Clare Liddle @liddle_clare - Twitter Profile

8 days ago

If we want change to be systemic, we need to engage people across multiple levels: part 2. A summary of comments in response to my last post about the "Engagement Staircase" from Russ Gaskin & Akash Bhalerao. These come from across multiple social media channels. I pulled out four themes: 1) Buy-in is different to ownership: Allison Allen noted that leaders often seek buy-in when they need shared ownership - people sustain changes they help shape. Ronan McBride identified that systems default to one-off engagements rather than sustained relationship-building, resulting in shallow engagement & changes that don't stick. Jacqui Tookey observed that levels 3 & 4 (involving & collaborating) can make or break change, yet meaningful engagement at those levels remains difficult. 2) Collaboration requires sustained relationships, not events: Tina Patel Gunaldo noted that leaders often fear too many perspectives, yet diverse views improve outcomes & sustainability (and that there’s a science to collaboration that can be learned & applied). Shefalli Verma observed that real progress happens when stakeholders combine strengths toward shared goals, achieving outcomes no single actor could reach alone. Kerri Ryan emphasised trust, relational ways of working & placing decisions in the hands of those most impacted. Sarah Crick pointed to grassroots voluntary & community organisations that practise deep co-creation as routine, arguing that statutory systems should work alongside them. 3) Who gets invited matters - the equity dimension: Phong Nguyễn Hồng noted that those closest to the problem should have a stronger voice in shaping change; not everyone needs to reach the top of the staircase (but the right people do). Priya Latha observed that while many organisations invest heavily in communicating change, the greatest impact comes when stakeholders are actively engaged, activated and build agency to shape the future alongside leaders — not just informed by them. 4) Critiques of the approach: Daniela Nobre da Costa Pinto was concerned that most organisational models lack the structural slack, time or relational infrastructure to sustain high-intensity collaboration at scale & that deeper engagement places a disproportionate cognitive & emotional load on a small group over time. Matt Wyatt questioned whether "systemic change" is meaningful given that most of any system lies beyond any single actor's influence. My comment: there is a broader concern that co-creation language can outpace what organisations actually deliver. Andy Green & Cormac Russell both suggested the staircase needs a level 6: "growing your changemaker community" & "you build it; we'll give you cover & take no credit." Finally, I appreciated how both authors of “The Engagement Staircase” joined in with the discussion. Akash welcomed the equity dimension being discussed explicitly. Russ shared practical resources, warned against using ownership language while delivering buy-in & stressed that funders chronically underinvest in capacity for higher-level engagement. Thanks Akash & Russ. Thanks to all commenters.

HelenBevan's tweet photo. If we want change to be systemic, we need to engage people across multiple levels: part 2.

A summary of comments in response to my last post about the "Engagement Staircase" from Russ Gaskin & Akash Bhalerao. These come from across multiple social media channels. I pulled out four themes:

1) Buy-in is different to ownership: Allison Allen noted that leaders often seek buy-in when they need shared ownership - people sustain changes they help shape. Ronan McBride identified that systems default to one-off engagements rather than sustained relationship-building, resulting in shallow engagement & changes that don't stick. Jacqui Tookey observed that levels 3 & 4 (involving & collaborating) can make or break change, yet meaningful engagement at those levels remains difficult.

2) Collaboration requires sustained relationships, not events: Tina Patel Gunaldo noted that leaders often fear too many perspectives, yet diverse views improve outcomes & sustainability (and that there’s a science to collaboration that can be learned & applied). Shefalli Verma observed that real progress happens when stakeholders combine strengths toward shared goals, achieving outcomes no single actor could reach alone. Kerri Ryan emphasised trust, relational ways of working & placing decisions in the hands of those most impacted. Sarah Crick pointed to grassroots voluntary & community organisations that practise deep co-creation as routine, arguing that statutory systems should work alongside them.

3) Who gets invited matters - the equity dimension: Phong Nguyễn Hồng noted that those closest to the problem should have a stronger voice in shaping change; not everyone needs to reach the top of the staircase (but the right people do). Priya Latha observed that while many organisations invest heavily in communicating change, the greatest impact comes when stakeholders are actively engaged, activated and build agency to shape the future alongside leaders — not just informed by them.

4) Critiques of the approach: Daniela Nobre da Costa Pinto was concerned that most organisational models lack the structural slack, time or relational infrastructure to sustain high-intensity collaboration at scale & that deeper engagement places a disproportionate cognitive & emotional load on a small group over time. Matt Wyatt questioned whether "systemic change" is meaningful given that most of any system lies beyond any single actor's influence. My comment: there is a broader concern that co-creation language can outpace what organisations actually deliver. Andy Green & Cormac Russell both suggested the staircase needs a level 6: "growing your changemaker community" & "you build it; we'll give you cover & take no credit."

Finally, I appreciated how both authors of “The Engagement Staircase” joined in with the discussion. Akash welcomed the equity dimension being discussed explicitly. Russ shared practical resources, warned against using ownership language while delivering buy-in & stressed that funders chronically underinvest in capacity for higher-level engagement.

Thanks Akash & Russ. Thanks to all commenters.

0

38

9

20

3K

Clare Liddle

@liddle_clare

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users