Monthly Brownbag Sessions

Here’s something we hear a lot of complaints about. You may have discovered – and you may be troubled by – the same thing.

“The public-at-large and the media don’t hold our stakeholders to the same standards they hold us.”

“Opponents can distort the truth, tell bald-faced lies, make totally spurious accusations, attack us personally,  . . . and the public-at-large, as well as the media, let them get away with it. Even the most flagrant dirty tactics do very little damage to them, . . . even when the public knows that what they’re saying isn’t true . . . !!!”

“That same public-at-large, and those same mass media, jump all over us the moment they think we’re less than 100% honest, the moment they catch us doing something as small as stretching the truth a little bit.”

You’re Held to Higher Standards than Your Opponents

“Our opponents can do virtually anything. They can lie, play dirty, even go outside the law, . . . as long as it works they can do it. For them, there are no rules of fair play.”

“We have to fight these people with one hand tied behind our backs. All the rules of decency fair play apply to us . . . though not to them. The moment we even in the least play dirty, it works against us. It damages us, not them!”

“Why do the public-at-large, and the media, have such an outrageous double standard? Where is their sense of fairness? It’s not that we want to play dirty, but why do they put up with our opponents dirty tactics? Why don’t they apply the same standards to them that they apply to us? Why do their dirty tactics not destroy their credibility and their legitimacy? Why do the public-at-large, and the media, continue to listen to people who they know are liars and cheats?

How to Succeed In Spite of Double-Standards

You can succeed in spite of the unfair double-standard.

In this brown-bag session we’ll shed some light on this situation; it’s not just unfair, it’s also very interesting. Game Theorist Thomas Schelling (the 2007 Nobel Prize winner in Economics), and others, can help us understand what you can – and what you can’t – do in this situation.

We’ll show you that you can succeed against people using dirty tactics, that you can play hardball without playing dirty.

Register Now!

May 7th, 2010

Preventing “Paralysis-by-Analysis”

More than a few of our clients have the following complaint. Maybe you can identify with it yourself.

“We sometimes work rather intimately with a community for months . . . sometimes for years.”

“The people who are involved on behalf of the community become quite knowledgeable, and they develop a pretty deep understanding of . . .

• The problem we are addressing,

• Our mission to do so,

• How we go about it,

• What is feasible,

• What is not feasible, etc.”

“It feels like we can never wrap things up. Someone always shows up; someone who refuses to “buy into” the work we have done, no matter how collaboratively it was done. This kind of public involvement becomes the rationale for doing yet another study . . . and an excuse for never taking any action.”

Immunize Your Agency and Your Work from this Phenomenon

June 4th, 2010

The Dilemma Created By Citizen Participation
Principles #30, #56, and #15

There are three fairly complicated facts of life – citizen participation life that is – (we call them CP Principles #30, #56, and #15) that conspire to make life interesting, and challenging, for you:

Bleiker Citizen Participation Principle #30

If someone out there – one of your stakeholders – has some potentially useful “input,” i.e. input that tells you something that you didn’t already know,  . . . in fact, something that makes a material difference to your plan, something that – because you now know this new information, let’s you do a better job—you need to get that input early in the planning process. In fact, the earlier, the better because in any planning process, there is a point after which it’s too late to make changes.

If you get the (potentially useful) input after that point, you wind up saying:

“Wow! If only we had known this fact earlier! . . . Now it’s too late! . . . That’s a shame! We could have developed a better proposal if we had known this fact; it would have allowed us to improve our proposal!”

It truly is a shame when you wind up with a plan, a proposal, that is not as good as it could have been – had you had the input in question earlier. You feel stupid whenever you have to say “If only we had known this earlier; we could have done something about it. Now it’s too late.”

Applicable to Every Profession

Once they have, they realize that if someone out there has “input” to make—“we need that input early . . . the earlier the better.”

Bleiker Citizen Participation Principle #56

• Well, just try to get “input” early in a project’s planning process!

• The trouble is, it’s difficult—very difficult—to get people to make input early in a project’s planning process.

• People – especially lay people—aren’t very good at giving their input early. As a result, just because you want to get their input early, it doesn’t mean you’re going to get it early . . . !

One reason for this is that if it really is early in the problem-solving / decision-making process, you don’t yet know what you’re going to wind up proposing.

People are much better at reacting to a specific proposal than they are at expressing their values, their concerns, etc. when there isn’t a specific proposal in front of them that they can react to.

But, if you have a specific proposal in front of them, it couldn’t possibly be early in the planning process . . . !

And so, although people will have no problem giving you their “input” once you have a proposal in front of them, one of their reactions is likely to be:

• “Now you come to us?! . . . Now you ask us for our input; after you’ve decided what you’re going to do?! . . . Obviously, you already have made up your mind . . . !”

What You Will Learn in this Session

In this brown-bag session we’ll discuss what you can do to deal with these two contradictory realities of public involvement. (It also has to do with a CP Principle, #15)We’ll show you that, although this dilemma is real, it need not frustrate you. There are things you can do to deal with it.

