Imagine a friend calls you and says, “I’m considering repainting my home office. What do you think?” Your mind might go in 20 different directions. Are you asking me whether you should paint? Do you want my opinion on colors? Do you need me to help you go shopping for supplies? Or worse… Do you want me to give up my weekend to help you paint?
In local government, this broad and ominous approach is too often how we see agencies attempting to gather stakeholder input. If a school district is starting their search for a new superintendent, they send out a community-wide survey to anyone who will take it. They ask questions like ‘what characteristics would you like to see in the next superintendent?’
Well, I’d like them to be a good person… Does that count? And I also want them to be skilled at resource mapping. Which is more important, why does my opinion as a local resident hold equal weight to a more affected stakeholder’s, and how will my response actually impact the hiring decision?
The Problem with Broad Stakeholder Engagement
Broadly asking everyone for their open-ended opinion can feel inclusive and authentic because you’re casting a wide net and showing you’re willing to hear all ideas. But as a constituent, you don’t actually feel empowered by this. You feel paralyzed by the lack of focus and unclear expectations.
Now imagine that same friend calls and says, “I’m repainting my home office and I’ve narrowed it down to these two color options. I know you painted a room a similar color recently, which is why I’m reaching out to you. Before I make my decision, what should I be considering that I might not be aware of?”
Now you have direction and expectations. You know why you’re being consulted, you understand the parameters for the decision that’s on the table, and you know your role in the process.
Heck, even if that friend said, “I’m repainting my home office. I already selected the color, I have the supplies, and I’ve moved all the furniture. I just need your help at my house for five hours next Sunday,” you’d be way more willing to help. You might not like it, but clear expectations make a big difference.
Moving Toward Narrow, Intentional Engagement
In the same way, a school board could choose a more intentional and narrow approach to their superintendent search. Let’s say they bring in a team of special education teachers and staff for a round table discussion, and they say, “One of our priorities as a board is to find a superintendent who can improve the performance of students receiving special education services. One option would be to find a superintendent with experience designing multi-tiered systems of support frameworks. Another option is to find someone with knowledge of how to use student outcome data and disproportionality metrics to provide direction on instructional practice. Which of these traits would be of greater value for you and our students, and why? Is there anything we’re not yet considering that should influence our process?
Imagine the level of insight the school board would get from a 45-minute conversation versus weeks of pushing a survey to the entire world and trying to make sense of hundreds of random comments. And as an added benefit, think of the trust that gets built in that room by inviting experts in to genuinely help a board make one of its most important decisions.
Two Major Benefits of Targeted Stakeholder Engagement
If you’re preparing to engage stakeholders on a key decision, consider how you can best set them—and yourself—up for success. Who needs to be consulted? Why are they the right person(s) to help you? What specific problem will they help you solve? And importantly, what are the parameters to the decision?
What can feel like closing off ideas or excluding points of view actually accomplishes two things:
- It helps you get better insights from voices who understand the issue and are eager to help.
- Your stakeholders feel valued by being asked to specifically help solve a problem versus giving shallow input for sake of broad engagement.
