The public don’t like to be told what they can and can’t do

by

Brownbag #69: June 9th, 2015:

“Because we are a regulatory agency, we develop and administer regulations. Our interaction with the public suffers from the fact that people don’t like to be told what they can and can’t do.”

Who can blame them?! . . . None of us like to be regulated. Let’s face it: Being regulated means being constrained, . . . limited, . . . hobbled, . . . i.e. “told what to do.” Our first instinct is to resent being constrained. And, if you’re the ones who are doing the regulating, it’s you who gets people’s resentment.

Even government agencies who aren’t considered to be ‘regulatory agencies’ often wind up creating and/or administering regulations. That’s one reason why government is often resented.(Thomas Jefferson saw that coming!)

This Brownbag focuses on practical DOs and DON’Ts, more specifically, it focuses on what to do to:

  • Making sure that your public views your regulations as legitimate tools for accomplishing your mission.
  • Dealing with the non-sense part of this regulation-hating . . . Because that’s what a hefty part of this resentment about regulations is, a bunch of hypocritical non-sense. But, unless you make people realize it’s non-sense it will continue to be aimed at you.

This Brownbag topic is not only an opportunity, but a downright wonderful opportunity, to get into the nitty-gritty of how to establish and maintain your team’s legitimacy . . . the kind of legitimacy that makes those regulation-haters say: “Thank God you’re there! . . . Thank God someone had the wisdom to create your agency! . . . If you didn’t exist, we’d have to re-invent you!”

If any of your potentially affected interests resent your regulatory actions, . . . for goodness’ sakes . . . join us for this Brownbag; it’s bound to be worth your time.

[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”true”]

Informing, Educating and Communication with the Public without Holding Meetings

by

Now that Brownbag #64 on “How we can involve MORE people . . . As MANY as possible” has been recorded, we’d like to follow up with some specifics to the final DOs and DON’Ts list we gave those who tuned in.

Keeping in mind our main advice:

  • In spite of what your instincts lead you to believe, “involving” people — in and of itself — does NOT help your legitimacy!
  • The number — or percentage — of people you “involve” is NOT the issue!

Instead, what you need to work like crazy to do — even in a Representative Democracy (where the public’s MAIN involvement role is through the election of their representatives) — is to INFORM and EDUCATE both the public-at-large, as well as your project’s Potentially Affected Interests (PAIs), so that they appreciate that:

    1. There really IS a Problem (or Opportunity) . . . One that HAS to be addressed.
    2. Given your mission, it would be IRRESPONSIBLE if you didn’t address it.
    3. The way you’re going about addressing the Problem (or Opportunity) is reasonsble, sensible, responsible.
    4. If you’re proposing a course of action that will HURT some interests, it’s NOT because you’re not listening; it’s NOT because you don’t care; it’s because there is a Problem (or Opportunity) that just HAS to be addressed . . . etc.

This IS achievable!  Involving everyone is not only NOT achievable, it wouldn’t necessarily be helpful!

Although saying it’s “achievable” isn’t the same as saying that it’s easy.  To the contrary.  It’s a challenge. . . A challenge that requires you to get creative in focusing on communicating very specific concepts to specific PAIs.

In this post, we’d like to help give you some guidance on how to creatively and effectively communicate, inform, and educate your public on a shoestring budget applying the list of DOs and DON’Ts we covered in Brownbag #64.

    1. In general, avoid holding public meetings.  Nine times out ten you have less costly Citizen Participation Techniques at your disposal (in terms of staff-hours spent per PAI reached).
    2. Use what we call CP Technique #16A: Using Existing Clubs, Civic Groups, and Other Organizations
      • If you feel that some sort of a Meeting WOULD be a good vehicle to communicate with a particular set of PAIs, consider using OTHER people’s meetings to reach them (rather than holding your own).
      • ​There are dozens of groups, associations, clubs, institutions, etc. who meet regularly anbd often have trouble coming up with a topic of interest, and as a result, are likely to be glad to give you a few minutes on their agenda.
      • When CP Technique #16A is used wisely, it creates — and takes advantage of — symbiosis: they help you inform and educate your work’s PAIs, you help them by offering a topic of interest for their meeting.  Neither party is taking advantage of the other; neither is doing the other a favor.  It helps both you and them meet their own needs.
    3. The same suggestion goes for the situation where you feel that a brochure, pamphlet, flyer, etc. (a piece of writing would best communicate a particular issue to better inform/educate your PAIs).
      • Consider using what we call CP Technique #16B: Inserting your write-up into EXISTING Newsletters or Trade Publications that your target PAIs regularly read.
      • When this tool is deployed successfully, it allows its users to reach audiences that their own brochure would never have reached.  And, it’s cheap!  The “existing” publication does all the time-consuming work (mailing lists, publication, etc.), while you help by providing them (often much needed) material.

