google-site-verification=w8dBP0oN7_5zfz3BhWTpt7x2hFhYKhjavAlSPkeo8x0

If Public Officials Shouldn’t Rally Support for informed consent, is Same True for Private-Sector?

by

We received a question from a listener following Consent-Building Clinic #81.

To paraphrase John’s question:

If rallying support in the public-sector is likely to backfire (and create more distrust) does the same go for the private-sector?”

(To hear John’s actual question and a summarized response, watch the video below.)

 

John is right, our answer and cautions ARE different for those working in the private-sector.

  • The short answer is — “Yes… BUT”

 

Here’s the “Yes” part . . .

Yes they can.  Private-sector entities have every right to lobby FOR their proposal and to hustle up other supporters.

After all, they ARE a stakeholder — i.e. a self-serving special interest.

While they CAN do that, don’t assume that the public is naive about this!

As we mentioned in Clinic #81, the public takes the self-serving nature of a stakeholder’s actions and arguments into account.

 

Here’s the “BUT” part . . .

Professional consultants — a role we’ve often filled, both for private clients (e.g. developers), as well as public-sector clients — however, need to careful just how far they go in advising a private client that she/he should drum up the support of OTHER stakeholders who — in their self-interest — may help give the impression there’s a lot of “public” support for the client’s proposal.

 

Keyword here is “professional” consultant.

Generally, a “profession” is a discipline — or an area of expertise — that PROFESSES to be motivated in the manner society has defined appropriate for that “profession.”

Think about how American society has defined…

    • the medical profession as serving first, and foremost, the health and well-being of the patient.  Period.  (Hence why the medical profession has trouble dealing with the “right-to-die” issue.)
    • the legal profession’s mission to advocate UTTERLY in the client’s interest.  Period.  Even if that client is a mass-murderer.
    • the civil engineering profession’s mission to serve — ultimately — the safety of the public.  Regardless of who the actual (paying) client is.  Period!

 

Back to John’s question —

Unlike public-sector clients, private clients CAN do virtually anything (within limits of the law) — that serves their self-interest . . .

      • The professional consultant’s advice to such a client MUST be tempered by the his/her code of ETHICS.  Even if it is NOT in the client’s interest.
      • Each profession defines what behavior would be considered “unethical” or “unprofessional”.

 

Whenever we, the Bleikers, agree to work for private clients, we generally warn them (in writing) that we DO subscribe to the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Certified Planners.

For that reason, we can help private-sector clients only insofar as they don’t do anything, we’d feel, would harm the public’s interest.

 

To drill down more into John’s question —

What do you do when a private-sector client proposes to drum up supporters in order to. . .

    • mislead policymakers into thinking there’s more support than there really is?
    • bully decision-makers into an unwise decision?
    • interfere in any other way with the elected officials making an informed decision?

 

If it was our client suggesting such reasons to rally support, we’d strongly advise against it.

If the client insisted, we would have to end our role as we couldn’t be party to such manipulation.

And so too, we advise you to stick to the moral high ground, and encourage your private-sector clients to do the same.

Taking the high road won’t backfire, whereas other tactics eventually will, even in the private-sector.

Anti-Government Groups & Conflict Resolution: Are You Making Matters Worse by How You Define Your “Public”?

by

Things in Burns, Oregon might get have officially turned ugly.

And while the folks at the wildlife refuge in Oregon aren’t your average opponents, their stance isn’t legitimate, there is an element of their stance that no public official should ignore…

Unfortunately, NO ONE is immune from anti-government attitudes.

(Ironically, especially in a democracy… But we’ll cover that topic on March 8th in Clinic #78.)

  • Because this attitude is something you either ARE dealing with or likely WILL be confronted with, we’ve adopted “Anti-Government” as our theme for all of our monthly Consent-Building Clinics in 2016.

In a self-governing society, it’s THE PUBLIC who decides — via our rules based decision-making process — what government institutions it wants to create and maintain.

If you encounter stakeholders who perceive an “Us vs. Them” relationship between the (them) public and (you) the government . . . something’s gone wrong.

Chances are it’s simply a misunderstanding . . . a misperception.

