Training Project Proposal

Maintaining and Restoring Public Trust in Government Institutions Facilitator/Moderator: Anita Richardson

Subject/Topic: Public trust in government has remained between 20-40 percent in recent decades and this figure has not risen above the 60 percent mark since 1968. This according to a Pew Research Center survey, which also shows performance ratings for elected officials are down despite the fact that poverty and unemployment levels are at an all-time low. The take away for public officials and organizations is a negative characterization of guilt, greed, and lacking accountability by a public that is growing increasingly weary. (Pew Research (a), 2015) Overall Americans have a very negative view of government with only 19 percent indicating they trust government “always,” 74 percent saying they believe the majority of elected officials put their interests above the publics, and 55 percent of the public believes an ordinary citizen would do a better job than solving the nation’s problems. (Pew Research (b), 2015)

Nowhere is public distrust more evident in than in the 2016 presidential election. According to the Pew research, republicans are most angry, with 22 percent saying they are angry at the government, 57 percent expressing frustration and 18 percent saying they are basically content. Republicans were reported to be three times as likely as democrats to say they are angry with the government. However, in 2015 a large majority of both parties said they can seldom trust their government; 89 percent of republicans and 72 percent of democrats. (Pew Research (b), 2015)

Hence the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, one a 78 year old “socialist” democrat, who is raising no money for the party; and the other a “pseudo” conservative republican, business mogul and reality television personality who has never held office. Both are anti-establishment candidates, who are making serious bids for the white house due to public distrust. Yet, this broken faith in public leadership exists not just at the federal level, but at all levels of government from the federal to the state and local officials.

In the city of Flint, MI, for example, government officials allowed the water coming from the city’s pipes to become corroded and unfit to drink after making the decision to switch the water source from the relatively clean waters of the Detroit River to the contaminated waters of the Flint River. The decision was made in an effort to save money for an impoverished post automotive manufacturing city, with a dwindling revenue base. As calls for city services were increasing and the city of Flint was nearing bankruptcy, the governor appointed an emergency manager in Flint, whose authority and decisions would be final and not subject to a vote. Soon after the emergency manager approved the water switch, it was apparent to Flint’s citizens that something was wrong with the discolored water coming from their taps. But their voices were largely unheard as public officials at all levels of government minimized the water crisis. In the aftermath, the city was left distrustful and broken; illustrating clearly, when the people we trust fail us, they also destroy the trust and faith we put in them to serve us well. (Shapiro and Yu 2016)

In her evaluation of public trust, Regina E. Herzlinger also offers many examples of growing disenchantment within a number of public and government organizations. The author points to reports of United States postal service workers dumping their mail and failing to complete their deliveries as an example of ineffectiveness. In another example she reminds us of instances

1

where hospitals have pushed out patients who can’t afford to pay but who are still in need of vital health services. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, according to Herzlinger’s analysis, is an example of “private inurement” or the attainment of excessive benefits by public officials for private use. The company is described in an incident as having created a $17 million fund to create an information system, then hiring a member of its own board who had very little technical experience to manage the complex project. The author uses this example to highlight the point that when salary levels are questionable it can lead to public distrust.

Excessive risk, is underscored in another example by Herzlinger as another problem involving public trust that occurred in Orange County, CA. Here, an official is described as having borrowed $16 million in public funds to invest in securities. The official then used the interest from the investment to meet the county’s payroll expenses. Herzlinger describes this move as a “recipe for disaster,” explaining, when governments lack the basic mechanics of accountability, public distrust often is the result. (Herzlinger 1996)

Public officials don’t seem to understand that the public expects their interest to be taken into account and when the interest of the public is disregarded, the result is a disruption in expectation – which results in public distrust. So how do we get beyond distrust and restore trust in government institutions when public trust remains on the decline.

In his analysis, Mark Granovetter (1985) offers key insight concerning the role of social relations or social exchange in maintaining and building trust. The author attributes the high level of general distrust to what he characterizes as “eroded confidence in recent years.” (Granovetter 488) This lacking confidence is due to what the public sees as an inability on the part of public officials to call upon themselves to mitigate their own deceit or self-interest in the markets they serve. Granovetter says this has created a sustained level of “malfeasance” or distrust.

This training will look primarily to Social Exchange Theory and its implications for leveraging social capital in the process of shaping an actionable strategy in response to the looming challenge of maintaining and restoring public trust in government.

