A Conversation With Deborah Wadsworth and Ruth A. Wooden

In late August 2003, the month when the tenure of Public Agenda's new president Ruth Wooden and retiring president Deborah Wadsworth overlapped, newsletter editor Michael Hamill Remaley sat down with the two to talk about the transition and Public Agenda's future. A portion of the interview appeared in Public Agenda's Fall 2003 Newsletter. This is a full transcript of the discussion.

Michael Hamill Remaley (MHR): Deborah, you made your intentions to retire known well over a year ago. The process to find a new President for Public Agenda took a little longer than expected. Now that Ruth is finally here, a sense of the reality of leaving must be setting in. How does that make you feel?

Deborah Wadsworth (DW): Well, it did take a full year to find the right person and ensure a smooth transition, but the process was good for Public Agenda and the transition has been really terrific. I know that, as I've been talking to colleagues here, there is a lot of anticipation. We know that, in Ruth, we are getting new, fresh thinking, and people are excited about having the opportunity to work with someone who is terrific and who understands Public Agenda. Since Ruth assumed the presidency at the beginning of August, working so closely with her over the past month, my sense is that we've got ourselves one very smart woman who really has her finger on the pulse of Public Agenda. So, I feel very good that the transition will be virtually seamless.

MHR: Ruth, since you arrived, Deborah has been here to help you get to know the quirks and minor mysteries of Public Agenda. How's the transition going from your perspective?

Ruth Wooden (RW): Extraordinarily. I have known and admired Deborah for a long time. It's great now to see, from the inside, the quality of the work she has done. And it is an honor to pick up the threads she has so carefully laid before me and to weave them together is an exciting challenge. To tell the truth, Deborah and I are so in sync on so many things that we are actually able to complete each other's sentences sometimes. Of course, I'm already sort of in mourning over loosing her full-time presence at the end of the month. But that is mitigated by the knowledge that she will continue to be a resource as a Senior Advisor to Public Agenda. I so admire Deborah and I feel honored to be asked to pick up where she is leaving off. They are big pumps to fill.

MHR: Great segue to my next question! Deborah, one of the reasons we haven't allowed you to retire is because we wanted to try to find someone to fill your shoes. What are some to the key traits that the board was looking for in a new president that they found in Ruth?

DW: I think that's a very interesting question because a part of the strength of this process was the conversation among the board members about not just who should be the next president of Public Agenda, but really what is Public Agenda? Where is Public Agenda going? Interestingly, there was absolute clarity among the members of the board about what this institution is, why it was created and what it needs to be. We were in total accord on the point that we needed someone who first and foremost would understand the mission of Public Agenda, who would be respectful of the public, and someone who could advance a vision for injecting the public voice into deliberation on the toughest issues this nation faces. We wanted someone who understood that Public Agenda's role is distinctive and increasingly unique as the world becomes more embattled and more polarized. In the interviews with Ruth, the search committee and the entire board were instantly assured that this was a person who not only has all the right credentials, but who understands deeply, I mean in her marrow, what this organization is all about. So I feel that she not only has deep respect for this tradition and experience but will also bring to it new ideas to achieve our mission. We all saw that, and so the deal was done!

MHR: Ruth, last week you mentioned that you felt your entire career had - sort of by fate - led you to be here at Public Agenda, right here, right now. What did you mean by that?

RW: I feel very fortunate. Following in Deborah's footsteps makes me feel a little anxious, of course. But I do feel prepared. I have an eclectic professional background, but woven throughout has been the consistent thread of concern for what's on the public's mind. Whether I was working in the commercial sector as I was in my early career or focused on social issues as I was at the Advertising Council, I was always striving to understand the public's thinking and initiate innovative programs to engage the public. Early on, it might have been working for a corporate client to educate consumers about a divestiture issue. Later it might have been about getting people to take real action and change personal behavior on issues like safe driving and desease prevention. While Public Agenda goes about it in a very different way, the common treads have been working to understand the public and brining that understanding back into the conversation for public learning. My passion for understanding the public's views and injecting them into the debate has always been there. What Public Agenda has, which I share, is a passionate respect for the ordinary person's ability to learn about and contribute to debate on complex issues. As issues have gotten more complex and as more and more so-called "experts" are called on to speak for the public, I think the authentic voice of the public is increasingly at risk of being marginalized from debate, and I'm passionate about putting it back in there. That is not to say that public opinion should always lead policy, but it should always inform debate. This is the basis of our democracy, and I just think it's never been more important…and I think never more at risk, more fragile. So, it is this "coming together" of my professional experiences and personal passions in one place that makes me say that I am meant to be at Public Agenda right here, right now.

MHR: You've touched a bit on your recent experiences as a Senior Counselor at the international public relations firm Porter Novelli working on social marketing, and prior to that as President and CEO of the Advertising Council. Could you talk a little bit about those experiences and what you learned from them that will be most helpful in moving forward Public Agenda's dual mission of informing policy leaders of the public's thoughts on major issues and helping citizens better understand and get involved in the issues that affect their lives?

