Key Insights
Wellbeing brings the interdependency of individuals, community and the planet into clearer focus.
What is happening?
Revaluing the Care Economy
Caregivers deserve a large spectrum of support both in their day-to-day responsibilities and to increase their material, physical and mental health. They deserve economic compensation that provides a living wage. They deserve respect and to be valued as the backbone of communities that they are. And they deserve time and resources to take care of their own needs.
The undervaluation of caregivers’ work is an issue of equity and justice. Redefining and valuing this work leads to better wellbeing for caregivers and the communities they support. In the current system, caregiving is largely done in isolation. But providing care in communal settings — whether it be a day center or long-term co-housing — increases caregivers’ support systems, provides opportunities for professional development and offers space for them to take a break and tend to their own wellbeing. Fostering peer connections — bringing caregivers together with people in similar roles — allows them to learn from one another’s experiences and help one another problem-solve.
“The care economy, strictly speaking, is a more macro-level concept. It’s a macro picture of how care is given and received in society, along with all of the social, economic and cultural arrangements that define the provision and reception of care within a society. Unfortunately, it is most often through the private provision of care within the household, mostly by women or through a state provision. … Latin America has been a pioneering region for the issue and for tackling the issue through a gender-equal, inclusive and human rights approach. The idea behind these models is to tackle care because we know care is a very broad array of activities and work; it’s all the activities that ensure the wellbeing of people, of the planet, and even of our societies and economies. You need to tackle this issue with a very comprehensive lens. The idea of a comprehensive care system involves a whole-of-government approach, where many ministries and government institutions are working together to make sure that care is equally distributed among society, so it’s not seen as the sole responsibility of women, and also to make sure that people who need and require care can receive it in a way that is accessible, inclusive and just.”
Gap: Care work is often underappreciated and underpaid. Much of it remains unrecognized and uncompensated, a situation worsened by the unequal distribution of labor between genders. Caregivers typically operate in isolation, lacking the vital mental and material support crucial for their wellbeing.
What’s Working From a Wellbeing Response: Kidogo in Kenya eases the caregiving burdens of working families through affordable, high-quality child care. Care is offered at Kidogo Centers, primarily in low-income urban areas, and run by local women who receive training and support to become “mamapreneurs,” able to help other working families while earning an income. By providing families with safe and secure care options, Kidogo increases the wellbeing of the entire family.
Bogotá Care Blocks in Colombia provide physical spaces where caregivers can go to fulfill care responsibilities while improving their wellbeing and redistributing the time spent on caregiving more equitably. The caregivers, who are mostly women, use the spaces to do their everyday work, like laundry and taking care of children, while also having access to resources they can use for personal development like physical exercise, counseling or training for professional opportunities.
“As I mentioned, I don’t think any one sector should take responsibility for [caregiving]. It needs to be sort of a cross-sectoral collaboration. And at the same time, if no one’s in the lead or no one’s really pushing this agenda forward, it can often then be nobody’s priority. So really figuring out how to champion or how to elevate this issue so there is ownership, so that sort of progress on this issue gets driven forward, is something that we’re currently grappling with. How do you make that happen and at the same time still leave that sort of space for different sectors to come in and support it. And the solutions of that could vary from place to place. I think sometimes then having a sort of champion department in a government could be a way forward. … So for example, the ministry for women’s affairs [in Bogotá] who led the Care Blocks, they owned this, but they definitely worked with many other city departments to be able to realize the Care Blocks project. So I definitely think finding a home and ownership for this issue in government so that it can actually be driven forward is incredibly important.”
Limitations: The public narrative generally frames the issue as being about supporting caregivers’ mental health, which is important. But other aspects also have a big impact on caregivers’ lives. Increasing support for caregivers — including everything from fair compensation to access to resources for professional development to opportunities to tend to their own wellbeing — acknowledges the significance of caregiving in sustaining communities. It also fosters gender and racial equality by reducing disparities and empowering those, mostly women and communities of color, engaged in caregiving. Various solutions are required to implement the support caregivers need, cutting across different sectors, from workplace and labor policies to affordable and quality health care, housing and child care.