Audience: City of Flint, Genesee County or State of Michigan Government officials. These, or other individuals, who are responsible for communicating regarding governance issues and solutions on behalf of public institutions with the public will benefit most from the training.

Purpose: The goal of this training is to outline a criteria for maintaining and restoring public trust through ongoing public talk and engagement. The training will offer trainees an opportunity to learn actionable strategies for pubic engagement and discourse that work to maintain and restore public trust.

Solutions for mitigating lacking accountability are outlined in a discussion of the Herzlinger analysis.

Four collaborative principles are outlined for use by public officials in examining factors relevant to building social capital. These principles will shape training strategies by providing an additional analysis tool.

This analysis will be accomplished using six relationship norms or values that contribute to public expectation.

2

A four quadrant matrix model will be used as an evaluation tool for determining whether public trust exists.

Actionable strategies for building public trust will be detailed under the “public discourse” and “public engagement” categories as practical solutions for governing officials to use for building social capital and restoring public trust.

Research: The theoretical foundation for the training is based on Mark Granovetter’s analysis of “social embeddedness,” which focuses on the impact of social networks on economic outcomes. Granovetter (1985) offers key insight concerning the role of social relations in maintaining and building social trust in his analysis that concludes economic behavior should be viewed as “embedded” in social relations because they involve a cost and benefit element that is akin to an exchange of social capital and this results in reciprocity, which is a precursor to building public trust.

Granovetter’s research underscores the need to define organizational boundaries and set clear objectives and well as stressing the need for a collaborative process of engaging the public in social relations where economic exchange exists. Doing so often requires a change in objectives and focus on the part of public trustees.

Restoring trust is said to involve repeated social exchanges governed by cultural norms that create their own expectations. These exchanges and expectations must be mutually regarded within the relationship. As repeated interactions and the resulting expectations are positively upheld over time, Granovetter believes the condition for trust to exist is created and the expectation for parties to abstain from self-interest in pursuit of the common good for these relationships also rises. (Granovetter 490)

In other analysis, Robert Putnam offers the following as a clear definition of social capital. (Putnam 1994, 664-665)

…the collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other…social capital refers to features of social organizations such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.

A Harvard Business Review analysis by Regina E. Herzlinger takes a close look at the growing public disenchantment. The implication here is that public trust suffers when public officials or their organizations do not accomplish their stated missions. Herzlinger offers several examples of public disenchantment in her evaluation which are previously outlined. The implication also is when government lacks accountability mechanisms it can lead to public distrust. (Herzlinger 1996)

A Pew Research Center survey reveals public trust in government is at an extreme low. The survey confirms public trust has remained between 20-40 percent in recent decades and this figure has not risen above the 60 percent mark since 1968. The survey shows performance ratings for elected officials also are low. (Pew Research (a), 2015

Only 19 percent indicating they trust government “always,” 74 percent saying they believe the majority of elected officials put their interests above the publics, and 55 percent of the public

3

believes an ordinary citizen would do a better job than solving the nation’s problems. (Pew Research (b), 2015)

Pew research confirms, republicans are most angry, with 22 percent saying they are angry at the government, 57 percent expressing frustration and 18 percent saying they are basically content. Republicans were reported to be three times as likely as democrats to say they are angry with the government. However, large majorities of both parties said they can seldom trust their government; 89 percent of republicans and 72 percent of democrats. (Pew Research (b), 2015)

Also contributing a model of engagement that focuses on building social relationship and shared collaboration to solve problems, Edgar A. Schein’s analysis proposes that trustors and trustees work as partners in cross-tie (social and economic) relationships. Shein offers a model for “campfire dialogue” which adds to the discussion. The implications here are for “public talk” as an aspect for collaboration through public engagement. This because the way the public interprets messages received from multiple sources must be considered in discussing the restoration of public distrust. (Schein 2016, video)

Analysis by Kathryn E. Anthony and colleagues on Message Convergence Theory also adds insight regarding public talk with implications for adding value to society by engaging discourse as a way to build or exchange social capital. Anthony describes the process of decoding messages as one “influenced by values, culture, life experience, education and background.” (Anthony et al. 348) This “pluralism of values” suggests public trust or expectation is based in beliefs and values. Therefore, the purpose of public discourse would be to enhance trust by creating shared meaning or understanding.

The Anthony et al framework is useful for interpreting the “pluralistic meaning of messages” that is likely to be interpreted based on an audiences beliefs. (Anthony et al. 347) This theory looks at how people seek information and simultaneously analyze the information as it comes in from multiple sources. (Anthony et al. 347) In their analysis, the authors explain how message convergence can result in distrust if messages from public officials are not viewed as ethical or are seen as contrived. (Anthony et al. 350)

Michael Palenchar and Robert Heath also evaluate using message convergence as a tool in “adding value to society.” In their analysis, the authors share conclusions drawn from a decade-long study, which offers insight and guidelines to help government and health organizations communicate effectively and inspire their audiences trust based upon the premise that doing so would add value to society by empowering the public. Public talk requires transparency, building trust through community outreach, collaborative decision making, acknowledging uncertainty, and narrative enactment to enhance organizational communication. To foster public reflection, public officials must speak to the public’s underlying assumptions and previously held beliefs. (Palenchar and Heath 122)

Analysis by J. M. Hogan supports the assertion that “Public talk,” is where the community finds answers to its questions. Hogan supports using a variety of “public texts” including press releases, broadcast interviews, speeches, online publications and online bulletin board postings, to provide feedback to the community and to allow community discussion. (Hogan 1998)

4

The implication of message convergence theory to maintaining and restoring public trust goes directly to its effect on public communication and the “meaning-making process.” This involves placing public beliefs and norms, central in the process of engaging in public talk and understanding that it is the disruption of our expectations that leads to distrust. Therefore, public discourse becomes vital for sharing meaning and creating understanding around public expectations.

Herzlinger, in her evaluation, also points to a lack of clarity in messaging as a leading cause for public distrust. In addition to this research, the following case study summaries will aid facilitated discussions during training. (Herzlinger 1996)

Robert Putnam introduces the idea of social capital by asserting the following: (Putnam 2000, 10)

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital.

Edgar Schein also offers a model for social engagement, or cross-tie relations, which focuses less on content and more on the social relationship or collaborating to solve problems as partners. (Schein 2016, video) Schein’s process driven approach echoes the concerns of Granovetter’s research. The assertion here is that many economic exchanges are anchored in “complex social ties” which are deeply embedded in the business and communication process. (Granovetter 1985) Both point to a more collaborative client-centered model to inform the work of consultants – or in this case the trustor being governing officials.

The implications of Schein’s analysis is that it speaks well to the overall potential for using a process driven approach or collaborative model for building cross-tie or embedded relationships. Schein believes we must place emphasis on the needs and prior experiences of the client/trustee, or in this case – the public, on whose behalf trustors such as public officials act and engage.  (Schein 2016, video)

When combined, the analysis by Herzlinger, Granovetter, Anthony et al., Schein and Putnam’s explains how building social capital through collaborative public engagement and discourse is central to the objective of maintaining and restoring public trust.

In other analysis on public trust in government agencies, Craig W. Thomas confirms the Pew Center research results. Although the exact causes for public distrust are said to be still debated, Thomas says trust has been on the decline since the 1960’s. He further asserts that the performance of government officials and a general dissatisfaction on the part of citizens with government institutions are key motivations. Once lost, Thomas says public trust is difficult to restore and he concedes that zeroing in on a definition of trust is difficult because it encompasses

5

“cognitive, emotional and behavioral components that operate in both the interpersonal and institutional levels.” (Thomas 167)

Thomas’ evaluation affirms that trust within this context is based on “beliefs rather than expectations.” Trustworthiness is defined as an outgrowth of the building of social capital. The importance and implications of social capital are described as based in a belief that others will do good by us. This, Thomas says, leads to trust. (Thomas 168)

Thomas also echoes Granovetter’s belief that the disruption of expectation leads the public to distrust. The implication of Thomas’s approach is a core belief that when an institution takes our concerns into account, pushing aside their own self-interest in a bid to secure our well-being, the more they are seen as being worthy of our trust. (Thomas 170)

In the light of the supporting research, Granovetter’s embeddedness approach is therefore is not just a concept for building social relations, but is a theory of action. It implies before you arrive at a public meeting, your social capital must already be secured or you will likely face public resistance to your initiatives.