RW: Well, I think the most important lesson learned so far is that what one thinks is the public's opinion is only "n of 1" - it doesn't mean anything without proof. I am consistently surprised - sometimes for better sometimes for worse - by the reality of public beliefs. Mark Twain said it: "Supposing is good, finding out is better." Many experts assume they know the public's opinion and thought processes. But until you really ask the right questions within a full, probing research process, it is really just an unfounded hypothesis. If my experiences at the Ad Council and Porter Novelli taught me anything, it is that you need to truly listen to the public.

The other thing I've learned is the necessity of understanding how the public comes to judgment. Communications and learning theory tells us that there are predictable stages when it comes to public deliberation. Dan Yankelovich has rightfully become one of the best experts on this. And I've worked on these issues at various stages along the line, sometimes creating awareness, sometimes creating campaigns to make that "final step" to put the seatbelt on or whatever the action is. But it is these theories of change that ground the work we do here, and the work at Ad Council and Porter Novelli. I've always been fascinated by that. Public thinking usually changes slowly over time, in stages. That is why one of my mantras is 'stay the course.' The conversation between policy makers and the public takes place over time, and you have to stick with it, you have to keep asking questions, and you have to keep re-engaging both leaders and the public.

MHR: I totally agree. Especially for the issues Public Agenda works on, there's such a long arc of change…

RW: Yes, it is truly a process. Issues are always in flux, and they're moving along a continuum, and sometimes they take two steps back, and two forward, and you have to think about it that way. The challenge is to keep asking the right questions and to stick with it.

MHR: Deborah, you've had a spectacular run here at Public Agenda. What are the accomplishments you are most proud of?

DW: I think I would put the question a bit differently. I would say it has been my great good fortune to have had a chance to work with one of the most incredible group of people I have come across in my career. I think I owe my successes at Public Agenda to the talented people here. There is a respectful collegiality at Public Agenda and everything we undertake is bigger than any one of us. The whole is exponentially greater than the parts, and I am just a part. I've just been along for the ride. It has been a wonderful experience to help this organization grow and I am glad that I have been a part of making this organization into an institution that has earned the respect of experts and policy makers of whatever perspective, helped the organization achieve the visibility it deserves. To watch it grow from a small organization that basically took work as it came across the transom to a position of financial stability where it is able to be the master of its own fate has been very gratifying. We've gone from being an organization that put out only printed reports to one that produces a website containing a wealth of information that includes our own powerful research and but also respected analysis of many issues and polling data from all over that is sought out by journalists, policymakers, academics and citizens.

I am also proud that we have had a real impact on issues. That impact on issues has often come in places where the conventional wisdom had just been dead wrong, where the "experts" were so locked into their thinking that they couldn't see the public view. So those instances were among my finest hours here. Public Agenda is at its finest when it fulfills its role as a de-mystifier, a translator, a uniquely positioned go-between helping policy makers and experts better understand what's going on in the public mind. And very often we confound them all, we challenge prevailing assumptions. I think that we've had a real impact on education reform. In the 1980s we had a significant impact on matters of national security when we uncovered Americans' warming feelings toward the people of the Soviet Union, and that was pre-Gorbachev, still in the deep freeze of the Cold War. We also did some very meaningful work on healthcare in the early 90s.

I think that as the national policy agenda becomes more complicated, more diverse, there is certainly an even greater need for Public Agenda's kind of work. It seems to me that there are few voices, few institutions in America, that really are not guns-for-hire, that have a kind of integrity and a commitment to a higher purpose that is not compromised by profit motive or intellectual bias. I think Public Agenda is also unique committing its attention to issues over time. The public policy arena seems to increasingly sound the alarms on an issue and then hustle on to the next problem of the moment. As you and Ruth pointed out a moment ago, the issues Public Agenda deals with are very complicated and deserve better understanding - a thoughtful kind of thinking - that require leaders to guide us on the path to public judgment. I think there are only a few institutions in America that effectively do this - help the public come to understanding and judgment - and Public Agenda is one of them.

MHR: Well, since I think you have been entirely too humble in describing your own ccomplishments, I'm going to ask Ruth to reflect on your legacy.

DW: Humble! That's not a characteristic that describes me!

RW: I want to just tell you a short story that speaks to the amazing impact Deborah has had. When the report First Things First came out and I read about it - I wasn't involved with Public Agenda at all at the time, although I certainly aware of the work - when I read that report, it was one of those powerful moments like, "Ugh! I could have had a V-8!" You know? It was one of those amazing moments of insight, a truly transforming insight on such a crucial topic. The experts were all entrenched in their own positions, and this report came out and said Americans have expectations of our schools that you're totally missing - safety and the basics. And that transformed the public discussion. It is a remarkable thing when that happens. Afterwards, the new revelation seems so obvious, it looks self-evident, but there was a moment when that wasn't so. Deborah's leadership of a team of thoughtful people injected a whole new, important insight into an entrenched debate. And I think that's extraordinarily rare. It's also little addictive. When you get it right the first time, you're gonna want to do it again. I wanted that to happen again when I was at the Ad Council and I sought out Public Agenda, Deborah and her colleagues, on the project that eventually produced the Kids These Days report. At the time, there seemed to be a lot of anger in our society directed toward parents for not being better parents, the view seemed to be that many parents were just shirking their responsibilities. Kids These Days revealed that Americans were very concerned about the job parents are doing, but that they understood the tough challenges parents face, that they need more help and support, and that we as a society need to do more than just chastise them. And interestingly, nobody was more critical about their parenting than parents themselves. That report, I think, really changed the nature of the public discussion about kids and parenting, not how do we blame them? Rather, it became how can we change the context? How can we support them? Deborah and the rest of the team at Public Agenda made that happen. And this has occurred on a whole range of topics. I don't think that kind of thing just happens magically. With Deborah at the helm, Public Agenda created an environment that helped make that happen.

