Informal Problem-solving: Get Help!

Public officials and corporate leaders have to deal with all kinds of conflict (both internal and external). Because they see themselves as leaders, though, they don't want to admit they might need help handling  these situations. For some reason, its OK to hire a lawyer if you are facing a lawsuit, but it's not OK to ask for informal problem-solving help before things go from bad to worse.  Why is that?

Consider the following examples.  Mr. Bigshot is the CEO of a large company.  He is under substantial pressure from his Board of Directors to increase profitability in the near term and increase market share in the long term.  He faces opposition at every turn. Most of his efforts to reform long-standing operating procedures are being opposed by department and division heads.  He wants to look tough to impress his Board, but the only way he can come up with to push his agenda is to replace people who don't do what he wants.  Now he faces a backlash. Efforts to force long-time partners in the company's "supply chain" to accept new ground rules, have also backfired.  If the problems he faces were framed purely in organizational development terms, he might think about hiring a management consultant, but the notion that he might need to improve his (and his organization's) informal problem-solving capabilities is the farthest thing from his mind.

Here's a second example. The head of a well-know multinational agency has been trying for several years to get her organization to embrace sustainable development as part of their mission. At one level, everyone agrees.  But, whenever she suggests that this means altering the agency's priorities, shifting the allocation of financial resources and involving long-time critics in redefining the agency's mission, a torrent of tacit and explicit opposition emerges. Endless rounds of one-on-one and group conversation have had no effect.  Ms. Agency Leader might go along with hiring a strategic planning consultant, but she is blissfully unaware that both she and her organization probably need help developing their informal problem-solving capabilities.

One explanation for why these two "leaders" are unlikely to take advantage of professional mediation, facilitation or other informal problem-solving assistance is that they don't want to appear weak (to the people to whom they are accountable). They feel obliged to demonstrate that they can handle whatever adversity comes their way.  But, that can't be right.  Public and private sector leaders are often in a big hurry to hire consultants and expert advisors.  Admitting that they don't know what they need to know, can make a leader look smart; so, why the resistance to hiring informal problem-solving help?

A second explanation is that they aren't aware that such expertise is available.  It may be that they don't realize that informal problem-solving opportunities are embedded in every conflict situations. They may  be unaware there are readily available advisors and intermediaries who can help them avoid unnecessary conflict, engage in collaborative problem-solving and build consensus.

A third explanation is that the providers of informal problem-solving assistance may not be good at
marketing their services.  Indeed, this is probably true. A great many skilled mediators don't know how to describe what they do in ways that connect with what leaders of the sort mentioned above think they need.  Too many dispute resolution professionals don't work on building long-term relationships with potential clients. They can't expect someone to find them in a moment of crisis. They don't invest enough time putting contracts in place so that they can get to work immediately when informal problem-solving help would be useful.

Finally, informal problem-solving experts may not be pricing their services correctly.  Some are charging too little, I think,  and some are charging too much. Leaders in both the public and private sector attach importance to professional services for which they pay enough to notice. On the other hand, exorbitant prices mean that informal problem-solving services will be used far too infrequently. Also, performance-based methods of payments ought to be possible (which is something that most mediators have resisted for fear that an a priori commitment to getting agreement is in appropriate in situations where no agreement might be an appropriate outcome).  And, service bundles also ought to be up for discussion.  For example, training and organizational capacity-building should be part of annual retainers that include a certain number of hours of  consulting services in moments of need.

Informal problem-solving is a potential growth industry. However, there are three important considerations that providers of these services ought to keep in mind.  First, trust is absolutely crucial. If potential clients are worried that informal problem-solving advisors don't appreciate the pressures they are under, can't guarantee confidentiality or have possible conflicts of interest, they won't seek their help. Second, specialized knowledge is crucial. Clients need to be convinced the informal problem-solving advisors are entirely familiar with what's going on in their"sector." They are not interested in general "process" advice, they want help generating workable solutions.  While service providers should not advocate a specific solution in each situation, they should be able to generate an inventory of numerous ideas that have worked in similar situations. Also, leaders are looking for advisors who have the ability to improvise. They don't want informal problem-solvising assistance from advisors who are "selling" an inflexible method. They need help from advisors who can adapt.

Informal problem-solving can add value in almost any situation. We need to make it easy for leaders in both public and private organizations to seek informal problem-solving assistance on a regular basis.

Deliberating vs. Deciding in a Public Disputes Context

There still seems to be a big gap between the “deliberation crowd” and “the public dispute resolution crowd.” The deliberation folks (like the fine group called the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation) is betting that people will learn to be more tolerant of contrary views, and maybe even change their own views on controversial topics, by taking part is well-structured dialogues. The public dispute resolution people (including the public policy section of the Association for Conflict Resolution) are more worried about generating agreements than they are about changing anyone’s mind. While the two groups pursue slightly different objectives, and emphasize different methods, we need for them to combine forces if we are ever going to make progress on the vexing public disputes that have tied us up in knots.

