Most of the readers of this blog are people who hold governmental positions that require non-partisanship behavior. Others are people who got where they are, at least in part, due to their affiliation with one political party. Still others might be might be nonprofit leaders whose primary allegiance might be to a specific mission or particular client group, independent of political affiliation.

We are all in public service. We are all operating in a politically polarized country. We are all regaining our balance after an election that revealed deep divisions and generates passionate discussion.

How does a non-partisan leader move through this with integrity? Given that any response could present a target for criticism, the temptation might be to lay low and stay quiet. Tempting…but not effective in terms of addressing distress from any source, healing the divisions among us, and figuring out a new way forward together.

One of the better ideas generated this week comes from the author Elizabeth Gilbert. She suggests we reflect and respond to the question “How do I want to be in this situation?” None of us can fully control the situation, but all of us can make choices about how we respond.

We can create opportunities to have these discussions in the workplace, first taking care to ensure that participants are willing to model mutual respect and held accountable for doing so. This is also a good time for any organization or community to restate and reaffirm its values; they may well be put to the test later on.

As for me – today – how I choose to respond is to listen deeply, with patience, to everyone.  Not just even when I disagree with their votes, but especially when I disagree.

How do you want to be in this situation?

The post Nonpartisan Leadership in a Politically Polarized World appeared first on The Public Leadership Blog.

It changes the way we behave.

And I firmly believe that when I am positive, it not only makes me better,

but it also makes those around me better.
-Harvey Mackay

A fundamental practice of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is to focus on strengths rather than weaknesses. Doing so enables us open up our thinking to explore our successes and opportunities rather than obsess about our shortcomings or failures. This practice does NOT mean that we sugar-coat or overlook reality. It simply means that we build on our immediate and local assets rather than focusing on what is not there or not desirable.

We all tend to find evidence to support our assumptions and values, no matter what they are. As public servants, we can use this inclination to our advantage in our interactions with both citizens and colleagues. This practice, based on the principles of Appreciative Inquiry, is called finding “the flip.”

This is not the same thing as putting a more palatable spin on a negative topic. Instead, it enables our capacity to recognize any positive assets or attributes that are contained within the hard situation. That’s the positive nugget, the gold. We want more of that.

Consider one simple example. You are leading a staff meeting following a week in which your community experienced conflict or, perhaps, a natural disaster. People are depleted and disappointed, AND there is a lot of work to do. Assume our society and we as individuals share the responsibility in varying degrees for the bad things that happened. Ignoring the weight or reach of the negative experience is not appropriate, and ignoring the work that has to be done today is not an option, either.

Try opening the meeting by going around the table to allow responses to one of the following questions:

• Share one simple action you saw or experienced in the last week that gave you hope for our capacity to act with integrity and compassion, even in challenging situations.
• Our systems were overwhelmed dealing with difficult circumstances last week. Share one small example of a successful interaction with the public that gave you pride in our organization.
• The stressful events of the last week indicate we need to strengthen arenas of both prevention and response. As we begin work to do that, share one practice or asset we have that strengthens our public interactions and should be retained into the future.

By naming that good stuff together first,  we can unleash the potential of that positivity and design the way forward together — a future that includes more of what we desire.

To learn more about using AI in your work in the public sector, join us in Winston-Salem on November 4, 2016, for a one-day workshop on Positive Problem Solving.

The post Appreciative Inquiry 101: Finding “The Flip” to a More Positive Outcome appeared first on The Public Leadership Blog.

Policy on the use, storage, and access to the videos of various police encounters was completed in mid-January. All patrol officers are using BWCs.

For some legal aspects on the use of Video Surveillance Cameras (not specific to BWCs), see this School of Government blog post by Jeffrey B. Welty.  A more recent post discusses “Body Cameras and the Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment.”

For leadership insights, John Stephens talked with Chief Medlock in mid-December, 2015. He summarizes the lessons in leadership gained on assessing technology, communication about change, and public and private meetings at the end of this post.

