Elizabeth Hughes discusses the question around elected members making the right collective commitment required to get engagement right, or even half right.
“We didn’t engage with people ‘properly’,” laments councillor X when things go off the rails and residents cry foul.
Properly?
Does this mean: “Staff didn’t do enough letter drops, promotions and open days?”
Or does this mean: “How can we better enable our citizens to contribute more meaningfully to council decision-making?”
(Spoiler – it’s probably the former.)
There is a constant chorus from elected members about the importance and value of using proper (or more) engagement to deliver better outcomes for their communities and to increase community participation around council matters.
But, doing engagement properly is not just about doing more letter drops. It’s about elected representatives making the conscious decision that they genuinely want to listen.
The question, therefore, is, are elected members truly making the collective commitment required to get engagement right (or even half right)?
Looking at this from a very wide (even global) perspective, there is significant evidence of a dramatic decline in levels of trust and confidence in democratic institutions and, consequently, those elected to serve. The most obvious metric on this is a decline in voting, which contrasts ironically with greater expectations to “have my say”.
This is partly because being heard is now amplified through ubiquitous access to channels that democratise every person’s voice. These channels let me have my say and, even better, give me validation. My voice is real (at least to me and my followers).
Translating this to a local council level means elected leaders’ jobs, particularly around expectations of engagement, are much, much harder. You’ve been elected to represent a particular constituency (literal and metaphorical), and your job description requires you to make decisions “on behalf of local communities”.
How do you balance this with the fact that many people in your constituency now have an expectation (or a “right”) to contribute to every decision that impacts them? To do this on each decision is neither realistic nor efficient.
The only real tool you have is “engagement” and the huge expectations that this word carries. The challenge is that it requires some forward thinking (like dating before the big ask) – rather than shot-gunning.
Addressing this gap lies in your understanding of the following.
Know what “proper” engagement is
Engagement is not consultation [repeat – engagement is NOT consultation]. Engagement is an actual conversation with the specific intention to get input to shape decision-making (like going on a series of dates to learn more about someone).
Consultation is more like swiping right or left. “That’s what’s on offer, and you can approve or disapprove.”
It is critically important that this difference is understood because lack of trust and disappointment is the undeniable result if these two things are confused.
Not every council decision requires engagement
Even if people say they want you to, you can’t engage on everything. Genuine engagement is resource-hungry and requires the absolute clarity of purpose described above. If you are not going to use the engagement to help shape your decisions, then don’t do it.
Sometimes, being a leader requires you to use evidence and data – not ideas from the community. It is up to you to be clear about which is which.
There are times when you just need to put your long pants on and make leadership decisions. This might mean making tough or even divisive calls on behalf of your community. Undertaking extensive engagement (see above) when the evidence tells you there is only one course of action is, at best, misguided and, at worst, deceitful.
Engagement is not a numbers game
Engagement is about listening, which means keeping your mouth shut and your ears open. Yes, there should be evidence of numbers of people who might have been engaged in a process, but their thoughts/views/concerns cannot always be quantified. And while listening will include the views of your club mates, proper engagement must also include the voices of those you may not usually associate with. Sometimes – to quote that famous lawyer in The Castle – “it’s the vibe your Honour”.
Engagement requires validation
This is what we heard, and this is how it influenced/shaped our decision. Thank you.
Your Significance and Engagement Policy
You own the Policy that drives your engagement. The Significance and Engagement Policy decides how and when you will be engaging with your community. It provides guidance to the staff who implement engagement activities about the level of decisions you (you!) agree deserve or don’t deserve proper engagement.
Make sure you develop one that delivers on your commitment to engage “properly”.
And then you can put a ring on it.