“I think as Audre Lorde said, we don’t live single-issue lives, and we really try to come to our members and moms in the general American public in a way that relates to what’s happening in their lives at any given time. We don’t just focus on one aspect. There’s some organizations and some funders that just want you to work on one issue and they’ll say, ‘We just really want you to organize around child care.’ It’s like, well, people may care about child care, but they also care about how are they going to put food on their tables or what’s going to happen when they have their next baby, and they have no paid family and medical leave because the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that has no guaranteed paid family leave, and a quarter of American mothers go back to work within two weeks of giving birth. It’s one of the most common times for a woman to enter into a poverty spell in the U.S. is when she gives birth.”
– Donna Norton, MomsRising
Increasing Communal Property Ownership
Land trusts, housing cooperatives, co-housing communities and intentional communities are all different strategies for communal living, potentially with collective ownership of the buildings or structures on the land. These arrangements allow for the creation of permanently affordable housing and the prioritization of local interests, and potentially prevent the displacement of historically marginalized communities amid rising real estate prices. Communal property ownership is not only a means to allow more people to build equity and long-term wealth; it also promotes collective stewardship of natural resources and land.
“The stuff that we want to do, the places in which our work is underutilized and under-understood are places like community land trusts. People doing work with community currencies … Some of our work on funding, on land use rights, on data and so on, have really important implications for community land trusts, for unions. So, I think these are the kind of areas in which our work can and hopefully will in the next five,10 years, make really meaningful differences in people’s lives. And how on the ground problems get solved. That’s where the rubber meets the road, and that’s where I want our work to meet the road even more. The big insights to me just have to do with the way that our institutions are essentially designed to strengthen the strong and to cause power to compound. We need to just take that problem before our eyes clearly and rethink the way that our institutions are structured in order to remedy that.”
Gap: Current systems of property ownership exacerbate inequalities through unequal concentrations of wealth and housing insecurity and also have a negative impact on the environment and public health.
What’s Working From a Wellbeing Response: Landwell Community, in partnership with Living Lands Trust and RSF Social Finance, has purchased 22 acres of land in Sebastopol, California, and turned it into an intentional communal living site where residents have access to affordable housing and practice ecologically sustainable small-scale farming. Buying the land, valued at $3.4 million, has required creative financing. The initial group of people starting the venture put in varying amounts of their own funds. Residents pay a monthly affordable rent to live on the land and be a shareholder in the co-op, which is used to make payments on a $1.7 million loan from a mission-aligned lender. They then had to raise the additional $1.7 million to fund a land trust that agreed to hold the title to the land. Since forming, Landwell has worked alongside local Indigenous communities to get 1,200 acres of land returned to them; runs a small-scale farm using regenerative agriculture; provides community workshops; and has launched programs to ensure the accessibility and self-governed stewardship of land.
“The land itself, underneath all of your housing, economic enterprises and agriculture … needs to be permanently taken out of capitalism. … The title needs to be in a place that’s thinking about, as native folks say, the seven generations. That this is not something for now that we capitalize on, that we’re motivated by market forces to buy low and sell high our collective home. When we tie it to the market, then we destabilize the community. I’ve seen that pattern in lots of different places that aren’t about community land trusts and land trusts and cooperative housing. When things are tied to the market, they preference the financial capital and that often does not preference community or the stabilization of something like affordable housing.”
– Cassandra Ferrera, Landwell Community and Center for Ethical Land Transition
Limitations: Financing is one of the major hurdles. Seeking out mission-aligned lending and financial institutions is one way to get loans for the initial land purchase. In addition, many individuals who are drawn to communal living also want to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term profit. By preserving biodiversity, safeguarding local ecosystems and using climate-adaptive agricultural and land restoration practices, those looking to fund communal property and housing ventures may have access to more financial resources, like ecological and agricultural grants, which can offset many costs.
Working collaboratively on a communal land project sometimes presents its own challenge in that it requires working with teams of people that have many different positionalities and come to the project with varying resources. Keeping in deep solidarity and following democratic principles of working together can be challenging, but provides a template of how to collaborate in communal land ownership spaces.
