Developing Trust with Extremists

Developing Trust with Extremists

by

What’s become known as the “Aarhus Model” is an interesting take on developing trust with extremists — even those who are tempted to flee to Syria and support ISIS.

It touches on the underpinnings of what we discussed in this month’s Consent-Building Clinic #83, and what we’ve taught in our CPO-2 course that focuses on dealing with extremists.

Listening to opponents Trust and Extremism

That is, it’s not enough to say you care — you have to demonstrate it.

Look into the work of a handful of detectives in the Danish town of Aarhus, who rather than vilify teenagers tempted to join ISIS fighters in Syria, asked them to meet for coffee and then actually listened to how they became so disaffected with their homeland.

For many, if not most of those burgeoning terrorists, being heard caused them to finally believe what the officials and others were saying: they DID care about these youths and their frustrations.

Moreover, the police detectives acknowledged and validated the source of the teenagers’ feelings.

They HAD been treated unfairly, and while that was true they need not abandon Denmark and become radicalized to even the score.

Also laid out before them was that if they continued down the path of terrorism offered by ISIS, these teenagers could expect a grim future . . .

Listen to one of the nearly radicalized teens retell the story in the July 2016 Invisibilia podcast episode “Flipping the Script”.

You’ll hear him say that by simply listening to him — he concluded he could trust these detectives.

They gained credibility with him which was the key to turning his extremist attitude around 180 degrees.

As you heard Hans say in this month’s Clinic, dealing with extremists IS dangerous business.

But until you show them you really do want to understand them, you won’t have the essential trust needed to make progress on de-escalating their (Anti-Government) attitudes and behaviors.

Be sure you’re signed up to receive them!

Until next time, let us know what credibility issues you bump up against.

We are here to help YOU!

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.