You can get people involved early. It just looks like “You’re damned if you do; and you’re damned if you don’t.”

Register Now!

July 9th, 2010

The Tactic Of Transforming Adversarial, Divisive “It’s Us vs. Them” Perceptions Into a Collaborative “It’s just Us” Attitude

Many of the illustrious public figures who each spring the honor and privilege of delivering graduation addresses at the colleges and universities across the country try to inspire graduates to consider public service – as they start out on their professional careers.

More than a few people whom we encounter in public-sector jobs are there because they were, indeed, inspired by that idea; they chose to work in government – even though there well might have been the opportunity for more lucrative jobs in the private sector. They told themselves that money wasn’t everything, that knowing that you’re working on solving problems, improving people’s quality of life, is a reward above and beyond the paycheck.

How ironic, then, when these honest-to-goodness public servants wind up being vilified by the very public they are trying to serve! . . . where, before you know it, they are the bad guys! . . . They, the hired government officials are painted as having an agenda of their own, when in fact they are pursuing the missions that were established by the public – through its politically elected and/or appointed officials.

When Everyone within the Government is Unfairly Painted with the Same Brush

This isn’t just a sobering let-down; it’s a travesty! After all, it’s a most unfortunate misperception of the real relationship. The missions that we – the public – give to public agencies (via our political process) can be a challenge to accomplish under the best of circumstances, i.e. when there isn’t this kind of divisive, adversarial relationship. In an “Us versus Them” environment accomplishing those missions as all the more challenging.

Healing and Preventing the “Us vs. Them” Paradigm

That’s what we will focus on in this brownbag session: What you can do – what you must do – to make sure you don’t wind up in an “Us versus Them” environment, . . . and if you already have that kind of environment, . . .how to create a healthier, more collaborative relationship.

Register Now!

August 6th, 2010

The Powerful, Versatile Tactic of “Public Hand-Wringing:” A Way Of Educating The Public About Complex Issues Without Lecturing Them

After the technical experts in an agency have pretty finished analyzing the problem-at-hand, after they’ve explored the full range of alternative solutions, after they have a pretty good handle on each of the alternative solution’s impacts – positive and negative, direct and indirect, intended and unintended – after all this kind of analytical work has been done, it’s usually pretty clear what needs to be done . . . to the experts who have done the analysis. It usually narrows down to one or two , maybe three, alternative solutions that are feasible.

What they need at that point, is an intelligent public debate about the pros and cons, the risks, etc. of those feasible alternative approaches to the problem-at-hand. Well, it’s not that hard to get a public debate; the challenge is to get an intelligent public debate . . . especially if the problem-at-hand is big and/or complex. It’s mind-blowing how weird, . . . how nonsensical, . . . how dumb, . . . public debates can get. And, because the public debate ultimately affects the political debate, which, in turn, affects political decision-making, anything short of an intelligent public debate can undermine all your analytical work.

Developing an Informed Public Debate

In this brownbag session we’re focusing on the tactic called “Public Hand-wringing.” We often find ourselves recommending it situations where an agency’s professionals have try and create an intelligent public debate in the face of misunderstandings and misinformation. Public Hand-wringing is a communications tactic that is less threatening (to the public) than some other approaches that you might be tempted to use to correct misunderstandings and misinformation.

Register Now!

September 10th, 2010* (note date change)

You Don’t Really Have To Be Like Superman To Get Your Public To Appreciate You. . . All You Have To Be Is An Honest-To-Goodness Problem-Solving Outfit

In all of our 40+ years of Research and Development work, we’ve had – and still have – a single-minded motive . . .

• Making professional teams – especially teams in public agencies – more effective, . . . making them better at accomplishing their missions, . . . especially when those missions involve big or complex projects.

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.

Why You Don’t Have to be Perfect, or a Superhero

We’ll show you that, if you handle this issue right:

1. Your public – that same public that can be so hyper-critical – can be very, very forgiving. They don’t really demand perfection. (It just seems like it.) You don’t have to be Superman.
   

2. Once you satisfy the First and Second Laws (of Public Administration), their negative attitude toward you changes practically overnight to an attitude of:
   “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!”

October 1, 2010

Using the Bleiker Life-Preserver
as a Quick-and-Dirty Consent-Building Tactic

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.

Register Now!

November 5th, 2010

The Tactic of Maximizing Real Input and Minimizing Pseudo-Input

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.

• Making “input,” in that case, doesn’t change anything!

• The result of the public making such input – and of public officials getting such input – is zilch!

• That input makes no difference!

• It has no impact on the plan that’s being developed!

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:

1. Issues they already were aware of . . . issues and concerns they, therefore, already have incorporated in their work,

2. Issues and concerns that are based on specific misunderstandings on part of the members of the public, and
   
   
3. Concerns that some people have because they’re ignorant of what the problem is that the agency’s planning effort is addressing.

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:

• If only we had known this piece of information two years ago, we could have designed a better project! . . . Now, it’s too late!!!

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:

• Just because we did have competent experts on our team – we, nevertheless, didn’t know everything,

• That, just because our team was miles ahead of the public – we, nevertheless, might be overlooking some potentially crucial detail,

• That, just because most lay people had nothing to add to our team’s knowledge—some obscure member of that generally ignorant public, nevertheless, might have knowledge that eclipsed what our experts’ knew. . .
  
  

  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:

  1. You won’t wind up saying: “If only we had known . . .” and, at the same time, that

  2. You’ll waste neither your time, nor your public’s time with “input” that’s useless because it’s irrelevant or based on a lack of understanding.
  
  

  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:

  • If we do solicit everyone’s input, we wind up being swamped with “input” that’s useless.

  • If we don’t solicit input from everyone, it’ll be just a matter of time, and we are going to kick ourselves for having missed something important.
  
  

  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.
  
  

  December 3, 2010

  The Tactic of Fishbowl Planning

  
  

  Have you ever, at the conclusion of a long, thorough, rigorous planning process:

  • Had people treat you and your proposal as if you had pulled it – arbitrarily – out of thin air?

  • Had people accuse your team of ignoring your proposal’s impacts, when – in fact – you and your team did everything you could, short of compromising your mission, to reduce the pain from the unavoidable negative impacts?

  • Had stakeholders come forward and keep proposing alternatives that were discarded for good reason long ago?

  • Had people treat you and your team – as well as your whole planning process – as if you could not be trusted to have common sense?

  • Had people accuse you of not caring about their issues, when – in fact – you truly, truly care about those people who will suffer negative effects?

  • Had members of the public make comments and suggestions that are so off-base, so naïve or ridiculous that you find it difficult to respond without insulting them?

  • Had people accuse you of not having considered alternatives, when—in fact—your team left no stone unturned in exploring alternative ways of accomplishing your mission?

  
  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.
  
  

  January 7, 2011

  The Tactic of focusing on Higher-Values when your proposal violates Object-Related Values

  
  

  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…

  • You’re addressing a serious (legitimate) problem, which given your organization’s mission, you would be irresponsible to ignore it.

  • You’ve been thorough, rigorous, and totally open in your analysis and planning effort.

  • You’ve searched high and low for the full range of possible solutions.

  • Unfortunately, from the point of view of some of your potentially affected interests, NONE of the solutions you’ve come up with is acceptable… they’re ALL bad!

  • But, as bad as the alternatives are (for those interests), your solution is as good as it can get…There are no better solutions.

  • Therefore, one of these less-than-perfect alternatives needs to be implemented.

  
  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!
  

  February 4, 2011

  Dealing with Stagehands Who Have a Hidden Agenda

  
  As those of you who have gone through our SDIC (Systematic Development of Informed Consent) course remember, in that course we involved you in a Nominal Group exercise where we got you to tell us about “hurdles, difficulties, and frustrations” that you have experienced in trying to do constructive citizen participation.
  The tactic that we’ll discuss in this brownbag session is designed to help you deal with a specific sub-set of those “hurdles, difficulties, and frustration” that you and your colleagues have been telling us about for years.
  We hear many gripes along the following lines:
  “We, as public-sector professionals, can’t – and don’t – have hidden agendas. But, some of the big-time actors on the public policy-making stage DO have hidden agendas.
  • “Some of them get involved claiming to have one set of concerns – for example, environmental concerns – when, in fact, they could care less about those issues. They’re not willing to be up-front about what their REAL issues are.
  • “We sometimes have participants who try to hi-jack the entire planning process, and public involvement process, in an effort to achieve totally illegitimate ends.
  • “And, we’re not just talking here about some “nasty special interest-type” of potentially affected interests. At times our own policy-makers – the people we report to – are part of this kind of bad behavior!
  • “Distorting the truth, lying, pleading ignorance when they’re not ignorant, and several other ways of playing dirty, go on all the time.
  • “What REALLY bothers us to no end is that – far too often – people get away with it. The larger public too often doesn’t catch on to what’s happening. And, as much as we would like to, we – as professional staffers – can’t really blow the whistle on even the most irresponsible and unfair behavior by these people.
  • “They may be playing dirty and unfair, but THEY – not we—are the major actors on the public policy-making stage. Although we do all the analytical work, we are more like the stage-hands on the policy-making stage. We can’t do the kind of stuff they do. And yet, unless we can get them to clean up their act, the integrity of the whole planning process is in jeopardy.
  • “...What can we do?”
  
  Although we hope that this set of “hurdles, difficulties, and frustrations” is NOT one you are experiencing, . . . earlier or later you are sure to be in the middle of a situation just like that. In this brownbag session we’ll try to show that – although stage-hands aren’t really part of the play – they aren’t entirely helpless either when it comes to getting the big-time actors to clean up their act.
  
  

  Objective of the Brownbag Session

  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.
  
  
  

  How Do I Sign Up?

  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.
  
  Register Now!