“When you’re coming around to do this work in a democratic way where you’ve got a democratic decision-making structure, where you’re owning something collectively around your shelter [there are very few examples available.] We don’t learn how to practice that kind of democracy in a direct way with our neighbors or people down the hall. That’s been a real learning experience for us: having to take a step back and [determine] how do we build that capacity and expertise with our residents to be able to do that together, it’s hard. That’s one of the hardest things I think we’re doing: building that trust capacity, ability of people to just be, hold space together, and make decisions together around a collective purpose to reframe the traditional landlord-tenant relationship to see that we own it together. […] It’s a completely different way of being in relation to your shelter.”
– Steve King, Oakland Community Land Trust
Forming New Business Models
Many businesses are shifting their focus from profit to value creation. They are expanding their perspective beyond shareholder interests to thoughtfully consider how to create value for all stakeholders. By better defining their purpose, companies are better able to strategize and design business models that enable investors, customers, collaborators, and workers to contribute to solutions that prioritize the well-being of people and the planet.
Gap: Companies remain hesitant to experiment with models that deprioritize financial incentives. Despite growing interest in alternative models, many are hindered by risk aversion due to the limited availability of proven organizational structures that can be readily adopted and insufficient funding to support the transition to new business models.
What’s Working From a Wellbeing Response: Companies are delving deeper into the root causes by addressing challenges at the structural level and aiming to understand how harmful incentive structures drive undesirable outcomes. Consequently, many new forms of ownership and ways of integrating diverse interests are emerging, countering traditional models.
“We look at these deep design aspects of a business and think through how we might redesign a company that knows the right things to do so they are able to ambitiously pursue those strategies. […] We’re getting to these structural elements and redesigning structures to enable businesses to execute those ambitious actions that they all know they need to take but are held back from doing so.”
There are concerted efforts to align business with the wellbeing movement. By shifting the narrative about businesses from being the villains in economic systems to being tools and partners in achieving wellbeing goals, there is increased engagement among companies.
“We’re not anti-business. [We’re] putting out the message that businesses can be a partner in moving towards economic justice. They’re an important partner because they’re doing the work. And that’s where so many people are working. If we can build up more and more companies that are happy and want to show what they’re doing for society and are willing to have good working practices, then that can build up a whole stronger movement.”
– Gus Hagelberg, Economy of Common Good
In the absence of external enforcement to ensure that businesses prioritize the interests of people, the planet, and society, companies are embedding these values into their charters and voluntarily engaging with third-party organizations in order to make public commitments to remaining accountable to a more purpose-driven model.
“We affect the legal elements of a corporation or company. We promote legal innovation of the statute of incorporation of a company. So inside the statute, inside the law, the private law of the company, you embed, apart from the elevation of the purpose, you embed the obligation of the company to be transparent and accountable about its impact. [Essentially], you self impose a legal obligation.”
Limitations: Wellbeing-centered efforts may not always yield traditionally desired financial outcomes and can even sometimes operate at a loss, leading to perceptions of “failure,” which overlooks the non-monetary benefits of an initiative or project.
“Community-owned entities are really important, but we need this broader infrastructure around financing so there can be a more reparative approach to financing projects. So it’s understanding that at the end of the day, these projects might not generate a revenue for a long time, or they might, but they really might only be able to pay back part of that loan. And that’s still a success because of the impact they have.”
Companies engaging in greenwashing and cause marketing are undermining the efforts of those with deeper commitments to reevaluating their business models and challenging the systemic structures that exploit businesses and cause collective harm. This diminishes the perceived integrity of the movement.
“In the business world, if you don’t protect the integrity of an approach, people might apply it in very shallow ways. They might use it for greenwash, or they might use it in a very gimmicky or underwhelming way, and that is not the space we want to be in.”
What is changing?
Collaborating Across Sectors
Working toward collective wellbeing requires reexamining the relationships among individuals and institutions. It’s vital to bring holistic perspectives into siloed systems. By bringing together a plurality of voices to define the problems, we are better equipped to create responses that address existing inequalities within the current system. Collaborating across sectors provides a more comprehensive view of reality. Such collaborations create opportunities to identify gaps, combine vital resources, and co-create innovative responses that can be more effectively embedded across various sectors.