Because even “simple” misperceptions can be challenging to correct, don’t expect that lecturing these folks is going to change their view of the world.

 

Your stakeholders need to discover . . . they need to see — with their own eyes — and conclude on their own terms that it’s ultimately THEY, the people (i.e. all of us) who make all the decisions.

It’s WE, the people, who created your agency and it’s mission.

  • It’s critical that your stakeholders realize this paradigm-changing insight.

But how do you stimulate you stakeholders to have such a critical insight? 

 

While there’s no quick-fix, there IS much you can do.

The first of which begins by answering 6 Questions

  • In addition to the recording of this webinar, we’ve created a follow-up video with 6 questions to help you make real headway in preventing such attitudes from being aimed at you and your organization.

Starting with the basics in this recorded webinar, we delve into every angle of WHY Anti-Government sentiments are ratcheting up all across the country, and WHAT you can do to diffuse them, and even better yet — PREVENT them in the first place — from impeding your ability to accomplish your mission.

In this session, we’ll cover something so SIMPLE and yet POWERFUL . . .

6 Points We Cover

1. How you DEFINE “public” and “stakeholder” plays a central role in anti-government attitudes towards you and your agency.

2. Whom should you INCLUDE and EXCLUDE in your definition?

3. Should your definition of your “public” and related “stakeholders” SHIFT from project to project?

4. How should you handle people who THINK they are affected?

5. What’s the appropriate ROLE of number of constituents, majority vs. minority opinions, and representativeness?

6. How to identify WHICH of the 4 Fundamental Points your team is failing to address.

 

Don’t be caught off guard by anti-government attitudes that are sweeping the country!

 

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

by

“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

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

 

2 Key Ingredients to Establish Public Legitimacy for Agency Regulators

by

If you work for a regulatory agency, or even if you don’t — but you administer regulation — you must have these two key ingredients to establish Legitimacy among your public.

In the short video below, we’ll follow-up the discussion from Consent-Building Clinic (Brownbag session) #69: “Regulating a Public Not OK Being Dictated To.”

Listen closely, and you’ll hear how identifying yourself, your team, your agency as “regulators,” is only making matters worse.

Then you’ll hear precisely what you need to communicate to your public instead.

Time to Hear from You

In the comments, share with us:

  • Lessons you’ve learned on establishing your work’s Legitimacy,
  • How you maintain Legitimacy with your public (particularly your fiercest opponents — always where we put our Consent-Building focus), and
  • Other obstacles you face when it comes to issues of legitimacy.

 

*Help out your friends and colleagues by sharing this blog with them.  Like you, they have important missions to accomplish, and need all the help they can get to establish their work’s legitimacy.

Continuation of Preventing CP Error #5

by

To finish up on the last few points in this month’s Brownbag session, we left off in your handouts at IV. Fundamentals for Preventing / Correcting CP Error #5, item C on page 14, this was the last of three (A-C) points.

Here are the rest of the finer points we wanted to relay to you . . .

IV. CP Error #5C: Implementation Geniuses are Flexible about SOME things, and NOT about others

  • Their Mission is NOT negotiable . . . They are intent on accomplishing it.
  • They are very flexible on HOW to accomplish that mission.

These two points are probably a good short-hand rule for getting THIS part of CP Error #5 right.
It’s best if you can get clear in YOUR mind and in your publics’ minds that:

  1. You have every intention of accomplishing your mission . . . that you fully expect to SOLVE the problem at hand, that your Mission is NOT negotiable, and that you WILL fulfill your RESPONSIBILITY.
    But . . .
  2. You DO have an OPEN mind about HOW to accomplish your Mission . . . as long as it gets accomplished! Get them to conclude that you are willing to try to be Responsive to PAIs’ concerns, as long as it does not involve compromising your Mission.

V. The Damage / Costs of CP Error #5

A. Trying to sell the public a bill of goods that you, yourself, haven’t bought into is a truly cynical thing to do.

  • It creates mistrust and disrespect for you and your agency.Don’t EVER contribute to such sentiments!
  • If you DON’T have some Hidden — agenda, goal, objective (and we trust you don’t!) . . . Then you’ll WANT to do each of the 16 technical steps as rigorously, honestly, and transparently as humanly possible!