You’ll find that these two specific “nitty-gritty” suggestions are consistent with the more “big-picture” DOs and DON’Ts we shared with you during the Brownbag presentation:

  • You’re going out of your way to NOT waste people’s time… That you’re working hard to NOT ask people to donate their scarcest resource of “free time.”  After all, they’re attending a meeting of their organization, one they were going to attend whether you were on the agenda or not​​.

 

  • By going on THEIR turf (THEIR meeting, THEIR newsletter, etc.) your interaction will be less intimidating than if you asked them to come to YOUR turf.
    • One of the consequences of this: The people who hear your presentation — on their turf, as an add-on to the group’s regular agenda — behave differently from the way the very same people behave when they show up at YOUR meeting.
      • When the material is shared at THEIR meeting, on THEIR turf, they will hear you out.  They listen.  They ask questions.  They discuss the issues.
      • The SAME material presented at YOUR meeting, on YOUR turf will cause the SAME people to behave very differently.
      • They are NOT likely to hear you out.  They ARE more likely to posture, grand-stand, etc.
    • A similar psychologcial shift is likely to be at work when you manage to get your written materials into THEIR publication(s), versus communicating the SAME content via YOUR brochure.

Maximizing Public Input, Minimizing Pseudo-Input Into Public Projects

by

In the November 2010 Brownbag session I mentioned how important it is to “Keep an Ear to the Ground” . . . to “Beat the Bushes” . . . to listen to any–even the most unconventional “Input.” And, I gave an example of “unconventional” input on a mountain road realignment project in Wyoming. Right after the session, Jennifer pointed out to me that what’s going on at the moment with what are being called the “Pentagon Shooting,” is a real contemporary example of unconventional public “input.” As of right now (November 5, 2010), what is being called the” Pentagon Shootings” are the following:

  • Someone fired at least 10 bullets into the glass ceiling of the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Triangle.
  • Two days later, six bullets were fired – according to the FBI, by the same gun – through some windows at the Pentagon.
  • Next, a gunman – the FBI is not yet sure that it was done with the same gun – shot up the Marine Recruiting Station in Chantilly.

As I mentioned in the Brownbag session, this – besides being against a bunch of laws – nevertheless, can and ought to be considered “Input” of sorts.
When you get ANY kind of input — even “Input” like this — you need to ask yourself:

  • What does this mean?. . . Why is this happening? . . . If we understand our various public as we think we do, this should NOT be happening!
  • What’s the Message?

Just like the vandalism example of unconventional “Input” that I brought up in the session, the challenge is to INTERPRET the message. There is plenty of room for MIS-interpreting behavior of this kind. If you misinterpret it, you miss the opportunity for making progress in an obviously difficult communications situation.

We have to give the Pentagon and FBI credit for realizing that these shootings DO constitute “Input.” From what we’ve heard in the media thus far, they are making a darn good effort to interpret the weird (or at least unconventional) “Messages.” In fact, they are making a VERY good effort. Our guess is that they’re on the right track.

Here’s what their interpretation – as of today (again, Nov. 5, 2010) – is… They’re saying that their guess is:

  • That someone has “issues” with the Marine Corps.
  • That the person, probably, is a member – or a former member – of the Marine Corps.
  • That, most likely, the person feels that s/he has been unfairly treated.
  • They go on to say that they would like to talk to the person to find out what “the issue” is, so that they – the Marine Corps – can look into whether, maybe, the person has a point and whether something can be done to correct the situation . . . If, indeed, the Corps has been unfair.

It takes a big person – and a big Marine Corps — (“big” in the sense of “the opposite of petty”) to say: “Hey, maybe this person has a point.” when being (literally) shot at.
My hat is off to whoever is doing that kind of head-scratching in the Marine Corps!

