google-site-verification=w8dBP0oN7_5zfz3BhWTpt7x2hFhYKhjavAlSPkeo8x0

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.

 

Conflict Resolution: Ever Heard these Devastating Words from Your Public (or Your Spouse)?

by

In Consent-Building Clinic #70, we discussed “What to Do when Your Public is Convinced it’s Too Late to Give Input (and How this Hurts Your Credibility).”

One of the most serious facets of this issue, and related topics we’ve discussed in Clinics (Brownbags) #5, 30, 51, and 60, is the devastating accusation from the public that “You’re Not Listening!”  And worse, that “You Don’t Care!”

In this short segment, we round up our discussion on this critical issue and how you’re likely proving yourself guilty of the accusation — even if you’re actually not guilty of it!

What?!?!

Watch the video below now.

It’ll make sense of:

  • How you can be both guilty and not guilty of “not listening/caring,” 
  • Why your public is convinced you’re nothing but guilty.

 

What are the specific ways you and your team are working to correct this misperception?

If you, or your agency, have been guilty of not truly listening and/or caring — what made you realize you were paying more lip-service than genuinely listening and caring?

Overusing Techniques such as Meetings & Committees for Public Engagement & Decision Making

by

Following this month’s Brownbag Session, we had a couple of questions that need answering… Feel free to add your own questions or thoughts at any time.

Question #1

Are other forms of Social Media more Useful than a Blog?

Hans recommended moving to virtual advisory committees via a blog; our group liked the idea but some participants suggested that social media such as Facebook have overtaken blogs and would be a better choice. Can Hans discuss this question on the IPMP blog? Thanks! -Karen

You are right that there are many other means of communicating with a group of PAIs (Potentially Affected Interests), that in some ways might be more effective than a blog. We have analyzed what does and doesn’t work through the research I’ve (Jennifer Bleiker) conducted in order to write my Master’s thesis on the various pros and cons of using different forms of Social Media as tools to communicate with various publics.

From what we can tell, a blog tends to be more comprehensive in that you are not limited to 140 characters as you would be with Twitter, or 450 with Facebook (although there are plug-ins which allow users to create longer documents within Facebook outside of status updates).

The major drawback to a blog is that people have to take the initiative to go to YOUR site to read it, rather than opening up a platform (such as Facebook or Twitter) that they are already using, and simply getting an update on your project without any additional effort on their behalf. That being said, in the case of an Advisory Committee that meets in person (and as mentioned by one participant in the Brownbag session as many as 50+ hrs a year), going to a website is a lot less inconvenient than aligning several schedules to meet in person.

While a blog is one of the less convenient Social Media tools you might consider using to communicate with PAIs because it requires them to go to your blog’s page, it is worth noting that it can be somewhat difficult to ensure that PAIs read or are exposed to a status update from a project or agency’s Facebook page or Twitter feed. The reason being is that the timing of the update may not coincide with when they are using or checking that particular medium. In other words, the message sent out might get lost among other status updates unless the user goes to that agency or project’s specific Facebook page or Twitter feed.

As with many of the Citizen Participation tools we discuss in the CPO course, we have found that it appears most useful to use BOTH a blog and other forms of social media. This way, each is supplemented so that the weaknesses are not quite as likely to hinder effective communication, and the strengths can be more fully utilized.

So, in the case of an agency or project that has a blog, we would recommend using that as the place to develop a more thorough discussion on a particular topic. The blog (and associated website) would enable an agency to also post links to relevant video, plans, other websites, contact information, upcoming and past information, etc. that would more fully inform PAIs. Then, we would encourage the use of platforms like Facebook and Twitter to alert people to these blog updates, to give them a sense of what is discussed, and to pique their interest so that they are more likely to follow what is going on with the project.

Micro-blogging tools (such as Facebook, Twitter, Google +, etc.) are just that — great for micro- or mini-blogging. They allow an agency to bring up things that might be too insignificant for a blog, but can be said in a snippet.

As you learned in the SDIC course, it is often imperative that you get bold, or even provocative in your communication with your PAIs so that they are more likely to pay attention and tune-in to what and why things are happening in relation to the project. Using these micro-blogging platforms are a great way to bring up sensitive information, and can be another facet of the tactic of “Public-Hangwringing” (a previous Brownbag topic).

So, in the case of creating a “Virtual Advisory Committee,” we think that using a couple of different and complimentary social mediums is the best way to go. That is, unless the discussions need to be closed to the public. In that instance, creating a Facebook “Group” or a Google + “Circle” might be easier than a blog that cannot be accessed by the general public.

Otherwise, using micro-blogging tools such as Facebook will allow you to reach the folks who will never have or take the time to go to your particular blog or website, and yet you can still alert that via Facebook that an even more thorough and dynamic conversation is taking place on the project’s blog.

Again, we highly recommend that any blog or Facebook page be well monitored. It’s best if folks are allowed to post messages and comments to a blog, but that those comments are either vetted before they go public, or are watched extremely closely. Comments on a Facebook page will be instantaneous, so it’s important to figure out who and how someone will react if something inappropriate or off-topic is posted. Ideally, such guidelines are posted to your website and/or Facebook page well in advance, so that your PAIs are forewarned that not just anything can be posted.

Question #2

How Useful is an Advisory Committee when they ARE the Decision-Makers?

I found yesterday’s brownbag topic to be very relevant and interesting. I was also quite intrigued by the use of virtual meeting and committees. I had a question about the usefulness of an advisory committee when they are actually the decision makers – they are given a set of options or guide lines and as long as the decision is w/in the guide lines it’s approved. If there is any blow back from the public they are given the contact info for the committee members to call and complain because they are responsible for their decisions. Thanks, Brenda

In this Brownbag session, Hans was talking as if there was only one kind of advisory committee, when in our SDIC course we cover 10 different kinds. Most of those we discuss are Content-Type advisory committees, but there are situations when Popularity advisory committees are useful.

To determine if a Popularity-Type advisory committee is warranted, you’d have to be able to determine that it is a situation where all of the different approaches to the project (i.e. all of the solutions) would work technically as well as any other.

For example, a planner who outlined several kinds of playground equipment that would be technically acceptable to meet the requirements for a new children’s’ park, might decide to use a Popularity-Type advisory committee composed of parents to select from the list of equipment because the differences were technically immaterial, but perhaps important to parents.

Another example of when it would be appropriate to use a Popularity-Type of advisory committee would be for wildlife biologists who manage a reservoir used for sport-fishing. While it may be technically insignificant whether the team of biologist stock the reservoir with a small quantity of large fish, or with a large number of small fish (only that it is one or the other, but not both); they may decide to use a Popularity-Type advisory committee to allow the stakeholders (in this case the sports fishermen) to select between the two alternatives.

Hans didn’t touch on this kind of advisory committee, so we are glad you brought it up. The first decision you must make is if an advisory committee is the appropriate Citizen Participation tool to use at all. If so, you must then determine the nature of the advice that you are seeking on your project.

As long as professionally and technically the differences between the alternatives from which a Popularity-Type advisory committee has to choose from is insignificant, then it is fine to use such a technique (instead of a Consent-Type of advisory committee). The result is that Popularity-Type advisory committees make the ultimate decision between the various (technically identical) options, which is very different from the role of Content-Type advisory committees.

Our only warning is that you be certain this is the kind of advice you are seeking, otherwise you’ll end up making the serious, but common, Error #3: of “Confusing Advice-Giving and Decision-Making.”