Potholes on the Road to Utopia

Saturday I had a phone date with a prospective client—a community that was experiencing increased tensions and wasn't sure where to turn. Interpersonal dynamics were deteriorating and the folks calling me on behalf of the community were worried that they were going to soon start losing people—good people—unless things got turned around soon. Could I help?

Boy, did that energize me! 

The group does not currently train new members in their consensus decision-making process and doesn't have any agreements about how to handle conflict—two deficiencies that go a long way toward explaining why the wheels are just about to fall off the wagon. Yet, the cupboard wasn't bare either. When I asked how many people might come to a special plenary aimed at focusing on interpersonal tensions, I was told over 80 percent, which would be a terrific turnout. Further, the group started seven years ago, so they have considerable common history together, most of which is positive. That is, they have something worth saving.

While there are a number of things going on, a key one is understanding better how to work through differences. Inadvertently, the group had fallen into an unproductive groove where dissatisfied minorities were not voicing their concerns early enough in the process, with the result that the minorities were feeling steamrollered (where is it safe to bring up differences?) and the rest of the group was feeling monkey-wrenched (why are major concerns not surfacing until the last moment?). Yuck. Each side believes they are acting in the group's best interests but that is not being recognized by folks on the other side of the aisle.

The good news is that this can be turned around. While the group is (understandably) nervous about how to work constructively with strong feelings and is not confident they have the internal skill or permission to facilitate those moments, that can be learned. If you attempt to do problem solving without having first addressed major distress, you have a train wreck. Yet if you are too scared to deal with the strong feelings you feel trapped. In these circumstances it's easy to see why the group may be leaking a lot of oil, and coming away from meetings feeling drained.

Apropos this issue, here's an helpful image that I picked up Saturday (right before the call I mentioned above), as a souvenir while strolling with Susan and Jo through the Arts Fair at the Tall Ships Festival in downtown Duluth. While a lot of people may choose to rely on this as a reminder to take a bath, I prefer assigning this 62-foot rubber ducky (nicknamed Paul Bunyan's bath toy) the task of reminding me to not duck the issues. Who knows, maybe Baja Smoothies (masking the duck's right wing in the image above) help, too.

Laboring Pains

One of the key concepts in consensus is "laboring," also sometimes referred to as "threshing." This is when there's a disagreement that doesn't resolve easily. The group (most likely led by the facilitator, though not necessarily) is said to be "laboring" when leading a deeper exploration of the issue and each player's relationship to their position—for the purpose of finding potential bridges that each stakeholder can walk across without feeling like their walking the plank. That is, their core interests are respected in what they're being asked to go along with.

The important point here is distinguishing laboring from pressuring. Leaning into the disagreement is not the same as leaning on the protagonists. Here's a generic protocol for laboring:

1. Establish that the group has a full grasp of each advocate's position—this expressly includes any significant emotional relationship to the issue, as well as a delineation of what's at stake.

2. Lay out clearly the points of commonality among the positions, as well as the points of difference.

3. Cast for pathways that everyone can travel. Essentially this means looking for actions or agreements that each person can live with because the request is workable in relation to what they report matters most.

Hint #1: When you find something that works well for all, it typically means that no single person is getting everything they want, yet all stakeholders feel their essential interests are being honored.

Hint #2: It can make all the difference setting the right tone for this conversation. Once you get to laboring you should have moved passed advocacy and be only hearing suggestions for how to connect positions—not how one position is superior to another. When laboring is productive it is more creative than combative.

Caution #1: it can be essential that you establish an understanding of what matters to the speaker (to the speaker's satisfaction) before requesting movement from them toward what others want. If a person is not confident that they've been fully heard and understood, the request that they shift in the interest of a balanced response can be heard as a request to sell out—which tends to be met with more than casual resistance. One of the most common ways to trip up is moving forward when you felt you'd fully understood the speaker, yet neglected to ask if they felt you fully grokked them.

Caution #2: Be aware of pacing and beware of proceeding faster than people can let go of attachments to their own positions. People vary widely in how much time they need to be ready to shift, and hurry never helps. If possible, give people an advanced peek of what's coming so that they have time to go through their reactions and come out the other side.