Hi. My name is Della, and apparently I look like this:
About every other week I discover that I have totally confused someone with my business. Yesterday it was a longtime colleague (granted, he’s not known for his powers of observation). He couldn’t figure out why I have a business with the word “economy” in its name, although his community has hired me to do public engagement. He thought I should lose the economy part from my company name. Like I said, he wasn’t the first one.
I know. It’s all weird. But it’s not. Really.
When I starred this business a couple of years ago, I settled on the Wise Economy name because I tend to see everything I do through the filter of whether or not it fosters long term economic health. The original business plan included a cumbersome five service lines, one of which was traditional public engagement. It’s turned out that most of the consulting work I’ve been doing has had more to do with in person and online public engagement.
I’ve learned in the process that there’s almost no overlap between the public engagement people and the economic development types. And that those are commonly seen as completely unrelated professions. Even after spending a lot of years In local government consulting, that surprised me.
Here’s the thing: in my head, at least, economic revitalization and public engagement aren’t two unrelated things. They are critically intertwined, and we screw both of them up when we try to do one and don’t deal with the other.
We depend on our economies. We live in a world where economic decision making either sets a community up for success or drives it deeper into a hole. And we live in a world where the economy that we all depend on doesn’t look much like it did 10 years ago. If we want healthy, desirable communities that will stay that way for a long time, we have to deal with that set of conditions.
And yet, when we do economic development, we tend to treat that as an insider game. We claim confidentiality or that “it’s too complicated,” and we confine our planning and strategy to a star chamber of ED types, elected officials and a few Blue Ribbon Committee business leaders.
Then, when we propose The Big Project, the community fights it, raising ill-informed (or maybe just uncomfortable) questions about real economic impacts, or community side-effects. They don’t make it easy, and sometimes their scrutiny kills our pet project.
Rubes. Don’t they know anything?
Similarly, when communities do “public engagement,” we tend to ask people questions in a way that’s divorced from economics, as though dealing with the dollars and cents that determine whether a choice can become reality or not would somehow sully the truthfulness of the public input. Long range planning is the worst for this– “what do you want to see here?” Not surprisingly, we get dreams, we get idealistic visions. We get Santa Claus lists.
Then, when the plan comes out, those residents turn out torqued that the economically impossible answer they gave didn’t make it into the plan. Our if we go with the Kum Ba Yah theory of plan-writing, we put the fantasy in with full realization that there’s nothing in there to help make it happen. In either case, the damage is done:
“They didn’t listen to us.” “They didn’t really want our feedback.” “Planning and public meetings are a waste of time.”
We need to do a lot of things better in public engagement, but perhaps the most important is using the process to help people apply the creativity we know they can provide within realistic economic boundaries. And we need to do a whole lot better at economic development planning, but our most critical need may be to help people clearly understand and evaluate their community’s economic options and the potential consequences of those choices.
Most important, whichever we’re doing, we have to admit that we don’t have all the answers, and that we need to crowdsource as much wisdom as we can get. That doesn’t mean the public has some magic set of answers, but it does mean that we need the community’s perspective and experience, just like they need our expertise.
We need both wise community engagement and wise economic decision making. They’re part of the same mission. And we have to get them working together.
As some of you know, I just became managing editor of an online magazine that I’ve admired for a long time, called Engaging Cities. Engaging Cities has focused for years on the fast-evolving interface between internet technologies and public engagement or community participation. It’s a thrilling opportunity for me to get back to my journalism roots, do more writing and play a role in the evolution of a field that I find fascinating–and critical to achieving the kind of working together that I described a minute ago.
The Wise Economy Workshop isn’t going anywhere…I’ll still be writing and sharing great thinkers with you here and on the podcast, and I’ll continue to do speaking and writing and consulting from this platform. So stay tuned!