Here’s the Rub

You may NOT have a Hidden Agenda at all . . . But, if some of your stakeholders THINK that you’re NOT interested in doing the 16 Technical Steps rigorously, honestly, and transparently . . . Then, they will conclude you must have a Hidden Agenda!!!
Creating THAT kind of impression with your public is far worse than shooting yourself in the foot at the start of a marathon race. It’s more like shooting yourself in the knee-cap!
Giving the impression that you DO have a Hidden Agenda is a phenomenally stupid thing to do!
We are continually amazed how many public-sector professionals, who are otherwise sensible, manage to continually do this . . . And, therefore, to keep suffering the consequences of:

  • Mistrtust
  • Suspicion
  • Cynicism
  • Skepticism

All of it feeding already rampant ANTI-government attitudes . . .

It is also demoralizing for you and your team . . . You can’t afford to do that!

B. Refusing to Speak Up for Your Professional Colleagues

i.e. Failing to explain, justify, represent those Rules, Regulations, Standards, Guidelines, and Laws that you are implementing, but instead to just remark “Don’t blame me for these stupid guidelines, I just work here.”

  • This is the quickest, surest, most fool-proof way to create CONTEMPT for you and your agency.
  • There’s NO good reason why ANYONE would want to do THAT!

C. If you become SO responsive where you start to compromise your Mission

  • Your public might LIKE you, . . . But, they will no longer RESPECT you!Realize that if you have an important public-sector Mission . . .
  • Being LIKED is neither possible, nor necessary.
  • However, being RESPECTED is both possible AND necessary.

VI. Important Concepts to Help Prevent CP Error #5

Look at your Decision-Making environment in a holistic way.

“Talking Back” about Technical Steps – especially Judgment Steps — simply amounts to Internal Consent-Building . . . i.e. Getting your boss’ consent to make a mid-course correction in your Planning Process.

For those of you who ARE responsible for the Citizen Participation side of the two parallel processes we often bring up (doing Consent-Building simultaneously as you do your Technical work — those 16 steps):
1. Play the Devil’s Advocate . . .

  • Ask any and all questions a future opponents is likely to ask. Insist that the technical folks give you the ammunition to understand AND answer those questions, so that you can DEFEND the Problem-Solving / Decision-Making process — on EACH and EVERY one of the 16 steps!
  • Remember, finding fault with any of those 16 steps is the EASIEST line of attack, and, therefore, the FIRST line of attack your opponents will use to torpedo your proposal.

2. Get so comfortable and confident with those 16 Technical Steps where YOU will go public — aggressively — with the WEAKEST points in them BEFORE your opponents can go public with them!

All of this is about Consent-Building . . .

  • Developing Informed Consent among internal PAIs that each of the 16 Technical Steps is DEFENSIBLE (i.e. is completed with a reasonable amount of rigor),
  • Developing Informed Consent among external PAIs. . . Ideally, on a pay-as-you-go basis for each of the technical steps so THEY come to the conclusion that what you’re proposing IS the right thing to do!
  • And if not on a pay-as-you-go basis, then AFTER you have done your technical work that: there is a serious problem / opportunity (one that HAS to be addressed); you are the right entity to address it (that, in light of your Mission it would be IRRESPONSIBLE if you didn’t address it); that they WAY you are going about addressing that problem (your Problem-Solving / Decision-Making process) is reasonable AND responsible; and that you DO care (if you’re proposing a course of action that’s going to HURT some interests, it’s NOT because you don’t care, it’s NOT because you’re not listening. . . ).

Recognize that you ARE part of government. Talking in a “blaming” way about other governmental entities breeds disrespect. Moreover, it’s unfair to your colleagues and their work, and it reflects poorly not only on them, but on ALL government — including you!
Don’t give in to the hypocritical temptation to bad-mouth “politics.” Using the term “politics” as if it were a four-lettered word.
When some of your colleagues talk of “politics” as if it were a curse word, point out to them that it’s utterly hypocritical to whine about “politics” while insisting on living in — and in your case WORKING in — a democratic system of government.
“Politics” is how democracies make decisions! Is it complicated? Is it crazy? Of course! But, the alternative is to NOT live and work in such a system.