Identify stakeholders early and forge a solid communications plan to increase chances of success

Achieving and maintaining consensus on those messages can prevent misunderstandings later in the process. If the leaders' messages vary even slightly, those differences will tend to be magnified with every retelling as the messages radiate away from their source.

Once the primary stakeholders come together on their messages, they should turn their attention to a second tier of stakeholders. These parties might be less directly interested in the success of the project, and many will be predictably in support of, against or indifferent to the proposal. They can include individual activists and organizations such as specialized business groups, special-interest non-government organizations, local advisory boards and commissions, both business and residential neighbors, the news media and others you can reasonably expect to take an interest at some point along the way.

In today's complex political, legal and regulatory environment it's important to go well beyond the obvious to identify a third class of stakeholders who might otherwise remain out of sight until much later in the process. It's best to mine the community early on for opportunities to inform people and organizations who could hold up a project if they can legitimately claim that they were misinformed or not informed at all.

It is almost always better to inform too many people too soon than vise-versa, because latecomers to any debate offering a perspective that hadn't been considered earlier can affect outcomes drastically.

 

At the outset, bring together people who understand the technical aspects of the project, local and state government, local politics, the law, the financial details, environmental considerations, the community at large and the local news media. The point is to include someone who can address in finer detail almost any potential stakeholder concern.

Do you want to draw news media attention to your proposal? You might get media attention whether you seek it or not. Consider whether you might gain an advantage with a pre-emptive strike - a news release, an interview or a meeting with an editorial board. Never assume that you can avoid media scrutiny completely even if your project is very small, seemingly uninteresting, environmentally benign and non-controversial to the point that you believe that no one would be negatively affected. It's not always necessary to approach the media proactively, but you should decide in advance how you would respond to unexpected calls from reporters.

Invariably, things will go more smoothly if you've taken the time to get to know reporters ahead of time. Introductions under deadline stress - especially after others may have already set the tone of the story - are more difficult.

Choosing to approach news people in advance need not result in immediate coverage, but doing so can give you an advantage later if you've established yourself and your project with the people who eventually will be reporting on it. Learn what reporters' deadline requirements are (reporting careers live and die with deadlines) and respect those needs. You will have gained an advantage it you are viewed as an enabler, not an obstructer. Sometimes saying nothing can be the best choice, but usually it is not. In any case, always tell the truth and don't resist providing access to information that is already on the public record.

In the end, candor and transparency can be disarming whether you're bearing good news or bad.

 

Assess, from time to time, whether your earlier messages have been understood, even among the core group. In our increasingly specialized world, niche occupations and avocations breed their own cultures that give birth to arcane jargon and closely held knots of knowledge. Insiders need to remember that otherwise intelligent, educated people - who may well have their own specialized backgrounds - might not always speak the same language. A meeting room filled with developers, elected officials, government administrators, lawyers, engineers, geologists, advisory board members, wetlands experts and financial experts creates multiple opportunities for miscommunication.

 

Stakeholders become stakeholders by virtue of their susceptibility to risk or the perception of that susceptibility. The risk defines the stakeholder, and it can be rooted in economics, aesthetics, the environment (read "health") or any other interest.

It's crucial to understand the source of concerns and to acknowledge stakeholders' interests in them. You don't have to agree with their assessment of the risk, but never fail to acknowledge it. Ignoring peoples' perceptions of risk can doom a project in the face of all reason and logic, including sound science.

Each human being perceives risks and responds to them differently, often more with emotion than with reason. We all are willing to tolerate risks that others will not, and we all rationalize and chose which facts we want to accept and act on as we go.

Virtually no activity is completely free of risk, but the element of choice makes a world of difference. We think little of the risks we choose for ourselves, but we rise up in protest when others presume to choose our risks for us. Many a third-tier stakeholder has spoken up at a public meeting with a variation of this testimony: "I will choose my own risks, thank you; the ones you are trying to choose for me are unacceptable and I will fight you to the end."

Most everyone understands that any hobby, habit or other activity carries with it more or less risk than another. If you've taken the time to collect the statistical data, you might be tempted to tell an upset citizen that his drive to the meeting put him more in jeopardy than would the emissions to the air from the manufacturing plant proposed for the neighborhood. Don't. The citizen chose to drive to the meeting, but did not choose to propose the plant.

One person or a small group's protest is no reason to abandon a major redevelopment project, but failing to acknowledge perceptions of risk, irrespective of their rationality, serves mainly to draw more attention -- and sympathy -- to the protester's position.