towards those closer to the problems?
• What is the quality of the relationships among community members? How might we build deeper, lasting relationships?
• What other sectors have a role in this problem? How might we proactively partner with organizations who bring complementary resources / capabilities?

Beyond time and money: government’s biggest untapped resource was originally published in Centre for Public Impact on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The twin challenge governments face

I was inspired by Nesta’s compelling invitation to kick off their recent Government Innovation Summit: instead of feeling despair at the current state of government, let’s be practically optimistic and work together to bring about a brighter future. Sure, there is reason to feel glum given prevailing political headlines, but why not search for light in the face of darkness?

The challenges government faces are complex and interconnected. Across the world, the public is losing faith in the institution of government, and without public support, it is increasingly difficult for government to effectively address problems their residents face. In the face of this legitimacy crisis, we at the Centre for Public Impact believe it’s critical to reimagine government to work better for everyone.

A tale of two approaches

I have observed a tension between two approaches to reimagining government — radicalism and incrementalism. While this admittedly is an oversimplification of a very nuanced debate, it provides a helpful lens to consider how we should go about making things better.

An incrementalist believes in tinkering within systems and structures to make things better. Working with those in power across the political spectrum to make small changes can ultimately improve existing services. Such approaches include strengthening existing evidence bases, clarifying reporting mechanisms, and better equipping leaders with tools to improve outcomes for all. Adjustments may feel modest at first, but gradual change is feasible and could make the machine of government more efficient. A critical assumption of incrementalists is that government should operate as a machine, with reform focused on pulling levers and optimizing.

Radicals instead reject this assumption. They argue that the existing system is fundamentally flawed. Incremental changes fail to address the deeper problems that require structural changes. Smoothing over the cracks of a broken system is not only distracting but also can deepen the influence of inequitable policies, norms, and institutions. Radicals call for a critical examination of the role of government and other actors, including themselves, in contributing to today’s problems.

It’s a very important challenge that I take to heart. It resonates with a recent post where I reflected on how well-intended beliefs I used to hold could actually cause more harm than good. Questioning my role and discussing with a diverse group of people how to best bring about positive change, while admittedly difficult, has been quite an energizing experience.

Context of our legitimacy crisis

At the summit, I learned that many others share my view that the complexity of today’s problems requires a radical, not incremental, approach. It is important to understand the context in which our desired change is occuring. If we lived in a world where most people trusted government, then incremental changes could strengthen a system that works for everyone. In this world, applying radical changes could lead to mistrust and discontent.

However, we live in a world with a growing legitimacy crisis, where confidence in government is plummeting. In this context, applying incremental changes in a broken system will likely further strengthen and ingrain unjust actors, making them more difficult to overcome. Given that people increasingly feel government is not equipped to address modern problems, I believe that radical change is needed.

A call for pragmatic radicals

At the summit, I felt the healthy tension between these approaches created energy around pragmatic radicalism. “Radical” because it involves a big, bold vision that goes beyond incrementalism and acknowledges structural issues with existing approaches; “pragmatic” because people can immediately translate the vision into specific “what can I do now to make this happen” actions.

Nesta’s radical vision collection launched at the summit provides several examples of what a reimagined government could look like. Simon Parker called for a more participative government, where a four day work week enables residents to work together to build community. Rachel Burgon proposed flipping parliament on it’s head by empowering a lower house of non-elected experts and citizens. A common theme among these visions was the need to more equitably involve frontline staff and residents in decision making.

In our team’s radical vision, we contrast the idea of government as a machine with government as a living network that shares power. We have seen this vision brought to life by pragmatic radicals at Wigan Council, Gateshead Council, the Dutch home care provider Buurtzorg, and many more here and abroad.

The future is already here

Hillary Cottam, the social entrepreneur who inspired the audience with her closing remarks, embodies radical pragmatism. In her vision for government, she redefined the role of government to be a gardener who tends to the wellbeing of all of the organisms in the ecosystem. The most important part of the ecosystem, she noted, was the earthworm buried deep down, emphasizing the need to radically redistribute power to the lowest levels.

What made Hilary’s energy so infectious is that this vision of a more empathetic, community-driven, relationship-focused government is not some utopian society out of touch with reality. Rather, it is a world she has already helped to bring to life through prison reform, reimagined schools, and relational welfare.

Hilary gives me faith that is is possible to reject failing institutions and bring a way to life through bold action. While the legitimacy crisis is a big challenge, she and others around the world have demonstrated that through defining a bold vision, instilling a sense of practical optimism, and igniting the public imagination, it can be overcome.

Many thanks to my colleagues Danny Buerkli, Elena Bagnera, and Carmella Grace De Guzman, who helped me pull this piece together.

A reflection on Nesta’s Government Innovation Summit: a case for pragmatic radicalism in the face… was originally published in Centre for Public Impact on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.