- Vicki Mayes, City Manager, City of Boulder City, NV
Many of you have been telling us (for years) that we needed to provide you the opportunity – via some sort of low key networking – to further develop and sharpen the consent-building skills that you first learned in one of our Consent-Building courses.
Although we always agreed that this was a very real need, only recently have we taken steps to do something about it.
We are teaming up with the Caruso Group in Colorado to offer a once-a-month workshop via a 90-minute conference call for a nominal fee ($179 regardless of the number of people listening in).
They are handling the phone logistics and registrations, while we worry about content.
If you have questions about how to register, call-in, or any other Brownbag logistics feel free to contact us or the Caruso Group (by phone: 303-694-4728, or Email).
On the first Friday of every month, we will offer a 90 minute brown-bag workshop to people who have had some or all of our SDIC Consent-Building training.
The Caruso Group has extensive experience conducting conference-call-based training for various professional groups and trade associations; they will handle the registration and all the logistics
Each month we will tackle a new, timely, and practical topic. The sessions will start at 12:00 noon and go until 1:30pm (Rocky Mountain Time).
For about 60 minutes, we’ll give a presentation on the topic of the month, including advice on how you can deal with those challenges.
During the last 30 minutes of the session you’ll have the opportunity to ask questions and/or bring up issues (relative to the topic at hand) that may be unique to you, but that everyone else who is in on the conference call will benefit to hear us do our best to answer.
For the first twelve sessions, we have selected topics that regularly come up during the course or in one-on-one coaching sessions.
As many of you know, we often coach agencies who are using the Consent-Building approach their staff learned in one of our SDIC courses, but who face a particular challenge of one sort or another. These coaching arrangements usually consist of us helping the client agency’s team deal with those challenges via a series of periodic (weekly-or-so) conference calls.
Although the public involvement challenges that agencies face are never exactly the same, there are certain patterns that show up again and again.
Whenever we coach an agency on a topic that we just know other teams in other agencies are also facing, we wish all of you could listen in on the coaching conference calls . . . because then all of you would benefit from it, and all of you would, thereafter, know how to deal with that particular challenge.
These monthly 90-minute brownbag sessions are an effort to share with the rest of you the advice we have given to clients on some of the public involvement challenges that – we feel – most of you will encounter earlier or later.
In all of our 40+ years of Research and Development work, we’ve had – and still have – a single-minded motive . . .
Our preoccupations with improving an agency’s effectiveness has yielded an approach to citizen participation that is fundamentally different from the approach most public agencies use.
Systematic Consent-Building has you focus on developing the informed consent of your fiercest opponents, rather than – as the more conventional approaches to public involvement do – mobilizing support for your proposals.
Another way to put it: Consent-Building focuses on lowering opposition while conventional public involvement focuses on building support.
Anyone who has had SDIC training knows the reason for this: it’s not a philosophical thing—it’s a practical thing:
It’s your opponents – sometimes just a handful of people in a “public” of thousands – who usually torpedo your proposals. Having lots of supporters rarely changes the negative effect of the fiercest opponents. On the other hand, get that tiny minority of fierce opponents to back off – even just a little—and your proposal has a chance.
When those who have been your fiercest opponents signal to the public-at-large that – even though they’re still opposed – they’ve decided that they can “live with” what you’re proposing, it has a huge positive, healing effect on the ensuing political debate. It creates the space that then allows the political decision-makers to make policy, policy doesn’t get reversed, policy that sticks. And, that of course is what it takes for you to accomplish your mission; that’s what it takes for you to be effective.
While all this is true, we have to admit that it can be get pretty depressing to constantly look for who-all is likely to want to torpedo your proposals; it’s sort-of negative, . . . almost pathological. After all, it makes you look into your proposal’s soft spots . . . the spots most likely to be attacked by your opponents. And, let’s face, every proposal has weak soft spots. After a while you might feel that, since neither your team nor your team’s proposal is ever perfect, only Superman could ever satisfy all the critics among your stakeholders, that unless – and until – your proposals are without flaw it’s impossible to satisfy the public.
This brownbag session is designed to help you prevent creating unrealistic expectations on behalf of the public, to get the public to appreciate you, your team, and your agency—even though you all are not Superheros but just ordinary public servants.
We’ll show you that, if you handle this issue right:
“Thank God you’re there! . . . Thank God someone had the vision and foresight to create your agency, your team, your project! . . . If you didn’t exist, we’d have to re-invent you!”
Once you have established that attitude on your various publics’ part toward you, you have chance. They’ll stop demanding that you solve problems without having negative impacts; they’ll stop demanding you do the impossible. While having your public look at you in that way is great, it probably still won’t make your job an easy one, but it gives you a heck of a lot better chance to accomplish your mission than when they expect you to practically walk on water.