Gap: Although there are many organizations and coalitions working on its core issues, the wellbeing space remains a highly fragmented landscape. Actors in the space are finding it difficult to build alliances across issue areas, which has slowed the momentum of the movement. There need to be venues and opportunities to create alignment and share knowledge.
What’s Working from a Wellbeing Response: A shift of thinking is required to develop a wellbeing response to this gap. Organizations must think in terms of “contribution” rather than “attribution,” because this is a movement defined by the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Unusual alliances are a catalyst for new questions, new ideas, and new solutions.
“I think that there are a lot of people who really care about [wellbeing], and if you can connect those people together, then the magic happens. There’s just people who light up about this. I’m one of them. There’s others. And so when you get that connection between people who want to be working and active in this space, you get partnerships that happen and that are alive. So they have their own self-generating energy and momentum.”
Governments, especially local ones, have proven to be effective integrators due to their direct relationships with communities. They have the capacity and opportunity to engage citizens in more integrated projects and then translate these efforts into policies and infrastructure that ensure the durability and sustainability of solutions.
“Why should I separate myself from what we call governments if ultimately a government is the way we’ve organized ourselves as societies to fulfill the needs that we have that we can’t do separately? We can’t do it individually. The government is a tool for societies.”
Strong personal relationships are essential for maintaining collective goals in the face of individual differences. Without this foundation, collaborations may fall apart when faced with the inevitable conflicts that arise from diverse perspectives. Shared physical spaces and in-person convenings are essential for building the connections and relationships necessary for this work.
“I find that is helpful to take a relational approach: bringing people together where they have a shared interest in a place, where they might cross paths with each other—maybe they already know each other—and focusing actually on the relationships as opposed to figuring out exactly what it is that we need to do as a society. Having a foundation of relationships is key to working and thinking across differences.”
Limitations: Effective cross-collaboration requires someone to take charge of coordination and facilitation. While coalitions often fulfill this role, government involvement is essential to incorporate, prioritize and sustain the outcomes of these collaborations in a lasting manner.
“If no one’s in the lead or no one’s really pushing this agenda forward, it can often then be nobody’s priorities. So really figuring out how to champion — or how to elevate [an] issue so there is ownership — so that progress gets driven forward, is something that we’re currently grappling with. […] How do you make that happen while at the same time still leave that sort of space for different sectors to come in and support it? The solution of that could vary from place to place.”
Fear of appearing inexperienced can hinder engagement. It is important to normalize not having all the answers and learn to view each other’s differences positively. By leveraging one another’s expertise, we can better honor and utilize each individual’s unique capacities to contribute.
“We’re so siloed, and we put such a societal priority on expertise that there’s a lot of people who are scared to say they don’t understand something. […] So normalizing asking “dumb questions,” normalizing that feeling of vulnerability and surfacing it when we’re in those spaces, I think, is really important for us to unlock … this potential energy that exists within these communities that when we bring them together. Because if you don’t name it, everyone’s going to sit there silently just feeling like an imposter and being scared to be outed as not knowing something because their whole life depends on being an expert. It’s my belief and hope that a shared focus on wellbeing can be the thing that gets us all into the room together and working towards goals that we can all agree on.”
– Dr. Courtney Howard, Global Climate and Health Alliance
Funding is often siloed and specialized, which hinders collaborative work. It tends to prioritize familiar approaches and incremental progress on short-term goals, rather than supporting innovative and long-term interdisciplinary initiatives with still-to-be-proven potential.
“It’s really hard to get funding for stuff because most of the funding pots are dedicated to specific small problems […] You can make incremental progress on something, but it’s not really dedicated to long-term goals that may require interdisciplinary collaborations. I think the funding is kind of upside down. It’s basically just looking at what we currently have, how we can do a little bit better, but not what are goals that we want, and then what are the different collaborations that need to happen to get there?”
Designing at the Community-Level
While structured frameworks facilitate and create opportunities for change, real change happens through community projects where individuals are actively involved in meaningful conversations about their needs and priorities. Projects that engage individuals directly foster a sense of ownership and responsibility. Moreover, the process of collaboration and mutual support strengthens social bonds and builds a shared sense of identity and purpose.
