studies: (1) making an effort to understand the perspective of the regulated community, (2) give the regulated community the benefit of the doubt, (3) to use persuasion rather than threats, (4) be flexible as appropriate, and (5) and willingness by both parties to cooperate (see Figure 1.3). Figure 1.3 Attributes of the Flexible, Results-Oriented Regulatory Style Understand perspective of the regulated community Give the regulated community the benefit of the doubt Utilize persuasion instead of threats Be flexible as appropriate Cooperation First, regulators with this regulatory style endeavor to understand their regulatory counterparts in an effort work with them to achieve compliance (as opposed to working against them). Every facility that a regulator deals with is different and, as a result, a regulator has to take those differences into account in his/her interactions. However, understanding where a facility is in terms of environmental commitment, capacity and compliance, does not mean that the facility should be exempt from relevant rules; rather, it indicates that a regulator works with the facility where it is rather than where the regulator thinks the facility should be. If, for example, a dry cleaner has recently changed owners and the new owner does not even realize that the facility has an air permit, the regulator cannot initially begin with discussions about best practices; rather, the basics need to be explained first. According to the Lilliputians, it is very important to understand the facility that they are regulating before making demands. percent of regulators agreed while only ten percent disagreed. Often regulators can and do give their regulatory counterparts the benefit of the doubt - thereby indicating they are not inherently skeptical of the facilities. Regulators with this style think that it is advantageous to exhibit respect and even trust toward their regulatory counterparts and be willing to work together first, and change course only later if needed (c.f. Pautz and Wamsley 2012). Put differently, regulators assume the best about the facility until they have
studies: (1) making an effort to understand the perspective of the regulated community, (2) give the regulated community the benefit of the doubt, (3) to use persuasion rather than threats, (4) be flexible as appropriate, and (5) and willingness by both parties to cooperate (see Figure 1.3). Figure 1.3 Attributes of the Flexible, Results-Oriented Regulatory Style Understand perspective of the regulated community Give the regulated community the benefit of the doubt Utilize persuasion instead of threats Be flexible as appropriate Cooperation First, regulators with this regulatory style endeavor to understand their regulatory counterparts in an effort work with them to achieve compliance (as opposed to working against them). Every facility that a regulator deals with is different and, as a result, a regulator has to take those differences into account in his/her interactions. However, understanding where a facility is in terms of environmental commitment, capacity and compliance, does not mean that the facility should be exempt from relevant rules; rather, it indicates that a regulator works with the facility where it is rather than where the regulator thinks the facility should be. If, for example, a dry cleaner has recently changed owners and the new owner does not even realize that the facility has an air permit, the regulator cannot initially begin with discussions about best practices; rather, the basics need to be explained first. According to the Lilliputians, it is very important to understand the facility that they are regulating before making demands. percent of regulators agreed while only ten percent disagreed. Often regulators can and do give their regulatory counterparts the benefit of the doubt - thereby indicating they are not inherently skeptical of the facilities. Regulators with this style think that it is advantageous to exhibit respect and even trust toward their regulatory counterparts and be willing to work together first, and change course only later if needed (c.f. Pautz and Wamsley 2012). Put differently, regulators assume the best about the facility until they have
RinfretandPautz.docx