11 minutes
The same decision, seen from five places A decision looks different depending on where you stand, and the standpoints missing from the room produce the expensive mistakes. This lesson is about holding more than one view without collapsing them into your own.
What you’ll be able to do Describe one division decision from at least five standpoints, and identify which shaped the current design, which were spoken for by somebody else, and which were missing. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: Where does this review go wrong? Document a next step for The same decision, seen from five places: Take a decision your unit is working on now. List everyone it reaches, then mark each one: at the table, spoken for by somebody else, or missing. Bring the list to the next meeting about it. What a standpoint is, and why you cannot reason your way into one A standpoint is not a point of view in the sense of an opinion you could talk somebody out of. It is the set of things a person can see from where they actually stand, plus what this decision costs them. Two people looking at the same change can both be completely accurate and completely at odds, because they are seeing different parts of it.
This is why careful thinking inside a division is not a substitute for asking. A policy analyst can imagine what a shorter turnaround might mean for someone whose service lapses. What they cannot see is what that person does on the third day, who they call, what it costs them, and which part of the process they will never trust again. That is not a failure of empathy. It is a limit on the position.
The practical form of this is simple and slightly uncomfortable: name the standpoints, find out which are represented, and treat “missing” as a real and reportable finding rather than a gap to be filled with a reasonable guess. Community members, disabled Minnesotans, families and culturally specific organizations who take part in that work are co-designers and advisors doing professional work. They are paid for it, they see what changed because of them, and they are free to say no.
One change, five views The person whose life it reaches The people who support them The staff who have to run it The county or lead agency The reviewer who comes later
A shorter turnaround sounds like an improvement until you are the person whose service lapses because the new request needs a document your clinic takes three weeks to produce. From here the change is not faster; it is a new way to lose something. This standpoint also sees the part nobody inside the system sees, which is what happens in the gap.
Family, partners, friends, chosen family and paid support staff absorb whatever the system does not do. A new form means somebody sits at a kitchen table and fills it in. A denial means somebody makes the phone calls and rearranges a week. From here the question is never only whether the rule is right; it is who does the extra work the rule creates.
The worker entering requests knows within a week which fields people get wrong, which document is effectively impossible to obtain, and which step everyone quietly works around. That knowledge is rarely asked for and is usually accurate. Leaving it out does not make the workaround disappear; it moves it somewhere nobody can see it.
They carry out what the division designs, with staffing the division does not control and caseloads it may not see. A change that costs the division nothing can cost a small county a position it does not have. From here, timing and notice matter as much as content, and a change announced late is a change that will be done badly.
Licensing, audit and quality staff will be asked whether the rule was followed, using the record. From here, what is not written did not happen. This standpoint is legitimate and it has a pull of its own: it rewards the design that documents well, which is not automatically the design that works.
At the table, spoken for, or missing? A statewide association of service providers gave detailed comments on the draft.
Choose a category At the table Spoken for by somebody else Missing entirely Staff summarized what people receiving the service would probably prefer, based on past complaints.
Choose a category At the table Spoken for by somebody else Missing entirely Nobody asked the county workers who will enter the new requests.
Choose a category At the table Spoken for by somebody else Missing entirely Paid community advisors reviewed the design early, were told what changed because of them, and could decline.
Choose a category At the table Spoken for by somebody else Missing entirely A family member’s view was taken from a note written into a case record for a different purpose.
Choose a category At the table Spoken for by somebody else Missing entirely The division’s legal contact confirmed that the change is permitted.
Choose a category At the table Spoken for by somebody else Missing entirely Nobody asked the staff who answer the phone when a request is denied.
Choose a category At the table Spoken for by somebody else Missing entirely Check matches Reset Why the same rule reads differently to different people History is evidence, not attitude Public institutions in Minnesota have a long documented record with disabled people that includes large state institutions, segregated schooling and decades of waiting for an ordinary life. People whose families lived through that read a new state requirement with that record in mind. That is not cynicism to be managed around. Treating it as an obstacle is how the next generation learns the same lesson.
