Are we listening? - The difference between "Do we hear?" and "Do we agree?’’

Everyone involved with public engagement and consultation has had to respond to the allegation "You’re not listening to us". It goes with the job.

Part of the problem is that ‘listening’ has two different meanings.

One is to ‘hear’ someone. Paying attention to what is being said; trying to understand it; appreciating why it is being said, and maybe its implications. The other meaning is to ‘accept’ what the consultee is saying - to agree with it, and probably to act upon it.

Much of this is about expectation management. Lots of organisations want to be seen as good listeners. There was once a High Street Bank that made a virtue of it. Today public bodies believe that their affection in the public’s mind depends upon being perceived as ‘responsive’ and strive to accommodate their own views whenever possible.

Which is all well and good until the moment when stakeholders’ views diverge from those of the management and, in a world of scarce resources, this may happen more frequently. Service management gurus have never quite agreed that ‘the customer is always right’, but they all concur that persuading customers that they are wrong is an uphill struggle.

The one unchallenged truth is that if we want a good reputation in this area, our processes for listening had better be beyond reproach. If we make mistakes in the dialogue phase then any disappointment in the outcome will, at least in part, be blamed on deficiencies in those processes. Call centres that don’t respond; surveys that didn’t reach their intended sample; focus groups badly facilitated or public meetings inadequately publicised – will all attract criticism. ‘You’re not listening!’ in this context translates into 'You can’t – or won’t organise yourselves to hear people properly!’

Dissatisfaction with the outcome is different. On important issues of policy, there may always be divergent views. Sometimes these are of marginal importance to the consultee; but they can be of great significance. A community objecting to a major infrastructure project, and finding the decision against them is stuck with the development forever. So it can be hugely important.

So any organisation that seeks always to ‘listen’ – in the sense of ‘agreeing’ is effectively handing over its decision-making to the weight of stakeholder opinion. Many commentators on public engagement heartily agree with this approach– and want to see everything determined by consensus. All very laudable, but not always practical, and most public bodies will concede that they can’t please all the people all the time, along with its obvious corollary – that they will therefore be accused of ‘not listening to us!’

So how do we demonstrate that we’re listening? It won’t be enough just to boast that we’re doing so. Neither are slogans like ‘You said; we did’ unless everyone understands what exactly it was that was done and recognise that citizens views played a part in your decisions. Don’t expect plaudits for doing things that people think you should have done anyway.

Accreditation schemes – such as the Institute’s Consultation Excellence Scheme can be helpful, but only if they are really robust and underwrite genuine and proven best practice. But ultimately the real test of listening is whether it makes a difference. Consultees instinctively know! If they have had a meaningful impact, ideas and suggestions they have promoted start finding their ways into policies or practice. It may not always be as expected or even hoped for – but gradually their contributions start to shape what happens. Influence can often be quite subtle, but those who succeed in having some usually realise it!

So to find out if we’re listening – ask the stakeholders themselves. Try it out in the office. Does your organisation listen to its own staff? What do your colleagues think? Or does your organisation listen to its customers? Ask them! Answers may be disconcerting.

Trigger points

• Has your organisation portrayed itself as ‘listening’? If so, what kind of ‘listening’ did you intend?
• Are your ‘listening’ processes robust enough to withstand criticism from those who dislike the outcome?
• Should you consider the Institute’s Consultation Excellence Scheme?
• Advance Notice: The first ever course on Listening to your Staff .

This is the 153rd Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement