About a decade ago, I was peripherally involved in a project that focused on the relationship between a public body and its stakeholders.
It covered well over a million people and had been a service provider for many years, mostly staying out of the limelight – except for occasional unpopular projects that seemed to generate high levels of opposition.
Aware of the risks to its reputation, it commissioned a study into what its various stakeholders thought about it. Some of my colleagues therefore devised a methodology that included an online survey and also in-depth, in-person interviews.
Surprising things emerged. The organisation had changed its name, but even well-established stakeholder groups were unsure of what the new identity was responsible for.
Communications sent out to stakeholders had barely registered. Very few appreciated how to influence what the organisation did. Even fewer really understood where it had discretion and could respond to stakeholder views. Armed with these insights the public body was able to transform its relationships. A big win!
I suspect such a picture is more common than we suppose.
The polite conspiracy of ignorance
We know from stakeholder mapping that it is easy to exaggerate how much a particular group knows or cares about what we do. What often comes as a shock is quite how ignorant they may be about fundamental matters like who we are – and where do we operate. The lack of co-terminology in local government, police, health and other services continues to confuse, and the re-naming of such bodies, housing associations, energy companies, rail operators and educational establishments has de-stabilised many people’s sense of place. Hands up! Who finds it easy to look at a road and determine whether it is maintained by the local authority or by National Highways – which of course used to be the Highways Agency – before it became Highways England!
Many stakeholder relationships amount to a polite conspiracy of ignorance. “I pretend to know who you are and what aspect of our work matters to you. And you pretend you know what we do and are interested in our activities.”
If we overcome that relationship hurdle, we can start delving into the issues – some of which can be contentious or fraught with emotion as when our actions result in loss, damage, distress or worse. Even here, detailed dialogue with stakeholders can reveal misinformation and misunderstandings.
This is where we can see the result of media distortions or openly hostile social media campaigns that can damage our reputation very quickly. What are the consequences when key stakeholders become convinced that you are in the wrong? What happens if critical opinion-formers throw their weight behind your adversaries?
All this is the case for investing properly in monitoring the views of our stakeholders.
Why a stakeholder panel is the key to consistent insights
It is not quite as easy as it sounds. The Report I mentioned above was successful in part because the organisation commissioned a third party to undertake the task. Every respondent knew who had commissioned the work, but there are times when a ‘mystery shopper’ approach is justified. Personally, I favour as much transparency as possible. “Rail Company DELAYS-R-US have asked us to gather your views on them and the issues that matter to you.”
Unlike customer satisfaction research – a close cousin of this process, there is more variation in the nature of stakeholders as compared to customers. If you poll a sample of customers every year, the fact that you have responses from a different cross-section of the customer base this year compared with last year is unlikely to skew the results dramatically. With stakeholder groups, however, the different sample can make the year-on-year comparison less valid.
The solution to this – and my favoured methodology is to form a Stakeholder Panel, and to ask the same questions of the same people every year, remembering the old adage that far more important than a numerical result is the direction in which it moves – and understanding why…
As an example, let us imagine we are a local authority – among whose stakeholders are 200 significant community and voluntary organisations, some more important to it than others. We assemble a panel, probably by inviting volunteers and configuring as representative a profile as possible, and seek to replace 20% each year to retain continuity. In this way we can conduct a ‘tracking poll’ and also maybe supplement this with a focus group to discuss the results. By asking the same people to rate us on the dynamics of our relationship we learn what works best and what does not work at all. We discover whether they think we are in contact with them too much, or not enough. Whether we provide the information they want; whether they find our information credible?; whether it is sufficiently detailed; is it presented in the right way? Do they believe us? Do they think we listen? Most critically, Do they trust us?
Then we learn their views about the issues. If we are cutting back on services, we don’t expect plaudits. But what concerns them most? What do they think the impacts will be? Do they want to discuss alternatives with us? Are there other ways we can help? And we inevitably discover that concerns about substantive issues can morph into reservations about the process. On occasions, this is something of a sham, but is a natural enough human reaction. “Of course, we realise you have to make cuts, but why didn’t you consult us first?”
If we are tracking the ups and downs of opinions through a panel survey, it is important to seek the views of others as well.
Transitory stakeholders – which come and go with the agenda, can be a challenge. But it is important to understand whether we were accessible and responsive when they emerged, or whether we hid behind the lack of a relationship and made it difficult to hold a dialogue.
Dormant stakeholders are another challenge. Are they dormant because there are no issues of mutual concern? Or have they lost faith in us? Have we treated them well? And, hopefully, we also have the fan club: those enthusiasts who think we can do no wrong.
Stakeholder Advocates can be a mixed blessing, often unconsciously parading their relationship with us to the annoyance of others, but very valuable at times of controversy.
Measuring and managing an extensive stakeholder base is not a trivial task, and it has to be dynamic – because views change over time. Transitory stakeholders can become permanent. Dormant ones can stir themselves into intense activity. Advocates can become critics or opponents. Investing in monitoring helps identify these shifts and empowers us to fulfil the pivotal task of intelligence gathering without which much of our stakeholder messaging will either fail or be sub-optimal.
As we gather in the forthcoming Stakeholder Engagement Summit and reflect upon best practice, I’d like to see the systematic gathering of their views as an integral part of a Stakeholder management team’s armoury.
You can read the first article of this 3-part series here and the second article here.
Written by Rhion Jones
Rhion Jones was the Founder Director of the Consultation Institute and is an acknowledged authority on all aspects of public and stakeholder engagement and consultation. He advises Tractivity and will be contributing expert analysis and commentaries on current issues.
Rhion now publishes thought leadership articles regularly as the Consultation Guru.