In a world where consultation fatigue is a real issue – and organisations have to work hard to get citizens and stakeholders interested – it may be surprising to note how many consultations fall short of offering them anything meaningful to consider.

In the ideal model, the consultor lays out the context for a forthcoming decision, explains the constraints, outlines a number of options (possibly with a preferred one) with their forecast impact clearly assessed, so that consultees can express their views and indicate their choice. There are many advantages to this model – not least transparency. It is well proven, and when professionally executed, can provide organisations with valuable input towards often-difficult decisions.

Consultees like this model because it treats them like adults – and effectively says “Imagine this was your decision; how would you react to the choices we have to make”. In other words it places them in a similar position to the consultor. True, this model depends upon consultors being totally honest in providing comprehensive information about the choice – but provided that happens, those who are consulted feel they are participating in something that is real and meaningful. It is the same model that is used in TV programmes where we vote for those who sing, dance or behave best. What you see is what is voted upon.

So how come we have consultations without choices?

A public sector body recently approached the Institute, expressing concern that it was struggling to engage its local population. Its consultation was about its plans for the future – plans that are relevant to every household and business in a large area. When we looked at its document, what we found was a glossy, well-presented paper explaining its six main “intentions” and questions asking whether consultees agreed or disagreed? Admittedly, there was an invitation for those who respond to suggest alternatives of their own, but that is not the same as being offered the options considered by the organisation in the first place.

The technical name for this kind of consultation is “Programme approval” and Parliament has decreed that, under various circumstances, public bodies have to put their programmes to the public for discussion. In principle, what a good idea!

But some of the resulting consultations appear as cynical PR exercises – self-congratulatory fait-accompli’s justifying existing directions and notably lacking in any discussion of performance failures or difficult challenges. Unsurprisingly, their lack of candour dissuades all but a few from participating in the consultation. Why bother? What possible chance is there of having any effect?

Worse, are the signals given to management by such exercises. If, despite showering the community with leaflets, no-one bothers to take part, it is easy to conclude that everyone is broadly happy and content with what is proposed. Easy – but, of course, wrong. Apathy is not the same as support.

It is possible to produce meaningful consultations from the requirement to seek approval for an organisation’s programme. But it requires elements of choice. If there is no decision to take – no alternative courses of action to contemplate – no choices to make, then let’s quit the pretence of having a dialogue. There’s nothing much to discuss! Let’s call it an advertisement and have done with it.

No wonder participatory budgeting has become a star attraction of the empowerment agenda. Giving people a direct say in choosing where to spend money is far more empowering than looking at a draft budget and saying yes to someone else’s choices.

When others make the choices, no amount of well-meaning involvement can persuade sceptical consultees that their views are having much impact. Far better to share the options and let relevant voices be heard.

Is that OK then ?

If you would like to discuss your option development process with the Institute, call us on 01767 318350.