<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Listening leadership</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/02/17/listening-leadership/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/02/17/listening-leadership/#utm_source=feed&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=feed</link>
	<description>Promoting innovation and a conversational local politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:58:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ingrid Koehler</title>
		<link>http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/02/17/listening-leadership/comment-page-1/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator>Ingrid Koehler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:20:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/?p=661#comment-94</guid>
		<description>Actually, I agree with all the things you&#039;ve said, but I don&#039;t think that negates my statement.

1. It&#039;s a listening leadership, not an abrogration of leadership.  That&#039;s why we have a representative democracy.
2. Absolutely, I think the real value of digital engagement at the local level is that it leads to better face-to-face engagement (where more stuff gets done).
3. Yep. Most of the business of government is dull.  There&#039;s an awful lot of photocopying and filing and data entry and stuff.  There are many small decisions and balancing of resources that have to happen fast.  There are also specialist elements which require professional expertise from how to grit a road to how to do consultation legally.  And some of it is essential but thankless, like personal care for people who have no one else to turn to.

And I don&#039;t think we want to necessarily turn a complaint into a consultation obligation.  But are we even listening and acknowledging that complaints and comments can and should inform strategy and service improvement?  And if we can&#039;t even listen to the complaint, how we can possibly expect people not to be cynical about those consultation exercises?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I agree with all the things you&#8217;ve said, but I don&#8217;t think that negates my statement.</p>
<p>1. It&#8217;s a listening leadership, not an abrogration of leadership.  That&#8217;s why we have a representative democracy.<br />
2. Absolutely, I think the real value of digital engagement at the local level is that it leads to better face-to-face engagement (where more stuff gets done).<br />
3. Yep. Most of the business of government is dull.  There&#8217;s an awful lot of photocopying and filing and data entry and stuff.  There are many small decisions and balancing of resources that have to happen fast.  There are also specialist elements which require professional expertise from how to grit a road to how to do consultation legally.  And some of it is essential but thankless, like personal care for people who have no one else to turn to.</p>
<p>And I don&#8217;t think we want to necessarily turn a complaint into a consultation obligation.  But are we even listening and acknowledging that complaints and comments can and should inform strategy and service improvement?  And if we can&#8217;t even listen to the complaint, how we can possibly expect people not to be cynical about those consultation exercises?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/02/17/listening-leadership/feed/ ) in 3.08264 seconds, on Feb 9th, 2012 at 10:47 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 9th, 2012 at 11:47 am UTC -->
