Originally published 22 March 2006. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
In the dozens of Consultation Strategies received by the Institute there are countless lists of reasons for undertaking consultation exercises. On average there are six to ten objectives, often liberally sprinkled with the latest fashionable buzz-words.
Yet one of the most persistent reasons why people undertake consultations is seldom ever mentioned. It is literally taboo!
This is the organisation of a consultation exercise as a mechanism for spreading responsibility for difficult decisions. “Yes, we know it’s unpopular, but we did go to consultation over it”. That type of thing. A less charitable label would be cover-your-backside consultation.
In one sense, this is perfectly defensible. Decisions can be controversial, and it is right to point out to those who subsequently criticise, that they may have had an opportunity to express their views at an earlier stage. Consultees can and do have a habit of conveniently forgetting that they were asked their opinions! It is also acceptable for organisations to stress how widely they have consulted in order to strengthen the legitimacy of their actions. Those with comprehensive stakeholder identification and sound stakeholder management practices have a right to expect their decisions to be taken seriously.
On the other hand, there is something called leadership. Outstanding leaders have the courage of their convictions and only need to consult a wider group on those occasions where wider support is required.
So take an organisation or public body that acquires a new remit, or perhaps a chief executive. Maybe it publishes a 3-year plan or Forward Programme. This type of document often carries a positive-sounding title: Agenda for Change or Forward to the Future and performs the basic function of placing before anyone who is interested a range of proposed actions.
The Institute calls this a Programme Approval type of consultation and notes that it is often highly flavoured with a strong dose of public relations spin.
But is it always a genuine exercise in listening? Or is it a defence mechanism to protect the consultor and spread the blame if things go wrong? Trigger points
- Consider your consultation motives. Are they always positive? Or is their an element of self-defense?
- If you launch a Programme Approval exercise, eliminate excessive spin.
- Ask your key stakeholders what they think. Do they believe that you’re just protecting your interests?
This is the 54th 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