This column is going to be a bit of a departure from my normal fare, but I think it’s topical. In Canada currently, but in other countries as well, we are at a point where public policy is, or will be, going through a bit of a reset as political leadership changes.
A natural outgrowth of this situation is that there will be a lot of “consulting” going on as government begins testing and implementing new policy “directions.” I am using the quotation marks around these terms advisedly because they are terms that get used a lot, but they mean different things to different people, or groups of people. Specifically, in this case, the meaning of these terms to people who run these processes is different than the standard public perception and maybe different than yours.
I say this because as part of my varied professional background I did spend close to seven years working inside the government “policy bubble” as an advocate for the aerospace industry and I participated in many such “consultations” at many levels. Given that experience I probably hear and see things differently than most people who may get caught up in these processes. And while I (mostly) avoid that world now, I thought I would try to explain what I have seen and what I think I know about it to help others who are, or are thinking of being, actively involved in these kinds of consultations.
When organizations or governments announce public consultations, stakeholders often approach the opportunity with optimism and a belief that their voices will genuinely impact decision-making. However, it is important to realize that there is a good chance that what is presented as “engagement” is actually community management. And by that, I mean a controlled exercise intended to influence opinions and outcomes rather than to seek and incorporate input from outside parties.
If you end up participating in any such exercises, understanding the difference is critical to effectively navigate these interactions and ensure your contributions have the desired impact. So, here is a quick checklist that I would suggest to help you identify whether you’re being genuinely engaged with or merely managed.
First, let’s understand the terms as I am thinking of them. When I say “community management” I mean a process whose primary goal is to maintain control, minimize disruptions, and validate existing plans. Organizations employing this approach typically have pre-decided strategies and use consultations primarily as a method of public relations rather than genuine exploration. It is important to note that in such a process one of the objectives is to isolate and even discredit genuine detractors so that their influence on the eventual outcome can be reduced. That is part of the management strategy.
When I say, “community engagement.” I mean a process whereby an organization is genuinely seeking insights from stakeholders that are outside of the normal decision-making process. True engagement requires true curiosity about alternative perspectives which will refine strategies and enhance legitimacy, in the hopes that this will help ensure practical, beneficial outcomes.
I realize that this may strike many as being a cynical point of view. That may be true, but I do believe it is a perspective that is borne out by my experience.
Now, assuming you are participating in a consultative exercise, there are several things that may indicate that it is strongly biased toward Management rather than Engagement. Firstly, if you find that the major policy decisions under discussion have already been finalized, and that consultations seem structured to endorse those decisions rather than open them up for meaningful debate. Then you might be being Managed.
And if you find the Consultations mainly consist of generic surveys, scripted meetings, or superficial discussions that offer limited opportunity for meaningful dialogue or genuine impact. The you might be being Managed.
You should also pay attention to how objections are met and dealt with – in other words – what happens when you, or anyone else, raises genuine concern about the direction that is being proposed? If the response to such objections is to immediately “reframe” or restate your objection in a way that is more favourable or convenient to the consulting organization’s narrative. Then you might be being Managed.
Or, if when serious objection is raised, the organizers respond to it by rejecting it using arguments that rely on data that most stakeholders cannot easily verify because the information is privileged or private in some way, thus effectively shutting down further discussion. Then you might be being Managed.
If, on the other hand, you are actually involved in a true stakeholder engagement exercise you should find that the organizers put curiosity first. They ask detailed, exploratory questions to understand your viewpoint deeply before proposing solutions. You will find that the consultation is designed to generate authentic dialogue. Interactions are responsive, flexible, and evolve based on stakeholder inputs rather than rigid, scripted conversations. And finally, the true test is if you can see that what stakeholders say has real and visible influence. If you can see tangible adjustments in strategies or plans based on stakeholder feedback. Then the object of the exercise is to genuinely learn from stakeholders and evolve the policy decisions based on that feedback.
It is not that this does not happen. Unfortunately, it does not happen as often as it should.
Again, I know that this approach seems quite cynical. But I didn’t arrive at this understanding overnight. Over the course of my career, I’ve worn multiple hats—advocate, consultant, and industry representative. During my tenure running a national trade association representing aerospace and space companies, and later teaching procurement courses to public servants, I had an insider’s view of stakeholder processes in action.
It became clear to me over time that there was the stark difference between engagement that sincerely aimed to capture diverse perspectives and management exercises designed primarily to validate predetermined positions. I also saw firsthand how carefully structured “consultations” could subtly marginalize dissenting voices, by drawing out their objections, reframing them and then refuting them with assertions that could not be challenged – thus recruiting other members of the stakeholder community to join the conversation in order to oppose the objections and eventually to label the detractors as “unhelpful” or biased – thus reducing their credibility in any future discussions or in more public discourse that might follow. The whole objective being to reinforce established narratives, and quell dissent, rather than to genuinely explore alternatives.
This realization was reinforced in countless meetings, conferences, and public forums. Unless you’ve experienced these processes from multiple vantage points, the subtlety of management techniques can easily remain invisible. So, I will admit that I am highly skeptical of pretty much any consultation process, but I do not think it is mere cynicism. I have also been part of genuine stakeholder engagement efforts, and they have been some of the most rewarding events in my career. I do kind of wish there had been more of them, though.
In the end, it’s fair to ask if this skepticism is not just well founded, but, in fact, whether it is helpful or useful. Is this just me exercising my GOGS (Grump Old Guy Syndrome) again? Or is there a point. Well, I think there is. I think that understanding whether you’re being genuinely engaged or subtly managed is important, first of all it will help you retain your perspective, and your sanity. Few things are more frustrating than being asked to offer and opinion only to be ignored – or worse – marginalized for not being “constructive enough.” If you realize going in that you are part of a piece of performance art design to strengthen the position of the organizers – and not a genuine conversation – it will make it much easier to decide how to participate.
More importantly, understanding the difference between Management and Engagement will also affect your capacity to meaningfully influence outcomes. Organizations that consistently manage rather than engage are probably not going to be open to new points of view, including yours. Conversely, organisations that have the courage to practice genuine engagement are worth your trust and are worth building long term relationships with. Here you will add value, and here you will be able to get value from others who share your concerns. If you are going to be an advocate, put your effort into engaging where your input will have value.
It is your time, energy and passion. You only have so much. Spend it wisely.
