Hans

R&D Developer

Alone at age 16, I left my native Switzerland.

Setting off to “do more” than what my social rank permitted, I headed for the “land of opportunity” — the United States.

Over the next several years, my journey led me to become a farmhand in Wisconsin, a cowboy in Wyoming & Montana, an aircraft mechanic for the U.S. Air Force, a graduate of the 6-year Bachelor’s program of Architecture from the University of Cincinnati, and to earn a Ph.D. in Urban Planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 

America proved to be the “land of Opportunity” — as advertised!

Each chapter in my adventure was better than the last.

My architectural education was particularly fulfilling — until it dawned on me that most of my work would consist of designing beautiful structures for wealthy people. Which wasn’t the end of the world, but this was 1966 — a time when cities were burning with social, racial, and economic tension, as the Civil Rights protests heated up.

There were serious problems to solve. . . and I needed to be part of the solution.

So, I pursued a Ph.D. in Urban Planning from MIT, which drew from the design work I did in architecture school and gave me a way to address social, economic, environmental, and transportation issues.

While doing four case studies as part of my Ph.D. research, I made two major findings.

These findings changed my life (and can change yours)…

Finding #1: Even the leading experts are shockingly ineffective. 

With all their data, scientific and expert analysis –  rarely do policymakers and the public adopt expert advice. As a result, few public professionals fulfill their responsibilities (i.e, the mandate or mission the public gave them). 

My research revealed that most public professionals are mired in frustration as the public doesn’t trust or adopt their recommendations, which too often land on a shelf. 

To my surprise, I discovered it isn’t the technical work that’s most difficult…  It’s the “impossible” task of getting “buy-in” from the public and policymakers that causes so many public professionals to feel frustration and despair. 

At the 11th Hour in a planning process, opponents often come out of the woodwork – resulting in political gridlock and attacks on staff for “not involving” them.

Even the most charismatic, experienced, politically astute, and scientifically hard-nosed teams watched their best work get:

Stopped

Stalled

Shelved

Compromised

Torpedoed

And even disparaged…

To my horror, the derailment of critical public-sector plans and projects became not just commonplace but predictable. 

I wasn’t eager to join the corps of frustrated professionals, all of whom were more politically savvy, skillful, and experienced than me. But just as I started to consider returning to Architecture, I stumbled upon another amazing phenomenon (Finding #2). 

Finding #2: A tiny minority of experts are HIGHLY effective.

Unlike their peers, their proposals were:

NOT stopped
NOT derailed
NOT shelved
NOT compromised
NOT torpedoed

These professionals worked under the same constraints, the same contentious political environments, the same disgruntled stakeholders.

Yet, no outraged opponents showed up at the final public meeting… No one accused them of failing to “involve” them. 

Unlike their frustrated counterparts, the recommendations of these experts were approved, funded, and implemented!

So what were they doing differently? 

Not only that, but their analysis, authority, and technical recommendations were identical to those of their frustrated colleagues. 

But the public, policymakers, and especially opponents to their proposals – reacted to them differently. 

Their opponents TRUSTED and RESPECTED them. 

Even though they offered the exact same technical advice as their colleagues who were under attack! 

Not only were these subject-matter experts able to work constructively with opponents, but they were also able to fulfill their responsibilities and public duties. 

I nicknamed these professionals “Implementation Geniuses”. [LINK]

Their professional success was NOT stalled by “political gridlock”. 

They were NOT stopped at the 11th Hour. 

Their credibility and legitimacy were NOT in question.

Their opponents actually TRUSTED them, while maintaining their opposition!

If anything, their public (including opponents) greased the wheels of progress so that their work would be done more efficiently and effectively. 

Because they routinely accomplished the same work in less time and within a smaller budget – they were highly fulfilled in their professional lives. 

If Annemarie hadn’t protested, I would have started my Ph.D. all over, just to figure out what these “Implementation Geniuses” were doing differently.

Instead, I finished my Ph.D., became the Planning Director for the City of Lynn, Massachusetts (population 100,000), later as the Project Manager for a research project at MIT’s Transportation Systems Division, and eventually the Director of Planning for a large Environmental Consulting firm, NHPQ, that worked throughout the Rocky Mountain region.

My last “real job” was as a tenured professor at the University of Wyoming, where I was recruited to create – and then administer – its Graduate Program in Community and Regional Planning. I served as Director of that program for twelve years.

Together with Annemarie and Jennifer, I’ve spent my life studying, simulating, and teaching the innate abilities of Implementation Geniuses. 

So what IS the hidden ingredient in Implementation Geniuses’ effectiveness?

(Hint: it’s what you can learn in our Dealing with NIMBY course.)

About Annemarie

President & Instructor

Several years after Hans, I left Switzerland to join him in pursuing the American Dream. 