Trust is a record, not a feeling If a community has been consulted before and nothing changed, low turnout at your meeting is data about the last meeting rather than about whether people care. Trust here is the accumulated record of whether taking part ever produced a different outcome. It can only be rebuilt the same way it was lost, by showing what changed.
Intersection is not addition A person is not a disability plus a language plus a county. Someone who is Deaf, works with an interpreter, lives in a small town and has a supported decision-making arrangement does not face four separate barriers. They face one situation in which each of those changes what the others mean. A design that handles each factor separately misses the person entirely.
Where the continuum fits, and where it stops This program uses the intercultural development continuum — Denial, Polarization, Minimization, Acceptance, Adaptation, Integration — as its theory of change. It describes how an organization’s default way of handling difference tends to develop, and “we treat everyone exactly the same” is the classic Minimization move: it sounds fair and it hides the unequal cost. The continuum is a way of understanding the work. It is never a label, a score or a record about any individual, and nothing here is assessing you.
We were invited to comment at the end. By then the only thing left to change was the wording. They seemed surprised that we did not have much to say.
Composite perspective from a paid community advisor, illustrative Find the missing standpoint before the design sets What you can change You control when people are brought in. Early, they can change the structure. Late, they can change the wording.
What to watch for Do not treat an association, a summary of past complaints or a staff member’s best guess as the standpoint of the people affected. Each is useful, and none of them is the same thing.
Your next step For the decision in front of you, name one standpoint that is missing, and find out what it would take to bring it in properly: time, notice, materials people can actually use, and payment for anyone who is not an employee.
A private reflection, for you alone. Whose expertise is missing from this decision, and what would it take to have it here early rather than at the end? How could the people most affected shape this work sooner? Nothing you write here is collected, seen or kept.
Try a situation A DSD program area is changing how a service is authorized: a new online request, a shorter turnaround and a standard set of documents. The draft went to an internal workgroup, to a statewide association of service providers, and to the division’s legal contact. It did not go to anyone who uses the service, to the county workers who will enter the requests, or to the staff who answer the phone when a request is denied.
Where does this review go wrong? It does not. The association represents the people who deliver the service and legal represents the requirements, so the ground is covered. Adding more voices now would delay a change that is already overdue.
Three standpoints are missing and each sees something the others cannot: people who use the service, county workers who will run the new request, and the staff who handle denials. Bring them in before the design is fixed, pay community advisors for their time, and say what changed because of them.
Send the draft out for a public comment period at the end, so that anyone affected has the opportunity to respond.
Consider your choice Try another response Carry this forward A standpoint is not an opinion. It is what a person can actually see from where they stand and what the decision costs them, and you cannot reason your way into it from the middle of the organization.
Five turn up in almost every division decision: the person whose life it reaches; the people who support them, including chosen family; the staff who have to run it; the county or lead agency that carries it out; and the reviewer who will later ask whether it was followed.
Being spoken for is not being represented. A summary of what people would probably want, written by staff or by an association, is a careful guess with an official signature on it.
History changes what a rule means. A community with generations of reason to expect a public system to work against them reads a new requirement differently, and that reading is information about the requirement rather than a problem with the reader.
Holding several standpoints at once, without flattening them into your own, is the movement from Minimization toward Acceptance and Adaptation. It is a practice rather than a personality, and it is not the same thing as agreeing.
A scenario about a service authorization change reviewed only by people already inside the system, sorting practice on who was actually at the table, and a knowledge check on what a comment period can and cannot catch.
Take a decision your unit is working on now. List everyone it reaches, then mark each one: at the table, spoken for by somebody else, or missing. Bring the list to the next meeting about it.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Carry this into practice Autonomy, safety, cost, legal requirement, quality oversight and equity rarely point the same way.
Return to the experience: What did you notice or try, whose perspective informed it, and what would you keep or adjust?
Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
