regs to riches

Share this post
🔔 do you hear what I hear?
www.regs2riches.com

🔔 do you hear what I hear?

👂 developing your policy ear

Vass Bednar
Dec 27, 2022
5
2
Share this post
🔔 do you hear what I hear?
www.regs2riches.com

Twitter avatar for @YoungParikPatel
Young Parik @YoungParikPatel
Kellogg's CEO just sent a company wide email telling all employees they have till 5pm tomorrow to decide if theyre ready to go ‘coocoo for cocoa puffs’ or take severance
1:00 PM ∙ Nov 21, 2022
31,871Likes2,384Retweets
Twitter avatar for @GianmarcoSoresi
gianmarco @GianmarcoSoresi
me every winter break
Image
3:36 PM ∙ Dec 23, 2022
48,105Likes6,021Retweets
Twitter avatar for @InternetHippo
Ded Moroz @InternetHippo
I've been a "Take care" guy for many years but it may be time to move on. "Have a good one" is off the table as is the clownish "Take it easy." Just not many good options for today's guy on the go
8:53 PM ∙ Dec 20, 2022
44,223Likes2,256Retweets

Quick end-of-year reflection ahead of my annual “regs to riches” policy agenda post —

👂 I think that one of the biggest challenges for policy people is developing their (our!) policy ears. 

A crucial part of our work is reliant on our ability to listen to the pain points and frustrations that people are experiencing and map them back onto regulatory realities; re-articulating the problem in an appropriate policy context. 

But no one ever really tells you that, because we like to pretend that intellectual work is literal when it’s often figurative. I think that the sources that policy prioritisation seems to have become dependent on are seriously impeding that ability. We are clouded with literal inputs that are overly direct: social media sentiment analysis that proxies mood, expensive word searches, and public opinion polling that asks respondents to react to carefully scripted questions.   

Let’s face it: everyday people just do not use the wonky terms that we revel in. Over the past two years, as I have championed the merits of competition reform, I have become convinced that people talk about competition policy ALL the time - they just never use those words.

If you pay a firm to search for “efficiency defence” “merger control” “competition policy” (the terminology that someone at the Competition Bureau is steeped in) instead of also understanding what people are chatting about with the terms “Loblaw” “Weston” “inflation” “greedflation,” (etc) than I think you can really miss the mood (*this is sort of a bad example as Canada is having a competition moment, so just imagine it in a 2021 context).  

More bubble bursting: on top of that, most people see government(s) as “the government,” and could care less about the organisational divisions we relate to across orders of government and ministries. They see problems and want a solution, while we wring our hands over “who” should lead the file. Maybe we need to get over ourselves a little bit, and lean in a little more to the all-of-government approach we see proceeding with some success in the US as it relates to competition. That isn’t to suggest that the art of policymaking becomes a total free-for-all, but perhaps more of an invitation model could help us move farther, faster on key items. Policy teams need the freedom to lead while inviting support from relevant ministries and peers. Tilting towards more of a ‘champions’ model would allow us to more closely mimic the policy experimentation that we expect to see in our federated model. 

Stop being scared by cross-functionality and scoffing that policy planks need to “stay in their lane,” and get ready to veer out of your lane to pursue necessary connections in an increasingly intersectional policy environment.  

Doing the work of developing your policy ear is an unspoken challenge for problem solvers of all kinds. It’s probably even thornier from a small business perspective, where entrepreneurs are saddled with the imperative of taking their personal case studies and abstracting those to a specific policy change, which is no mean feat. An additional force acting out against individual firms articulating their needs is the fear of speaking out that is common in concentrating industries or simply anywhere that a significant power balance exists. This “FOSO” was well-covered in the AELP report, “The Other Red Tape,” and no, there is not a Canadian version of this report because Canada. 

Basically: policy work is also an act of translation and storytelling. It’s not just how we listen but also where - it can’t just be the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star. People are seeking and building peer communities on Discord, Mastodon, and venting in sub Reddits. It seems like much of political communication takes place on Twitter, where likes and retweets are poor substitutes for other authentic inputs - it’s a performance platform. So we wind up talking past each other with different words and nothing (or little) gets done.

Comforting yourself that [~something~] isn’t a problem because the associated policy keywords don’t show up in your media scan is like when then-Toronto Mayor Rob Ford chided reporters for “not asking the right question” about his substance abuse. Maybe setting policy priorities is less about asking the “right” questions and more about actually listening to the answers people are voluntarily expressing. 

Next year, let’s commit to getting creative about improving our policy listening in the name of a more responsive and realistic policy agenda.

Leave a comment


2
Share this post
🔔 do you hear what I hear?
www.regs2riches.com
Previous
Next
2 Comments
Andrew Potter
Writes nevermind
Dec 27, 2022Liked by Vass Bednar

This is really good.

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
1 reply by Vass Bednar
1 more comment

TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Vass Bednar
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing