If you’ve decided that one highly-paid HR consultant probably shouldn’t be writing all of your radical policies for you, what are some of the options for doing things more collectively?
If you saw our previous blog, you’ll be familiar with our six steps to collective internal policy making. In that blog we outlined different stages in a collective process around who prioritises, researches, shapes, writes, reviews and agrees a policy. What you do with these steps is obviously up to you. What makes sense for your group might shift from policy to policy, or as your teams grow (or shrink) or if your organisational structure changes. But you might still be wondering how to put these steps into practice.
This blog outlines four broad approaches to writing more radical, values-led internal policies, on a spectrum between ‘more centralised’ and ‘more collective,’ with some pros and cons of each:
‘Me ‘n a mate’
IDEAL CONTEXT: When the stakes are high, but you really need a policy yesterday and want to make sure there are points where a team can feed in and no one has the time to offer much help with it.
WHO PRIORITISES THIS POLICY: Everyone – even a quick prioritisation process is better than none at all. But also, it may be that you’ve done this informally and the policy everyone needs has become super-clear, which is why you’re doing it in a more rushed way than would be ideal.
WHO RESEARCHES THIS POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too.
WHO SHAPES THIS POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too.
WHO DRAFTS THIS POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too.
WHO FEEDS BACK ON THIS POLICY: Key people who are most likely to be impacted by the policy – likely in 121 chats.
WHO APPROVES THIS POLICY: Whoever can approve your internal policies most quickly.
PROS: Quickest; still involves those most affected; fewest variables to juggle.
CONS: You may miss out on key info/input; not appropriate for really loaded/conflictual collective policy development; people might feel left out; lots of the work will land on your shoulders; might require some budget for a consultant.
‘Checking in with the team’
IDEAL CONTEXT: When it’s not at the ‘critical’ stage, but you know that you need to get something in place soon and/or you know collective capacity is really low.
WHO PRIORITISES THIS POLICY: Everyone – even a quick prioritisation process is better than none at all.
WHO RESEARCHES THIS POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too.
WHO SHAPES THE POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too.
WHO DRAFTS THIS POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too.
WHO FEEDS BACK ON THIS POLICY: This is the point you would want to ensure that there was significant space for the whole team to let you know what they think, in a more detailed way.
WHO APPROVES THIS POLICY: Depending on your structures, a whole team OR a committee OR whoever has the authority to sign it off.
PROS: Relatively quick; likely you can keep it on the timeline you’re aiming for.
CONS: Feedback without earlier input can get messy if you’ve baked in assumptions earlier in the process that aren’t what the team wants; still a lot of work for you/one or two people; might require some budget for a consultant.
‘Mostly collective’
IDEAL CONTEXT: When you want to get people involved because the policy is going to affect some of you in a significant way, but are also trying to respect people’s capacity levels and you’re not worried about this policy becoming a major source of team conflict.
WHO PRIORITISES THIS POLICY: It has been decided by a full team discussion – either a shorter or a more involved policy prioritisation process.
WHO RESEARCHES THIS POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too, bringing a series of options to the full team. The wider team may give some parameters (e.g. no hierarchical pay models; only transformative justice-driven conflict processes!), or may ask you to outline all the options you are aware of.
WHO SHAPES THIS POLICY: A subgroup follows the collective steer on overall approach to the policy and outlines the specific clauses and mechanisms that they think should be included.
WHO DRAFTS THIS POLICY: You – and maybe a colleague or a consultant too.
WHO FEEDS BACK ON THIS POLICY: Everyone – though unless the draft has thrown-up a lot of unexpected specifics, this shouldn’t take as long, given the earlier layers of input. It is still important to keep time for you to incorporate feedback before it goes to approval.
WHO APPROVES THIS POLICY: Depending on your structures, a whole team OR a committee OR whoever has the authority to sign it off.
PROS: Balances time requirements, collective capacity and the need to get things moving; helps ensure collective buy-in for the policy in the early stages; ensures more input than two previous approaches.
CONS: Still a significant collective investment of time.
‘Nothing about us, without us’
IDEAL CONTEXT: When you are dealing with a policy that is likely to raise significant differences amongst the team AND is likely to have significant impacts on members of the team’s work/life (e.g. a pay policy or a conflict process).
WHO PRIORITISES THIS POLICY: It has been decided by a full team discussion – either a shorter or a more involved policy prioritisation process.
WHO RESEARCHES THIS POLICY: A subgroup is nominated from the wider team to do the research about the different overarching approaches you might take with this policy, and to present them back to the full team. The wider team may give some parameters (e.g. no hierarchical pay models; only transformative justice-driven conflict processes!), or may ask the sub-group to outline all the options they are aware of.
WHO SHAPES THE POLICY: The full team should agree on an overarching direction for the policy together. A subgroup (or multiple subgroups, depending on the scale of the policy) can start to work out specific approaches to different aspects of the policy. The full team should have a chance to discuss or approve these specific approaches, before they get written up in full detail.
WHO DRAFTS THIS POLICY: The subgroup/s doing the research and shaping stages can then draft the policy together, once the approaches they have outlined have had go-ahead from the wider team.
WHO FEEDS BACK ON THIS POLICY: Everyone – though unless the draft has thrown-up a lot of unexpected specifics, this shouldn’t take as long, given the earlier layers of input. It is still important to keep time for subgroup/s to incorporate feedback before it goes to approval.
WHO APPROVES THIS POLICY: Everyone – though if the process has worked well, the sign-off/agreement process should be relatively quick.
PROS: Gives you the best odds of a sustainable policy that the whole team is invested in; includes perspectives that are easily lost in other processes; improves likelihood that the policy will be able to support a range of staff members’ needs, including those who might be more marginalised in many group settings; frontloads more of the work into the earlier parts of the process.
CONS: It can take a loooooong time to do it this way; often requires a higher level of coordination to keep things moving and ensure people are talking to each other at all the right stages; takes a fair bit of capacity from the team.
How has the process worked in your group?
We’re always keen to hear what is (and isn’t) working for folks across the community, as we all try to do this work in ways that align with our values!
Comment on our forum: community.radhr.org