Meanwhile, ideas themselves—the directions we could take—originate inside people. Ideas come from within people of all walks of life, not just the ones who happen to be in power.

Yet isn’t it true that so often, there’s a gap between people and power?

Work that is co-creative might also go by other, familiar descriptions:

There is a long list of actions we take when we come together in these ways:

Anywhere that relationships exist—in partnered couples, between children, or among friends—co-creation is happening as information gets exchanged to build new meaning and possibilities. As a sketch on my wall by Hugh McLeod reads: “All creation is co-creation.” 

Sometimes, we need to simply create. You might have a community that is somewhat passive: they’re not in a space where they are able to meaningfully engage. If that’s the reality, but creativity is needed, it’s often the time for individual creativity and contributions. This might look like individual artistic exploration, or specialized research and development. An individual creates or articulates a concept, and the community of users (citizens, members, consumers) receives it. This is the realm of your standard “inventor” story. 

There are risks here, though, aren’t there? When a solo creator comes up with a concept, there can be a spark of friction when the idea is presented to a group. Sometimes the contribution will be well-received, and other times, it will be greeted with silence—and occasionally with backlash. 

Consultation can occur when a community is seen to have a certain level of openness to engagement. Opinions and needs are present. Participation is desired. In these spaces, to keep a community engaged but still maintain the sense of stability, consultation can create the space for semi-meaningful involvement. It gathers a few perspectives on the change being imposed. But beware the disingenuous consultation: it can lead to further disempowerment and disenfranchisement. 

It’s here that the door can be opened for true co-creation. A community must be able to truly engage in a participatory process for co-creation to be possible. And the group must be looking for new pathways. Put most simply: when a community really cares, and when creativity is needed, try co-creation. Co-creation is for communities who are invested in the work of finding new futures. 

“Leadership has decided…”

“We don’t want just fun and games.”

“We’ll be the proxy for the community’s voice.”

“What, you’re going to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya?”

“This feels too much like therapy. We just need the work done.”

“We don’t have budget for user engagement.”

“We can’t take the time to ask our members.”

These are all, verbatim, phrases I’ve heard over the years that organizations have used to express fears, worries, and concerns regarding co-creation.  

In some sense, you can imagine people simply locating themselves on the decision-making grid: they are simply noticing a different need, and naming it. Co-creation isn’t for every situation. That’s a good thing. 

And yet, statements like these are often where our systems and organizations choose to needlessly walk away from co-creation. When these responses emerge from discomfort, habit, or hierarchy, we lose valuable opportunities to engage and to listen. When an organization says “no” to co-creation in a situation that really needs it…it’s a significant loss.

Many of our organizations—from our governments to healthcare to places of education—emerged in an era when top-down leadership was the de facto mode of operating, command-and-control hierarchies were the rule of the day, and colonial ways were well-established. It is certainly possible to unlearn these tendencies, evolve into collaborative methods, and choose ways that embrace cooperation and partnership. But there are years (or in some cases, generations and centuries) of old, accumulated habits and policies that are still present, active, and operating—and which are the opposite of co-creative.

I was asking what happens when leaders don’t listen? When communities don’t collaborate? When groups don’t work together? What happens when our collective intelligence goes ignored?  

The answers were illuminating; participants offered words that painted quite a picture of what happens when co-creation is ignored in our workplaces, governments, and cultures. I gathered their perspectives and built out a synthesis. Here’s what happens when we don’t co-create:

More than simply being theoretically possible, co-creation is already being used to help communities live into renewed futures. And stepping into what co-creation offers gives us a chance to practice an even greater shift that’s taking place in our current era.

We are presently within a shift between two modes of operating. As Charles Eisenstein articulates in his book, The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible, there’s the old story, and the new story.

We are unlearning ways that were primarily mechanistic and imposed upon nature, returning instead to ways that are organic—where nature’s capacity is acknowledged and welcomed. This is a healing act, returning to a relationship with the land and its stewards, and partnering anew in the work of restoration and relationship-building. The work of co-creation, when done in genuine partnership, is the work of helping our societal systems shift to become more integrated as a whole. It is through the work of honouring one another’s stories and perspectives, bringing our true selves to the conversation, and constructively seeking a shared and sustainable future, that we will uncover opportunities for mutual thriving. 

It won’t be easy, but by moving through the resistance, choosing rest as needed, and honouring our own needs, we can find a path forward to a new way of living.