Changing attitudes vs. Changing lives

Plentiful and fun community events in a Calgary neighbourhood - an essential ingredient for successful local organizations  

TOOLKIT: For the past three years, Larry Leach has penned a series of blogs forming a toolkit for neighbourhood livability. In 2023, he introduced outputs and outcomes. In 2024 he explored the nudge factor and Good Neighbourhood Agreements. A year later children and youth centres was followed by Neighbourhood Communications Plans. In this installment, Larry returns to outputs and outcomes, taking the idea further as the foundation for his upcoming presentation at the October SafeGrowth Summit in Calgary.

by Larry Leach 

One might also title this blog Outputs vs. Outcomes, a theme I first described a few years ago. It is a narrative that ends up shaping whether you collaborate or work in a silo. 

In my experience, organizations that value outputs, branding and changing attitudes, tend to be less collaborative than those that value outcomes, changing lives and doing the work. Changing attitudes is still good work, but it’s important to recognize the difference. We fail when trying to be all things to all people.

Jason Tudor, a member of our SafeGrowth Network, describes it this way: 

"I have worked with government agencies, nonprofits, businesses, neighborhood groups, and residents, and I don’t think any one sector is inherently better at collaboration. The difference is whether an organization views collaboration as a means of advancing its own work or achieving a shared community outcome."

If you value achieving a good outcome, you will collaborate with any organization to get there. After many years building community, I can identify organizations that collaborate and those that don’t. Trying to change an uncollaborative group is much harder, if it’s possible at all.

Jason adds: 

“Residents in Hollygrove confronted drug activity, cleaned neglected spaces, installed lighting, organized walking groups, addressed problem properties and businesses, and created solutions when traditional institutions could not or would not respond… but the important outcome was not successfully implementing a SafeGrowth project. It was that residents developed the capacity and confidence to act collectively.”

He describes how the most successful partners were those willing to directly join the neighborhood process rather than owning it themselves. “Collaboration became difficult when institutional procedure, jurisdiction, funding silos, or organizational ownership became more important than solving the neighborhood’s problem.”

The full Hollygrove story is covered extensively in prior blogs, such as back from the brink and a gift for the holidays, and in our forthcoming SafeGrowth book. 

Neighbourhood groups in Hollygrove were careful to choose partner organizations that shared their visions - here they conduct safety audits as part of the safety diagnoses

Another great Safegrowth partner, Pamela Daniels of The Brickerati group in Newark, New Jersey adds: 

“I think successful collaboration for us in Newark has been about leveraging partnerships to achieve mutual outcomes/impact and sometimes that impetus being funding sources themselves." 

"Funders want to see collaborations, shared resources, and less duplicated approaches to reach the same target audiences and collaborative approaches… to achieve greater impact. That synchronicity happened successfully in Newark over time because the field started to realize we aren't competitors but partners in an ecosystem.”

Great neighbourhoods have convenient and safe places to lounge. They also need local organizational methods to keep them that way.  

 

THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE

Output Organizations value branding and changing attitudes and often get the attention and funding. That is what they seek. While great for awareness campaigns, when it comes to actual community building, that focus on building a brand can cloud their ability to build relationships to make the change necessary for a good outcome. In turn, that can perpetuate rather than help solve the problem.

Non-profit prognosticators tell me how funders should change the way they look at funding, changing the process of applying and what they fund. The truth is many funders have their own outputs and may not be interested in solving a problem. They prefer to brand themselves in a cause. 

How do you determine whether an organisation is collaborative and whether they’re interested in solving a problem? 

Try these trigger questions when you are assessing partner organizations or seeking funding: 

• Are they saying “we want to collaborate”, but not following with actions?
• Are they actively resisting your ideas?
• Is the problem bureaucracy, conflicting priorities, lack of trust?
• Do you need something specific from them, or are you trying to build a longer-term partnership?

GETTING CREDIT - BUILDING TRUST

Rather than pushing them harder, consider these steps:

1. Understand their incentives. Organizations respond to what helps achieve their goals. Frame your proposal around their priorities, not yours. 
2. Lower the risk of saying yes. Start with one small, low-risk project with clear roles and a timeline. Relationships take time. 
3. Identify the decision-maker. People may appear ready to collaborate but lack the authority. Find the person who can authorize action. It makes a big difference. 
4. Track agreements in writing. After meetings, briefly summarize what was discussed, who agreed to what, and next steps. This creates clarity without confrontation. 
5. Know when to stop investing your time. After repeated delays, cancellations or silence, it may be more productive to find another partner or project.