Josh Boyd gives an analysis of an eBay online community initiative in an article entitled “In Community We Trust”. The focus is on how eBay customers were engaged in the notion of community as a way to build trust. During training this case will support message convergence theory in reiterating that the messages your audience receives should be both ongoing and meaningful. The implication for public officials is that the level of trust between you and your audience needs to surpass the threshold of perceived risk and building trust is important if the community is to become fully engaged and supportive of your initiatives. It also underscores Herzlinger points, regarding accountability and private companies. She explained that often private companies are incentivized to self-regulate or report out in order to keep their customer base satisfied and profits high. Unlike public organizations, progress reports are generally a requirement and negative reporting has consequences. (Boyd 2002)

A Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) case study, “Build the Roundabout or Fix the Roads” will be used as an example of public resistance to a governing agency’s initiative. The construction of a modern roundabout in Midland, MI was plagued by public concern about government spending at a time when Michigan roadways were visibly crumbling. The Midland City Council ended up approving the project, but there was much public opposition and distrust. Although, effective safety messaging was key to the projects approval, support for increases to public funding for the project was low due to the perception of government inefficiency and support for the initiative itself was plagued by fears about ineffective government spending. This case will be used during training to highlight Herzlinger’s points regarding public perceptions of lacking accountability and the resulting distrust. (State of Michigan 2016)

An NP, Around the Nation report by Ari Shaphiro and Mallory Yu explores issues of distrust and the Flint Water Crisis. Entitled, “Flint Residents’ Broken Faith: The People We Trusted Failed Us,” the implications for this case study are the article’s focus on how government officials allowed the water in Flint to become corroded and how lead contaminated water, which resulted, destroyed the trust of Flint residents. (Shapiro and Yu 2016)

6

A New York Times article entitled, “In Vaccines We Trust,” reported by KJ Dell’Antonia explores issues relevant to parental rights and childhood vaccines. The efficacy, risks and timing of many childhood vaccinations has long been disagreed upon as the debate over vaccines like varicella (chicken pox) continues. The impact for public officials is that the core issue is all about public trust and the decisions parents make about their children. It is an issue that remains fresh on the minds of the public and one requiring the public’s trust in order to achieve a positive outcome. (Dell’ Antonia 2016)

Research confirms that social interaction enables people to build communities and commit themselves to one another. It is through this sense of belonging or framework of accountability that ongoing exchange and social networks evolve over time. This is the mechanism through which relationships of trust and cooperation are created. Most important, if public confidence is to be regained, the effort to restore public trust must be collaborative and ongoing.

Applying Research:

The following is the proposed applied communication research approach that will be taught to trainees as a method for maintaining and restoring public trust:

A Process Driven, Collaborative Model for Building Social Relations:

Using research by Granovetter, Anthony et al. and Schein, this training will use the following four-point criteria as a collaborative principal for in building social relations. The criteria, which follows, is for use by public officials as a process driven, collaborative framework to engage the public in a process driven, collaborative approach to building trust.

1. Use a process driven approach: According to Edgar A. Schein, an underlying assumption of the process driven model is that organizations know how to solve their problems but often do not know how to use their resources effectively in the implementation of effective solutions. An implication here is for the use of embedded social relations or networks to build social capital and support for initiatives. Schein’s process driven concept places encourages emphasis on “how things are done rather than what is done.” (Schein 2016)

2. Engage in collaborative planning with the public: Raising the expectation that governing officials will “do good” by the public it serves helps maintain and restore public trust in governance. By using a process driven approach to collaborative planning that involves citizens in key decision making, governing officials create an expectation for mutual cooperation and shared benefits.

3. Plan client- (or public) centered initiatives: Considering the relational norms or values that inform public expectations allows governing practices to better reflect public aspirations and thereby secure public support

4. Create shared meaning or understanding: Similarly when public dialogue takes prior beliefs and public values into consideration, reflecting the public’s concerns in messaging, officials are more likely to create shared understanding.

7

Six Relational Values for Changing Public Perception:

Ultimately, the success of institutional and government initiatives depends on public trust. In analysis on improving government performance, Edward G. DeSeve outlines six factors for changing public perception and regaining trust. Public officials must appeal to these relational norms and values, which feed public expectations, if they are to maintain and restore public trust. These factors are slightly modified for use in this training. They are:

1. Honesty –The public must perceive that you won’t stand for “small lies or a little bit of cheating.” DeSeve says this factor goes beyond ethical behavior and must be reflected in public policy and culture.

2. Efficiency – The public needs to know that the government is going to deliver a value for their money in terms of high quality goods and services.

3. Transparency – The public must be able to see what’s going on for themselves. Knowing can lead to more positive perceptions of government.

