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.)

Why Calling a Time-Out is Common Sense for Effective Decision Making

by

A call from some clients highlights that using the tactic of calling for a “Time-Out” is just plain common sense! . . . Provided you HAVE common sense.

When a Feel-Good Project Turns Ugly

A couple of friends – one working for a federal agency, the other serving on a politically appointed local planning board – had been doing what they could to encourage a group of volunteers (members of a Rotary club) to tackle a problem that the town government had been neglecting for too long.

The problem/opportunity: a neglected, even abused, riverfront area.

You’d think that trying to figure out how to stop the erosion, protect other important riparian qualities, and exploring how to make the most of the potential the riverfront offers to enhance the town . . . and its residents’ quality of life . . . would be such a feel-good planning effort that it wouldn’t create much controversy. (Yes, we know, we DO teach that “every solution to a problem will HURT some interests.” But, get real, who is going to oppose THIS kind of planning effort?)

Well – you guessed it – a handful of people became fairly unglued, . . . felt threatened, . . . got quite polarized, . . . dug in their heels, and set off a raucous of protests!

What to Do When Things Turns to Chaos

Our friends, (one of whom happens to be a former student of Hans’ Graduate Community and Regional Planning program at the University of Wyoming), felt that the thing to do was to:

Step back,

  • Help the community explore:
  • Is there really a problem/opportunity that needs to be addressed? . . . Or, is it OK to continue to ignore/abuse the riverfront?
  • If the situation DOES constitute a problem/opportunity, whose responsibility is it to tackle it? . . . (Another way to put this: “Have we – the town – behaved responsibly? . . . Or, have we been dropping the ball?”)

An important caution (from the Bleikers): Don’t rush into solutions . . . Don’t do ANYTHING else. Until the community has come to terms with these questions.

In short, what our friends proposed is EXACTLY what we would have proposed: A “Time-Out.” Even though the protests didn’t seem entirely rational considering the work (i.e. improvements) being proposed,,to ignore them would be a serious mistake.

Although they didn’t call it a “Time-Out,” that’s what stepping back and focusing on the questions “IS there a problem?” . . . And, “IF there IS a problem, WHOSE responsibility is it to do something about it?” amounts to.

When some potentially affected interests go ballistic for no obvious reason . . . When their hard-to-understand behavior derails – or threatens to derail – the planning process, you’ve got to get people back to basics:

Strong, clear answers to these questions form the basis of legitimate planning and give a great example for why calling a “Time Out” is nothing but common sense!

  • IS there a problem/opportunity? . . . One that really HAS to be addressed?
  • IF there IS a problem, who is the appropriate entity to address it? . . .(i.e. Whose mission is it to tackle it?)

A Bounty of Informed Consent Tactics but No Gimmicks

by

Following the March 2011 Brownbag, we received a comment from a listener who was frustrated that we didn’t give, what she felt, was the means to moving a person from the Over-My-Dead-Body position to being at least willing to give his or her Informed Consent.

As a result, we felt it might be necessary to post a reminder that moving such fierce opponents from a staunch position to willingly giving their Informed Consent is the purpose and point of ALL of these Brownbag sessions, as well as our Consent-Building training.

(It is also worth noting that those folks who have been through our SDIC (Systematic Development of Informed Consent) course will get far more out of these Brownbag sessions than those who have yet to go through that most basic training.)

Don’t Bother Learning Gimmicks… They Only Backfire!

There is no quick-fix to getting members of your public (your PAIs) to make this transition. . .

What we teach is first a means to understanding WHY your PAIs are opposed to even your best work, and then WHAT you can do about it. . . Again, to move them up from being Over-My-Dead-Body opponents, to PAIs who give their grudging Informed Consent.

However, none of what you will learn from us is a gimmick. Most gimmicks are slick, spin-based, and illegitimate. You don’t need gimmicks if you are serious about being a public-sector problem-solver, who realizes that the project you and your colleagues are working on is just one of many to come; your credibility and mission cannot afford that! Don’t fall into the temptation to use gimmicks.

