On a flight some years ago from Amsterdam to Nairobi I watched a two hour documentary on the ten year renovation of the Rijksmuseum (Holland's National Museum) in Amsterdam. It is a tale of perseverance, human frailties, citizen input, ingenuity, and, most importantly, the difference between ownership and buy-in.
Most of the papers and talks about governance mention how important it is to listen to the voices of the people affected by a project or initiative, as if that is easy. The documentary shows what you have to be prepared for when you invite those voices in – in this case the voices of the bicyclists. You can see why people prefer not to bring those voices in when there is deep controversy. The documentary shows how this citizen input complicated matters beyond belief. It also demonstrates how the ability to manage citizens' input requires very advanced conflict management skills, a good measure of emotional intelligence, patience and, in this case, also lots of extra cash.
If your focus is on buy-in, rather than ownership, then the choice seems to be about anticipating a brief and intense outcry at the end of a project (in other words, not involving people) or, if you do, an agonizing and drawn out process of arguing and trying to convince the other side, which in Amsterdam took 10 years and contributed greatly to increased cost and delays. The conflict was eventually resolved, all parties are happy now, but the price was high. If anyone calculated the costs and looked at the pros and cons of inviting the voices of the people in, I am sure the cost-benefit analysis would counsel for ignoring potential opponents and dealing with the outcry later when things cannot be changed anymore. Eventually, one may expect, people get on with their lives and the protest will die down, except for a small very vocal minority which one could choose to ignore.
I am a fervent proponent of listening early on to the voices of those affected and involved to avoid problems down the line. The documentary showed clearly why we should never go for buy-in if we can go for ownership from the get go. Getting buy-in is selling. In a highly politicized environment such selling tends to pit groups against each other into adversarial roles, amplifying parochial and narrow self-interest.
Getting ownership starts with the creation of a shared vision of what success looks like; where everyone can see that their interests are recognized, even if not fully realized, for the sake of working towards an overarching aspiration that can serve as a magnet for the investment of resources (including human energies).