As the planning research, development, and training that we did in the 1970s and ‘80s came to focus more and more on the outreach tactics, the communications methods, the consent-building strategies that Implementation Geniuses appeared to be using, we would – now and then – receive a call for help from planners who found themselves between a rock and a hard place. Because we had had the luxury of spending years studying lots of different public involvement challenges that confronted public-sector planners, we usually were able to answer their questions and help them. . . . But, . . . sometimes – like when some stakeholders appeared to be going off the deep end, behaving more like domestic terrorists than stakeholders—we were just about as stumped as our callers were.
In each of those really challenging cases we did the best we could: We dug deep into any and all relevant knowledge and experience that we could draw on; . . . we mobilized every gray cell we could muster . . .
Eventually, after dealing with a variety of particularly difficult citizen participation challenges, sort-of an “emergency consent-building tactic” evolved. Here’s how it happened. We discovered that – whenever we got desperate because we were stumped – we kept falling back on the same four-point consent-building tactic. . . . And, most important, this four-point tactic always seemed to work! The stakeholders who had become very unreasonable, and were on the verge of going off the deep end with their opposition, settled down and became downright reasonable, . . . even constructive, . . . sometimes even supportive!
Because we used this tactic whenever we were in trouble (strictly speaking: we advised our clients to use this tactic whenever their citizen participation efforts got into trouble), we came to regard it as sort-of our life preserver. (That’s how it became the “Bleiker Life Preserver.”) . . . After all, that’s how we were – and still are—using it: Whenever giant waves of citizen opposition threatens to swamp your boat, we’ll advise you to put on the four-point life preserver for some quick-and-dirty emergency consent-building.
In this brownbag session we will share—via a variety of real-world examples – some of the finer points of how the Bleiker Life Preserver works for public-sector analysts, planners, and managers.
As powerful as this four-step emergency consent-building tactic is, it is a quick-and-dirty consent-building strategy. It is incomplete; it leaves a lot out. When you manage a major planning effort, you need to use a more rigorous, more systematic consent-building strategy; you shouldn’t rely on a quick-and-dirty approach. (Those of you who have had our training are familiar with SDIC/CPO, a much more rigorous, objectives-driven approach to citizen participation that aims to accomplish 15 Citizen Participation Objectives.)
But, . . . when the waves of stakeholder opposition all of a sudden get surprisingly high —in spite of your systematic consent-building—you’ll need help fast. If you were to call us at that point, we’d probably have nothing better to offer you (and, that’s after almost 40 years of research on the subject of Citizen Participation) than the Bleiker Life Preserver.
So, . . . tune in! We’ll do our best to share the finer points of the Bleiker Life Preserver with you. It just may help you keep your plan afloat when you and it get caught in the perfect storm of citizen participation.
One frustrating thing about public involvement – frustration for the public and for public officials – is the very nature of public “input” that agencies tend to get.
Much, probably most, of the “input” potentially affected interests make to public agencies is stuff they can’t do anything about.
This is one of the major reasons why a great many public-sector professionals are so down on Citizen Participation.
Their experience has been that “public input” amounts to people telling them:
Getting that kind of “input” is an exercise in mutual frustration. Who can blame project managers who are less than enthusiastic about getting “public input,” if that’s what getting “input” means.
On the other hand, technical experts with many years of experience know that – now and then – there’s a lay person out there in the public who knows some fact, some detail, some critical piece of information that the technical team is not aware of . . . a fact that – if the team can find it in time – will allow the team to do a better job.
They also know that, if they don’t get that crucial piece of “input,” or if they get it too late, they’ll wind up saying:
We all – as public-sector professionals—feel stupid when we have to say “If only I had known such-and-such.”
When I was the head of the Planning Department in the consulting firm of NHPQ, in Colorado, in the early 1970s, where we served public-sector clients (federal, state, local) in the entire Rocky Mountain region, I always beat the bushes for that potentially crucial piece of public input.
I was downright obsessed with the realization that:
I knew these things to be true . . . That’s why I made it a habit to have my people beat the bushes – the public’s bushes – to find that potentially critical piece of information.
I didn’t ever want to tell a client – either late in the planning process or after the project was finished – “If only we had known such-and-such! We could have (or would have) developed a better plan!”
In this brownbag session we’ll look at what you can do to make sure that:
But—you ask – “How can we solicit everyone’s input (to make sure we don’t miss that potentially critical, useful piece of input) and not get drowned by all the input people have that is irrelevant, or that’s based on misunderstandings, or information we’re already aware of?”
Here’s the dilemma – as most public officials perceive it:
There are ways to maximize useful “input” and, at the same time, minimize – if you’re diligent, even eliminate – “input” that you can’t do anything with.
In this Brownbag session you will learn that this is not as much of a dilemma as it appears on the surface.
This is one of those rare cases where you can have the cake and eat it too.
After this session you will have the tools to always Maximize useful Input and Minimize Pseudo-Input.
Have you ever, at the conclusion of a long, thorough, rigorous planning process:
If you have had one too many of these kinds of frustrating Citizen Participation experiences —or if you haven’t (yet) and would like to keep it that way—stay tuned. You don’t really have to put up with any of that.
The kind of misunderstanding and ignorance that’s at the root of all of this CAN be prevented!!!
Some brilliant scientists, after having the above kinds of negative experiences over and over, developed a Citizen Participation tactic that prevents all of it; it’s called Fishbowl Planning.
Fishbowl Planning is a powerful communications tactic aimed at creating a truly informed public.
After all, the frustrating incidents outlined above, all have the same root: an uninformed public. A truly informed public doesn’t do ANY of the above. Fishbowl Planning is a Citizen Participation tactic designed to create that informed public.
As powerful as the Fishbowl Planning tactic is, it’s not for everyone. Don’t rush into it; there are some real challenges if you are going to pull it off successfully.
When compared to other Citizen Participation tools, Fishbowl Planning is a heavy-duty tactic. You have to commit yourself to doing it; you can’t just do a little of it. And yet, every public-sector professional really should be familiar with it because it is such a powerful tool.
When done well, it does wonders for an organization’s effectiveness.
This Brownbag session will introduce you to Fishbowl planning, so you can decide whether – and when – it makes sense for your organization to deploy this tactic.
These Brownbag sessions are designed to give you tools, tactics—even strategies—that you can use when you have to tackle particularly challenging situations, i.e. situations that bug you.
This month’s subject is no exception.
In the January 2011 session we’ll address an honest-to-goodness “Between a Rock and a Hard Place” situation you can find yourself in now and then.
Here’s the situation we have in mind…
We’ll show you that – challenging as this situation may be—you need not throw in the towel—you may STILL get these folks’ informed consent!
There is a tactic that we have seen Implementation Geniuses use when confronted with this situation. The tactic is subtle, complex – and yet – amazingly powerful.
In a nutshell, the tactic has you focus on satisfying people’s higher values (i.e. values that deal with fairness, rights, responsibilities, etc.)... In an effort to overcome the fact that you are violating their object-related values (like money, health, aesthetics, etc.).
When people understand this tactic (both the technocrats who are trying to accomplish their mission and the individuals and potentially affected interests) and why it is so relevant and useful particularly in the American context, it not only improves the effectiveness of government but the quality of life of members of the public.
This tactic gets at the heart of what makes our Consent-Building method so powerful and consistently result in unexpected successes for those who use it.
Tune in, we’ll explain how that’s done!
One fitting metaphor for looking at the nature of public-sector decision-making – be it at the local, state, federal, or special district level – is the metaphor of actors on a stage. As a professional, you may are a mere stage-hand on the stage where public policy is made, but stage-hands are not without tactics.
The three of us in IPMP (Hans, Annemarie, and Jennifer Bleiker) have – in our limited personal experiences – usually found ourselves in the roles of technocrat/bureaucrat/staff . . . rather than in the roles of stakeholders or policy-makers. [Hans Bleiker as a Planning Director for a City and for an environmental consulting firm; Jennifer as a city employee (Firefighter and Public Information Officer for that Fire Department); and Annemarie as Socio-Economic Planner in a consulting firm.]
Although the professional staff – i.e. people like us (Hans, Annemarie, and Jennifer)—does all the technical work that’s involved in developing a plan, public-sector professionals are MINOR actors on that stage. In fact, our role as staff is more like the role of stage-hands than starring actors…
In this brownbag session we’ll explore what – if anything—- we minor players (or stage-hands) can do when some of the big-time actors:
We will show you that even humble stage-hands are not entirely helpless. For one thing, they DO operate the stage lights, and they have other tools at their disposal.
Expect to come out of this session feeling like you too have some tools that make you far more than helpless.
The art and science of Developing Informed Consent has to do with getting people who strongly disagree with the plan you are proposing to conclude that—while they can’t support your plan—they can live with it . . . that they should not torpedo it, but rather give you their informed consent.
[For those of you who don’t know: we are best known for a three-day management course we have been teaching to public agencies for 30+ years called SDIC: Systematic Development of Informed Consent.]
Heck, we too would prefer unanimous agreement, i.e. Consensus, to the “grudging willingness to go along.” The trouble doesn’t lie with us; it lies with what we see as “the real world.”
