Category Archives: Working With Conflict

Teaching The Navigation of Difficult Dialogues: Sequence -1

Both policy-makers and the public can make wiser decisions if they think through an issue together. This means involving the public in some way

  • when defining an issue,
  • when thinking through what might be needed to fully understand that issue,
  • when identifying the options to discuss, and
  • when weighing those options.

Having a sequenced approach to public engagement helps to build both public understanding of, and trust in, the decisions ultimately made as compared to those situations where the public is simply asked to comment once a course of action has been tentatively decided on, or not consulted at all.

We started our class dialogue on gun violence with several question based discussions. Inviting people to share or respond to open-ended questions is often a good way to begin a difficult conversation because it

  • moves them away from positional argument,
  • allows them to get to know each other,
  • introduces new concepts and information in a way that does not require an immediate response or rebuttal, and
  • is clearly “exploratory” as opposed to “deliberative”.  (This last characteristic minimizes the fear associated with “deciding on the (wrong) answer”.)

More generally, thinking in questions allows participants to “unpack”, and look at the component parts of an issue, which better enables them to think about where and how those parts interact with each other, as well as with additional issues or concerns that the participants may have.

Our group first generated questions using our sources of conflict “pie-chart”. This led to the identification of a number of things to explore further, a listing of key interests and values, and a listing of relationships that might be affected or considered.  The group also developed a set of questions about the boundaries, rules, statutes or procedures relevant to the issue of gun use in schools. Using a different analytical tool, the group considered what ultimately needed to be decided by their group and why, who should be involved, and what subjects would need to be addressed in considering how any decision might be implemented. Finally they used a “jurisdictional grid” to consider how other levels and branches of government might affect or intersect with any policy that might be adopted by the local school board.  The notes  from these discussions  were then given to a smaller group to plan a “world cafe” type dialogue the following week.  What happened in that dialogue will be the subject of our next post.

Wise decisions require a kind of integrative thinking that takes time.  Participants need to take into account data and information, the context in which that information was collected and disseminated, and the broader context of relationships, values and experience. The question based format used to begin our discussion of what policy should be adopted to govern gun use in our hypothetical community school district promoted this kind of integrative thinking.  It also helped to inform those planning the dialogues as to what additional information might be useful and how to present it.  Wise decisions also require participants to look at both long term and short term consequences of their decisions, as well as what is unknown or assumed.  This requires some evaluation of risk, both to one’s personal interests and to the broader interest of a community.   Thinking in questions helped the participants begin to think about these intersections of interest.  This session also built skills for navigating differences. Participants continued in later sessions to interact by asking questions when points of conflict emerged, which minimized the acrimony that so often develops over complex issues.  And participants were able to use the time between sessions to think further about their own views, and other perspectives they had heard, and to seek out additional information and input.

 

 

Teaching The Navigation of Difficult Dialogues: Structure

There are many different ways to start a public conversation. Unfortunately the ways that are most often used can make the navigation of difficult issues even more difficult than it needs to be.

For example, we often move to deliberation too quickly in our public processes. The public is invited to give input on one or more “options for decision” when it hasn’t been fully informed on the issue or disagrees with how the issue (and the options) are framed.  Forcing deliberation in this way triggers fear, distrust, and opposition.  Participants end up trying to indirectly navigate the tensions in their diverse interests, information sets, and values in the context of “reviewing the options”.  However those differences are never explicitly identified, discussed or resolved as arguments build over which option is “best”.  Even if they can’t fully articulate why, participants will identify what they don’t like though – and in addition to particular options that might be on the table, that includes those who are pushing for those options.  As the process deteriorates, participants hold fast to fixed positions, dismiss alternative views, and resort to name-calling or other disruptive behaviors.  Not our desired outcome!

At other times, the public may be invited to give input on an issue although it is not clear how the input will be used or even if it is really desired. The ubiquitous “town hall meeting” often falls within this category.  Participants are invited to share thoughts and comments with the people in charge of that meeting, but time is limited, the agenda is tightly controlled, the participants do not directly interact with each other, and there is little follow-up after the meeting. This type of process leaves people frustrated, and often feeling powerless. It also builds distrust towards both leaders and the engagement process.  As frustration builds, participants often do little more in these sessions than “vent” their frustration and anger.

There are other, more effective ways to start a public conversation, especially when trust is low and fear is high, or when participants are coming in with very different sets of information, experiences, and values. Three of our favorites, which we have written about before, are the Question Formulation Technique, the World Cafe, and the Conversation Cafe. Each of these help the participants to build relationships with each other.  These formats also allow for the introduction of  new information in a non-threatening way.  As participants ask questions or engage in informal conversation, they naturally explore their differences. In so doing they subtly interrupt the “us v them” (or “us v. you”) positional framing frequently used in public discourse of difficult issues. Each of these dialogue structures also promotes both joint learning and joint problem definition, which again builds understanding and lessens animosity among the participants when options are later identified and explored.

