One of the problems with most meetings and a frequent source of conflict in political processes is positions. Positions are at the very top of what S.I. Hayakawa has called the “ladder of inference.”[1] You start at the bottom of the ladder with events. Your perception of these events, the next rung on your ladder, depends on what you are trained to see, what you believe to be true, and which direction you are looking at the moment the event occurs. By combining your perceptions with your experience, you move up another rung and draw certain conclusions. Continuing to work your way up the ladder, you finally reach the top where you take a position on what should be done about the event.

The problem with positions is that no two people climb the same ladder of inference, and once people have taken positions, it is almost impossible to find common ground. A key process value must be to help people climb back down the ladder to where they have a chance to find agreement, to where they are closer to the objective experience of the event, to where they are talking about interests, not positions.

Interests are the three Cs: considerations, concerns, and constraints. The secret to collaborative work, to conflict resolution, to group process is to honor everyone’s considerations, treat as valid everyone’s concerns, and be truthful and realistic about physical, fiscal, resource, time, and other constraints.

Constraints are often the hardest. Once you have a position, you are ready to believe all manner of pseudoscience, fake news, spin, and propaganda that says your position is possible or the position on the other side is impossible. People will believe in fake constraints and ignore very real ones. This is the place where how we treat facts during our process meets its greatest challenge.

Some people will want to treat their concerns as constraints. Concerns often operate at the emotional level. Because of strong feelings about the content of the outcome, they may see their concerns as necessary parts of the final answer. Help them see that, while they have a right to their concerns, concerns about the opposing force are also valid. Without that shift, balancing opposing forces is impossible.

 



[1] Hayakawa was not the first or only person to use this term. And what follows is my own flawed memory of how the ladder is built. However, it should serve to demonstrate the principle. Here we are only concerned with two rungs on the ladder: interests and positions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog