by consentbuildin
People Often Bypass Our Public Involvement Process, and Go Straight to the Political Decision-Makers which is a phenomenon that you can see happening at every level of government.
Although it’s not necessarily a disaster, you should not ignore it. After all, if your outreach efforts are effective, people shouldn’t need the need to end-run the professionals. If it gets bad enough, this can pretty much undermine your whole public involvement effort. That’s why we feel you need to do what you can to prevent it before it starts. And – if it’s to late to prevent it – you need to take steps to deal with it.
To register call us directly at 831-373-4292 or email Jennifer Bleiker at jennifer@ipmp.com
by consentbuildin
Crisis Management 101
Whatever “Leadership” is, one of its components is “Crisis Management.” Why? . . .
Because that’s one thing administrators, managers, . . . leaders . . . find themselves in: crises.
Leaders Deploy Two Kinds of Crisis Management
One of them (let’s call this “Type A Crisis Management”) is when some awful thing happens, some highly unusual, terrible situation – an airplane crashes in your downtown, an earthquake or flash flood destroys an area, it is discovered that people for whom you’re responsible have done a terrible thing, etc. – and you, as a leader, have to “manage” this crisis.
In that sort of situation, you have to figure out what immediate steps to take, how to respond to the media who are descending on your community from afar. You have to “manage” this rather unmanageable crisis that you find yourself in.
1st Type of Crisis Management
This first kind of “crisis management” refers to how leaders deal with the crisis-at-hand. Examples of this kind of crisis management include:
- A1. How the various public officials responded to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina
- Officials of the City of New Orleans
- Louisiana and Mississippi State Officials
- Federal officials in such agencies as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Corps of Engineers, and others
- A2. How the Executive branch of the US government — and how the New York City First Responders — managed teh response to the 9-11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (September 11, 2001)
- A3. How the US Treasury Department (Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke) managed the Financial Crisis that was triggered by an overnight inter-bank credit freeze in September of 2008
- A4. How an organization – in the private or public sector – handles the public revelation that its staff has been guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, and worse: corruption or moral turpitude.
2nd Type of Crisis Management
The second kind of “crisis management” (let’s label “Type B Crisis Management”) refers to how you manage your normal, day-to-day management responsibilitieswhile you’re in the midst of a crisis. . . i.e. How you guide your organization as it tries to perform its routine, normal functions at a time when things are far from normal because there is some sort of crisis that is taking place.
Examples of this kind of crisis management include:
- B1. How government entities in New York – such as police or firefighters not directly involved at the World Trade Center — tried to continue performing their normal functions . . . in spite of what was happening at the World Trade Center.
- B2. How organizations – private or public – tried to continue with their normal functions . . . in spite of the disruption caused by Hurricane Katrina, such as, the New Orleans Police Department, the Times-Picayune newspaper, local hospitals, local public utilities, etc.
- B3. How an organizational leader tries to motivate – but also re-direct – the organization’s staff even though a scandal is unleashing a torrent of harsh criticism in the social media . . . as well as in the traditional media.
On-Going Example in the News
At this writing (spring 2014) serious students of leadership are being treated to a ring-side seat at a classical “Crisis Management” event:
- General Motors CEO Mary Barra’s handling of a crisis that landed in her lap.
GM’s Board of Directors appointed her, a 30-year GM employee, as the company’s new CEO on January 15, 2014.
Two months later she is faced with having to handle the kind of crisis that makes for the kind of classic case study that constitute the core of most graduate management programs.
Here’s the Crisis GM CEO Barra has to handle:
By mid-March 2014, it was revealed that GM safety engineers knew years ago (for as long as 10 years) that the ignition switch in hundreds of thousands of Chevrolet Cobalt vehicles had potentially fatal defects. The defect could, under certain conditions, disable the car’s air bag.
In spite of mounting evidence. . .
- GM lied to the families of accident victims about what they knew,
- GM refused to talk to one survivor family unless it was through their attorney (they did not have an attorney because they were not suing GM),
- In a case where a survivor family did sue them, Gm called their lawsuit “frivolous” . . .
An Exercise in Crisis Management 101
What Would YOU Do in the GM Recall Crisis?
So, let’s stop the clock right there and put on the Crisis Management thinking cap . . . Imagine YOU (rather than Mary Barra) are the new CEO of GM, and the very damaging revelations are not just shocking the public, they’re shocking GM employees (because very few of them were privy to what the safety engineers and the attorneys knew); the revelations are equally shocking to you!
You need to think — and plan — how you ought to proceed with managing the Type A and the Type B Crises. i.e. How to deal with the storm of a quickly widening public and legal scandal, as well as with managing the rest of the organization — that’s trying to produce competitive cars — while this storm plays out.
You’ll get the most out of this if you:
- Go online and read more background on the case.
- One link, http://ow.ly/v9e95 gets you to the USA Today article by Hillary Stout, Bill Vlasic, Danielle Ivory, and Rebecca Ruiz: “Carmaker Misled Grieving Families on a Lethal Flaw.” It is a pretty good description of the smoking gun that cinches GM’s guilt. It gives you sense of the questions the Congressional Committee that you’re going to face next week will be asking you.
- Another link, http://ow.ly/v9dOM gets you to the very perceptive USA Todayarticle by Michael Wolff: “Wolff: GM’s Barra shames voiceless CEOs.” This piece Wolff’s is insightful, explaining just how uncommon, how unusual, Mary Barra’s approach to managing this crisis is.
- And finally, the link http://ow.ly/v9dUG takes you to a NY Times article by Vindu Goes: “G.M. Uses Social Media to Manage Customers and Its Reputation.” In it, he gives some examples of how they are using Social Media in a very creative, gutsy way, as one of their Crisis Communications Tools.
2. Discuss what you think of all this with a colleague or two.
3. Then, submit your thoughts to Jennifer (jennifer@ipmp.com). She’ll post those of your comments that meet this blog’s “Terms of Use,” and we’ll pick up the discussion from there.
by consentbuildin
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”]
by consentbuildin
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:
- There really IS a Problem (or Opportunity) . . . One that HAS to be addressed.
- Given your mission, it would be IRRESPONSIBLE if you didn’t address it.
- The way you’re going about addressing the Problem (or Opportunity) is reasonsble, sensible, responsible.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
by consentbuildin
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.
by consentbuildin
‘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:
- 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
- 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.
- 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!
