Lazy processes are damaging credibility

Written by Shanna Crispin

Too many government organisations are ignoring basic human behaviour, and it’s damaging their credibility. 

We are operating in a time when organisations need to focus on proactively building and nurturing a positive reputation. For one, it’s the right thing to do. But also, information now moves faster than ever before, and reputations can be lost in an instant. 

Investing in proactive reputation management is just good business sense, like buying insurance. 

That means putting in the legwork to demonstrate ability, showing genuine care for people who are our customers (public sector or not) and, above all else, operating with integrity. 

When organisations fail to put customers at the centre of their communication, it’s frustrating. It shows a lack of awareness and care for the people they are speaking to. 

Let me explain. 

In one recent example, a local government was seeking feedback on a proposed community infrastructure project. Naturally, the opportunity to provide feedback on the designs was shared on Facebook. 

The request was for people to submit feedback via a survey on a consultation portal. This is common and good practice for consultation; it allows consistent data to be collected and compared across demographics. 

But, of course, the local community wanted to share opinions on Facebook itself – the social conversation platform built for connection and community. Hundreds of comments were made on the post, prompting the local government to add a comment stating that social media comments would not be captured as part of the formal consultation. People needed to complete the survey for their feedback to be counted. 

Why? Because it’s easier for the local government? Or perhaps the council in question would point to consultation governance, ensuring decisions are made on robust data that can stand up to scrutiny. 

Surely those comments are still an important source of feedback and should be considered as part of the decision-making process, while recognising they cannot be treated as representative survey responses. It is not difficult to capture and analyse them – that can be done within a few minutes with the help of AI. 

Claiming otherwise reinforces local government’s reputation for bureaucracy, frustrates customers and fails to build trust. 

In a second example, a local government was encountering a higher number of landfill fires because lithium batteries were being thrown out with household rubbish. 

To combat that, the local government published a Facebook post reminding people to dispose of batteries only in dedicated bins. The problem? There were only two bins in the area. 

The post ignores a basic behavioural science principle: to change behaviour, you need to make the desired behaviour easy. 

These two examples are simple mistakes that require customers to work within the bounds of the bureaucracy the local government has created. Neither makes it easy for people to provide feedback or do the right thing. 

As a result, people get frustrated and complain about local governments. The impact on trust and confidence is clear. 

Before asking communications teams to post something in an attempt to “fix” a problem, internal decision-makers need to consider whether the environment supports the behaviour they want to see, and what the organisation may need to change. 

That is how organisations show people they are listening, acting with care and worthy of their trust.