Gap: There can sometimes be a disconnect between those advancing the cause and the communities they intend to engage and support. This gap often occurs when there is a lack of relationships and communication needed to align community needs with movement goals.
What’s Working From a Wellbeing Response: Building alliances with local leaders is crucial for community engagement. They serve as vital intermediaries who can bridge communication gaps and address community concerns about adopting and implementing new practices.
“… You have to work with community authorities and community leadership [to affect] social norms. These authorities are very well respected and listened to, so this is a good entry point from which to start […] When it’s top down, you’re not going to have the take up that you want and it might be a waste of money [since] people are not benefiting from the policies that you’re working on.”
Communities must maintain decision-making authority to effectively address and rectify existing social and economic inequities. External organizations can support this process by providing technical expertise, financial resources, and organizational structures. This approach empowers communities to develop and implement their own solutions, ensuring that their responses are aligned with their unique needs and priorities while fostering long-term, sustainable change.
“What I would love to see is support for communities to build these community-governed equitable purpose entities to do economic projects with technical support from intermediaries and consultants. But that they are the deciders, that the community leaders are the deciders, and that the financing is there that would take the long view and would support the incubation and the growth of these entities so that they could really dream big and bold, and then also be able to leverage this public funding that’s coming so that it doesn’t just replicate the economy that we have that’s racially inequitable and socially inequitable.”
Limitations: “Experts” sometimes enter communities and impose their knowledge and solutions that do not honor the wisdom, desires, and lived experiences of the people there. This approach can lead to a failure to fully understand existing issues and miss opportunities to integrate their solutions into the fabric of the community.
“We need to adapt everything we have to their reality. It doesn’t work if you arrive with all the knowledge you’ve got from the last project and try to implement the same thing. It’s another territory, it’s another culture, it’s another people, it’s another time. Everything changed. So we need to be really humble to listen and to understand what makes sense in that place.
[…] What’s the role of each person in that group? Because many times if people don’t feel they’re seen and if they don’t feel they are given a role, they start sabotaging the project, and you can start having problems. So it’s really important to see what each [community] needs and [build the structures to help them pursue that].”
Initiatives often face challenges due to insufficient representation and involvement from the communities they aim to support. By integrating collaborators from within the communities, we can offer more relevant support, ensure that contributions are well-coordinated with local efforts, and develop solutions that are both practical and impactful.
“We’re either working closely with local groups and local communities that have invited us in to collaborate or it’s a space in which we have either community or familial ties, meaning someone from our team is actually living there. We haven’t done a project without a local organization that has connected us. They have to be involved. We can’t just parachute in. We need a lot of local connections for a variety of reasons, [including] user trust and community trust and the right perspective when we’re engaging with a problem.”
Scaling Horizontally - in development
What structures are being redesigned?
Restructuring Ownership Models
By exploring new structures of ownership that address historical resource and power imbalances, we are better able to center collective needs. This is an opportunity to underscore existing abundance, as building up the commons allows for more people to have their needs met while also reducing the strain on the planet.
Gap: Our current economic system concentrates the majority of resources into the hands of a few. This has led not only to uneven access to material resources but also to unjust distribution of decision-making power.
What’s Working From a Wellbeing Response: Addressing this problem challenges our conceptions of self-sufficiency and reshapes how we think of individual needs. In reorienting ourselves to share in the commons, there’s a necessary shift in how we relate to one another, requiring that we build mutual trust.
“I hesitate to use the word ‘sharing economy’ because it has been co-opted by the capitalist economy, but I do think sharing will be more central. It’s a part of the idea of downscaling. We don’t all need to own a saw we only use once a year, or a car. There’s so many things that we all individually own that are just sitting idle all the time because we all feel like we need our own, because we don’t all have strong communities where we can necessarily feel comfortable sharing things with other folks.”
There’s also a need to expand our perception of ownership beyond the material world. We need to recognize that there is a symbolic value to ownership that affects how we perceive and distribute power. By restructuring ownership models, we can also alter how decisions are made, and, in turn, expand who is afforded agency.
“To give examples of domains where ownership is relevant in the modern world […] we think of land and housing, but ownership transcends that. It covers ideas; think about intellectual property, the value of a patent or a trademark or copyright. […] If you think about the power of corporations today, ownership affects the way that we work together economically.”
Limitations: There is a concern that moving toward “open” models for ownership will just create opportunities for people to further exploit and hoard resources. In response, stewardship is an ownership model that is attempting to mitigate this potential.
“The issue with [open models for ownership] is that, usually, if you just share things out into the open, the most well-resourced, the most well-capitalized firms are in the best position to hoover up all of that open data and exploit it for their own interests. So you actually need ways to create boundaries around ideas so that the communities from which those ideas come are able to steward them and not let them kind of get appropriated by others and so forth.”
There are still limitations to our technical and human capacities to implement new ownership models. Even with the structures for co-ownership in place, new ways of thinking are required, along with new relationships both with each other and with the shared “property.”
“When you’re coming around to do this work in a democratic way where you’ve got a democratic decision-making structure, where you’re owning something collectively around your shelter, (there are) very few examples of where that exists. We don’t learn how to practice that kind of democracy in a direct way with our neighbors or people down the hall. That’s been a real learning experience for us: having to take a step back and (determine) how do we build that capacity and expertise with our residents to be able to do that together, it’s hard. That’s one of the hardest things I think we’re doing, building that trust capacity, ability of people to just be, hold space together and make decisions together around a collective purpose to reframe the traditional landlord-tenant relationship to see that we own it together… It’s a completely different way of being in relation to your shelter.”
Reconfiguring Governance Structures - in development
Revamping Measurement Practices
Accurate and relevant measurement plays an important role in decision-making, as it provides the data needed to identify priorities and guide strategic actions. It helps determine which issues require immediate attention, allocate resources effectively, and track progress over time. Measurement is also essential for shaping narratives that can inspire and mobilize action.
Gap: Despite an abundance of data and measurements, there is still a lack of clarity regarding whether the movement is making progress. The available information does not easily translate into action. Meanwhile, decisions are hindered by a lack of cohesive understanding of the effectiveness of the efforts.
What’s Working From a Wellbeing Response: There is a shift towards contextualizing and prioritizing data to prevent overwhelm and make data more practical for everyday decision-making. The focus is shifting from purely performance-based measures to tracking “catalytic” indicators that reveal meaningful changes. This approach improves the usability of insights by aligning them with key dimensions of well-being — economic, social, planetary, and individual — thus making the data more actionable and relevant.
“We do this exercise with the communities: we talk about how to Marie Kondo your data. If it’s not telling you anything about the wellbeing of your population, it’s not really sparking joy, then it’s not data that should be prioritized. […] Throw out data that is not telling the wellbeing story. Because what happens in communities […] is we’re overwhelmed by data, and everybody thinks it’s great to have all this data. It’s useless, right? Because you can’t wade through it. So we work with communities on turning data into information, information into insight, that whole loop. And parsimony is really key.”
There is a shift from large-scale studies toward regularly collected routine data, which enhances both data collection and application. Consistently measuring the same indicators allows for more effective detection of real-time changes, rather than being swayed by transient trends that lack a baseline for understanding needed actions or reflecting the progress of ongoing efforts.
“We always talk about the wellbeing measures that are routine in a community — like administrative data that speaks to wellbeing, things that governments and non-governments actually collect on a regular basis — because that’s going to stick more than the other kind of data. We’ve used social data, social-media data, survey data, and administrative data to tell a wellbeing story, because we feel like the dynamism of some of those social and social-media data combined with administrative data is really important, but the preponderance of the data should be routine.”
Limitations: Measurements are often conducted too infrequently and taken after events have occurred, reducing their usefulness for timely decision-making. This delay prevents the early detection of issues and limits the ability to act on emerging trends.
“Often the history [are] these infrequent very deep dives. So maybe every five years we go in, we go big, we ask a lot of really, really detailed questions and really get involved in a space. […] But a lot has changed at every juncture along the way within five years. So we’ve been really focusing on the timeliness of data, like how frequently do we collect these data.”
When measurements do not align with the desired narrative or objectives, they fail to capture the most relevant factors needed to assess progress accurately. This misalignment occurs when the metrics being tracked are not directly related to the core goals or aspirations of a project or initiative.