4. Accountability – The public desires to be informed about what you’re going to do and to know that you’ll give them an account of how you did it. A lack of performance measures, little or no incentive to self-regulate and engage in ethical behavior, and a lack of clarity in messaging are described as contributing to missing accountability measures that are necessary for building public trust. (Herzlinger 1996)

a. Herzlinger outlines four categories where a lack of accountability on the part of government officials exists as key reasons for public distrust. They are: 1.) Ineffective organizations; 2.) Inefficient organizations; 3.) The attainment of excessive benefits by organizational managers; and, 4.) Taking excessive and unnecessary risk with taxpayer funds

b. The author proposes a four-step remedy for the lack of accountability that she says leads to public distrust, which includes: 1.) Disclosure; 2.) Analysis; 3.) Dissemination; 4.) Sanctions. The process using DADS as an easy to remember acronym. Descriptions are as follow:

i. Disclosure – Meet public information requirements willingly and quickly and it’s important for the public to know if you’re meeting your mission and full disclosure is a part of this process.

ii. Analysis – Your expenses are an important indicator of your use of resources. Make sure the volume of your data is not so huge that it prohibits making comparative analysis available to your customers.

iii. Dissemination – If no clearinghouse exists to review and clear public requests this can lead to distrust. The more responsive you are to public requests the more increase you'll see in terms of public trust.

iv. Sanctions – Failure to disclose, analyze, or disseminate public information should be sanctioned to avoid the appearance of inefficiency.

5. Good Policy Choices – The public wants the assurance that you have a process to move public needs into actionable strategies.

6. Positive Outcomes – The public needs to know that you will implement policy honestly, transparently, and accountably and that your efforts will be ongoing. Doing so will lead to positive outcomes.

8

Measuring Public Trust: A Qualitative Approach:

Not much exists in terms of empirical testing of the concept public trust. Fortunately, research has well identified key motivational objectives for maintaining and building pubic trust. Therefore being able to conceptualize public trust as a measurement may best be reflected in a qualitative analysis of the question, “Does Trust Exist?” To this end, a matrix model included in research by Rachel C. Morrison and Keith Macky, who explore the topic of social capital within an organizational setting will be modified and used for this training.

The four quadrants of the matrix model (below) represent an analysis or qualitative measure of social capital vs. social liability. The matrix will serve as a measure or assessment of the necessity for taking action to build social capital as a precursor for restoring public trust.

1. LOW SOCIAL CAPITAL / HIGH SOCIAL LIABILITY

This is the “least desired” scenario for public officials. There is virtually no social exchange or reciprocity with the public and distrust (low social capital) is high. Negative relational

9

Cost

Benefit

Social Liability

Social Capital

norms (such as inefficiency, lack of transparency, lack of accountability and lack of cooperation) exist and the lack thereof offers little in the way of useful information to address public need. Officials may be guilty of nondisclosure, favoritism, and there is little to no transparency (high social liability).

2. HIGH SOCIAL CAPITAL / HIGH SOCIAL LIABILITY

In terms of emotion, effort and time, this is a very consuming scenario for governing officials. Although there is likely some reciprocity and trust with some elements of the public (high social capital) and possibly some positive relational norms (such as efficiency, transparency, accountability, and cooperation), some negative relational aspects exists that do little to add value to the exchange between governing officials and the public. There may also be people in the network of social who engage in non-disclosure, favoritism, or sabotage. There is likely very little transparency (high social liability).

3. LOW SOCIAL CAPITAL / LOW SOCIAL LIABILITY

This type of social exchange is characterized by little interaction or task interdependence. Governing officials and the public are isolated from one another. There would be low reciprocity and distrust (low social capital) as well as negative relational norms (such as non-disclosure, favoritism, sabotage, and a lack of transparency). Governing officials are highly task focused and efforts to engage the public and work collaboratively may be viewed as low priority.

4. HIGH SOCIAL CAPITAL / LOW SOCIAL LIABILITY

This is the “most desired” scenario. Governing officials work collaborative with the general public as a team. The public is trusting and efforts and interactions are reciprocal. Positive relational norms (such as efficiency, transparency, accountability, and cooperation) exist. Officials would probably be visible, productive, high status, and well networked within the community they serve. Governing officials and the public provide benefits to one another within a social/economic exchange and do not actively work against one another. Interaction is positive, useful and relevant to the work at hand.

