Do people elect local body councillors and mayors because they expect them to be representative of their views? Are they looking for strong, incisive leaders? Or are people more interested in a safe pair of hands who they know will seek public feedback on preferences and priorities before they make decisions? Or will being a former famous sports star or talkback radio host with a memorable name be enough?

The answer, if the outcome to previous elections is any guide, will be “all of the above”.

As the triennial local body elections loom the season for incumbent and aspiring candidates to clamour for public favour begins. Media attention will inevitably focus on the mayoral races for the major cities with all other candidates being largely ignored, having to rely on their own wits, a famous name or political party endorsement to have any show at getting elected. This scenario takes regional councils off the media radar completely, because their chairs are elected by the councils themselves, not by citizen voters. Many voters are then convinced that the most important elected role in their parish is for the mayor.

A sad reality is that most electors don’t care who their local leaders should be. Elector turnout is falling at each election, with successful candidates being elected by a diminishing minority of registered voters.

Some may argue that elected representatives are largely a waste of time, as councils have legislation that requires them to engage directly with communities when anything contentious is planned. That argument may have merit if councils were sufficiently motivated to engage with communities at anything more than the minimum levels set out in the legislation they are governed by. In a lot of centres council meetings are more about providing profile-raising side shows for any media who attend, rather than meaningful discussion about advancing local communities. Most citizens understand that, which is probably another reason why they don’t vote.

There are more effective ways of engaging with communities than using newspapers to make announcements. If the only feedback councils receive is through a newspaper’s letters column, that opinion is not likely to be representative. Indeed those letters are probably written by the same handful of activists who also make formal written submissions when any opportunity for them to grandstand arises.

A sad reality is that this disinterest gives strength to lobby groups who are generally not representative of a wider community. Many of these groups are not legal entities nor do they have a formal process for engaging with people other than the council they want to influence.

So if the old adage of getting who you vote for is true, who do you get if you don’t vote and is that any real way of running a democracy?

Internal communication is something that many organisations talk about but something few do well. That’s disappointing, given that staff are a key stakeholder in any organisation and “our greatest resource”, if the rhetoric of management gurus is to be believed.

Internal communication is often a task that is delegated to a communication team to deliver. A newsletter gets produced, an intranet is built. CEOs and second-level managers have regular columns prepared for them that are published through those channels. Occasional roadshows are put together. Lots of carefully crafted and approved PowerPoint slides are prepared. Annual engagement surveys and performance reviews are completed. Boxes are ticked. Internal engagement is done.

A reality is that staff do their own engagement. They talk with people in other divisions. They socialise at work and in their own time. They’re smart people and know how the organisation works, probably better than most. If they’re dedicated and committed they’ve probably got a bunch of great ideas about how things could be done better, ideas for dealing with challenges from competitors, sales pitches, managing relationships with suppliers and corporate clients. You name it. Some may be fortunate to work in a space where their initiative is appreciated and encouraged. Others may feel undervalued and even exploited.

Whatever the case may be, staff are usually better at internal communication than are their managers. Why? Because they do it because they want to, not because they have to. They understand the value that comes from it. Most of it may be informal. So what if it is? That’s how relationships are forged.

Communication isn’t rocket science, irrespective of the context. Despite what politicians may believe it starts with listening. It’s underpinned by a culture where people are treated as equals, irrespective of their position on the management food chain. People who get paid lots of money are idiots if they think they’re smarter than people who earn less than they do.

There’s never a good time for bad news. Openness and honesty are vital. There’s little harm in senior management letting their underlings know what they’re thinking. Information abhors a vacuum and speculation will soon fill it. That leads to uncertainty and lowers performance.

There’s always a good time for good news. Let your people know they’re doing well and that what they do is appreciated. Those sorts of comments are worth more than money, if the screeds of research about what motivates employees is to be believed.

Good internal communication is underpinned by good processes. It’s about matching the engagement with key decisions or outcomes, or key parts of a project plan. Project planners know how to piece together all of the things that comprise a successful result. They identify the timings and responsibilities for those, as well as the resource requirements, particularly the financial cost. So why then do projects that are specified to the nth degree so often overlook internal communication? Probably because there are some key performance indicators missing in senior managers’ job descriptions.

So rather than diving into a toolbox to look for ways of sorting out internal communication, a good starting point is looking hard at what drives organisational success and building some KPIs that support the delivery of that. How many CEOs and senior managers have KPIs that mention internal engagement outcomes? On many occasions the only person in the organisation with anything like that as part of their job description or outcomes is a communication manager or one of their advisers. They’re probably level 3 or level 4 managers with all of the diluted influence associated with that.

A good test for the priority an organisation bestows on a function is ringing it up and requesting a brief chat with the person who leads internal engagement and communication. Dollars to donuts the person to whom the call is directed won’t be the CEO. They’re probably way too busy doing really important things.

If your organisation is struggling with its internal engagement and communication, you’re not alone. Improving that won’t take a lot of resources, just some time and a commitment to doing things better. At Engagementworks we’re experienced in what works and what doesn’t in the world of internal engagement. We can help lead a process that puts in place some solid building blocks and can deliver positive and enduring results, provided senior managers are committed to those.

