One objection often made to using a sequenced series of engagement steps is that it “takes time.” Although it does take some additional planning time and energy, separating and sequencing different types of dialogue can save considerable time and energy over the long run. Each of the dialogues in our three session sequence on gun violence took less than two hours. The first helped frame the discussion and allowed the participants to begin to get to know each other. Some of those who had strongly worded opinions also had a sense of humor and calmed down as quickly as they ramped up. This kind of relationship knowledge helped participants move through the more difficult dialogues that followed. The second session produced a lot of information and questions that challenged pre-existing opinions and promoted thinking about new approaches as participants prepared for their more deliberative session. In the third session participants were able to come to a mutual — and sustainable — decision on how to move forward.
Successful resolution of complex issues requires integrative thinking about several different factors – information, interests, values, and rules or standards. Integrative thinking takes time. Sequencing discussions can provide the necessary time for new ideas and options to emerge. Effective integrative thinking within a group also takes trust in the others that you are making decisions with. Without trust, information is discounted and risk to one’s personal interests is likely to take precedence over the effects on others in the community. Simply put, building trust requires an effort to build relationships.
One of the facilitators in our third dialogue later noted that “there were polar viewpoints on the options. However, due to the set-up of introducing the options, the groups were able to become more in agreement on the issues.” The overall sequencing of the more informal dialogue based processes to the more formal deliberative process helped to both build relationships and promote integrative thinking. The more informal structures that were used in the first two sessions did this in part by giving more freedom of choice for each individual in how to raise issues or express opinions. This freedom of choice helps to lessen fear and regulate emotion as compared to premature deliberation. The informal structures further allowed participants to surface and explore tensions between values such as accountability v. autonomy v. safety, as well as to share information. Time between sessions allowed participants to assimilate new information, talk with other constituents, and integrate their thinking on options and trade-offs.
This type of sequencing, with time off between sessions, actually lessens the overall in-person time need for groups to come to agreement, allows for better option development, and promotes more productive deliberations at the time deliberative thinking is required. It is far more likely to result in sound and sustainable policies. Given those benefits, it is well worth the time.