In the real world that we know, where the public – through the political process – gives a public agency the mission to tackle a particular and legitimate problem (such as: “Do something about the fact that 55% of personal bankruptcies in the US are because someone in a particular household developed a medical condition the family can’t afford to deal with even though it already has consumed all the family’s assets.”)...
Another fact of the Real World:
That means that about the only way you’re going to get everyone – even the stakeholders who will be hurt by your plan—to support it, is to keep those folks in the dark about what you are proposing, and/or what your proposed plan’s impacts on them will be.
[Unfortunately, we have met more than a few public officials who – believe it or not – thought that would be a clever strategy. Trust us; it’s anything BUT clever.]
We learned several major lessons about how to get stuff implemented as the result of four transportation case studies that we conducted in the late 1960s. We discovered that, here and there in public agencies, there is an Implementation Genius: a person who can implement proposals that the public has already torpedoed when they were proposed by some of the Implementation Genius’ colleagues.
In this brownbag session we’ll examine what some of the nitty-gritty – as well as some of the more subtle – differences are between the two approaches.
This Brownbag session focuses on one single issue:
As part of your planning process, you study conditions and trends. . . You generate forecasts about future conditions and trends. . . You produce and recommend policies to be adopted . . . All of it for the benefit of the public. But, if that public – and/or their political policy-makers – don’t believe you . . . you’re wasting your (professional) life . . . and someone’s tax money.
It’s hard enough to get things done in the public arena when people do believe what you say and what you write.
Without credibility you’re whistling in the wind. Your studies, your forecasts, your plans, your recommendations, they will not influence – let alone shape – public policy.
In a public agency’s normal day-to-day operations a lot of incidental stuff happens – just stupid stuff—that can undermine, diminish, and lessen credibility. . .
In fact, that’s just what it’s like: erosion. Erosion is relentless, and it’s all downhill. As time passes, dirt slowly but surely moves downhill – sort-of on its own. It doesn’t move uphill one day and downhill the next day; . . . So it goes with credibility. As a result you tend to have less and less, even though you didn’t do anything to deserve this credibility erosion.
Thus, one major challenge that credibility presents you with, is the result of these two “facts of life:”
In our SDIC and CPO courses we share with attendees, that – as far as we can tell – your ability to develop all your stakeholders’ informed consent depends on your ability to achieve 15 CP Objectives (Citizen Participation Objectives).
Credibility is so important – it is such a big deal—that we assigned one of those 15 CP Objectives* (#11) to the single-minded task of “Protecting and Nurturing your Credibility.”
We’ll devote this Brownbag session to discuss what all you can do to protect and enhance your – and your agency’s – credibility, thus making you more effective and successful at fulfilling your professional mission.
Our aim in choosing topics for these brownbag sessions is to respond to real world problems, challenges, difficulties, frustrations, questions, etc. that we hear from client agencies. For the most part they are issues that – we feel – we don’t give enough time to in our regular SDIC and CPO courses.
Most of them, in fact, are issues that one or more of our clients have asked us to help them deal with through a coaching arrangement. Because these issues are not unique to any one agency, or to any one discipline, most of you – if not all of you – can benefit from the lessons we’ve learned in dealing with them.
You can sign up to take part in one, some, or all of the brownbag sessions. (There is a discount if you sign up for six or more topics.)
The cost for participating in a brownbag session is a flat registration fee of $179 regardless of how many of your colleagues listen in while sitting around your conference phone.
In fact, it’s great if you gather a group around the table for the session. That way, the 90 minute session may spark an internal discussion that continues among you and your colleagues for a while.
Again, for the first hour of each session, we will expound upon the topic, offer our thoughts and experiences, as well as our recommendations about how to handle the pitfalls and challenges related to the topic.
Then, during the last 30 minutes of the session, conference-call participants – including you – will be encouraged to pose questions that we, then, will do our best to answer.
Systematic Development of Informed Consent (SDIC)
Seattle, WA: October 12 - 14, 2010
Citizen Participation-by-Objectives (CPO)
Seattle, WA: October 26 - 28, 2010
Leadership Bootcamp
Available Soon as a Sequence of Online Modules
Monthly Brownbag Sessions
Why Implementations Geniuses are Respected, Not Maligned or Unappreciated
Using the Bleiker Life Preserver as a Quick-and-Dirty Consent Building Tactic
How to Maximize Input and Minimize Pseudo-Input
The Tactic of Fishbowl Planning
Understanding Higher Values versus Object-Related Values
How Mere Stagehands Can Expose Hidden Agendas
Why You Need to Focus on Consent Rather Than Consensus
Nurturing and Protecting Your (and Your Agency’s) Credibility