“But like many other sectors, [the health sector is] saddled with this reality that there are multitudes of data on morbidity and mortality. That’s really hard in a wellbeing economy, because you’re not clear in your narrative. You’re telling people you value wellbeing, but then your data is telling people you don’t value wellbeing, because you’re not measuring wellbeing amenities, you’re not measuring wellbeing policies, and you’re not measuring thriving and flourishing. That’s where a lot of the disconnect has been happening, and people are really struggling through that right now, because we have antiquated data systems.”
Quantitative measures often focus on numerical data that may not reflect what is truly meaningful or valuable, leading to a narrow view of success. Reliance on these metrics can overlook crucial qualitative insights, such as personal stories or community feedback, which are essential for capturing the real impact of initiatives.
“We are primarily judged on quantitative data. […] There is a different level of complexity in how we operate, and what we do requires a different set of metrics to understand its value […] How do we start to think about what those metrics can be and how do we understand value and impact?”
What values are shifting?
Relating Personally
By acknowledging the lived experiences of those affected by various challenges, we can bridge divides and honor these individuals as experts. This approach fosters community transformation and collaboration, bringing people together through shared understanding. A relational approach, focusing on connections and shared interests within a space, is essential for working and thinking across differences.
Gap: When a movement’s goals and messaging appear disconnected from the realities of everyday life, it becomes difficult for people to see the relevance and importance of participating. By not addressing the specific issues that individuals face, a movement risks alienating potential supporters who might otherwise be passionate advocates.
What’s Working from a Wellbeing Response: By openly sharing our struggles and setbacks, we foster authenticity and trust. This transparency not only validates challenges but also encourages a culture of openness and resilience. It allows for collective learning and growth, as others can gain insights from our experiences and feel less isolated in their own difficulties.
“I don’t know if this is the most effective thing to share, but it’s literally commiserating with people that are in the weeds trying to do the same thing — for us reaching out to folks and for folks reaching out to us. It is just so comforting to know that you’re not in it alone and that other people are struggling with the same kinds of things that are literally driving you crazy because there isn’t that road map. Often the most valuable thing is to be able to have a network of like-minded folks that are trying to do similar things.”
Scaling personal connections through shared narratives is necessary for growing the movement. Sharing stories on a larger scale allows individuals to connect with a broader audience and engage beyond immediate interactions.
“Before you’d have to get stuff covered by the traditional media to lift up stories, and now we have so many ways of lifting up stories through social media. We have people videoing their own stories. We can tweet stories directly to members of Congress. We can make our own packages of B-roll and stories and pitch it to local news stations. We can make our own radio ads and send them to radio stations. We can make digital ads of stories and microtarget them.
We have so many ways now of educating leaders and the public about what’s going on in the real lives of people in this country that we didn’t used to have, and I think that’s what’s really shifted public support for these kinds of issues and policies. It’s really a mobilizing strategy, because if everybody’s having the same problem at the same time, it’s not an epidemic of personal failures. It’s a structural problem that needs a structural solution.”
Limitations: We often rely on presenting factual evidence and data to persuade others, assuming that logical arguments will drive action. However, this approach can fall short because it doesn’t always resonate on an emotional or personal level. People are more motivated by stories and experiences that they can relate to, which evoke empathy and connection.
“When I first started doing this, I mostly addressed people’s heads. […] I’m a researcher, so I’d have all sorts of appendices of different studies, but people would veer away. It took me a long time to understand why. Essentially, what I was doing was relaying a diagnosis to them that had potential impacts on everyone they loved, on themselves, and on every patient they would ever treat. I didn’t appreciate at the time that I was coming to them with an emotional ask as well as a cognitive and a practical ask.”
– Dr. Courtney Howard, Global Climate and Health Alliance
Our collective work has often prioritized efficiency, focusing on task-oriented goals and defaulting to virtual venues, which has led to a lack of personal engagement. As a result, we may find ourselves completing tasks and achieving objectives but missing out on the deeper, interpersonal aspects of collaboration that can enrich our work and foster a sense of shared purpose.