1. Chief Harold Medlock, how did you make the decision for the Fayetteville Police Department (FPD) to implement BWCs?

I am a huge believer in dash cam and digital video recorders. I think they reduce complaints against officers. Secondly, for my leadership team, they can also identify an officer’s approach which may benefit from feedback from his or her supervisor. My experience in helping write the policy in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, when I was a sergeant made me familiar with key choices on how cameras are used, when and how the videos are accessed, etc.

BWCs are another step in being able to protect officers and have a key record of interactions with the public. These cameras, unlike the dash cams, “sees or hears what the officer sees or hears.”  This technology can be another part of FPD’s steps to do more to instill public trust and confidence in our officers.

Finally, cost has been a limiting factor: costs for acquiring and maintaining the cameras, plus data storage costs. Luckily, costs have started to come down, and we benefited from a federal grant program available to local law enforcement for purchasing BWCs.

2. How did you assess community perceptions and other factors related to BWCs?

We began talking about them to the community, in 2013, at community watch meetings, business watch meetings, and at faith-based organization meetings.

In December 2015, I held four meetings. Three were open, public meetings, and one was with faith leaders in Fayetteville. I’ve met with the faith leaders group in the past. I wanted a separate meeting with faith leaders – all denominations and races – to hear their candid views. They are, in many respects, the informal leaders and have become very trusted advisors to me. I think I have built trust slowly with them. We have worked on the relationship.

We showed video clips from other jurisdictions demonstrating the use of BWCs – to show how they work and to be realistic about what is captured. I found the community meetings led to different views about how public the videos should be. For the faith leaders, I showed them an officer involved deadly use of force.  The video caught everything, especially the actions leading up to the suspect pulling a gun.

People at the community meetings raised some of the key questions about BWCs, or any video of police actions or investigations.

The main question is this: What is and what is not appropriate to video?
One speaker said: “You need to keep the camera going for all exchanges and make it all public.” Another resident said, “But what if someone has been raped? Do you want the police interview videotaped and public?” The first speaker could see this as a reasonable exception. This is one example of the power of the BWC, and the concern by people when they may be on camera.

I found the community forums good for educating the public about some choices and tensions about transparency and sensitive situations.    [Editor’s note: State law does not define police videos as public records, which was noted in newspaper coverage of one of the meetings  ]

3. Do you have advice for leaders making a decision that not everyone in the organization may want?

I do not see any great resistance (direct or indirect) from officers. I think a lot of that comes from FPD officers coming through a rough time 2010-12. They felt pretty beat up.

As the different models of BWCs were shown and assessed (2013-2015), officers realized that there is a trend for this technology. Even more so, there is a trend for more openness about police work. Greensboro and Charlotte-Mecklenburg have adopted BWCs.

One communication tool I use is quarterly Chief’s briefings for all employees. It is a meeting with all sworn officers and other FPD staff. They can ask me anything. I have woven in BWC information and concerns across those briefings. This was one important way to talk about and show the value of dash cams and BWCs. The recordings often show that there is no basis for a complaint about officer conduct.

Reflections by John Stephens on Chief Medlock’s thinking and actions:
1. Assessing technology –Each jurisdiction will have to address the opportunities and risks of computer and communication technologies. Chief Medlock’s successful strategies include introducing the BWC well in advance of making the decision whether or how to adapt the technology, involving many people in assessing different models, and making himself regularly available to his officers to share information and address technical concerns.

2. Community Dialogue – The Chief used community meetings for mutual education and building trust. He encouraged the exchange of differing community viewpoints – both with him and with each other – which surfaced key questions to address about transparency and privacy.

3. Public and private meetings – Chief Medlock used both to build trust with the community. He noted that faith leaders are key partners for many aspects of community safety, respect, and trust. Sometimes private meetings are appropriate. The meetings, however, were not secret.  The Chief shared information about holding the meetings and who participated.