Please give us a call. We’re happy to talk and discuss ideas and needs on a no-commitment basis.

Community engagement should be an integral and fundamental part of any communication or project plan. At its core is a desire to ensure that key stakeholder and community groups are connected to your organisation in a way that they value.

Done well, community engagement grows your organisation’s reputation and also builds social capital in a positive and enduring manner.

That said, many organisations’ commitment to community engagement is, at best, the minimum they should do. Sometimes there is a statutory requirement to ‘engage’, such as in the provisions of the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act.

Not surprisingly organisations that engage in this manner always get what they’ve always got.

Asking for formal written submissions will capture the attention of the ‘usual suspects’. Many organisations know well who their submitters will be and also what they’re going to say. In such cases the submissions process is a meaningless formal nicety that allows a tick to be placed next to ‘consultation completed’ in case the auditors ask a question or there is public challenge to decisions made.

Public meetings too are generally a waste of time and effort. When nothing contentious is being talked about, few people are likely to drag themselves away from Shortland Street to sit in a cold hall to hear what some elected members or senior officers may have to say.

When something contentious is the subject of a town hall meeting, then the proceedings are usually captured by a few dominant personalities intent on competing for having the last word. Heavy rhetoric is bandied, newspapers report the conflict, with little that is positive achieved in terms of identifying issues or discussing options.

The community engagement toolbox is considerable and covers a range of techniques that are highly personal and proven to focus on achieving meaningful outcomes. Many of these tools can be put to work for less cost than a series of public meetings. Most can capture and distil ideas and opinions in a manner that can be put to good use by planners and policy analysts.

Engagementworks understands the theory and practice of effecting community engagement. We understand all of its components and how these can be put together in a manner that fits well with an organisation and its needs, particularly if there are statutory requirements to be met.

We have a range of consultancy services that can help our clients and we have some focused and practical training products that are available for individuals and teams working in the community engagement space. We can customise these to meet specific needs.

Please give us a call. We’re happy to chat on a no-commitment basis and identify ways you may be able to lift your organisation’s community engagement game and build a stronger reputation with your stakeholders and key communities.

At a time when more than ever before society demands more say in decisions that affect peoples' lives, the processes adopted by local governments for the reform of local government in the Wellington Region make an interesting case study.

It is fascinating to see how local councils trumpet their consultation and engagement processes based on the volume of submissions received, which in reality are very low when compared with the size of the affected communities.

With a population of 487,700 (2011) and total submissions of 3449 from the four consultations run so far, the public voice - if each submission is treated as a different person - represents a response rate of less than 1 per cent, which is hardly significant by any measure, especially given the importance of the issues.

The model of community engagement preferred by public bodies in New Zealand can best be described as "announce and defend", where any consultation occurs just before a final decision is made. This is not inclusive, involves little if any listening by the organisation concerned and depletes social capital to the point where people simply ignore calls for input or comment as being a complete waste of time and energy. The Wellington local government reform issue has, to date, involved four separate lead groups which, with some variation, have all used the "announce and defend" model to connect with the regional community.

What makes this whole process difficult for the average citizen is the lack of any unity or cohesion. The trigger appears to be the reform of local government in Auckland. It appears to have galvanised the Wellington Mayoral Forum into action when in 2010 they commissioned PriceWaterhouseCoopers to carry out a review, including options.

There was no public consultation in this review until after the final report had been delivered and considered by the Wellington Mayoral Forum. It is interesting that in three of the nine districts involved there were fewer than five submissions from each, in fact only seven in all. This does not say much for the quality of the engagement process used.

Next was the emergence of the Wairarapa Governance Review Working Party in February 2012, focused solely on local government in Wairarapa. It commissioned Morrison Low to undertake a study of options for Wairarapa and its report with options (different from the PwC report) was completed in September 2012, after which public consultation on the options took place culminating in an application to the Local Government Commission in May 2013. Again consultation focused only on the specific options on which a decision was pending.

There was no opportunity for the community to have input into defining the problem that triggered this review. Based on the population of the three districts affected (40,570) the 1158 responses (about 2.8 per cent) is not a representative sample.

Close behind was the establishment in May 2012 of the Local Government Review Panel by Greater Wellington Regional Council and Porirua City Council. The panel's issues paper was put out for public comment in July 2012. This was the first and only time in the entirety of the various processes that the community had an opportunity to have input on defining the problems.

Unfortunately, there was no further consultation before the panel delivered its report containing its recommended new structure to the sponsoring councils. There were only 234 submissions made to the review panel, which also held public meetings around the region.

In January 2013 the fourth group, the Regional Reform Working Party, comprising four councils, was established to develop a preferred model with or without Wairarapa. The working party consulted on two options during April and May and received 1892 submissions. In their latest news release they advised that following analysis of the submissions the next step could be an application to the Local Government Commission.

But that wasn't the end of it because just last week Wellington City Council decided to go it alone and proposed its own model for local government in the Wellington Region. No consultation at this stage.

Five separate groups, three studies, and multiple options all without any one really knowing what problem should be fixed.

This is an example of how not to connect with the community. A better way would have been to have a unified single group lead the review with a clearly identified process involving the community at each stage.