Informed Consent Can Create Instant & Incredibly Positive Results

So, we apologize that you won’t get a quick-fix from us. We have a lot of tools that you can apply immediately; many of which will have instant healing effects on your relationship with Over-My-Dead-Body opponents.

But, if you are going to become an Implementation Genius, it’s YOU that needs to change. How your approach your PAIs, your projects, and your overall mission. And as most of us already know, changing old habits generally takes a lot of time and effort, but it IS doable.

If you are ready to undergo a paradigm shift and really communicate with your PAIs and constantly work at developing Informed Consent from your work’s opponents, you will likely notice positive changes overnight.

That in itself is pretty darn amazing, and the closest we can offer to a quick-fix, but with a lot more depth!

What to Expect from the Bleiker Consent Building Blog

by

What this Blog is About . . .

Sometimes, after a Consent-Building Clinic (formerly “Brownbag session”)  is over, the three of us — Annemarie, Jennifer, and Hans – have an afterthought, an idea that we SHOULD have covered . . . but didn’t. Until now we just felt guilty about not having covered a point that we SHOULD have covered. But, we think we can do a lot better than just feel guilty; if we have a blog for each of the Clinic – we figured – we could post ANY and ALL “afterthoughts” on that Clinic’s blog post and, thus, in a modest way continue the session beyond the conference call.

What this Blog is NOT

It is not a substitute for listening in on our monthly Consent-Building Clinics. The blog will not cover the material that was covered in the Clinic. It will simply add some material to that discussion, and help further your understanding of the points made during the Consent-Building Clinic. It is not intended to stand on its own, but rather to serve as an informational supplement to the Clinic topics. To get the most out of these sessions, it is best if you have gone through our most basic SDIC (Systematic Development of Informed Consent) course.

Posting Comments and Questions

If you participated in the Consent-Building Clinic in question, you are welcome to submit proposed postings for that session’s blog. If we consider your proposed posting (of a question, suggestion, or example) furthers the discussion in a meaningful way we will post it on our blog. However, not all comments will be added depending on the volume of comments (as we have several hundred people participating in on any one Clinic).

(See below, for the “Terms of Use” that we will use in determining whether a particular proposed item can or cannot be posted.)

Terms of Use

Relevance

Provided a suggested comment, question, or example furthers that particular Consent-Building Clinic or specific blog posting, and is a significant addition to the discussion we will likely post it.

Comments that are anonymous, profane, redundant, or do not directly relate to the scope of the topic at hand will not be posted.

The only hesitation we have with promising to post even all comments and questions that fall within these basic parameters is that we could be overwhelmed by the number of comments made (since several hundred often participate in a single Clinic), and in order to keep the blog manageable for us and readers. Therefore, we can only promise to do our best and try and sift through all that are submitted in a timely fashion, and post the most powerful and salient of comments.

Contributor

We should note that it is necessary that anyone proposing a comment/question to an item on the blog must have been listening in on the Consent-Building Clinic in question, and must be willing to identify him/herself (including: first and last name, email address, and professional URL — at least to us. We will only publicize a person’s name if we post his/her comment on the blog).

Giving Informed Consent and Non-Adversarial Participation

by

 Question #4 from March 2011 Brownbag
What about when YOU Are the Citizen Whose Consent is Needed?

One listener asked what help, or resources for help, we could suggest for the role we all play when we are in the citizen – or stakeholder – role.

Here’s how she put it:

I just participated in my first Brownbag on the topic of “Consent vs. Consensus” (March 2011). I appreciate that your target audience comprises public agencies, which is where I wear my professional hat. However, I wonder if you have any resources for how public participants (my citizen persona) can “be reasonable” and work on GIVING informed consent and encouraging others to participate in a way that allows for consent?

  • In particular, I am thinking of our local school district (which by the way, could probably use some help in this area) and how, as a parent, I can be involved without coming across as too adversarial (which I’m not, but some of my fellow parents are).