The post Leadership Lessons on Police Transparency: Body-Worn Cameras in Fayetteville appeared first on The Public Leadership Blog.

The Confederate battle flag and flagpole were removed from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds on July 10th, after emotional debate in the S.C. Legislature.

North Carolina Governor Patrick McCrory believes the state should stop issuing Sons of Confederate Veterans car license plates which feature the Confederate battle flag. One writer calls for taking down the NC Capitol Confederate Memorial. Some other local flashpoints have included the Salisbury Confederate Statue, the use of the Fayetteville Market House as a town symbol, and several reports of vandalism of Confederate statues and memorials.  [Update – on July 23, 2015, Governor McCrory signed S.B. 22 into law ]

On the other hand, the N.C. Legislature seems to be moving to preserve a range of memorials and markers by restricting what state agencies and local governments can do about current statues, memorials or monuments on public property (S.B. 22 – Historic Artifact Mgt. and Patriotism Act)

Having the “Right Conversation”

While the Confederate flag is a potent symbol, an equally important way to express community values is to seek respect and understanding as a city or state decides what to do about local memorials and displays of the Confederate flag at government institutions.

I have worked with many N.C. local government leaders to address difficult issues on the environment, land use, public safety and community planning. For example, from 1998-2006 I facilitated United Methodist Church groups across the U.S. as they struggled to stay together despite their differences on whether to ordain gay and lesbian ministers or to hold gay weddings in their churches.

It is unlikely that everyone in a community will be satisfied with any particular outcome about flag display or memorials. But seeking understanding amidst differences is a way to grow individual and community character and strengthen the invisible glue that holds communities together.

Guidelines for Engagement on Emotional Issues

I offer these guidelines for city and county managers, elected leaders, cemetery committees and others who wish to have a proactive, strong way to engage people who care about these matters:

1. Be sure to have input from different viewpoints as you plan the meeting or forum. Participants are more trusting when the announcement comes from people who share their views. Practicing diversity within the planning process increases the likelihood that people will see the gathering as open and fair.

2. Include small group conversations. Avoid the standard one-speaker-at-a-time model which often inflames the atmosphere. Aim for a “kitchen-table” style setting, where people talk and listen better by talking with rather than at one another.

3. Set some clear rules for respect. Listening without interrupting, and summarizing someone’s views before offering your thoughts are good first steps. Another rule is to ask genuine questions: not courtroom cross-examination style, but out of true curiosity. There will be a lot of “how can you believe that?” coming from a feeling of exasperation or anger. The key is to turn down the temperature and let everyone say what they believe – and where they are uncertain – without being attacked.

4. Try to get beyond either/or choices. Some people may only focus on removing or changing a particular flag display or memorial. Other steps could involve honoring community history not tied to war or Jim Crow discrimination, but to add memorials, markers, or celebrations which enhance the history of a community.

5. Avoid having a poll or using any group to represent the community as a whole. Separating the talk and deliberation about an emotional issue from the decision-making stage helps people focus on the substance rather than play to the audience or the board who controls the Confederate memorial or flag display.

6. Be clear about who will decide, and the timeline for a decision. As part of planning a forum or set of conversations, ensure the decision-makers can observe the conversation.  Weighing in with their opinions is probably best saved for a later time.

Fortunately, civic leaders can call on various resources to be sure that many voices are heard, and that people are respected in the conversation. Community mediation centers and the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Government have skilled facilitators. Local ministerial associations, and community relations commissions can be helpful, too.

Flags are potent symbols of history and identity. N.C. leaders – in and out of government – have the opportunity to express community values and shared identity by how the hot feelings about Confederate memorials and flags bend – but do not break – the bonds of civility and neighborliness. Part of wise leadership is creating ways that draw people together ahead of a tough decision.

The post Conflicting Views on Confederate Flag, Memorials, Symbols: What to do in a “Post-Charleston” Environment? appeared first on The Public Leadership Blog.