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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tomorrow, Earth Day, will see Marches for Science in many parts of the country. I hope to march myself on our Niantic Bay Boardwalk. Science has its own set of process values that are very much like those of collaborative work. The scientific method is all about how we treat evidence and inference as we look at natural and experimental observations and try to understand something about our Universe. The one value that sometimes seems to be missing from science is how we treat one another in the process. In fact, both historical and fictionalized accounts of scientific debate are rank with stories of scientists criticizing, attacking, and demonizing those who don’t agree with them. The source of this is the same as the source of most human conflict: positions. Once you take a position on anything, including scientific theories, you cannot allow for the possibility of the other position. The whole March for Science movement we will celebrate tomorrow is a perfect case in poin...
Read more
Let’s look more closely at the concept of forces in opposition that must be kept in balance. We talked last week about the three Cs: considerations, concerns, and constraints. Of these, concerns may be the most important. Considerations are the foundation of collaborative work, but no one will be ready to share their considerations until the battles over process values have been won and people are ready to be collaborative. Constraints are critical, but they are found by the proper treatment of evidence and inference. That is perhaps the last battle. Concerns are worries about forces that are acting on the situation. Concerns point to forces that have to be kept in balance. For example, some people are concerned that having a social safety net makes people dependent on the government. Others are concerned that without a safety net people will die, or at a minimum become more of a burden on their neighbors than if early intervention had nipped the problem in the bud. These concer...
Read more
Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day. Teach a person to fish, you feed them for a lifetime. In other words: Give a person content, you give them nothing. Give a person process, you give them everything. This month we are looking at process in some areas besides collaborative work. We are looking at other fields where you have a choice to focus on content or focus on process, to see if valuing process works in those fields. This week we are looking at teaching. Our church is recruiting Sunday School teachers for our summer time schedule. “All curricula and materials are provided. All you have to do is show up and teach.” That’s all. That’s a lot. I used to try and teach Sunday school. Sure, they provided me all the content I needed. But they never provided process. Most of our church’s Sunday School teachers are also teachers. The rest have been teaching Sunday School for so long that they are accomplished teachers. It never occurs to any of them that they need to ...
Read more