Archive for the 'Competence in Policy Conflicts' Category

University versus its students need not be adversarial

Published
by
Deborah
on December 8, 2008
in Competence in Policy Conflicts
. 0 Comments

Abortion is a deeply divisive social conflict. Conversations about social conflicts tend to follow a pattern that is typified this week by the exchange between the University of Calgary administration and Campus Pro-Life.

Interactions around social conflicts tend to follow this script: First, a group raises an issue about which they feel passion and energy.  Second, another group states it is offended, or irate, or an equally passionate and energetic response that is oppositional to the first group. Third, someone in authority becomes concerned enough to take a stand, which usually supports the original status quo that existed before the first group raised the issue. Finally, the media gets interested because it’s now a public conflict. 

This script almost inevitably becomes a standoff where no one can back down without losing face or feeling that some higher principal has been betrayed. Where the ‘rule of law’ prevails the standoff will eventually end either peacefully or with minimal use of force, albeit with bad feelings on all sides. In less fortunate examples, or more extreme cases of social conflict, the standoff culminates with someone in authority calling in men and women in uniforms to end it. 

Recognizing the pattern means it should be possible to change the script. Pattern recognition is an initial step to improving conflict interactions. So, that next questions are: how to change the pattern, and to what new script?

How to change the pattern: Since 1992, dialogue groups comprised of pro-life and pro-choice activists have been meeting to find common ground. They begin with one-day workshops and, in some cases, have continued meeting to jointly work on the systemic societal problems that create unwanted pregnancies. 

The new script: Facilitated dialogue groups change the polarized rhetoric. Dialogue groups exchange narratives, among other exercises, as trust-building conversations. As former adversaries become acquainted they rarely change their opinions about abortion. However, through dialogue they expose the stereotypes about their opponents and change their opinions about each other. This creates the conditions for finding common ground. 

Breaking down the barriers through dialogue and shared knowledge rather than legal action and threats, does not make the social conflict go away. People will still disagree about abortion. What does go away is the typical pattern of standoff, which is a lose/lose proposition for everyone. In dialogue they find principles they can agree upon, which is a win/win.

 It’s a script revision worth trying.

Conflict when Goals are the Same

Published
by
Deborah
on May 7, 2008
in Competence in Policy Conflicts and Developing Conflict Competence
. 0 Comments

© L. Deborah Sword

Conflict is often defined as disagreements over goals, or opposing interests among people, or struggles over resources. However, conflict can arise even when people have the same goals, have similar interests, and have access to equal resources.

This is a true story of four groups of people working on a conflict-laden problem in their community. It was a matter of record that all of the groups wished to accomplish the same goals, yet they were unable to work together. They had an honest disagreement over the solutions to their shared problems. 

They believed the conflict statement was: which of the proposed solutions is the right solution. In other words, they agreed on the narrow issue, they agreed on the need for community wide solutions, they agreed on the desired outcome, and they adamantly disagreed over what solutions would get them from the current problems to the wished for end state.

Depending on the perceptions of the root cause, different solutions presented. One group argued that the problem was caused by structural inequities (government), while another blamed individual behavior (people), a third pointed to discrimination (class/race/poverty), and the fourth held social isolation (place) responsible. Many experts offered contradictory evidence with no way to decide among it. The four solutions were philosophically inconsistent with each other. The choice was framed as irreconcilable - either ‘their way’ or ‘our way’. All four groups believed that the others’ wrong solution was a waste of resources that would perpetuate the problem, and that the preferred solution (i.e. theirs) was correct and more compassionate.

All the solutions required large resource investments, without the chance to return to the original state if the chosen solution later turned out to be the wrong choice. There was little communication or interaction among the groups while they worked hard at cross-purposes. No time or resources were spent reconciling the rifts.

All the groups perceived a need for cooperation, however, they believed that cooperation would happen only when those who disagreed with them changed. None of them considered the possibility of themselves changing to see things the way of another.

What they had in common outweighed their differences, and still they had entrenched conflict. All of the groups were missing the opportunity for inclusive, public conflict processes. They used competitive discourses to oppose each other and vie for influence, believing there was one solution to one problem. We shifted the problem statement from ‘which of the proposed solutions is the right solution’ to ask instead how to ‘inspire and engage the community, invigorate local governance, and enhance problem-solving capacity’, which changed the discourse from competition to collaboration. From there, they worked to nurture the attributes of community builders, and found affiliation through community life that each group was seeking.

Consult Thy Neighbours

Published
by
Deborah
on April 6, 2008
in Competence in Policy Conflicts
. 0 Comments

 17 February 2008

 Developers perform a valuable service; communities would not exist without them. Because developers take a risk in building, they receive profit as a reward. Once the communities come into being, people move in and develop feelings about the values associated with living there. Occasionally, the two groups, developers and community residents, find themselves in conflict over the nature of ongoing development. Add to this mixture a labyrinthine planning process, the politics of city building, and the politicians who are elected to represent community interests, and there is a potential stew of conflicting interests.

 Unfortunately, this has all come to be lumped under the rubric of NIMBY (not in my backyard) or its radical sibling NOPE (not on planet Earth). Many years of studying publics protesting against what happens in their backyards has convinced me that those acronyms do not do justice to the complexity of these local conflicts. To characterize it as neighbours exercising a veto to stymie developers, or developers ramming unwanted uses into communities, suggests only part of the nuanced and important relationships that exist among cities composed of distinct communities.

 There are a few options for dealing with disagreements over development. One way is through the halls of power, where developers and communities square off against each other in the planning approval process, in the hopes that there will be a clear victor and the other side will be defeated. This goes all through the appeal process until someone just has to live with whatever results. This route is fraught with the kind of stereotyping associated with labels like NIMBY. In this construction of the issue, the developers can express their frustration at being misunderstood, the residents can convey their outrage at the unwanted building being imposed, and each side can attempt to exert influence over the decision-makers, who wring their hands over planning policies that all sides accuse the others of not respecting. It is a common scenario. The mutual anguish, delay, expense, and rancor fractures any goodwill that might once of existed. 

 Conflict managers know that once the rhetoric heats up, listening and problem solving skills are proportionately reduced. Small wonder that everyone gets frustrated and anguished; they hear only some of what the other is saying, and interpret it as proof of bad intensions. No development has only one way of being approved. Plans can be modified, buildings can be adapted to landscapes, neighbourhoods can be successfully intensified, routes can be realigned, and approvals can be subject to conditions. When developers present a plan without input from neighbours, and insist that no changes are possible, they understand that the neighbours get upset. If any of us recall the last time someone imposed his or her will upon us, likely we reacted to the use of force against our will. That is the definition of conflict: intentional action to carry out a party or parties’ will over the objection of the other party or parties. 

 The good news is that developers everywhere have matured beyond falling into some of the mistakes that created the conditions for that scenario to play out. City planners and policymakers are encouraging community wide dialogues that are interest based win/win, rather than forcing win/lose outcomes. Once the level of rhetoric can be reduced, people can listen to each other, and share their interests as well as their positions. 

Put Good Governance in Government

Published
by
Deborah
on April 6, 2008
in Competence in Policy Conflicts
. 0 Comments

Date: 17 January 2008

It seems that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are having a difference of opinion about what it means to govern. Ms. Clinton is quoted as seeing the role of Commander in Chief as running the country, setting the goals, and then steering towards them. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, wants to occupy the Oval Office as a visionary, who sets the broad goals, and lets others participate in how the good ship America achieves them.

The two agree on the responsibility in setting goals, providing a vision, and, hopefully, surrounding the Office with competent people who provide the information and advice necessary to get the job done properly. In implementation, however, Ms. Clinton would, it seems, be the direct supervisor of those who are fulfilling her commands. Mr. Obama prefers, according to his statements, to be the facilitator of those interpreting his commands.

Both candidates recognize that they remain accountable for the outcome, both want good outcomes, and they differ over how tightly the journey towards those outcomes needs to be managed by the President. For discussion purposes, let’s assume Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama are equally qualified for the position, equally understand what vision and leadership mean, and equally grasp what it means to develop public policy. Does it matter then that they disagree on how tightly to grasp the reins of their public employees, the Foreign Service, and other ‘incidentals’ of government? 

If you have been supervised by or lived with a control freak, you know how unrewarding an experience that can be. If you have ever worked for or been in a relationship with someone who operates without structure, you know how unsatisfying it is to try to get a decision made, or a project finished. Employees and citizens alike tend not to enjoy being micro-managed, or being left to figure rules out entirely on their own. Out of those feelings about management style comes conflict in all forms. Our politicians, our supervisors, and our significant others’ implementation styles can become a large potential source of conflict, whether in our lives, in our communities, or in our workplace. In other words, we can have the same goals, same values, same interpretation of the available data, and still have conflict about how to implement the plan.

Good governance distinguishes managing from leading, and lets the people who excel at each do the job they are given to do. Governance models that work strike a balance between the control freak and the control avoider. The irritating sources of negative conflict from implementation style can be made more productive. The conflict that remains is the positive kind of disagreement that is required for good policymaking. 

Dissent Is Okay

Published
by
Deborah
on April 6, 2008
in Competence in Policy Conflicts
. 0 Comments

Protesters are “dissed and dismissed”

Date: 31 October 2007

An agency hires investigators to spy on Alberta landowners. China arrests people demonstrating for a free Tibet. Sydney fortifies when APEC leaders visit Australia. These are not reactions to alien invasions. Powerful policymakers deploy spies, police, and military to avoid or to control citizens whose viewpoints differ from official public policy. University of Calgary professor David Taras said, “Power comes through the ballot box.” Perhaps he was referring to traditional political power, but, as current events demonstrate, that is only one kind of power.

