Module 4: Group Discussion (Collaborative Governance) (Responses)

Lillian Clark Haddock ( She/Her)

TuesdayFeb 28 at 11:29pm

Manage Discussion Entry

In this Module, and specifically in  Collaborative Governance, I really liked the focus on assessment. As a person, I either think very carefully  about something and take my time or, in more rare occasions, I just want to rush and get the thing done. This chapter was able to highlight to me the importance of not rushing to action because so much can be learned during the assessment stage as it relates to collaborative governance and how that decision making process works. I absolutely agree with how valuable it is to sit down a have a discussion with with people that are impacted by an issue so decision makers can get a clear understanding of a problem. I also liked how the text acknowledged how the method of using an assessor to get opinions can be used to understand whether or not there is a path forward so a group can work together. That is a use that I would not have thought of on my own, but it does make very logical sense. In my work, it would have been incredibly helpful understand upfront that a certain group was not willing to work with staff to resolve the issue and they would have liked to just take the issues directly to the mayor. 

Overall,  I really liked the focus on assessment because not only it it important on a larger scale, like how the book mentions the elk population issues, it is also something that can be used on a more individual level in an organization when looking to begin work on any task. I almost took this chapter to reflect on my own process of doing work and looked at different ways I could use these ideas to improve my processes. 

Elise Joanna Higdon

TuesdayFeb 28 at 7:38pm

Manage Discussion Entry

This week, one of the most important things I’ve learned is to read the assigned articles in order! I started with Van der Wal’s “Being a Public Manager in Times of Crisis: The Art of Managing Stakeholders, Political Masters, and Collaborative Networks”, and it stuck with me to the point that it affected the way I interpreted the subsequent readings. The article opens with the spot-on observation that though COVID started as a public health issue, it morphed into a crisis that touched every aspect of our lives – and perhaps irrevocably changed how we view collaborative governance when it comes to the Federal level. By that I mean to say that many of the actions coming from the Executive branch demonstrated that there was, in fact, not much consistent collaboration at all. As Emerson and Nabatchi point out, “power is rarely distributed evenly”, and there may be no better example of this than the ideological tug-of-war between Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci. I don’t want to make this a political discussion per se, but there is no doubt that whatever end of the spectrum you are on personally, this was not (and still isn’t) a healthy or equitable collaboration. There was no opportunity for the successful “branding” that Van der Wal references in other countries, largely because the administration could not stop themselves from undercutting or contradicting facts and advice from objective, scientific sources. The disfunction that was projected no doubt resulted in the proliferation of mistrust and (dangerous) misinformation. Once I had this top of mind, I couldn’t read/watch the subsequent assignments without thinking of Abraham Maslow’s quote (paraphrased) that when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The “hammer” mentality in leadership means that even the most thoughtful assessments and theoretical collaborations go out the window, because they can only be sabotaged by imposed, extreme, power imbalances. Crises, indeed, provide opportunities for flexing influence and power – and not always in a beneficial way.

My question to the group would be: how do you address the possibility of “collaborative governance regimes” when the unarguable power-over stakeholder is argumentative, intractable, and, most importantly, unavoidable?