By Amy Holloway
The first three articles in this series explain how trust among local leaders correlates to more robust economic growth and accelerated progress and show how improving intracommunity trust is achievable through tactical action and intentionally applying one’s personality strengths like authenticity, empathy, or reliability.
Trust Builders defines “local leaders” as anyone whose role shapes the future of their community. These individuals span government, private sector, nonprofit, and academic realms. This article concentrates on government policies and procedures that affect trust among that broader realm of local leaders.
Even when local leaders are taking proactive steps to strengthen relationships with each other, trust might be impacted by government policies and structures. For instance, those systems might dictate who is at the table, how readily information is shared, the steps for reaching a decision, and how quickly a community can move from idea to action.
In Trust Builders, some of 31 interviewees discussed how they work within these constructs. In situations when a local law or governance model makes it difficult to be transparent or inclusive, for example, interviewees emphasized the importance of openly recognizing the challenge. As one said, “Acknowledge when a structure, versus other people, creates barriers to collaboration. State it out loud with other leaders and work together to find efficient – and legal – ways to progress even with that structure in place.”
The topic of public policy and trust has numerous facets – too many for this article to address. The ones I highlight below specifically relate to trust in economic development and are present in communities across the U.S., not limited to a specific state or city.
1. Government-led stakeholder engagement
Sometimes, the role of convening local leaders is the responsibility of a city government or other public sector entity. For example, the local government might be creating or revising a public policy, and the decision statutorily requires insights from others. Or public input is mandatory for a capital improvement project like a new water line, a road, or a park.
Whether the resulting policy or project instills community trust is determined from the earliest planning stages. In fact, it begins with how the government structures the engagement process. Chris Ansell and Alison Gash of the University of California, Berkeley, studied this topic in their paper, Collaborative Governance in Theory or Practice. Based on their review of 137 case studies, they answer the question of “What works, tactically?” They found it helps to:
- Recognize stakeholders’ relationships with each other. If there is a history of cooperation, or a history of conflict, identify those dynamics when organizing engagement activities. If participants have been at-odds in the past, try to find topics of mutual agreement. For example, stakeholders might be from different political parties, but they all struggle to access quality childcare. Call out that shared interest, connect it to the topic at-hand, and use it to repair trust.
- Address imbalances. In most stakeholder groups, there will be participants with more resources than others. Those with less funding or power might not feel comfortable speaking up – or vice versa. Structuring meetings so that every participant has equal time to voice their opinions is critical because those early imbalances have ripple effects on long-term trust.
- Set honest expectations. Whether someone agrees to participate often depends on whether they expect the process to yield tangible and effectual outcomes. If they feel like it is a ceremonial effort, or it is something they can accomplish on their own, they will often decline. When structuring engagement processes, set expectations up front – how input will be evaluated, to what degree will it influence the resulting policy or project, and what will happen with ideas that are shared but not incorporated. Also, genuinely strive for the result to reflect stakeholders’ voices, don’t just go through the motions.
A note on mandated collaboration: many federal funding programs require cooperation among organizations and jurisdictions. For example, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) requires that Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) include a stakeholder engagement process. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires “cooperation agreements” among local governments in counties that receive Community Development Block Grants. In numerous programs like these, the three lessons above become even more essential. Structuring stakeholder engagement to reinforce trust can become almost meta in nature: governments working together while also managing their own layers-down participatory processes.
2. Council structures
The structure of a city council or county commission can also impact trust among local leaders. Consider whether council members are at large or by district, for example. How large is the council? Is there a strong mayor or strong city manager form of government? Are decisions made at council meetings or are they filtered ahead of time through committees and workshops?
I recently worked in a city where there are no at-large council members. Twelve years ago, the city voted to move from an at-large to a districted structure. Many of the local leaders I met with discussed how that change has impacted the council’s ability to work toward a shared citywide vision. While it has increased public engagement and consensus-seeking, it is seen as being more process-heavy and slow. Some argued that the district model increases trust, while others argued that its cumbersome, siloed nature causes the city to lose projects to neighboring communities.
One Trust Builders interviewee shared another example of this. He said, “We have a mayor at the county level who is elected at large. Everyone else on the Board of County Commissioners is elected by district. That means that the mayor is in a powerful position. The mayor’s staff members are, then, also influential. Depending on the mayor, their openness or lack of collaboration have far-reaching impacts on trust. The structure means that much depends on that individual’s personality” and inclination to be a Trust Builder, which radiates out through the mayor’s staff and into the rest of the community.
Another facet of this topic relates to interaction of council members outside of formal council meetings. Although I recently worked someplace where county commission members were prohibited from speaking with each other off the dais, in many communities, council workshops are commonly used. These meetings can create space for deep discussion and problem-solving. This may result in formal council meetings that are more constructive and stable, which can increase trust with the public. To avoid seeming exclusionary or closed-door, the healthiest workshops are publicly noticed and oriented toward educating versus decision-making.
