Key Takeaways from our First Dynamic Team
“SVP is known for its collaborative spirit, and the Advocacy & Influence Dynamic Team was an example of that,” remarked an inaugural Dynamic Team participant. Partners Leah Fox and Melinda Gross facilitated the series of five meetings over four months (August to November 2022). The decision-making team was made up of Partners, Community Partners, SVP staff, and community collaborators. The purpose of the team was to determine how SVP can help clarify root issues limiting the early childhood policy and advocacy work by culturally specific organizations, and identify potential actions for SVP to take, and it successfully achieved its goal!
Since this was our first Dynamic Team, it was important to evaluate the process and share what we learned along the way. As a part of the evaluation, the planning group identified four core values to focus on: inclusivity, collaboration, progress, and respect. In order to track our success at centering these values we conducted surveys at the end of four of the five meetings, each highlighting one specific value. Additionally, Dialogues in Action CEO Steve Patty trained an SVP team (Liz Fouther-Branch, Marcia Kahn, and Jim Zuiches) to conduct a rigorous qualitative evaluation, including analysis of post-meeting surveys and in-depth interviews with participants after the Team concluded. These interviews also focused on the four values. Below is a holistic interpretation of the data collected.
Inclusivity
“I felt like my voice was really heard – SVP really made room for community partner input.”
Participants all felt seen and heard. They appreciated the diverse views, which included different lived experiences and places of work. Many pointed out that it was refreshing to have a majority of decision-makers be people of color. The process was well-facilitated and everyone felt like they contributed - the facilitators knew when to listen and when to speak, giving deference to the decision-makers in the room.
Collaboration
“Everyone was able to add their own experiences.”
The recap at the top of each meeting was a good way to include everyone so that each participant was at the same starting point for the ensuing conversation. Each person had an opportunity to speak up, and there were various ways of doing that: “There was room to speak in the breakout rooms and via chat. I heard members reference the words of others and build on them.” The emails and information that was sent out before and after each meeting was useful in keeping everyone on the same page and made it easier to work together.
Opportunities for deeper collaboration would be to create more time in the initial meeting to build trust and relationships in order to create a feeling of safety for. The nonprofit way of being deferential to one another is kind, but you can lose the depth that comes with debate.
Progress
“It felt like we were all learning together. SVP kept moving the process forward, and that was super energizing.”
Participants felt like it was clear that SVP put a lot of thought into how to make the process work well. One participant reflected that there was a “steady sense of planning, review and then reflection.” They appreciated clear agendas, having preparation documents in advance, summaries with links to relevant documents after the meetings, and some homework in between meetings to help expedite the conversations. The in-meeting tools, like Jamboard, were helpful because they were collaborative and visual. The active dialogue energized the process, and there was always a sense that we were making progress toward our goals.
Respect
“There was plenty of space for everybody to contribute their ideas and we had time for everybody to…share. It was a very comforting environment and very welcoming. SVP is known for their collaborative spirit.”
Respect was modeled by SVP staff and the facilitators – they made space for everyone to talk and treated everyone as equals. They made sure that we understood what others said and meant before moving on. Having SVP staff participate showed that SVP was invested in the work, and having Lauren (SVP Executive Director) in the space even though she wasn’t a decision-maker showed that the process was important to her and SVP. The follow-up communication showed respect because it indicated that all input was valued.
Overall, Dynamic Team participants felt like the experience was worth their time and effort, and most would be willing to participate again. They left the experience feeling optimistic and looking forward to the next steps that SVP will take to achieve their recommendations. They appreciated that the majority of the Team was people of color, as that shows SVP’s willingness to grow and listen. One participant said, “I appreciate the thoughtful way in which the first Dynamic Team was started. It’s important for us now to absorb the lessons we learned and continue to experiment with ideas on how we can make improvements.”