As will be discussed further in the next post, for our class dialogues we used a range of techniques including the World Cafe, before moving to a more deliberative format. At their final meeting, all participants ended up agreeing to proceed with an “interim policy” despite the wide range of views they had started with. They were surprised at how much the work done in previous weeks affected the tone, tenor, and depth of the deliberations.  As will be explored more in the next post, the dialogue based sessions allowed them both to get to know each other and also explore how different components of the overall issue intersected before they entered deliberations.  Better relationships and better knowledge led to more effective deliberations.

If you are interested in reading more about how structure affects our public ability to problem-solve, read our post series on structuring engagement, and our series on using evaluation to plan for and improve your engagement processes.  If you are planning for community wide dialogue, our workbook can help you too.

Teaching The Navigation of Difficult Dialogues: Intro

Last semester (Fall 2013), I (Sarah) was asked to redesign and teach the Public Policy Dispute Resolution class at the University of Missouri School of Law which I greatly enjoyed doing. The last third of the semester the students planned and participated in a series of dialogues around the issue of gun violence in the context of developing a policy on guns in schools.  The next series of posts will look at how we prepared for these dialogues, and what occurred.  Even though this was a classroom exercise, it illustrates many of the points we have discussed on this blog.

At the outset of the semester, the students were asked to write an essay about why they had enrolled and what they hoped to learn.  The majority of those essays reflected the students’ deep concerns, as citizens, with the partisan nature of our political discourse and their frustration at how quickly discussions on difficult issues, even with friends and family, turned into name-calling and debate.  The students expressed a desire to better understand and address such things as “media-fueled divisiveness”, lack of “nuance in everyday politics”, and “polarization”.  They also asked to learn about how points of view form, how policies are made, how to help opposing groups communicate, and how to “explore the area between two extreme views.”  These questions were discussed in the first part of the semester when we focused on skills such as conflict mapping, question framing, and use of non-adversarial dialogue patterns.  Next we looked at the procedural structures and characteristics of both formal and informal options for working through public policy issues.

Although the final practice exercises involved a hypothetical community, the students were given a clear context, using the demographics of an identified nearby school district and a law that had been recently adopted in Kansas.  Class members came into the discussions with a wide range of viewpoints and were also assigned roles as community members.  The two students who agreed to serve as (i) a school board member highly supportive of both the law and of allowing more guns in the schools, and (ii) the superintendent responsible for managing budgets, safety, personnel, and overall administration, received more detailed supporting information for their roles.  They were instructed to raise or share this additional information as seemed natural or appropriate in the discussions.  Although starting from very different places, the students were (to their surprise), over three sessions, able to reach unanimous agreement on an interim policy that could be placed into effect immediately.

This series of classes was designed to allow the students to directly experience how the choice and sequencing of dialogue structures, and dialogue-based phrasing, can change the usual scripts used in discussion of a politicized, highly charged issue like gun violence.  Our next few posts will look at these three components – choice of structure,  sequence of discussion, and dialogue-based phrasing – and how each contributed to the ultimate outcome.

ABA Mediation Week 2013 – Closing Thoughts

Over this last week we have looked at  how a commitment to civility and more widespread use of the communication tools that mediators use can make a difference in our national politics.  During the US government shut-down, it was reported (NYT 10/101/13)  that Bruce Josten, a lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce, was making the rounds advising Democrats and Republicans alike that

The name calling, blame gaming – using slurs like jihadists, terrorist, cowards, that kind of language – it does not get you to a deal . . .

As ABA Resolution 108 warned, that kind of language appeals to and inflames personal hates and resentments, promotes division, and leads to stalemates.  We can change. By using stories of wisdom that emphasize our interdependence and other mediation techniques in our personal and public conversations we can begin to heal some of the partisan divides and work through the complex issues that affect our future together.  In his remarks to the nation, the president quoted our pledge of allegiance “One nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all”.  Is it possible? We can certainly do better.

Ongoing progress requires not just vigilance in changing destructive patterns of communication, it will require ongoing commitment to the rule of law.  Writing in his recent book “American Lawyers“, Paul D. Carrington observed

The law is really the main thread in the fabric of organized society.  It is the compulsory part of the rules men have arrived at for living together.  There is dignity and pride in dealing with the law.  Our great public buildings, capitols, and courts, are designed to express that dignity.  They are the homes of government and law. And government itself is law.

This country’s lawyers and dispute resolution professionals are uniquely equipped to help us find a way forward – resolving problems rather than simply quarreling with periodic respites over the same issues.

Commit to leading wherever you can, with civility, and with the rule of law as your foundation.

ABA Mediation Week 2013 – Event Today

Sarah, who is an active member of the ABA, is pleased to again co-sponsor a mediation week event with the Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri’s School of Law, and the Association of Missouri Mediators.  Both of these organizations have long been involved in “bridging differences in positions, perspectives and people through mediation”, which is the focus of this year’s mediation week.  This event will also be streamed on-line.

We also welcome the end of the government shut-down.  With that experience behind us we can always hope that we will move towards a political culture with less brinksmanship, name-calling, misinformation, and shortsightedness.  In addition to reviewing ABA Resolution 108, we would recommend two of William Ury’s books – Getting Past No, and The Power of A Positive No -  to all who would like to improve the ways we work through difficult issues.  All of us, citizens and elected leaders alike, can work to make our politics more effective.