There is no universal agreement on the “best” council structure for building trust. Each model has a trust tradeoff. No matter the model, structures that are balanced and clear, with defined roles and procedures, go a long way toward reinforcing trust within the community.
3. Development processes
A complaint I hear from private sector leaders is that interfacing with their local government is tedious and time consuming, which leads to mistrust. In addition to the government’s organizational structure, as described above, there could be development processes and antiquated systems that slow community projects and affect leaders’ enthusiasm for working together.
Recently, I have seen more cities recognize this challenge. Some cities have invested in process audits and user experience simulations and then streamline the steps required to go from concept to approval. Some cities today even tout their reduced permitting times and ease of doing business with local government as competitive advantages. The smallest tweaks to one or two parts of the process can make a significant difference.
Around ten years ago, I worked in a city in Northern California that saw this as key to building trust with the public. When it was time for them to construct a new city hall, the city built a facility with extensive glass and open space inside. The permitting department was placed on the first floor in a public-facing space. The architecture itself communicated access and transparency, and staff were encouraged to operate in more concierge-oriented style.
Stakeholders will say that even if development timelines and experiences stay as they are, their trust improves if local government clearly communicates the steps to approval and frequently updates them. It also helps to hear government leaders commit to updating processes when given the opportunity to do so.
4. Sunshine laws
Transparency is one of the foundations of community trust, and sunshine laws are intended to protect it. For citizens, open meetings, access to public records, and advance notice requirements, increase confidence that local leaders are acting in the community’s best interest. They help prevent closed-door decisions.
These rules, while valuable, can come with a tradeoff for local leaders working together on complex projects. As one Trust Builders interviewee stated, “In my state, there are sunshine laws that require all meetings, records, correspondence, and other actions to be completely open to the public. It can be challenging, especially in economic development when companies need confidentiality when they are making site decisions.”
Consider an example community project, like a new downtown music pavilion. Bringing the venue to fruition could involve the city government, nonprofits, landowners, and private funders. In the early stages, the project would benefit from free-flowing ideas and healthy debates. Sunshine laws subject that correspondence to public record, which means the project partners might depress creative thinking. Trust building actions like regularly convening local leaders or proactively sharing information might be constrained, affecting relationships. The end design might not be as bold or take longer to construct, and trust might be damaged along the way as frustrations increase.
Almost every community has some form of a sunshine law. They are essential to maintaining public trust. But these same rules might test trust among local leaders. Places that navigate this well acknowledge this dynamic – it’s the policy not the people. Then create space for candid conversations within the bounds of the law.
5. Capacity
Several leaders I interviewed discussed government staff capacity as a trust-related factor. Does a local government organization have enough capacity to practice trust-building tactics like reliably showing up and following through, proactively sharing information, and completing work on time? (See my article, In Practice: Tactics for Building Community Trust.)
While many local governments face resource constraints, this dynamic is amplified in places that are administrating federal programs with strict compliance requirements. Take for instance the regions that received place-based industrial program funds through the Build Back Better Regional Challenge, Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs Program, or Good Jobs Challenge. From the beginning, competing for those grants tested trust among local leaders. The programs encouraged leaders across different organizations and sectors to set aside differences and work together toward a common goal. Those regions with existing cultures of trust were at an advantage because they could leverage existing relationships, move faster, pool resources to expand capacity, and even think more boldly.
Today, these grants continue to test trust within awardee communities. Program compliance and administrative requirements may strain capacity in some regions. The organizations serving as fiscal agents must sometimes deliver tough news or burden other project partners with reporting and monitoring requests, which might lead to frustration. Administrative time might cut into hours they have for trust-building activities. If you are a project partner in a community managing federal grant dollars or any complex funding, be aware of the capacity challenges they can cause the program administrator. Recognize that the actions you might see as trust breaking could be due to the program not the people.
Self-reflection
As you reflect on this topic, ask yourself the following questions:
- What policies, structures, or processes in my community impact trust among our local leaders?
- Is this widely recognized and discussed, or do I have an opportunity to bring this to light in a way that strengthens relationships?
- Is there an opportunity for us to improve or change a local policy or process in a way that would support a more trustful culture? If so, how?
Conclusion
Trust among local leaders is matter of relationships, first and foremost. But government policies, structures, and processes matter as well. I have discovered that intentional human-to-human trust building within a community is the strongest force. However, I would be remiss not to recognize the impact of public policies.
The opportunity here is twofold. First, local leaders could acknowledge and discuss pressure points and disfunctions created by public policies. Doing so will strengthen bonds with each other. Second, local leaders could find opportunities to change the policies and structures that currently break trust. Identify the challenges in current systems and then work together to improve those.
This is the fourth of four articles featuring my research around trust in economic development. The accompanying articles examine the premise of trust as a competitive advantage, traits of leaders who build trust, and tactics local leaders use to build trust. I hope that this series provides you with clear actions to strengthen trust and inspiration to translate trust into greater prosperity where you live.