One of the courses we teach now and then (in fact, we’re going to be teaching it in Montana in December 2010) is “How to Deal with Domestic Terrorists and Other Extremist Opponents to Legitimate Government Proposals.” If you read the newspapers closely, you will realize extremism is not so unusual, and all too often individuals and groups feel they have to resort to this kind of behavior to effectively be heard.

Dealing with folks who are going off the deep end – like the Pentagon Shooter is – challenges public agencies to respond with brain-power rather than with brawn-power. What you are aiming for in a case like this is for the extremist to come to the conclusion that what s/he is doing is NOT ok. . . And that the agency is being reasonable and fair, and their own extremist behavior is neither reasonable nor fair. The Marine Corps is – at least thus far – on track to do just that.

For that reason, this is a good example of understanding that information comes in various forms, and you better interpret it correctly. In this case, they hope to understand the assumed grievance the shooter has so that things do not get worse and someone actually gets hurt or killed in a future shooting.

Confusing Right to be Heard vs. Right to Prevail – Advice Giving vs Decision Making

by

‘Here’s a question we recently received:

“I [am] the new director of a program that has extensive public participation. What I am finding is that the history and expectation is that some public groups have way too much power over the process. In the last brown bag, I was very much in agreement with the point you made about some groups confusing the right to be heard with the right to prevail. It seems the stage is set in my situation with rather high and difficult expectations and I am wondering how to ‘fix’ this.” – T.K. from NM

Unfortunately, this is a commonplace problem for public-sector professionals; so T.K., you are in good company. At essence to the situation is the problem that members of the public (and probably even some staff) are confusing the roles of Advice-Giving and Decision-Making.

Can We Fix This?

Absolutely. The first step to take is that the MOMENT you realize that the roles of Advice-Giving and Decision-Making are being confused — YOU need to jump on it. Further, you must exploit every opportunity to correct the confusion.

How to Correct the Confusion

Look for opportunities (informal, formal, related to these stakeholders who are confused about their right to be heard versus right to prevail, as well as those that are unrelated) to get your PAIs (Potentially Affected Interests) to understand:

  1. Your MISSION (your agency or organization’s Raison d’Etre – Reason for Being), which includes:
    • WHY your organization was ever created (give the history, of WHEN and by WHOM), and what problems/opportunities it was expected to address
  2. HOW your organization works to accomplish that Mission. In other words, the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making process you and your staff use. Often what the public does not understand is:
    • RIGOR (the thoroughness and objectivity) of the process
    • the FAIRNESS of the process
    • the inherent challenges and resource limitations
    • and your collective continuing effort to be both RESPONSIVE to the public AND, at the same time, RESPONSIBLE to the mission you’ve been given.
  3. You need to emphasize:
    • that the INPUT you need is THAT input that allows you to do your job better… that assists you in accomplishing your Mission.
    • That it would be IRRESPONSIBLE of you to give-in to any input that diverts from your mission. (It is worth mentioning that it IS understandable that some stakeholders will try to get you to do precisely that… After all, they’re not responsible for the mission, on you and your staff are.)

These three steps form the basic Recipe for “Developing Your Legitimacy.”

What Shifts for Stakeholders?

When PAIs/stakeholders understand – and own up to the fact – that YOU have a mission, a RESPONSIBILITY… it’s only then that they are ready to accept that they may have the RIGHT to be HEARD by you and the organization, but that do NOT have the right to PREVAIL.

Some Additional Suggestions

Go out of your way to BLAME YOURSELF (rather than the PAIs) for somehow having created this misunderstanding of roles. Not only is this good diplomacy, it’s also the truth. It IS YOUR FAULT! Even if you are new on the scene, blame yourself and the agency at large for managing to contribute to this confusion.

Why are We at Fault for this Confusion?

Because people almost always confuse Advice-Giving and Decision-Making. . . . UNLESS you work tirelessly to prevent it. Even then, when you have prevented it, you must work to maintain a distinct understanding of the differences. Don’t let people get sucked back into confusion. This is something that requires maintenance on YOUR part.

Although PREVENTING confusion is a lot easier than straightening out confusion after the fact, it IS perfectly doable. Don’t throw up your hands, you CAN get people to understand they have the right to be heard, but not to prevail.

Thank you for bringing this problem up for discussion, and let us know if you (or anyone else) has follow-up questions, problems, or suggestions. We wish you the best of luck on straightening out this confusion about the right to be heard vs. right to prevail. Do keep us posted on how this works for you!

What if You Don’t Have The Consent Building Luxury Ben Franklin Had?

by

Answering Questions from the Consent vs. Consensus (March 2011) Brownbag

Question #1: Getting Informed Consent When Your Project is a Stakeholder’s Worst Option

A listener from the Alaska Fish and Game Department asked a question that Hans promised to answer in the Blog. The participant’s question was along the following lines:

“OK Hans, in your story about Benjamin Franklin – you explained why HE was Consenting to ‘go along’ with the adoption of a Constitution that he, actually, was opposed to. In that scenario, he had the luxury of saying that the consequences of having a walk-out, losing a quorum, and not adopting ANY Constitution would be VERY grave: the British would not only waltz back in, they would probably be welcome to waltz back in because the government that was in place really was NOT working.

  • So, in a way, he had the ‘luxury’ of predicting a very bad scenario, if the delegates did not Consent to the adoption of the Constitution.
  • What if, . . . one doesn’t have that option? In other words, what if the course of action you are asking a stakeholder to Consent to is – at least for that particular stakeholder – far worse than what will happen if nothing gets done (the null alternative)?”

Fair question! . . . And, as Hans mentioned during the Brownbag session on March 8th, he wanted to take more time to answer the question than the remaining time during the Brownbag session was going to allow.

As we see it, there are two different questions contained within the above question. The questioner might have had either one in mind, so we will answer both of them. Let’s call them Question A and Question B.
Question Relative to Situation A:

  • What if the solution (the plan) you are asking stakeholders to Consent to, has serious negative impacts on those stakeholders . . . when, in fact, nothing bad is going to happen – to anybody — if NO solution is implemented?

Question Relative to Situation B:

  • What if the solution (the plan) you are asking stakeholders to Consent to, has serious negative impacts on those stakeholders . . . when implementing NO solutions DOES have dire consequences for some people – but not for the stakeholders in question?

These, indeed, are two very different situations. First, we’ll deal with question A, then tackle question B.

Situation A

When a public agency proposes ANY project, program, plan, regulation, bond issue, taxing scheme, etc. . . . that proposal MUST (at least in the United States) satisfy the 1st and 2nd Laws of Public Administration (which we have defined in our SDIC courses and in previous Brownbag sessions).

Unless the proposal in question satisfies those two GIANT Laws, it is NOT a LEGITIMATE proposal. (Just ask any of your colleagues who have had our 3-day SDIC course within the last 30 years, and they’ll fill you in on this topic!)

Legitimacy is a BIG deal; you, your team, and whatever you are proposing MUST have it. There’s a lot to legitimacy. (We will, in fact, get much deeper into the sub-components of legitimacy as part of the July 12th, 2011 Brownbag session.) But, let us for now, talk about the MINIMUM ingredients of legitimacy; they ARE the 1st and 2nd Laws . . .

1st Law of Public Administration

For ANY public-sector:

  • Project,
  • Program,
  • Plan,
  • Regulation,
  • Taxing or bonding scheme, etc…

that does NOT address a serious problem – or opportunity – and or that’s PERCEIVED not to address a serious problem or opportunity . . . is living on borrowed time.

2nd Law of Public Administration

Unless you can argue convincingly that failure to solve / or prevent the problem-at-hand (or make the most of the opportunity-at-hand) will significantly reduce someone’s Quality of Life below:

  • What it is,
  • What it could be,
  • What it ought to be,

you will have a hard time convincing the American public that the problem-at-hand (or the opportunity-at-hand) is a SERIOUS one.

Now, to answer Question #1

Situation A describes a governmental proposal that fails to meet these two laws.

The consequence is that the public (at least the American public) won’t consider that proposal a LEGITIMATE proposal . . . chances are, neither do YOU.

Situation A DOES happen. And, it DOES need to be addressed. But, it’s not a Citizen Participation problem; it’s a MANAGEMENT problem. Just because it doesn’t involve citizens, doesn’t mean you don’t have to do Consent-Building. But, it’s your boss and your boss’ bosses (i.e. your agency’s policy-makers) whose Informed Consent you need to develop.