“I’m not saying any highly enlightened ideas here, but you need time and to meet people physically. It’s the small, little talks in between meetings that are worth their weight in gold. It’s the little talks. I really like to end my meetings 15 minutes early because then people have 15 minutes, then we can say, “Oh, the agenda is finished,” but I know that the agenda will be finished a little bit early because then we can let them talk and have those little conversations with each other. And that’s where their planning happens, and that’s where they are finding each other, and that’s where they’re having the conversations that are nourishing for the change that will happen within our city. So that those little informal talks are super, super important.”
Tackling Conflict Avoidance
Although there’s broad agreement on the principles that underpin wellbeing efforts, everyone working in the movement has diverse goals and priorities. Friction can occur when people are deciding how to allocate limited resources and what pathways are best for accomplishing a given objective. Taking a more inclusive approach to identifying priorities and designing solutions requires building trust, bridging silos and aligning goals across different sectors.
Gap: Fragmentation and even outright disagreement within the movement has led to a failure to create synergy, which diminishes the impact of its efforts. It’s important to find ways to bridge conflicting viewpoints while also acknowledging that compromises will be necessary.
What’s Working From a Wellbeing Response: Grounding ourselves in commonality and orienting ourselves to the long-term goals of these efforts are essential for creating perspective during the day-to-day frustrations that come with movement building.
“We will not agree. We will disagree on the how, but we need to agree on that North Star. And when we disagree with one another, will we show up the next day or the next month to continue this work? […] And I really think we’ve approached the work like that: How do we disagree and continue to do the work that matters?”
– Lindsay Morgan Tracy, Citizens Assembly
Negative emotions are an integral part of the process of discovering new ways of being and doing. It is essential to acknowledge and confront these emotions, especially the sense of loss and fear that arise when facing unfamiliar situations and uncertain futures.
“[The] first aspect of this is to grapple with the emotions it brings up for us — to surface the emotions we all have, to talk about them, to help people realize they’re not alone. Those emotions are perfectly normal reactions to a situation that poses a real and practical threat to ourselves and our families. That can help us then explicitly go through a process of grief that most of us will have to go through. Many of us have gone through grief in other parts of our lives, whether due to the death of a loved one or a different type of [circumstance]. So, we’re familiar with a lot of the tools that have helped us through those processes.”
– Dr. Courtney Howard, Global Climate and Health Alliance
Connection and commitment are vital foundations for overcoming disagreements and conflicts. Navigating this requires that we engage with one another as whole persons who are more than just our roles and functions.
“[In our work,] a lot of people would call each other up and say, “I don’t agree with you, but I do want to try to understand where you’re coming from.” When people felt heard, just the act of listening to them made them less defensive, took their guard down, made it feel like you really cared about what they were saying. Then it opened up this space where we could actually, for the most part, understand that the things we value and wanted were the same.”
– Lori Pfingst, Citizens Assembly
Limitations: Consensus is often perceived as the goal of collective efforts, which can stall or halt progress. Moving efforts forward may sometimes require making incomplete and imperfect decisions. Drawing together diverse groups of people will inevitably bring conflict. This is not a sign of failure but rather a necessary part of the process. We need to normalize and find value in disagreement. It’s important to understand that different decisions can always be made as circumstances evolve and new information comes to light.
“[When] we’re bringing together people in a convening, my goal there is not going to be agreement, partly because we go out of our way to try to bring people into the room who we know are going to disagree. We are trying to have difficult conversations that bridge across intellectual, social, cultural divides. So in our convenings, when I think about bringing people together, the only agreement is that there’s a question. That’s all you need, and then you can have the disagreement. It’s fine, as long as it’s productive. I think you just move the thinking forward of people who are doing important work.”
A scarcity mindset still pervades efforts to act collectively, creating a mental barrier that causes individuals and organizations to view each other as competitors for limited resources, particularly funding and attention. This mindset leads to prioritizing individual needs and goals, reinforcing separation instead of collaboration.
“There’s always going to be competition; this is something that we really want to counter. We want collaboration rather than people competing for spaces. We want to make it a friendly environment for everybody [where] there’s room and space for everybody. But sometimes the dominating logic of development and civil society is having to compete for funds or for space. That’s a very difficult challenge that we often have to face within the debates that we try to foment.”