How organisations build trust in their decisions through effective public engagement

The reaction is predictable: frustration, cynicism, protest.

So what is the difference between a community that embraces a new infrastructure project and one that mobilises against it? Why does one public health campaign change behaviour while another sparks distrust or resistance? In most cases, it isn’t the proposal itself. It’s the quality — and credibility — of the public engagement behind it.

Turning critics into contributors

A question I’m often asked is deceptively simple: how do you turn your critics into part of your decision-making process?

The answer is not by talking louder, holding more meetings, or perfecting the dot-sticker exercise. It’s by approaching each engagement strategy, as well as each engagement event, as a strategic, purpose-driven process — one that respects people’s time, intelligence and lived experience, while still acknowledging the real constraints organisations operate under.

For more than 30 years, I’ve worked in public policy, research and advisory roles, designing and observing engagement processes across government and industry. I’ve seen efforts that score ten out of ten for goodwill and effort, yet painfully low for impact.

Trying hard is not good enough. Our job is to deliver evidence in forms that decision-makers can actually use.

The cost of “consultation theatre”

Communities are not naïve. They can tell when engagement is performative — when decisions are effectively locked in and consultation is being used to satisfy a policy requirement.

When this happens repeatedly, the damage compounds. People stop believing in the engagement process. They disengage from formal channels and seek other ways to be heard — media campaigns, political pressure, legal action. Evidence and merit get lost in the noise. Projects stall. Costs escalate. Trust erodes, not just in a single organisation, but in institutions more broadly.

In the public sector, this often leads to risk aversion and decision paralysis — a quiet reluctance to pursue necessary reforms for fear of backlash. Ironically, this only deepens the problem.

From process to purpose

The most effective engagement doesn’t start with tools or techniques. It starts with clarity of purpose, supported by robust project management:

• Who, precisely, is making the decision — and when?
• What are the engagement parameters and constraints: time, budget, regulatory requirements?
• Which perspectives or members of the community most need to be heard (versus who are the easiest to access)?
• What type and range of input will most likely improve the decision or its implementation? 

Without answering these types of questions upfront, engagement becomes expensive busy-work: high effort, low return on investment.

Quality engagement is not a recipe to be followed every time. It’s about designing processes that fit the context and deliver insights decision-makers can act on. This requires a strategic management mindset — not just good facilitation skills.

Over my career, I’ve learned that even the most challenging engagement moments are containable when there is a clear purpose and structure in place. Loose, unstructured processes are the ones that unravel fastest — and do the most damage.

Real-world payoffs

Organisations that invest in structured, professional engagement consistently see tangible benefits. In infrastructure and development, this translates into fewer objections, reduced legal challenges and faster approvals. In public programs, it means higher uptake and more durable outcomes. For commercial organisations, it supports social licence, ESG commitments and long-term community relationships.

The efficiency gains are real. Upfront clarity reduces rework, delays and crisis management later on. In most cases, the return on investment is felt not only financially, but reputationally.

Just as importantly, communities notice when their input genuinely shapes outcomes. Trust builds incrementally — not because everyone agrees, but because the process feels fair, transparent and worthwhile.

Building capability, not just compliance

None of this happens by good intentions or hoping for the best. Effective engagement requires a suite of skills in the planning, execution and research translation stages.

Professional development plays a critical role here. It equips practitioners and leaders to move beyond inherited practices and towards contemporary, evidence-based approaches that respect both community voices and organisational realities.

Engagement done well is not about avoiding challenges and differences of opinion. It’s about channelling it productively — turning criticism into informed insights, and from there into better decision-making.

When that happens, something powerful shifts. People may not love every outcome, but they are far more likely to respect the process that produced it. In a time of increasing institutional scepticism, that respect is not a “nice to have” - it is an essential component of accountable organisations and institutions.