When you set out to convince, you make the conversation into a battle to be won and lost. You bring force and, as Newton’s laws of motion tell us, force creates counter-force. You’re creating resistance before you’ve even finished your argument. Winning means that in the end, we will just have one side (our own!). We want that unity of opinion, but we create opposition in the process.

The repository of SBC capacity development resources is a user-friendly, living dashboard that brings together a curated collection of freely available resources for SBC capacity development. It includes materials from a diverse range of organizations and practices, organized into 8 areas of work, namely: Advocate and build partnerships Applied social and behavioral science Capacity building Design, plan, and implement Digital engagement Generate and use evidence SBC in emergencies Systems strengthening

I like these lists of different campaign development and implementation approaches separated out by low/mid/high cost.

This checklist is an instrument to help public health departments and communicators improve trust and communication, especially in anticipation of serious public health issues, health emergencies, and when misleading rumors are abundant. To develop the checklist, the project team collected data on frequently observed rumors during public health emergencies (PHEs), interventions to address such rumors and improve trust, and the experiences of 100 key informant public health experts and practitioners working on the front lines. The checklist reflects current communication science and the voices and lived experiences of public health communicators who have worked in an environment of persistent rumors and declining trust in public health. The checklist provides public health communicators with tools, resources, and internal advocacy opportunities organized across 5 priority sections. These sections can be broadly described as 1) focusing on internal operations, 2) building connections with the community, 3) establishing opportunities with “secondary messengers,” 4) anticipating loss of trust in a PHE, and 5) creating meaningful and accessible messages.

Increasingly the landscape of Impact Measurement is crowded, dynamic and contains a diversity of frameworks and approaches — which can mean we end up feeling like we’re looking at alphabet soup. As we’ve traversed this landscape we’ve tried to make sense of it in various ways, and have begun to explore a matrix to represent the constellation of frameworks, approaches and models we’ve encountered in the process.

But because the very act of providing an answer closes the loop. You've solved the riddle. The thrill of the chase is over. Now everyone else is just expected to take your precious answer and dutifully apply it – to products, campaigns, media plans – without having experienced the journey that got you there.

Welcome to the Complex Systems Framework Collection, where you will find ways to consider the differences between simple, complicated, complex and chaotic. Whether you're a problem solver, leader, and/or learner, we hope you will find ideas here that resonate, challenge conventional wisdom, and push your thinking about complex problems in new directions.

A practical, interactive tool that introduces Behaviour Change Techniques, considered to be the ‘active ingredients’ of behaviour change interventions. The tool walks you through how to identify and deliver Behaviour Change Techniques, drawing on the COM-B model and Behaviour Change Wheel.

Ethical Climate Practices Spectrum Ethical Communications Spectrum Ethical Community Engagement Spectrum Ethical Global Service Spectrum Ethical Monitoring & Evaluation Spectrum

CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction 00:20 Identify a subset of people who get it 00:54 1st Slide: What we do 01:34 2nd Slide: Our Insight 02:13 3rd Slide: Proof Points 02:45 Don't create a Frankendeck 03:30 Conclusion

The first objective was to provide an overview of all activities that were employed during the course of a research project to develop a relapse prevention intervention for interdisciplinary pain treatment programs. The second objective was to examine how co-design may contribute to stakeholder involvement, generation of relevant insights and ideas, and incorporation of stakeholder input into the intervention design.

Could this guide us towards a structured approach for assessing the level of community involvement in SBC programmes? At the highest level, “Citizen Control“, communities independently lead programmes with full decision-making authority. “Delegated Power“ and “Partnership“ designate significant community influence on programme decisions, either through majority control or collaborative governance. In contrast, “Placation“, “Consultation“, and “Informing“ indicate lower degrees of participation, where community input may be sought but is not necessarily instrumental in shaping outcomes.

In their landmark 1959 report often referenced in leadership theory, social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven pinpointed five bases of power: Legitimate: when people perceive that your rank in a formal hierarchy—e.g., manager, CEO, or president—gives you the right to “prescribe” their behavior Reward: when people perceive your ability to distribute rewards for completed tasks or met goals Coercive: when people perceive your ability to distribute punishments and disincentives (the opposite of reward power) Expert: when people perceive your special knowledge or expertise, which causes them to defer to your expertise Referent: when people feel “oneness” with you or a desire to be like you, leading to their respect and admiration of you Referent power is considered the most potent because it doesn’t require that a leader micromanage, use coercion, or reward to influence others. People follow a leader with referent power based on who the leader is and how they behave. According to French and Raven, referent power has the broadest range of influence of any power, allowing it to be leveraged on a large scale.

The new toolkit crosses local, central and international government action. It has many of the elements of the previous framework but also covers new ground. The most obvious is that we have changed the horizontal axis to better reflect the way government works in practice. This has meant including a number of new areas namely, influencing, engaging, designing, developing, resourcing, delivering and controlling (or managing). The vertical axis still follows the same logic from ‘softer’ more collaborative power at the top, down to more formal government power at the bottom of the axis. The update includes many familiar things from nudging behaviour to convening power and also adds new areas like deliberative approaches such as citizen juries. This is the framework for Policy Lab's new Government as a System toolkit. The new Government as a System toolkit framework. When looking across the whole system, it now has 56 distinct actions. Of course this isn’t an exhaustive set of options, you could create more and more detail as there is always more complexity and nuance that can be found in government. Importantly, we want policymakers to be considering how multiple levers are used together to address complex problems.

If you’re trying to think and act more creatively and more critically, focus on asking better, more interesting questions of the briefs you’re tasked with answering. What we teach children can and should be applied to our own professional lives, too. A focus on problems and solutions first, promotes consistent, ‘safe’ answers, but won’t move the work on. Spending time on asking and answering better questions will help refine the understanding of a problem and will create the conditions for new, interesting and challenging solutions.