DW: I would add something, Michael, that neither of us has had a chance to address, something I think is very important. Public Agenda has an incredible board. There are about a dozen people who have very busy lives who are involved in all kinds of unbelievably impressive activities beyond their own immediate concerns and who give of themselves to Public Agenda. They give a kind of time and a kind of attention that one doesn't measure in terms of hours or inches of paper. They give a kind of caring concern for an institution - an idea, really - they believe does not exist elsewhere and that they believe must continue to be part of American life. To work with a board that loves to think about the ideas, of the substance that we deal with, and who are constantly challenging this organization to take on new issues, tougher issues, is such a joy. Ruth will have and extraordinary time with them. And I'm thrilled that I have the opportunity to continue to serve as a member of the board of Public Agenda and, now, I get to kibbitz on the other side of the fence. I think that we are living in very perilous times for survey research. Survey research is under attack - and rightly so in many respects - for the misuse of polling and for the kind of superficial information that is often…

MHR: It's interesting that you raise this, because that is the topic of the Issues in Polling column in this edition's The Public Agenda.

DW: Yes, I think the current state of polling is in question. But Public Agenda is here for a purpose, to give witness. The research that Public Agenda conducts - and this was Dan Yankelovich's invention - insists upon a mixture of methodologies and a depth of analysis and just plain thoughtfulness that consistently adds new dimensions to public debates on very tough issues. And as we struggle to figure out who we are as a nation , as we face increasing anger about America elsewhere in the world, as we try to figure out how really to live with the diversity of populations that call America home - the multitude of tough issues we face - I think that the kind of research we do, and the kind of citizen education that we believe in, is essential. As a nation, we need this sustenance. And we need others who also believe America needs this to join us and to support something that is so rare in the public policy realm.

MHR: Public Agenda is committed to its mission and has many initiatives and new projects that are ongoing, but Ruth you must surely be thinking about some new directions for us. Is there anything you can say about that now?

RW: [long pause] I do think it is premature to think about new directions…

DW: If I can, I'd like to say this.. It's not really about a "new direction." Because we have gained a measure of visibility, a measure of stability, a measure of respectability, we are actually headed in just the right direction. The challenge for Ruth is really just to grab the baton and run with it.

MHR: Sorry to put you on the spot.

RW: No, no. I took your question to mean, are there any areas or issues I want to open up? But I think Deborah is right, we have here a really unique blend of stability and vitality. This is an institution that is highly respected, has unique strengths, unique skills, and unique competencies. And I see my job as injecting a new perspective, but I think the freshness I hope to bring would mean nothing without the stability of what's here. I think maintaining Public Agenda's balance and stability is absolutely essential. It is my dream and my hope that we will be able to take what we have in front of us and build on it. New issues will surface, new questions that we want to ask will become apparent. We need to stick with what know how to do well, and just get better and better at it. Of course we will always be striving to look at things with fresh eyes, we want stable and vibrant. That's the balance.

MHR: Deborah, we're going to miss you. Aside from us, of course, what will you miss most about Public Agenda?

DW: Honestly, I can't really separate the "us" from Public Agenda. I will so miss the conversations around the water cooler. This is a rare environment in which it seems 4,000 ideas per minute are swirling around. And while I don't think I will want for intellectual stimulation in retirement, I do think that there is a kind of a wonderful vitality here that I have taken for granted over the years. And I'm not sure that my husband is going to be willing to pinch-hit for all of the staff at Public Agenda.

MHR: It seems like it has been a pretty smooth transition. Ruth, any surprises positive or negative so far?

RW: I just can't overstate how much I've been welcomed from all the people at Public Agenda. I have also been heartened by the fact that many of the people who know me the best - friends and colleagues I've know over the years - who, when I told them I was to become President of Public Agenda, they said, "OH! Ruth, that's so perfect for you!" I think it's a perfect melding of my professional interests and experiences and my personal values. There is just a volcano of excitement and energy burning inside me!

MHR: Well, you both have been great to take the time to do this. Please tell The Public Agenda readers, from your individual perspectives, the one thing they should know about Public Agenda's future.

RW: What I would say is that Public Agenda has never been needed more than right now.

DW: I completely agree. And I would add that we are grateful to our supporters and contributors as we continue to advance the mission that has always been at the core of Public Agenda's work.