Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 07

BOUNDARIES The Overton window refers to the range of ideas that is considered politically acceptable to talk about. That range expands and contracts as norms evolve. Executives will also set the scope and boundaries of the discussion to make it wieldy or make an agenda “do-able.” They may even set up turf-guarding “no-go zones” by limiting the subjects under discussion. INTENSITY What is the emotional temperature surround- ing an issue? What are the “hot button” or “triggering” issues that evoke strong responses from particular stakeholders. How do people perceive the stakes? Various rhetorical gambits can exaggerate or downplay the significance of factors under consideration. The overall tone of messages will be scrutinized for appropriateness. LABELS Pollsters have long known that the wording of a question�particularly the main issue or stance�strongly influences answers. Terms can have positive and negative connotations. A vivid coinage evoke images in the mind, while a euphemism suppresses them. Buzz- words gain currency. Terms can take on sym- bolic importance or acquire political baggage. Even vagueness can be used strategically. EQUIVALENCE Is state-sponsored hacking an act of war? Is prison labour a form of slavery? Is human and animal life distinguishable morally? These are invitations to consider equivalence or contrast . If either are established, several implications follow logically. That is why we are quick to dispute “false equivalencies” and “hair-splitting”. Metaphors, similes, and analogies can be sly forms of comparison. FRAMEWORK We tidy analysis by organizing concepts and their interrelations into mental models . These are shared as visual frameworks, maps, categorization schemes, and diagrams. Official frameworks are negotiated attempts to collectively structure thinking around an issue. For executives, the stakes are high for what gets included and excluded, which is why frameworks are regularly renegotiated. UNCERTAINTY There is always uncertainty surrounding an issue. The acceptability of a proposal is partly determined by a group’s threshold for risk and the proposal’s structuring of risk. Efforts then go into bolstering confidence and assuaging doubt. Or ramping up fears and highlighting dangers. Or stressing the necessity of safe- guards, fall-backs, and half-measures. The extent of not knowing becomes contested. LANGUAGE Key concepts and how they cohere to form descriptive or explanatory models What is and isn’t within the range of acceptable considerations Fears and aspirations given the various unknowns and risks STAKES LIMITS Yo�’R� C�MP�R�N� APpL�S A�D O�A�G�S! Th�t’S A D�S��N�T�O� W�T�O�T A D�FfE�E�C�! I’M N�T S�R� T�A�’s T�E R�G�T W�R�. I D�N’T L�K� T�E C�NnO�- A��O�. APpR�C�A�E T�E G�A��T� oF T�E S�T�A��O�. T�E�’Ll G� B�Ll�S��C �F T�E� H�A� T�A�! T�A� S�U�D� A B�T A�A�M�S�? I T��N� oF �T A� A F�U�-S�A�E C�CL� ... T�E�E’S S� M�C� W� D�N’T K�O� Y�T. �T’S T�E S�M� A� ... / i�’s �i�e ... / T��N� o� �T A� A ... Y�U’R� M�V�N� T�E G�A� P�S�S! Le�’s n�t “b�i� t�e o�e�n” h�r�. I D�N’T T��N� Y�U W�N� T� G� T�E�E. T�E �SsU�S F�Ll �N�O T�REe B�G B�CK�T� ... T�E W�N�O� O� OPpO�- T�N�T� �S S�R�N��N�! L�T’s S�A�T S�ALl A�D T�K� B�B� S�E�S. I SEe F�V� S�R�T�G�C C�N��D�R- A��O�S ... I D�F�N� T�A� T�R� A� ... February/March 2019// Canadian Government Executive / 17