Comments by Derek Okubo, former Senior Vice President, National Civic League. 
 
When I started my previous job at the National Civic League (NCL) in the early 90’s, NCL staff preached about the virtues of inclusive community-engagement practices. We were often challenged by elected and appointed officials about the values of engaging residents in community problem solving (e.g., “I was elected to make these decisions” or “involving citizens will lead to chaos”). Over the years, the value of community engagement has been realized, most often because of hard lessons experienced firsthand and seeing processes can actually work well. The questions I began to hear later were focused not on if community engagement was necessary, but when. People were realizing that collaborative problem solving was situational and wasn’t a practical approach all the time.
 
Collaborative problem solving is situational and isn’t a practical approach all the time. The table below was first developed by Ron Heifitz of the John F. Kennedy School for Government at Harvard. It was adapted by my former NCL colleague David Chrislip and his co-author Carl Larson in their book Collaborative Leadership. Based on my own experience in working in communities, I tweaked it further to illustrate community dynamics and when an inclusive collaborative approach is required. It is one of the best ways to explain when it is best to play a convening role of the wide ranging interests in the community.

 

A Type I Problem requires an expert based approach. For instance, a water main break occurs – the problem is clear as is the solution (fix the break). The person responsible for the solution has to be an expert (public works department).
 
A Type II Problem is a little more complex. To successfully address a Type II challenge will require the participation of the expert and the constituent. For example, in a serious water drought the water department recognizes that conservation is necessary and asks residents to help by changing their water use behavior.
 
A Type III Problem is very complex and a situation where convening and collaborative problem solving is required. People have different definitions of what the problem is, different desired outcomes, solutions, and ideas of who is responsible. To successfully address a Type III problem, the people representing the different perspectives and interests in the community must come together and flip the unclear areas into clear agreed upon solutions.  The fact is with Type III problems, successfully addressing the issue will require everyone’s participation.
 
What Type III problems come to mind for you that you face in your work and efforts in the community?  What happens when we as leaders take a Type I approach to a Type III problem?  We would love to hear your thoughts on how this plays out in your own collaborative efforts, in particular when you are working across sectors with government and nonprofit partners.  

Derek Okubo is now Executive Director, Agency for Human Rights & Community Partnerships for the City and County of Denver, Colorado