Jason sums this up: "Perhaps the simplest test I have found for identifying a genuinely collaborative organization is this: If someone else receives the credit, but the community gets the outcome, would the organization still consider the project a success? If the answer is yes, you probably have a very good collaborator."

Pamela adds: "It takes time for guards to come down. It takes time for competitive natures to dwindle. So, funding sources as the impetus [can] speed that up and certainly ushered in new approaches in Newark when it happened."

As Stephen Covey describes in his book by the same name - change moves at the speed of trust. And that applies only when we believe that our Outcomes are more important than our Outputs.  

Kayfabe on the street - Why community stories matter

WrestleMania 32 - the 2016 professional wrestling pay-per-view event in Texas drew over 100,000 viewers. Kayfabe rules matter - photo Miguel Discart CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

by Larry Leach 

What lessons can we learn from professional wrestling? Kayfabe is the long-standing convention of presenting staged performances as genuine or authentic. Pro-wrestlers historically adhered to kayfabe so strictly that they would not socialize or travel with those on the opposing side. If you were a babyface or hero, you were never seen in public with a villain. 

Malcolm Gladwell describes this concept as the overstory. In Gladwell’s usage, an overstory is the shared narrative people agree to treat as real, even when everyone knows, at some level, that it’s constructed or selective. It’s the story that makes coordinated social behavior possible.

Similarly, Kayfabe works because people remember the rules of the story and we need to pay attention to this dynamic when we think about community building.

We tell ourselves and each other stories. Some true, some not true, but most that have elements of both. Deep down we think the grass is greener on the “other side”. The people in that other community, city or country have elements to be admired. The weather, the people, the scenery, the government and how they structure their society are all elements that make a place great. But because we have this envy, we tell ourselves that our place is either greater than it actually is or is awful and needs to be torn down and rebuilt. There seems to be no happy medium.

Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics at Luzor - for millennia, community storytelling has been part of the transformative arts - photo Asta, Public domain, Via Wiki Commons

The stories we tell ourselves matter a great deal in community-building, and we’ve written on this before. For example, I blogged about the behavioral economics concept of nudging which is the idea that we can steer behavior by design and by a community narrative, not by force. 

Consider the role of community storytelling described in Mateja's blog during our work with the UK National Storytelling Laureate, Katrice Horsley, while attending our SafeGrowth Summit in New Orleans.

KAYFABE ON THE STREET

Marketers and politicians try to read this kayfabe and use it to their benefit. We read it every day as politician "X" speaks to his or her base. For us in the SafeGrowth blog team, we continually ask ourselves about our audience and our message. Will our message resonate with our audience? What stories can we share to help or hinder the motivation to take action? 

Teachers helping students with artistic storytelling in a SafeGrowth program

What is your personal Kayfabe? What is your community Kayfabe? What is your country’s Kayfabe? For my country Canada, we are known for being kind, apologetic and welcoming, yet would you be surprised to know that people cut me off in traffic every day and that I have friends who spend HOURS daily complaining about the government?

In my community, one political flavour targets the Federal Government while the other flavour targets the Provincial Government. I recently had a discussion with an Alberta separatist. (For those of you who may not know, recent polls put Alberta separating from Canada at 19 % support. This is a minority political sentiment that has existed for decades.) This separatist shared opinions about how Alberta is getting “screwed” by the federal government of Canada, many which I agreed with and many which have been talked about for 50 years. 

That narrative, whether right or wrong, is not going to change. I asked this separatist some simple questions: What does a separate Alberta look like? Do we have our own currency? What about the military? Simple, and legitimately honest, questions like this can confirm the reality of narratives and show whether they are thought through properly. 

To test whether a narrative is on thin ice, ask the five W’s: who, what, where, when, and why and, for good measure, the faux sixth W: how. Any narrative kayfabe must withstand those questions if it is to earn genuine community buy-in for a community-building project.

Places, urban design, and community art also help convey community stories

STORIES IN COMMUNITY BUILDING

Bringing this back to CPTED, SafeGrowth, and community development: you may gain quick support by echoing how poorly residents believe their city or national government has treated them. You may even agree. But if you don’t understand the local kayfabe about how the community sees itself, how others see it, and what story holds it together, then you are doing little more than repeating the latest Facebook post. 

Communities need solutions to real, often negative issues. But before offering solutions, we must first understand the local challenges and the local kayfabe, or overstory, that shapes them.

My father used to ask his friends: “Do you want to be right or do you want to have friends?” A SafeGrowth spin on the question is, Do you want to be right or do you want community support? You might want both, but gaining the latter will help discover the former. As Greg comments when he quotes Steven Covey’s maxim: “We move at the speed of trust”. 

And since stories move societies forward as much (or more) than facts, you can only earn trust after you understand the Kayfabe.