Like Hans, I took my role as a US citizen to heart and wanted to contribute to understanding, reducing, and resolving conflict during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s and ‘70s. 

That led to my formal education in Urban Anthropology, with a Bachelor’s degree from Boston University and a Master’s from Brandeis University.

Within Urban Anthropology, I studied a puzzling phenomenon: What affects people’s reactions to the same stimulus (especially those with negative impacts)? 

An incredible case study on this question unfolded right in our own neighborhood as two “hippy groups” established communes across the street from one another. The commune lifestyle clashed — in fact, it offended — the residents and homeowners within our neighborhood between MIT and Harvard. 

What fascinated me was that neighbors tolerated – even embraced – one of the groups, but NOT the other. 

Even though the “negative impacts” of these two communes were the same on the neighbors, those who found their lifestyle offensive reacted to each group differently. 

I became fascinated with exploring what imperceptible differences the less-than-welcoming residents saw or experienced between the two, as there were no obvious differences based on usual demographics, lifestyle, or their impacts on surrounding neighbors. 

The result of my research led me to conclude that even in the face of obvious conflict, common ground CAN be found. 

• Even when everyone was convinced none existed!

Not only was this a major outcome of my thesis, but it aligned beautifully with Hans’ discovery that it IS possible to earn opponents’ Informed Consent as a form of agreement – even when they’re still opposed. 

Like the case of the communes in Cambridge, we discovered the professionals who work at developing opponents’ Informed Consent –  experience a constructive and collaborative form of conflict – rather than a destructive and intractable form of conflict. 

Ever since graduate school, we’ve worked to understand, develop and systematize the techniques and tactics Implementation Geniuses intuitively use.

Over the last several decades, we’ve traveled over 3 million miles, training tens of thousands of professionals with our Consent-Building approach – leading many students who weren’t naturally inclined to become Implementation Geniuses themselves!

About Jennifer

jennifer@consentbuilding.com

Instructor & Online Content Developer

Growing up with Consent-Building jargon, I always found my parents’ work interesting, but wholly different from my desire to become a doctor of medicine.

(Nonetheless, it was great fun to practice their Consent-Building tactics when lobbying my parents for something — especially when I succeeded!)

After getting a Bachelor’s at Smith College in 1998, I began working as a Case Manager and Research Author for a pediatric malnutrition unit in Boston’s inner city.

There I saw how breakdowns in communication and trust resulted in serious issues for children, their families and public health in general.

Nearly all of the doctors I had worked with and studied under felt frustrated and ineffective because of these breakdowns, health care misunderstandings by patients,  and even patient distrust of their doctors.

This reality shook me to the core.

I left Boston Medical Center and started part-time work for my parents so I could study for the medical entrance exams (MCATs), still determined I’d be unlike most doctors and feel effective — not frustrated.

Occasionally traveling with my parents to do training in New England, I constantly encountered long-time and new students of their Consent-Building methodology who strongly encouraged me “not to let their work die with them”, but to follow in their footsteps.

Over time, it occurred to me that when public agencies are successful in solving legitimate problems, in a responsible and responsive way — not only does the whole community benefit, but the negatively impacted opponents specifically experience tremendous healing effects.

Serving others, having a meaningful impact, and helping the underdog felt essential to me, and I realized I had a unique opportunity to do that by joining my parents in teaching their Consent-Building methodology.

While working for and learning from my parents, I earned a Master’s in Public Policy from New England College.  I also became a professional firefighter/EMT, and a Fire Department’s Public Information Officer north of Boston.

Even with a mission as straight-forward as that of a firefighter/EMT, I witnessed how commonplace it was for there to be a lack of trust between supervisors/subordinates, council-members, residents, taxpayers, counterpart organizations, union leaders and administrators, and (perhaps less surprisingly) between the department and local journalists.

Five years later, I left the fire department when I married an Army officer and we started a family.

Even in this new sub-culture of the military, I discovered how natural it is for people to mistrust authority.

This was true even among Army spouses and family members; and an inbred reflex among the civilian world to distrust its military leaders.

In support of my husband’s role as a commander, I became a Family Readiness Group Advisor, which only reinforced the importance of  being BOTH Responsible and Responsive, of having respect (but not necessarily being liked), and the importance of getting the Informed Consent of decision-makers. 

Combining my time in healthcare, as a firefighter, military spouse, FRG advisor, my education, and over 15 years as a partner of the Institute for Participatory Management & Planning (IPMP) and co-trainer, I’m dedicating my life’s work to helping public-sector professionals be more effective at fulfilling their mission.  

Of particular interest to me is how those in the public-sector should (not) use Social Media to develop Informed Consent — particularly of their proposals’ opponents.  (My master’s thesis was on this topic, and I continue to research, write and present on it.)