Notice standards that may narrow participation

Okun's original list names perfectionism; a sense of urgency; defensiveness or denial; quantity over quality; treating the written word as the only valid knowledge; one right way; paternalism; either/or thinking; power hoarding; fear of open conflict; individualism; defining progress as more; a right to profit; claims of objectivity; and a right to comfort. The updated website groups and revises these ideas, adding more attention to fear and intersecting forms of power. You do not need to memorize the list. Use the characteristics that illuminate a real decision, and check the author's updated explanation before using a term.

A deadline may be required by law, safety, or a commitment to people waiting for services. Calling every deadline harmful would be careless. The concern is manufactured urgency that leaves no time to hear people affected, test an assumption, or correct an avoidable error. Similarly, quality checks and clear writing are valuable. The problem is a standard so narrow or punitive that it discourages questions, hides mistakes, or excludes useful knowledge. Ask what the standard protects, who can meet it, and whether another method would protect the same purpose with less burden.

The distinction between a written record and 'worship of the written word' matters in public service. DHS often needs an accurate record of decisions and reasons. That does not require every contribution to arrive as a polished English memo. A spoken comment, an interpreted conversation, an accessible form, or a community meeting can be documented and considered through a sound process. Staff should follow records, privacy, accessibility, and language-access requirements while widening the routes by which relevant evidence can be heard.

Fictional case: A project team has ten days to recommend changes to a DSD information sheet. The due date is real, but only staff who can submit a two-page written memo by the next morning are invited to comment. The team can keep the deadline and still ask what shorter or more accessible feedback routes are possible, how they will document responses, and whether more time is needed for an affected group's input.

Where does your team distinguish a legal or service deadline from a preferred internal pace? What input might be lost when the two are treated as the same?

Draft a two-route feedback invitation for the fictional information sheet. Include a way to capture comments in the record and a sentence explaining the deadline honestly.