You need to get them to consent that your agency shouldn’t be proposing what it is proposing.

If and when you are in Situation A, take a careful second and third look into Steps 1, 2, and 3 (of the Diagram with the 16 Minimum Ingredients of Rigorous Problem-Solving that was included as part of the Handout material for the March 8, 2011 Brownbag.) If YOU feel that “failure to implement a solution” will NOT have serious consequences on ANYONE, you obviously feel there isn’t a “serious problem” (Steps 1 and 2) that your agency – because of its mission (Step 3) HAS TO address.

And yet, the project obviously DID wind up in your IN-basket. What you need to do is develop your boss’ Informed Consent that your agency has better things to do than to address NON-problems . . . And, don’t tell us that it can’t be done. Of course it’s sensitive business! You’ve got to be diplomatic, patient, and – most of all – CONSTRUCTIVE.

You need to ask yourself: “What can I do so my boss, and my boss’ bosses, see what I see?”

You need to use the exact same Consent-Building skills and tactics that you use with your external publics, in other words:

  • The ‘Bleiker Life Preserver’ is probably the most powerful structure for convincing your boss:
  • That continuing to try to sell the public a Solution to a NON-problem damages your agency’s LEGITIMACY . . . not a good idea,
  • That continuing to do things that damage your agency’s legitimacy constitutes a serious problem, . . . one that just has to be addressed, . . . etc.
  • Revisit the October, 2010 Brownbag session “Using the Bleiker Life Preserver as a Quick-and-Dirty Consent-Building Tactic” for an in-depth explanation on how to do it.

Step 1 of EVERY Problem-Solving process is “Define the Problem.” Notice that in the Handout Diagram Step 1 also mentions that you need to “Articulate the Null-Alternative.” If you try to do that in the case of a NON-problem (i.e. in a Situation A case) you’ll stop yourself right there in your tracks . . . right there at Step 1 . . . BEFORE you waste several months of your life, and someone’s tax money!
Remember from several earlier Brownbags that there is much more to the Null-Alternative than meets the eye.

Here’s the definition of the Null-Alternative

“The ‘Null-Alternative’ is that sequence of events that . . . most likely . . . will come to pass, if NO workable solution is implemented.”

Situation B addresses the following

What if the solution (the plan) you are asking stakeholders to go along with, has serious negative impacts on those stakeholders . . . When implementing NO solution DOES have dire consequences for some people – but NOT for the stakeholders in question?
Another way to phrase situation B: What about the situation where the course of action you are proposing IS bad news for a particular stakeholder, and where that stakeholder – therefore—PREFERS the Null-Alternative?

That stakeholder, obviously, has an incentive to torpedo your proposal. After all, that’s how the Null-Alternative comes about: someone finds a way to prevent the implementation of a solution.

Well, if THAT’s the QUESTION, . . . then What’s the Answer?

The answer is simple . . . REAL simple:

  • It’s ALWAYS like that! . . . Situation “B” ALWAYS exists! . . .
  • That’s PRECISELY what Consent-Building is all about. . .

It’s about getting those stakeholders who are going be HURT by your proposal – and who, therefore, OPPOSE your proposal – to ‘go along’ with implementing a solution, . . . a solution that’s NOT in their best interest.

In other words, Situation “B” is not some special case. “Systematic Development of Informed Consent” (SDIC) is the management/and communications strategy for nudging your fiercest opponents off the “Over-my-Dead-Body” position . . . up as high as possible on the Agreement/Disagreement Scale . . . at a minimum up to the “Informed Consent” position. At that point those opponents, though still opponents, are – grudgingly – willing to ‘go along’ with a course of action they, actually, are opposed to.

Needless to say, pulling THAT off is no easy task. Pulling it off ALL THE TIME . . . on EVERY project, on EVERY plan, on EVERY proposal, . . . is what qualifies a person as an “Implementation Genius.” Being able to pull it off all the time – i.e. SYSTEMATICALLY — is so amazing and, to an agency, so valuable is absolutely amazing.

That’s why we have studied the methods and tactics of Implementation Geniuses for decades. And, that’s why we do what we can to teach those of you who are interested in becoming Implementation Geniuses everything we’ve learned in the past 43 years. (1968 was our first encounter with an Implementation Genius.)