Frankly, we were relieved as we were nearing the point of having to remove ourselves from the situation.

Telling a client they don’t  understand  our principles and philosophy of public involvement and advising them that therefore we can’t work with them is never an easy task, yet sometimes it is essential. We will not comprise our integrity or principles.

We are in the business of helping our clients engage and involve their stakeholders through facilitated processes; we are not in the business of trying to control or restrict the involvement or engagement of the stakeholders.

We take great pride in the integrity of our work.

Our philosophy ensures that the public is involved, informed and educated about how they can best participate especially in decisions that directly affect them and that are paid for with their tax dollars.

Candidly, we came to believe this client never had any intention of  really “involving” the public, they simply wanted us to run highly-controlled meetings that legally  met the terms of the regulations they operated under. This is not unlike many federal and state agencies, sadly to say. We are not controllers, we are facilitators.

We tried more than once to explain that the public has the right to “be engaged, involved and educated” not just “informed in a controlled environment.”

We equally tried to help the client understand the value of collaboration with the stakeholders. They would simply have none of it.

We predict that one day soon these agencies will bear the brunt of the wrath of the stakeholders either through being exposed by the media or by political involvement.

Which brings me to congratulate another of our clients, Lockheed Martin’s Environmental Remediation group, who recently went on a journey with interested members of the public who wanted to know more about remediation work proposed at the Middle River complex in Maryland.

This client truly wanted a “facilitated process” that would inform, engage and educate the client while providing a venue for dialogue and discussion leading to meaningful stakeholder input.

I will grant you that this journey required considerable work on the part of the Lockheed Martin team to ensure that information was prepared and delivered in a manner the public could understand and appreciate.

It also required stepping out in faith to actually engage in meaningful discussions with the neighbors who participated.  It required an attitude of wanting to develop relationships beneficial to everyone involved and a willingness to ask for input.

Three working sessions (and many hours of preparation) later the stakeholders demonstrated through their feedback and dialogue that not only did they understand the issues associated with the cleanup, they also understood the alternatives to cleaning it up and came to understand and even agree with many of the cleanup alternatives as was being proposed.

The public’s comments and inputs were solicited and will be used in developing the final alternative.

From the outset, Lockheed Martin made it clear that they in collaboration with the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) and the US-EPA would make the final decisions on the remedial cleanup.

Yet by involving, engaging and educating the public on the front-end about the environmental situation, listening carefully to the stakeholders’ issues and concerns, soliciting their feedback and input, answering their questions and taking the time to determine what they  valued all this led to the stakeholders developing a “stake” in the remedial cleanup.

By listening respectfully to their input and where possible taking their suggestions, the final decision on this cleanup will reflect the values and needs of the local community stakeholders and in the process meaningful relationships were developed that will ultimately lead to a successful path forward.

This, my friends, is the type of client we want to be associated with and we are appreciative.

A man, whom I had never met name sat down beside me. I acknowledged him non-verbally and then he started talking and talking and talking. He really didn’t stop talking for almost 10-minutes about a bad experience he had just that morning at breakfast and the terrible service he received. I listened intently.

Finally, as his business companion approached, he summed up his experience with my “listening” by saying, “You know you would make a good therapist. Thanks for listening.”

His name is George, He is a CEO of a major company in Atlanta. He gave me his card and I shared mine. I told him listening was no problem. I told him I have a great deal of practice. You see a good facilitator is a better listener.

As my grandfather always said, “God gave us two ears nd one mouth.” The next time your client or even a stranger needs to talk take the time to listen – it is a lost art.

As an advocate for public involvement and participation for the past 40-years, long before the concept became a “popular” chant for activist, I am still amazed to find some agencies subvert the concept by imposing their “legal requirements” on what should be a “common sense” approach to public engagement. I am always perplexed at what government agencies do to create conflict and concern among stakeholders and then they wonder what went wrong.

Without mentioning any one agency, I am sure you can think of plenty at the local, state and federal levels, many have one thing in common – they fear the public and any involvement they may want. They choose to hide behind their “legal requirements” rather than to “engage in dialogue and involve the public in a collaborative process.” I have come to believe all too often this happens because the agencies think the public wants “shared decision-making” when in essence they want “”shared assessment” of the problem so a better solution or set or solutions can be developed to solve a problem.

Why?

Too often it seems easier for the agencies to use the old standby – the D.A.D. approach – we will decide without your input, we will announce it in as technical terms as possible to obfuscate your understanding, and we will defend it – just sue us if you don’t like it.

An agency may “win” in the court of law eventually BUT they always end up losing in the court of public opinion.

 This behavioral style drives all of us “up the wall.” Although they are people focused as opposed to task focused these styles complain and whine constantly. They are never happy about anything. They feel totally unappreciated, hopeless and powerless to improve their conditions.

 What do they complain and whine about?

 Simply anything. There are three types of complainers though:

 ü  Helpful complainers

ü  Therapeutic complainers

ü  Obnoxious complainers

 Read more at – http://www.ldarrylarmstrong.com/2011DEALINGWITHDIFFICULTPEOPLE.html

If you were to answer they are all restaurants you would be correct. More importantly though, if you were to answer that the customer service of each of the servers who waited on me at these establishment was excellent you would be more than accurate you would be right on target.

Frisch’s and IHOP one in Louisville, KY and one in Clarksville, IN, Curly’s in Lackawanda, NY and Miss Peggy’s in my hometown of Princeton, KY all have a similar quality – good food, reasonable prices, and excellent service by well-trained and polite servers. At each establishment I was welcomed, felt comfortable, engaged by the server, always had my drink refilled promptly without asking and felt right at home.

You know I teach guest services and I always wish that I had captured these moments on video.

I have not given a “Golden Eagle” Award for Exemplary Service in many months and this week offer kudos and awards to each of these fine establishments.

Congratulations and keep up the good work. The level of service and quality of food at a reasonable price is commendable yet making me feel right at home is extra-ordinary and appreciated.

Read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/11/14/michael-moores-michigan-mansion-makes-him-1-percenter-report-says/

Saying thank you for an interview, a job well done, or the opportunity to discuss the possibility of work through a handwritten missive is becoming a lost art. However, research and experience  shows that people remember you when you take the time to send them such a note of appreciation.

Oh yes, send them the “old-fashioned” way as well through the U.S. Postal service. In this age of tweets and Face Book and LinkedIn, such notes are “jewels” to be treasured and remembered.

Remembering to say “thank you” will help open doors for you that the best education and contacts can’t – who knows it might even get you a real job.

I often explain to my clients that there is a difference, in my mind at least, between asking someone to cooperate with you and asking someone to collaborate.

Cooperation typically is when the other party will agree to at least play nicey-nicey. We see cooperation all the time on the playground when kids play in the same sandbox yet stay to themselves. They are cooperating by not interfering with each other’s play activity.

However, collaboration means to co-labor. Co-laboring with another party can be difficult at times because both parties have to agree to stay at the table, roll up their sleeves and work toward a mutually beneficial solution to a problem.

Co-laboring is often time consuming, frustrating and complicated by the needs, wants and desires of the parties at the table yet when an agreement is reached it is typically in the best interest of all parties. Co-laboring is when the 3-year old and the 5-year old build the magnificent sand castle at the beach and together are proud of their achievement!

My client will have to give some, the co-labors will give some and ultimately the outcome of the often elongated discussions and negotiations will result in a win-win for everyone.

Collaborating needs to be done more often in Congress!