OK . . . Good question! . . . Interesting angle! . . . After all, public officials are ALSO citizens in another context!

There really are two situations in which this question arises. Let’s call them Situations “A” and “B.”

Situation A

This is the situation where you’re concerned about coming across as being “too adversarial” because you don’t entirely agree with what the school board – or its superintendent – is proposing.

In this situation you ARE criticizing their proposal. But, you don’t just want to find fault, you really want to be helpful.

In that case you’re probably asking:

  • “How can I make sure the school district listens to my ideas, and uses them in the constructive spirit in which they offered? . . . What can I do keep them from becoming defensive when I’m really trying to help them come up with an improved proposal?”

Situation B

Although we suspect that the question really was in reference to Situation A, the question also applies to this quite different Situation B.

This is where you are fully supportive of what the school board is proposing. You find nothing wrong with it, but there are plenty of other parents and other stakeholders who DO object to the board’s proposal.

In that situation, you might be asking:

  • “Although it is the school boards job to develop the public’s Informed Consent, is there a role for me in that Consent-Building effort? . . . What, if anything, can I do to keep those of my fellow parents who tend to be adversarial, rather than constructive, from making the relationship unnecessarily polarized?”

Answers to Both Situations A & B

Although situations A and B are quite different, the answers as to what you – as a parent – can do are pretty much the same.

First of all, as you hinted in the original email, it truly IS the school board’s job to develop Informed Consent for whatever they are proposing. . . No one else can really do it FOR them.

What’s helpful in both scenarios is if you make sure that the criticism (in “A” your criticism, in “B” the other parents’ criticism) is explained in terms of the four Life-Preserver points (revisit your notes, or purchase a copy of the recording from the October 2010 Brownbag on: “Using the Bleiker Life-Preserver as a Quick-and-Dirty Consent-Building Tactic”):

  1. Does the board’s proposal, maybe, NOT address a serious problem or opportunity?
    • If it DOES, give them CREDIT for that.
    • If it does NOT, help them re-focus on that question. (In both cases make sure you’re being CONSTRUCTIVE.)
  2. Is the school board, maybe, the WRONG entity to address the problem-at-hand?
    • If they ARE, give them CREDIT for it . . . PUBLICLY.
    • If they’re NOT, help them – and the public – realize that they aren’t the right entity.
  3. Has the school board been REASONABLE, SENSIBLE, RESPONSIBLE in how they have gone about analyzing the problem and generating solutions?
    • If they HAVE, give them CREDIT for that, . . . PUBLICLY.
    • If they have NOT, don’t just criticize them for that. Help identify which specific step in the Problem-Solving/Decision-Making process (refer to the diagram of the 16 Minimum Ingredients of Rigorous Problem-Solving) need to be re-visited and improved on.
  4. Has the school board LISTENED . . . and convinced all the Potentially Affected Interests that it has listened to their concerns?
    • If the board HAS, give them CREDIT for doing so . . . PUBLICLY.
    • If the board has NOT, you can play a constructive role by helping those interests, who are convinced that their concerns have not been heard ,formulate those concerns into CONSTRUCTIVE input . . . rather than just negative criticism.

To the degree you can make some, or all, of these things happen, you will play a constructive role as a citizen in HELPING the school board develop the public’s Informed Consent . . . But, it won’t – and can’t – be a substitute for THEM doing THEIR job.

When Negative Experiences Haunt Your Public Project

by

“Is my relationship with my public doomed by this negative history and past missteps? . . . Is my project forever doomed? . . . What can I do so that past mistakes, real and imagined, don’t totally undermine the chances for accomplishing our mission? . . . Help!”

Well this kind of situation isn’t all that rare. Now and then, you will inherit a project with a bad history. Even if it wasn’t you who were directly involved in that negative history, it still can come to haunt your project. And, it may also be the case that it was you who created it. . . Tune in. We’ll show you that it need not be the end of the world.

Register Online, call us directly at 831-373-4292 or email Jennifer Bleiker at jennifer@ipmp.com