In my last entry I mentioned that I would make suggestions for those who might replicate planning exercise I went through at Performing Arts Center Eastside. You might notice I don’t say I will have suggestions on how to improve the experience. I think it is too early in the process to suggest improvements and as I am about discuss, what did happen exceeded my expectations.
As I was preparing for my trip to Bellevue, WA, my biggest concern was about how the participation of the Emerging Leadership Institute group would be received. There was no real precedent for anyone to base their expectations on. The Bellevue community had been planning this facility since 1988 and even if the majority of the board had only become involved in when the non-profit entity was formed in 2002, that is six years investment in planning and fund raising. How would they feel having a group of people making recommendations after only spending a weekend learning about their organization?
The same with the architects. They have a great record for designing splendid performing arts centers (check out the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts.) Would they resent us if we started criticizing their design? With all the information available to people via the Internet these days, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that someone might have fancied themselves an amateur architect and rubbed the building designers the wrong way.
These concerns didn’t keep me awake at night and they really weren’t on my mind by the time we started examining the building design. There was a time during our presentation that I realized that not only were things going a lot better than I anticipated, but there was an unspoken positive, encouraging vibe in the room. Frankly, I was almost giddy with the idea that the process had gone so well because it bodes well for our future and the prospects for replicating this in other places.
Knowing that this might not always be so, I started to think about what things an arts organization could do to ensure things went smoothly if they tried to initiate a similar program. (Other than hiring all those involved at Bellevue, of course!) Probably the best option would be taking a proactive stance and brief all the constituents about what to expect and suggest how to participate most effectively. I have no idea if the people at PACE did any prep with the architects or board members. A comment John Haynes made at dinner made me suspect he hadn’t which speaks well for the open mindedness of these groups. John and Dana didn’t formally do any of the things I am about to suggest with the Emerging Leadership group except provide comfortable surroundings.
So yes, the first suggestion is comfortable working environment with an organized itinerary and breaks scheduled at suitable intervals.
Preparing stakeholders like board members and architects to prepare in a session with a group of advisers can be tough. They can be assured that none of the final decisions are vested in the advising group. Yet you have to go into the exercise intending to value the feedback you receive otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s time. This certainly means you have to be prepared to consider what you might perceive as negative. As people who have just joined the project and aren’t familiar with the intent of every design element they may indeed offend you with what they perceive to be an innocuous comment.
So local constituents should be encouraged to value what is being suggested, try to perceive the basic motivation for advice and respond with a question to clarify that motivation. “So your concern about our plan to have the noon sun fall upon our founder’s bust on her birthday is that it limits the windows, and therefore, natural light in the lobby and creates a dark, unwelcoming atmosphere?” Certainly the board and architects have every right to expect people to back up criticisms with constructive suggestions. Given that the advising group may have only been around for a few days and are not familiar with all options, an answer that they don’t know what a solution might be also has to be respected. This doesn’t mean the concern isn’t warranted and bears additional thought and consideration.
For their part, the advising visitors should probably assume a generally neutral stance. They shouldn’t be looking to evaluate if their facilities and organizational plan is superior or inferior to that of their hosts. We have all met and probably grimaced at the person whose every suggestion is prefaced by “where I used to work, we…” While they have certainly been invited because of their prior experience, that experience isn’t going to define the new organization. Likewise, while improvements a new organization is effecting can lead to a better experience back at the home organization, there are only so many resources available. Again, you can’t define one organization in the exact terms of another.
Nothing I am suggesting here is terribly groundbreaking. They are all based on standard suggestions for listening and responding in meetings. Additional tips for preparing groups to meet could certainly be found in books and magazine articles. Probably the most important suggestion is not to make value judgments about any aspect of the project — “That’s stupid; “The building looks like a warped artichoke” (which I heard about this place); “You are an idiot and clearly have no sense or experience in these matters,” etc., If anything is going to generate resistance and resentment, it is statements in this vein.
My suggestions assume everyone is arriving at the meeting with the best intentions but with the possibility of things going awry. If there hasn’t been buy-in from all involved parties or one party is seeks to use the exercise as leverage over another, obviously there are deeper problems than can be solved by good meeting preparation.