Evaluating Ethical Dialogue

Insurers have such engagement programmes in order to learn more about the scope of the issues involved and the depth of the concerns. Typical topics are around access to insurance and vulnerable consumers, with the ethical issues being fairness and discrimination.

It matters how you structure the dialogue at the heart of such engagement. Get it right and you learn about the cumulative experiences of those affected. Get it wrong and you’ll learn little and potentially lose a lot.

Some consumer groups tell me that insurers have a habit of wanting to control agendas, talking only about what interests them. Others are wary of the imbalance of resources around dialogue processes, with insurer expectations set too high too early. These concerns will influence the engagement and so need to be accounted for.

An insurer can use this toolkit to make an informed assessment of the type of dialogue process they feel able to engage in. It also allows them to evaluate an existing process against a sequence of expectations.

The toolkit looks at five types of dialogue and evaluates them against key stages in a dialogue process. This will show you…

· where your dialogue process is now;

· whether it’s where you want it to be;

· what to change to get it to where you want it to be.

Getting your dialogue process right will strengthen the relationships you have with external audiences and from this will emerge greater trust and better outcomes.

Introduction

Ethical dialogue is a process for building understanding around a particular ethical issue, between parties who may have different interests and values at stake. The intention behind such dialogue is to…

· build a shared understanding of the ethical issue;

· develop a shared approach to resolving it;

· agree on shared expectations of what can be achieved by when.

At its simplest, it allows both parties to become more informed about what each other is thinking and doing. At its most developed, it allows both parties to coordinate their activities and decision-making in order to not only remove such differences, but also through advocacy to ensure that wider progress across the sector is achieved as well.

For the insurer, a good dialogue process will improve…

· risk management;

· decision making;

· corporate communications

· reputation management;

· compliance with laws and regulations.

Managing and Respecting Expectations

The key thing to remember is that consumer groups are experienced in engaging with various types of organisations. This means that they will have expectations as to the scope and depth of the dialogue they want with you. It is important to first establish what those expectations are, and ensure that your dialogue process reflects them.

The main sign of dialogue expectations not being met is the disengagement of one or more of the key parties from the process. This can also happen towards the end of the process, with outcomes from the process being difficult to agree.  The more well known the consumer group, the more likely they are to want to see their expectations met. After all, they have reputations too.

Five Types of Ethical Dialogue

The evaluation at the heart of this toolkit is set against the context of five types of ethical dialogue. Each of those five types is described below.

Information Giving

'Information giving' ensures that those people who need to know something are informed about it. However, there is no opportunity for those people to influence the decision made nor to have a share in the decision making process. Such a method may be acceptable where there is minimal impact on stakeholders or where the decision maker possesses a definite mandate. It can also be relevant in times of crisis when immediate decisions and leadership are needed.

Information Gathering

'Information gathering' is used to inform an initiator who is engaged in reaching a decision or drawing up a proposal. Stakeholders taking part have no control over the final decision, nor do they have any control over the decision making process or the way their information is used.

Consultation

The aim of a consultation exercise is to generate responses to a prepared proposal. The initiator wants to know what the stakeholders being consulted think about a particular proposal. Those consulted may influence the decision, but have no share in it. Poor communications around the parameters of consultation exercises often leads to frustration as people feel their views have been ignored.

Bounded Dialogue

With bounded dialogue, the decision will have already been made in outline and control of the rules for the dialogue will largely be in the hands of the initiator (depending on how well they handle the rules). The purpose of the dialogue is either to confirm that the initial decision is correct or to achieve collaboration on the development of an initiative, policy or strategy springing from that decision, or both.

Open Dialogue

With open dialogue, the aim is to develop a decision that meets the needs of the initiator and the stakeholders. No important decisions will have been made in the lead up to the open dialogue and the stakeholders will start out by agreeing the parameters for the decision making process together. The process usually involves a mix of stakeholders, including both advocates and those with lived experience. A meaningful commitment of time and resources is necessary but the outcomes generated will have a strong sense of shared ownership.

Key Attributes of Each Type of Ethical Dialogue

These five types of dialogue can be summarised according to a number of key attributes, as follows:

What to Look for in Your Evaluation

The main risk to look for in ethical dialogue is whether the type of dialogue the insurer wants to engage in accurately reflects the type of dialogue it is actually engaging in. So for example, an insurer might set out to conduct a consultation, but actually only engage in information gathering. This is more common than most insurers think. It arises from poor expectation management, a lack of reflective thinking and sometimes, poor communication. Consumer groups find it extremely frustrating!

To avoid this, the insurer should cover the column headings in the above table and concentrate on what it is prepared to deliver in relation to the attributes in each row of the table. If they find that most attributes all under one of the columns, they then need to decide whether that type of dialogue will deliver them  the outcomes they’re looking for.

For example…

· do they need to ‘up their game’ and be more bold in their engagement?

· are they doing enough to draw in the people they want to hear from in this engagement?

· does the type of dialogue provide the level of assurance they want from the dialogue?

And as a result of this evaluation, the insurer can identify where they need to improve their process. The evaluation table shows them what sort of ‘step up’ is needed in each stage of the process.