Daring to agree - a new approach to conflict resolution
04 November, 2008
Sign Up for free e-mail updates!
I have been watching attempts to resolve differences of opinion in the community – some attempts more successful than others – and I believe we could examine the way in which we handle community arguments.
Sometimes differences don’t matter. But if they are between an organisation and its stakeholders, for example a government and voters, differences threaten the outcome which the organisation wants.
The main reason that we need to consider a shift in tactics is that the current methods are not working very well. We see arguments which delay public projects at great expense.
One dynamic to this problem is that large sections of the community, government and the media have allowed a redefining of the word conservation to mean preservation. Any development or change then comes under fire – everything must stay as it is. Examples are everywhere – freeways, tunnels, housing, industrial developments, shipping access channels, wind farms, water treatment plants and so on.
In each case, an authority has asked technical or financial people to come up with a plan to solve an infrastructure problem. The plan is supported by selective reasons – reasons which may not apply as benefits for all. This solution is grandly announced and the disaffected dig in their heels – playing hard to the media, who need little encouragement to give maximum coverage.
Obviously confrontation sells newspapers. We see a minority opinion become ‘the story’ at the expense of the key issues for the community at large.
Delays and increased costs are met by the community, not the protesters. If the protesters are found to be legally liable for increased cost, they have no money.
We all pay a price for the flotsam and jetsam left by the media circus. It’s a great show while it lasts – totally distracting with bands, and humour and daring high wire performances that had us on the edge of our seats. But now we walk back into the cold wet night – still the same problems of mud and traffic, and on top of that we have a bill to pay, often one that goes well into the future.
A new way
I want to picture a new way of doing things. Let’s assume a developer or government agency announces a project, and the objectors declare war, very publicly, aiming to win over the developer’s stakeholders, and thus weaken support for the project. The developer calls in crisis management experts who set up a bunker, firing at the enemy, maybe sabotaging or sharp shooting at individuals.
My proposal is that the developer should meet with the objectors. One aim, maybe the first, would be to look for shared values and principles, whether these are benefits or deficits such as commonly held fears.
Another aim would be to “walk in the objectors’ moccasins” – to understand the situation from the objectors’ point of view – what beliefs they have which are influencing their reactions. This will be a major change – one involving humility and risk, spending time walking and talking with the ‘enemy’ and trying to work out where he or she is coming from.
The chapter in the psychology text is called Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy – a cognitive approach to problem solving which is highly successful on an individual level, and which works just as well with groups.
The underlying beliefs which people hold, this model says, are the key to their reactions. The reaction can only change if the belief changes.
Assuming a belief is sincerely held – and that is a big assumption in some public protests – the other party has the difficult task of attempting to modify the beliefs or principles help by their ‘opponents’. Sincerely held beliefs may have been formed in childhood, and rationality alone may not shift them.
In addition to this difficulty, there could be moral and ethical issues involved in trying to change what someone believes in.
Shared beliefs
Beliefs may also be ‘wheels within wheels’ – where we hold a position because of another superior position. For example we might believe in paying our debts because we believe in the Golden Rule ‘doing unto others as you would like it done to you.’
Once we have established (or guessed) the belief systems which drive the other party, we are at the critical threshold of resolution. We run the same test on our position – what beliefs are driving us?
A skilled negotiator would describe this procedure as the Harvard Technique – seeking agreement based on the underlying beliefs or values which drive the stance being taken by each party.
We might find that between the parties, including ourselves, there are half a dozen beliefs operating. One at a time we present these beliefs to the other party for discussion and we would hope their agreement.
Once this is obtained, we can drop down to the specific case in point – what the protest is about – and demonstrate that if the superior beliefs are held, then it follows that we should think a certain way about the disagreement causing the protest situation.
We want the other party to see benefits in our position, but just as importantly, we will look for benefits in their’s.
My concept is that we work in the middle ground – the grey area of a dispute. Current thinking tends to be black and white. We say we are right (for such and such reasons) and you’re wrong (for such and such reasons.)
My experience as a negotiation consultant in Australia is that the black and white approach used by many negotiators actually drives parties further apart. Like high school debaters, we are very good at showing how worthy and correct our position is, and how mistaken our opponents are – but that does not get an agreement.
The way in which disagreements are handled reminds me of some of the operators in the construction industry and their attitude towards paying invoices. The first thing you did with an invoice was to throw it away.
In current negotiation practice, many people say no automatically, and wait to see what happens next. This is negotiation based on asking too much and getting concessions just to return to a fair square one.
We have to learn to say yes, rather than no.
My recommended sequence goes:
1. Other party states proposition.
2. We say yes, and highlight advantages, and shared interests.
3. Taking the points we don’t agree on, we look for the principles behind them and seek agreement on those.
The techniques for getting these agreements may involve attempts we make to change the beliefs of the other parties. It is these techniques that we would teach as skills.
Roger Fry