The means and ends of deliberation

Imagine trying to bring together people who are passionately committed, one way or the other, on questions like gun control, abortion or climate change. What’s the best outcome you can imagine? In my view, we’d like them to listen more carefully to the views of their opponents and think hard about ways in which they might find common cause in spite of their disagreements. So, both sides could probably agree that steps should be taken to be reduce the number of children wounded or killed accidentally by gun accidents, or that poor women should have better access to pre-natal care, or that the elderly living in un-air conditioned public housing units might have access to cooling centers when the temperature goes about 95 degrees for days in a row. If groups with opposing views can find ways to work together to achieve an objective they share, the individuals involved tend to stop “demonizing” each other (i.e. thinking the worst about a category of people who they don’t even know). The kinds of dialogues that get people to listen, and maybe empathize even when they disagree, don’t take place at a public hearing or in front of a tv camera. People of good will need time to get to know each other and hear each other out. Facilitators in such situations know how to set and enforce pretty simple ground rules that promise everyone a safe environment. The ultimate goal is to reconcile the parties, not for one side to convert others to their view.

The means and ends of public dispute resolution

When public agencies have to make decisions -- like granting a casino license, allowing an historical building to be cleared away, or deciding whether or not to allow a new power plan to be built in a particular location – people with strongly held views want to participate. They don’t just want to be heard, they want to play a role in the decision. The best way to do this is to invite representatives of key stakeholder groups, chosen by those groups, to see if they can negotiate an agreement. If they can, their recommendations will usually be taken quite seriously by the officials who have to take action. In the public arena, many such problem-solving efforts need to be preceded by extensive joint fact finding (so the parties have a common pool of useful information). Mediators know how to help elected and appointed officials identify and convene all the relevant stakeholders, work with these groups to formulate shared ground rules and gather useful information, generate proposals that offers an outcome better for all sides than no agreement, and assist the parties in producing a signed agreement that officials can implement. The goal is to use informal problem-solving methods to supplement the usual administrative procedures and avoid costly and time-consuming litigation (that sets no useful precedent).

Why the two need to be more intimately connected

Getting concerned citizens together to achieve a better understanding of other peoples’ views is no small task. But, it isn’t enough. Our democratic commitments go beyond giving everyone two minutes at a microphone. The public wants a chance to participate in actual decision-making. How can we accomplish this when outspoken individuals with extreme views tend to dominate? We can supplement the basic mechanisms of representative democracy with informal problem-solving that seeks to generate consensus proposals. These will guarantee officials that if they accept what is recommended, almost everyone in the community will stand up and cheer. And, if you think that there is no way of bridging the gap between the “sides” in serious public controversies, you haven’t been paying attention. This is happening all over the world. The key is to involve the relevant groups, not a hodge-podge of outspoken individuals (or even a statistically valid sub-set of residents, who like a jury, who are supposed to think like their peers). The actual stakeholder groups will be needed to legitimize implementation of whatever agreements are reached; so, it is better to have them select representatives at the outset to sit around the table. The ongoing internal dialogue within each group is likely to generate support for a reasonable package if one is produced. Outspoken individuals with strongly held views are not accountable to anyone. Group representatives need to stay in touch with their stakeholders.

Experts on deliberation knows how to manage micro-conversations -- the give-and-take among the people at the table. Problem-solving is more effective if time is invested in building rapport among the participants. Generating empathy and understanding is a good thing, not a bad thing. However, it usually leads to clarity about why and how disagreements have emerged. Dispute resolvers know how to manage the maco-conversation and generate agreement, and not just clarity about the sources of disagreement. That is, they can make sure that officials with the formal authority to decide, convene the right parties in a way that ensures political legitimacy. They also know how to organize joint fact-finding. Reaching agreements that make people feel good, but don’t reflect the technical or scientific realities is dangerous. We need these two groups to team up.

What you can do to help

When public controversies arise in your community, don’t hesitate to suggest that public officials authorize a combination of dialogue and problem-solving. Remind them that won’t be giving up their final decision-making authority. Not only will they be able to take credit for improving the climate for productive public conversations, but they will be putting themselves in a position to take actions that will be applauded by all of their constituents.

When the question comes up about who should participate, tell them to ask a professional mediator to undertaken a stakeholder assessment that will help them map the conflict and ensure appropriate group representation. Allowing the most outspoken individuals a place at the table is counter-productive – they will just continue to sound off. All the relevant stakeholder groups must choose their own representatives, including proxies for hard to represent interests, and have a hand in devising problem-solving ground rules that everyone signs before the problem-solving discussions begin. For more details, see Susskind and Cruikshank, Breaking Robert’s Rules, Oxford University Press, 2006 including revised versions in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Russian, Italian, Chinese, Dutch and Japanese.