Actionable Strategies for Maintaining and Restoring Public Trust:

Engaging the public in the development of plans is an essential step to building cross-tie relationships that offer mutual benefits to governing officials and to the public. The public is more likely to support public initiatives when they have a hand and voice in developing priorities, strategies and plans.

Two process driven actionable strategies that governing officials can use to build social capital in order to maintain or restore public trust are set forward in this training. Details are outlined under the headings Public Dialogue and Public Engagement.

10

1. Public Dialogue: The following strategies for public dialogue are based on analysis of research by Granovetter, Putnam, Schein, and Anthony et al, Palenchar and Heath, and Hogan.

A. Public dialogue requires transparency.B. Violating the expectation that citizens’ interest will be taken into account in

results in a disruption of public expectation – which leads to distrust.C. Build trust through community conversations and collaborative decision making.D. Acknowledge uncertainty and use narrative enactment to enhance organizational

communication. E. To foster public reflection, public officials must speak to the public’s underlying

assumptions or previously held norms and beliefs. F. Use a variety of public and online texts to build the notion of community,

including: press releases, broadcast interviews, speeches, print and online publications, online bulletin boards, social media, and web sites.

2. Public Engagement: The following strategy for public engagement is a modified take on research by the NHS Institute, which offers tools for effective public engagement and best practices strategy to a variety of programs for the purpose of achieving transformational change. For the purpose of this training, the following four-point plan for setting public engagement priorities is proposed to help maintain and restore public trust.

A. Develop an engagement strategy:

1. Engaging citizens in decisions about public services and initiatives better reflects public aspirations, relational norms and values and builds social capital.

2. Social capital results when social networks engage in doing things for one another.

3. Public trust is a “social currency” that is facilitated by building social capital through cross-tie social relations.

4. Public trust results when we coordinate and cooperate for the purpose of mutual benefit.

B. Embed public engagement into your everyday practice by:

1. Plan public forums to create shared understanding of expectations and limitations.

2. Underpin engagement with communication strategies.3. Use communication strategies like deliberative methods to allow priorities to

be ranked through public deliberation. 4. Consider formal consultation on best practices and options for effective

organizational change. 5. Develop an ongoing mechanism to promote dialogue with local people.

11

6. Build the capacity for public citizens to participate in decisions regarding resources, using innovative approaches like participatory budgets or selecting preferred alternatives.

7. Offer citizens more opportunities to make decisions and not just inform them.

C. Develop trusting relationships:

1. Build trust and confidence in relationships by providing clear information.2. Be honest about areas of tension and clarify areas where consensus already

exists.3. Be honest with the public about what they can and cannot change as a result

of engagement.4. Be transparent in revealing potential changes in service by engaging the

public and stakeholder who will be affected by decision making about priorities and designs.

5. Develop a criteria and values to guide your decisions that is relevant to the norms and values that inform public expectation of governing officials.

6. Test public reaction to difficulty decisions where trade-off may be required must be made by engaging the public in test scenarios discussions regarding difficult decisions.

7. Ensure a cross-section of local residents are involved and make sure the views of seldom heard groups are included into decisions.

D. Support community partners and stakeholders at all levels of engagement

1. Build relationships between public officials and public stakeholders.2. Work together in an open and collaborative way by engaging with

stakeholders. 3. Include media and politicians.4. Work with local authorities like council members and committees and other

overview and scrutiny committees who will have oversight for how resources are spent.

5. Support your local partners, stakeholders and community leaders as sources of expertise who are not there just to rubberstamp your decisions but to act as critical channels to the community, who are able to provide strategic advice from the onset of the planning process.

12

Training Delivery Mode:

Training will use a process driven, collaborative approach that takes into account the prior knowledge participants bring to the table. Case studies will be used to facilitate full group and small group discussions. We will highlight key concepts in the training and use examples to clarify discussions during the training activities and breakout sessions.

A variation of a matrix model (Morrison and Macky p.10) used originally in research by AUT University as a visual to train participants to identify employee social liability, will be used to highlight the objectives for maintaining and building public trust. References to “employment” will be deleted. Definitions for the four quadrants, offered within the text, will be modified and offered in explanation during training.

A 10-minute Personal Thought Inventory (PTI) will be used as an activity during training. The concept for including this exercise is taken from consulting training research by Beebe et al. This exercise will assess understanding of training concepts, including “social capital” and “social liability.”

