Your engagement playbook is enraging the stakeholders you need.
Today’s installment continues the Arc of Outrage series, which explores the predictable cycle of public opposition now rising around data centers—and what leaders must do to soften, shorten, and survive it.
In a recent briefing I had with data infrastructure executives, one summed up their efforts to respond to growing data-center opposition with this gem: “Everything we are doing is making it worse.” It’s true.
And they’re not alone.
The standard engagement playbook is designed to secure approval for projects that are expected to be approved. But when you’re working through the Arc of Outrage, you’ll find these standard engagement tactics enrage citizens and the elected officials who represent them.
Here’s what to do instead.
Both of these things are true:
- To get any project approved, infrastructure leaders rely on a standard engagement playbook run by their tried-and-true team of communications, government affairs, and permitting experts.
- In the Arc of Outrage, that playbook and the familiar advice your tried-and-true team gives you will exacerbate the outrage it is intended to manage.
Six standard engagement mistakes your expert team is probably making in the Arc of Outrage—and what you should do instead
1. Your experts say: Stay quiet until the project is ready.
The problem with this advice:Ninja-like project development used to be a best practice: Companies should be neither seen nor heard! And it made sense, because early engagement does carry risk. Isn’t allowing a community to learn about a project just asking for opposition, both genuine and ginned-up? And companies must weigh the very practical considerations of locking up land, site access, and rights of ways without setting off a bidding war.
In the Arc of Outrage, however, this approach is a recipe for disaster. That’s because the very proponents you need for approvals are the people who will later be on the receiving end of the rage when the project is announced. You see the results across the country in delayed approvals, hasty moratoria, and reversed tax incentives.
Instead: Socialize your project early, while meaningful choices remain. Map your key stakeholders and start light-touch early conversations with them. We are thinking about this project. What is important to your community? What are your interests, concerns, and priorities around project development? Listen and digest. Tell them you’ll return when you have more of a project concept.
2. Your experts say: Lead with facts and benefits.
The problem with this advice: Communities do not want to be told what’s coming and then subjected to attempts to convince them that it is good for them.
Instead: Lead with questions about the community’s present needs and future vision. Stakeholders will have different and possibly divergent perspectives about their communities’ priorities. Your job for any particular project is to start teasing out an understanding of what’s important to this community and what contribution your project could make that would be genuinely beneficial. As I wrote in “The Future Has the Right of Way,” project proponents and community stakeholders must make a concerted effort to consider the project in the context of the community’s future.
3. They say: Correct the misinformation.
The problem with this advice: It is important to correct consequential errors, but do not imagine that that correction will address project opposition. If stakeholders don’t trust you, they won’t believe you anyway.
Instead: Find the concern underneath the disputed fact. Ask for more information. If this were addressed, would it assuage your concerns about the project? (Often the answer is no!) What are other things that you are worried about?
4. They say: Present a strong community benefits package.
The problem with this advice: I’m all for your organization putting together a generous community benefits package. Executives often ask my team for a menu of benefits they should work from. But here’s the thing: If you put forward a package in a vacuum, it feels like a payoff. And you end up with the same problem you had in Number 1: your needed project proponents trying to defend their approval of your project.
Instead: Let local priorities define what “benefit” means. Every community wants the best deal it can get. That means that there is no menu community leaders will want to select from—they want their own, bespoke solutions. Because a project must be additive to the future the community is trying to build, community interests must shape the solutions set. Depending on the place, options might include workforce development, improved public services, upgraded infrastructure, more affordable energy, academic engagement, high school trade programs, or support for local business innovation. (And there you have a starting menu, for those who have been asking for it!)
5. They say: Mobilize supporters for the hearing.
The problem with this advice:You do, in fact, need project supporters to turn out as project advocates. But a superficial turnout effort will not carry the day.
Instead: Build relationships with credible project champions. Ultimately, you need local business and political leaders to champion your project (because it is good for the community and its future!) who are visible, accountable, and prepared to remain engaged long after the vote.
6. They say: Call out hypocrisy and agendas among opponents.
The problem with this advice:Once you’ve built up a great project with a genuine value proposition for community stakeholders, it can be incredibly frustrating to face passionate, vocal, even professionalized opposition. Inevitably, you’re told to take the fight to them and use their tactics. Don’t—because you will be (and should be) held to a higher standard.
Instead: Compare the build and no-build futures honestly. The cost of doing nothing belongs in the discussion. Work with stakeholders to answer these questions: What alternatives exist to this project that are acceptable? What opportunities might be lost if it doesn’t get built? You are introducing trade-offs and ensuring that your project provides a clear net benefit compared with a future where it doesn’t get built.
Seize the day: You can course-correct amid the storm
Bring your managers and your comms, permitting, and government-affairs teams together to work through these six directives. Ask them:
- Can we reengage with local leaders to hear their vision and priorities?
- What meaningful choices are still open to allow them to shape the project?
- Who has the credibility and courage to champion our project?
- Have we compared the build and no-build futures honestly?
Then adjust the engagement plan, project schedule, and budget accordingly.
If everything you are doing is making it worse, don’t just do more of it.
(But do heart this post!)
Need help? I’m providing limited executive and board briefings—reach out to request one.
It’s time to course-correct,
Tisha
