Social Media: A Tool or Weapon for Informed Consent Building?

by

Social Media is so much more than a high-tech medium.
But you already knew that, right?

It’s what we call, a “Meta Consent-Building Tool”.

IF (big IF!) you know how to use it, it can do SO much for your effectiveness, credibility, and legitimacy.

Of course, it could just as easily ruin you.

That’s the thing, it’s a great tool, or a weapon — depending on HOW and WHO is using it!

This webinar is geared JUST FOR YOU — if you ever ask yourself:

    • Should we use Social Media? Or will it just put a big target on our back?!?
    • How the heck do we know what to post?
    • What are the risks for a public-sector organization like ours (and/or our clients)?
    • Is there a recipe we can follow when using Social Media?
    • What if someone is using Social Media to spread rumors and misinformation?
    • How do we get the public to engage with us in a meaningful way?
    • What can we do when someone post their opinions as “facts”?

Even if you aren’t ready to get our Guide to Cracking the Code on Digital Engagement & Social Media, you can still download our FREE 7-Point Social Media Checklist.

  • These tools were designed with YOU and your public-sector mission (and critics) in mind.

Why Your Website Needs a Makeover to improve informed consent

by

We’re often asked: “How should we use our agency’s website, Facebook page, Twitter feed . . . to engage with our public?” 

It’s a great question. (One that you won’t find answers for, even if you Google your heart out trying.)

You’re not an employee in a business — so going after “leads” and “conversions” doesn’t translate well into the mission the public gave you.

Yet, your public expects you to have an online presence….!

But how do you do it?!?

Rightly so, you’re probably concerned about:

  • Staff hours spent generating and monitoring Social Media platforms
  • The risk of posts taking on a life of their own and backfiring on the organization
  • Giving the impression everything is up for popularity vote
  • Only scratching the surface on complex projects, and as a result — creating false impression of the key issues
  • Technology and Terms of Use for 3rd Party Platforms change frequently
  • What constitutes “engagement?”  Is it a legitimate objective?
  • What’s the best way to reach our public?
  • “Do people even look at our website anymore?!?”

 

We’ll answer these questions, your specific questions — and more — in our monthly Consent-Building Clinic.

 

During Clinic #74, we’re going to show you:

  • How VITAL your agency’s website is,
  • Why we can virtually guarantee you’re FAILING to use it to inform your public,
  • and Why you’re priorities are all WRONG.

Then, even though we only have 45-minutes with you, we’re going to really shake things up!

Because we’ve got advice that is loaded with value on how to turn your website into a Consent-Building powerhouse.

 

Don’t miss the BONUS video below on “Adding some Kryptonite for Your Opponents on Your Website”

 

Follow these tips and not only will you generate trust, respect, credibility and legitimacy.

Even your work’s fiercest opponents will conclude you’re committed to being fair and transparent (assuming you are!).

Get the Recording

 

Managing Stakeholders: You Can’t Take Sides, but You Aren’t “Neutral” Either

by

Consent-Building Clinic #73: Recorded October 2015

“Our CP Process can turn into a free-for-all of various stakeholders, each fighting as a special interest, . . . while we try to remain neutral.”

“It’s a jungle out there!” is what comes to mind here. Because, of course, it IS a jungle out there! Let’s face it; there is not fuzzy, warm “public.” Your public – on any given Problem-Solving/Decision/Making case – consist of:

  • Individuals, Groups, Corporations, Institutions, Other agencies and Other officials.

Each and every one of them pursuing THEIR agendas – and ONLY their agendas. All of them have their own priorities, values, concerns, worries, fears, hopes, . . . i.e. agendas that they pursue.

You ARE different . . . though “neutral” is probably not the right word to describe that difference. Here’s the real difference:

  • You’re motivated by a RESPONSIBILITY, the responsibility to accomplish your Mission . . . which – strictly speaking – came from the ‘public’, that cacophony of individuals, groups, corporations, etc.

The question, thus, comes down to: “How can you – in the midst of this free-for-all — make sure you are EFFECTIVE?

Get the Recording

 

Don’t Jump to Decision Making Solutions! Protecting Your Public from Fatal Conflict Resolution Pitfalls

by

Consent-Building Clinic #72: Recorded September 2015

Help! When we involve stakeholders early in our planning process – which is something we strive to do – many of them jump prematurely to a solution.”

This can happen even with the more sophisticated stakeholders, such as other government agencies. They immediately want to know: “What are going to DO?” . . . This, at a time when you’re still in the head-scratching phase of trying to understand what the problem is. The trouble is: Early in the process you normally DON’T yet know what the solution is that you’re going to wind up proposing.