In addition to citing varied examples throughout the training from the Herzlinger research, two case studies will be used in facilitated discussion during orient trainees to the training concepts: 1.) In Community We Trust: Josh Boyd on building the eBay Community; and 2.) Childhood Vaccinations: In Vaccines We Trust.

Two case studies will be used in the trainee break-out session to train participants to analyze situations using training concepts, along with evaluating the overall existence of public trust using the matrix model. The case studies are: 1.) Flint Water Crisis: Broken Faith: “The People We Trusted Failed Us.”, and 2.) MDOT: Build the Roundabout or Fix the Roads

We also will use the following elements of the Beebe et al consultant training strategy to ensure effective delivery of the content to trainees.

Frequency – Use “plus one mastery” to build upon skills by adding new skills only after an initial skill has been learned. Also, Use analogies. Trainees learn best when they are able to practice the skill set or behavior during training.

Effect – Make the consulting environment pleasant and include appropriate breaks. Association – Relate facts, ideas and concepts in your training to the prior experience of

the trainee. Make training timely and relevant to the client’s current needs. Remember, single-dose training can result in an overload of information.

Readiness – The consultant needs to make clear why the skill they are teaching is important.

The implications of Beebe’s research on effective training are inherent in the authors’ analysis, which spells out the specific skills consultants must have to be effective. The required communication training skills were summed up and include: facilitating discussions, providing helpful feedback, demonstrating understanding, and imparting practical work skills. (Beebe 250)

13

Roles and ResponsibilitiesAs facilitators/moderators of the training program, we will supply participants with a training manual (PowerPoint slides), which cover the concepts learned in the training session. Participating organizations will be responsible for determining those attending.

Venue and Dates

The training will take place at the UM-Flint campus and a date/time to be determined, with the target being spring/summer 2016.

BudgetTraining will be delivered on a volunteer basis.

Tentative Agenda: 1 hour 30 min

Introduction: Defining Public Trust (Lecture 10 min)

- The goal of this training is to outline a criteria for maintaining and restoring public trust through ongoing public talk and engagement.

- We will briefly cover the training objectives and define public trust.- Logistics (restroom location), and the ground rules or housekeeping items.- We will begin the session by introducing ourselves to the participants and having

them introduce themselves.

Personal Thought Inventory (PTI Activity 5 min)

- We will use a PTI (Personal Thought Inventory) at this point to make sure participants are understanding the focus of the training.

- The PTI will consist of three questions, regarding the effectiveness and importance of public trust.

- We will call on a few participants to share their thoughts with the group.

Building Social Capital (Lecture 10 min)

- This lecture will focus on the issues of building social capital and the role of social exchange or building social relations in restoring public trust.

- We will discuss the importance of social capital as a precursor to building public trust.

- Challenges to public trust as relevant to the issue of accountability will be discussed.

Experiential Fact-finding (Discussion/Activity 10 min)

- We will guide a full-group facilitated discussion on the issue of accountability and its relevance to public trust.

- Discussion will be based on participant’s personal experiences and feedback.

14

- As facilitators, we will brainstorm (with the trainees) to create a list of common beliefs that contribute to the negative public perception that the work of governing officials often lacks accountability.

Process Driven Collaboration (Lecture 5 min)

- This lecture will briefly discuss the benefits of using a process driven, collaborative approach to public discourse and engagement.

- We will explain the benefits of using a four-point criteria or process driven, collaborative approach to building engagement.

- We will recap the usefulness of social relations and “embeddedness” to building social capital as a precursor to building public trust.

Changing Public Perception (Lecture 10 min)

- Because the disruption of public expectation leads to public distrust, a list of key relational norms or values that feed public expectations will be defined for participants.

- These norms are important for public officials to consider in their collaborative public engagement efforts.

- Topics covered will include an explanation of why analyzing your target audience from the perspective of their values and beliefs is important to building public trust.

- In addition, how using message convergence theory as a framework for messaging aids the process of maintaining public trust will be discussed.

Actionable Strategies (Lecture 10 min)

- We will go through a list of strategies governing officials can use to maintain and restore public trust.

- We will underscore the importance of action in two categories: public discourse and public engagement.

Evaluating Trust (Lecture/Demonstration 5 min)

- We will show participants how to make an evaluation using the four-quadrant matrix model to answer the question, “Does trust exist?”

- This qualitative analysis of case study scenarios will be based on the relational values that feed public expectations, along with the process driven, collaborative strategies for building public trust learned in the training.

Breakout Session (Facilitated Discussion 25 min)

- In facilitated discussions, using a pre-prepared evaluation sheet in the PPT (participant journal), participants will actively engage in case study analysis.

15

- The breakout sessions will be used to bring home the point that effective communication requires process driven, collaborative public talk, public engagement, and actionable strategies to achieve the goal of maintaining and restoring public trust.

- Participants will break into two groups. - Using the four-quadrant matrix model, participants will evaluate whether public trust

exists in case study scenarios. - Groups will be asked to look for key issues and challenges to creating public trust,

such as those relevant to accountability and transparency. - Groups will identify public beliefs that may be driving public expectations on each

issue.- Participants will reflect on actionable strategies outlined in training to propose a

solution to build public trust in their analysis of the case study.- Two case studies will be used during the breakout session: MDOT and Flint Water

Crisis.- Facilitation during small group discussions will involve recapping useful info from

the training that is helpful to overcoming public resistance to achieving public trust.- Each group will present their evaluation and solution for restoring public trust.- To correct (softly) any missed points, we will reiterate key points during facilitation.

Closing (5 min)

- To close, we will recap points important to public trust and thank those attending.- We will ask those attending to complete a survey.

When: Spring/Summer 2016

Where: University of Michigan-Flint campus.

How: Contact officials and set a date/time for the workshop

16

Citations:

Anthony, Kathryn E., Selhow, Timothy L., Ilher, Alyssa G. M. “Message Convergence as a Message-centered Approach to Analyzing and Improving Risk.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 41:4, (2013): 346-364. Web. 29 Nov. 2015

Beebe, Steven A, Mottet, Timothy P, and Roach, David K. “Training and Development: Communicating for Success – Mastering How Adults Learn.” Chapter 2. Boston: Pearson, 2013. Print.

Boyd, Josh. “In Community We Trust: Online Security Communication at eBay.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 7:3 April (2002): Web.

Dell’ Antonia, KJ. “In Vaccines We Trust.” New York Times. (2016) Web.

DeSeve, Edward G. “Regaining the Public’s Trust.” Governing the States and Localities. Management Insights. Dec (2011). Web.

Herzlinger, Regina E. “Can Trust in Non Profits and Governments Be Restored.” Public Relations. Harvard Business Review. March/April (1996) Web.

Michigan Department of Transportation. “Evaluating the Performance and Safety of Roundabouts.” OPUS International Consultants, Inc. Dec. (2011). Web

Granovetter, Mark. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology. University of Chicago Press. (1985) 481-510. Web.

Hogan, J. M. “Conclusion: Rhetoric and the restoration of community.” In J. M. Hogan (Ed.), Rhetoric and community: Studies in unity and fragmentation. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998: 292-302. Web.

Morrison, Rachel L. and Keith Macky. “Employee Social Liability – More than just low social capital with the workplace.” Aukland University of Technology (AUT). Research Paper Series Paper 34 (2014): Matrix Model on page 10. Web

Palenchar, Michael J. and Heath, Robert L. “Strategic risk communication: Adding value to society.” Public Relations Review (2006): Web. 1 Dec. 2015

Pew Research – A. “Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center (2015). Web.

Pew Research – B. “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2015.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center (2015). Web.

17

Putnam, R. D. “Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America.” Political Science and Politics. American Political Science Association 28:4 (1994): 664–683.

Putnam RD. “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.” New York: Simon & Schuster. 2000. Print.

Schein, Edgar. ‘Schein: Process Consulting’ lecture. UM-Flint – MA Applied Communication: Comm. 512: Video (2016); Based on Schein: “Process Model of Consultation” and the Helping Professions

Shapiro, Ari and Yu Mallory. “Flint Residents’ Broken Faith: The People We Trusted Failed Us.” All Things Considered; NP, Around the Nation. (2016) Web.

State of Michigan. Michigan Department of Transportation. “Midland Roundabout Construction to Begin April 28, Weather Permitting.” www.michigan.gov/mdot. March 2016, Web

www.michigan.gov/roundabouts. Michigan Department of Transportation. “Roundabouts” 2016. Web.

Thomas, Craig W. “Maintaining and Restoring Public Trust in Government Agencies and Their Employees.” Administration & Society. Sage Publications, Inc. 30:2 (1998): 166-193.

18