Our three point strategy of response (to an unfair situation and/or unavoidable situations of having to deal with crooks, bullies and other disingenuous people) has related micro and macro aspects. This is in the context that a ‘balanced or open-minded skepticism’ is needed now more than ever in dealing with others and organisations (especially online) at the public-private nexus.
The micro version might be summarised as follows: (1) an initial and thoughtful rather than reactive or impotent response (mainly based around an initial question to clarify the situation or the intentions or others) before going further, (2) developing a plan which might include also collecting evidence or engaging a person/organisation as part of this process (giving them the benefit of the doubt until they at least inadvertently condemn themselves – which often happens with sustained and focused ‘engagement’), and (3) a subsequent implementation of the plan or strategy devised (e.g. may be a formal complaint making use of any available due process mechanism) with informed and thoughtful commitment as a matter of principle to hold others to account (rather than only focusing on a possible or desired outcome)
At the macro level a related response to some larger issue of public-private accountability (e.g. an industry or sector acquiescence to corporate profiteering, political agendas and/or other vested interests) might frame related efforts of ‘complex problem-solving’, ‘sustainable solutions’ design, ‘macro stakeholder’ collaboration, and so on [links to come].
In a nutshell, as well as (1) the gist or basic strategy of a practical solution, this should also involve both (2) a critical expose of any existing bad plan or policy as well as any compromised efforts of “corporate profiteering, political agendas and/or other vested interests”, and (3) the constructive policy engagement of government, community and related ‘public’ agencies in terms of seeking sustainable directions and emergent solutions (rather than just immediate ‘one-shot’ (i.e. ad hoc or magic bullet) decisions or answers.
[For instance, in relation to the Qld taxi industry’s ‘Uber crisis’ we systematically explored and later advocated a more sustainable, integrated and outcomes-based (and not just ‘evidence-based’) approach: “As industry representative body, the Qld Taxi Council requires a more effective strategy which should include the following: better exposing the non-sustainable side of the Uber company as well its ride-sharing model, engaging government policy about this more constructively, and coming up with a better and more sustainable overall ‘practical solution’ for the future“.]