 

And yet, if you begin to reach out to these stakeholders only AFTER you’ve decided what solution you’re going to propose, they’re likely to say: “NOW you come to us, AFTER you’ve decided what to do?!”

What we have here, is a head-on collision of several Public Involvement truths:

  • The most constructive public involvement results from EARLY – and continuing – involvement.
  • The first nine steps in any Problem-Solving/Decision-Making process have to do with understanding the Problem and its causes. For example, in our 16-step planning process “Generating Solutions” is Step 10 . . . i.e. It is NOT an early step.
  • But, the human brain – even the brain of subject-matter experts – tends to race almost IMMEDIATELY to the Solution Generation step . . . side-stepping, short-changing, pole-vaulting-over . . . the several Problem Analysis steps . . . It appears that THIS mistake is in our DNA! So, of course your stakeholders are going to make it. Just be sure YOU don’t make it!

 

As is true of so many of the frustrations on which our Brownbag sessions focus, there is a lot more to this particular one than meets the eye. The three enumerated statements, above, ARE true.

The trouble is, every time you think you’re going to involve your stakeholders early in your process, . . . WHAMMO! . . . these three truths collide head-on, creating a public involvement car-wreck!

 

Always remember: It’s for stuff like this, i.e. for figuring out how to minimize damage to your effectiveness in Public Involvement car-wrecks, that you are paid the huge salaries that you are paid (ha!).

Tune in; we’ll do all we can to help you pull the fat out of the fire for your team and demonstrate to your team and your supervisors that you’re worth every dollar of that “humongous” salary.

Get the Recording

 

How the Harbormaster Used This One Tactic to Gain My Trust & Informed Consent

by

How do you gain the trust of your public (including those who aren’t even affected by your work)?

The Monterey, California Harbormaster seems to know.

In Consent-Building Clinic #71, we got into the nitty-gritty of how you can “Convince Stakeholders Their Input Matters (While Setting Reasonable Expectations),” so we’re following up with another example of how to get your public to believe it when you say “We need your input.”

Even though the local officials in Monterey have more trust than their counterparts in neighboring communities, no one believes it when they solicit input.

Except, for the harbormaster . . . When he asks for input, he gets responses that actually impact his work!

What makes him so convincing?

He demonstrates that he means it when it asks for input.  Not that he always uses or follows the input, but he makes it apparent he really is listening to the responses he gets.

Does he use fancy software or surveying devices?  Nope.

Does he talk or write about how he’s “customer-oriented and responsive?”  Heck no!

His tactic is so subtle, his audience probably doesn’t even realize he’s using it.

 

See for yourself if you can detect the tactic.

Here’s an excerpt from a recent newsletter he emailed residents and boat owners in which he discussed the budget he intended to present to City Council for the upcoming year.

The harbormaster explained the projected shortfall he expected if he didn’t increase user fees, and what increases he concluded were necessary.

Then he requested the public’s input . . . Particularly from those who would be paying the higher fees.

 

A month later, the harbormaster emailed an update along the following lines:

  • “A number of you have talked to me about the changes in fee structure that I had in mind; thanks for the various suggestions and ideas.”
  • “Based on what I learned from talking with some of you, I’ve concluded that I was wrong about a couple of the changes I was contemplating . . . Here is my altered budget and fee-structure proposal. I think it IS an improvement from what I had in mind.”
  • “I am intending to present this altered budget to City Council . . . unless some you have further suggestions.”

 

Did you catch it?

He meant what he said!

He demonstrated he meant it by showing how the input caused him to reconsider (and in this case, revise) what he would propose to City Council.

Even though I (Hans) would be affected by the increased fees, I hadn’t been more than a armchair observer of the input the harbormaster was soliciting.

Yet his handling of it affected my attitude and trust of him, even though I wasn’t directly involved.

You can be sure I wasn’t the only one that concluded “this guy means it when he says he wants the public’s input!”

Putting the Harbormaster’s Tactic to Work for You

You need to apply this tactic to convince your public your listening.

If you swipe the harbormaster’s three simple steps, even those unaffected will be convinced you actually mean it when you elicit input:

  1. Genuinely listen
  2. Evaluate what you hear
  3. Explain HOW and WHY you will/not use the input you receive

 

Notice, there’s no chest-beating declaration about truly listening.  There’s simply a demonstration of it.

Put these three steps to work for you and skip the usual cynicism-inducing rhetoric and simply demonstrate you need the public’ input.