The news stories of protest power have become familiar: government/State on one side, protesters on the other side, with uniformed, armed men inside the frame. Protest is depicted as tense, messy, and expensive. After a dozen years studying protest, some patterns are discernible. In nature, of which humans are a part, everything is connected. Seeing patterns assists in understanding systems. Here are five interconnecting protest system patterns:

1. Protests are an emergent property of a policy system. Policies are an initial condition for a protest group to form, in order to influence changes in the policy they believe may harm them or the planet. Unlike special interest groups and lobbyists, who seek long-term access to policymakers, protesters may not stay active beyond the end of their particular policy conflict.

2. People have different risk tolerances. Each side brings forth experts’ reports, risk assessments, and information it claims is correct, and which discredits the other side’s reports, risk assessments, and information. Sincere belief about a policy’s risks spur people to action they see as participating in civic engagement to prevent policy mistakes. Policymakers are confronted with concerns about potential harm that they have not considered, think is a tolerable risk, or do not accept as possible.

3. Protesters and policymakers ‘diss [disrespect] and dismiss’ each other. Instead of addressing the interpretive differences about the policy’s risks, the sides demonize each other, mostly through the media. Policymakers see protesters as unelected, unrepresentative, and unaccountable malcontents. The policymakers dismiss protesters’ attitude as “counterproductive”, its claims “ridiculous”, its opinion “a minority”, and its analysis “irrelevant”. Protesters dislike being dissed and dismissed, but believe they are right, as do the policymakers, so both carry on.

4. Each side encourages democratic public participation. Policymakers prefer policy discussions within official public participation processes, such as town hall meetings, focus groups, opinion surveys, or open houses. They expect the public to attend, be orderly, listen to hired experts who manage technical information, and then give input for the policymakers to consider. Protesters also characterize their actions as democratic public participation. On occasion, more people in total attend a protest than go to the notably under-attended official public processes, making protest, they argue, as representative of public opinion.

5. Protest creates knowledge. The controversy of protest keeps everyone learning about alternative policy interpretations, and potential risks. Like news media, policymakers follow the noise. Policies, and their attendant protests, become Trojan Horses for other agendas, such as who is acting democratically, who speaks for the majority, ethics of governing, and how tax dollars are used. It generates research to prove/discredit each other’s policy interpretations. Policymakers consider more options as a result. Decisions improve through diversity of opinion. Protest groups freely give, and policymakers can accept, alternative knowledge and perspectives as part of policy formulation. The alternative knowledge stays in the policy system long after the protest about the policy ends.

Patterns reframe protest as a contribution to mutual learning participating in policymaking, rather than placing protest as a cost outside policymaking, or an attack on democratic institutions, or as group dysfunction. It is tempting to want to sort good guys from bad guys, and have the news media bring it to the comfort of our homes. However, maybe the option is to spot patterns that help understand protests with more depth than simply regarding protesters as rowdy people who represent no one, or government as a monolithic bureaucracy making policy for the few.

Managing Environmental Conflicts

Published
by
Deborah
on April 6, 2008
in Competence in Policy Conflicts
. 1 Comment

Integrating conflict management into environmental policy

 Date: 27 February 2008

Environics polling found that 29 per cent of Canadians see the environment as our most pressing problem today. Second on the list of most important issues was war/peace at 28 per cent. Canadians are smart to put the two issues together, ahead of the third place concern by a large gap of 15 per cent. Environmental problems have both direct and indirect connections to peace and security. When the environment degrades, people behave in foreseeable yet unpredictable ways that, intentionally or otherwise, create conflicts. Panic can have that effect.

Our leaders should be paying attention to those connections now, when formulating environmental policies. As well as sound environmental management, Canada will need complementary strategic policies for conflict management. Consider the simplest and most obvious policy conflicts that could arise from environmental issues, such as climate changes.

Topping the list is environmental refugees, which might seem simple and obvious, but will likely be one of the hardest to manage. When water runs out in one place, people will migrate to where there is a supply. When food becomes scarce or bugs overrun someplace, people will search for hospitable locations. A planning decision, such as Calgary’s one year development freeze, could take on sinister significance if it restricts the migration of Ontarians seeking houses that have water in the taps. Conversely, if Calgary’s water source melts away as some suggest, a migration east would further strain the already falling water levels of the Great Lakes. Adaptation to environmental degradation must address the potential for emotionally charged, difficult to resolve conflicts over scarce resources that will arise from mass voluntary population displacements.

Another possible source of environmental conflicts will be the pressure on land use. Land use conflicts go to intrinsic values, worldviews and beliefs, which are among the most intractable conflicts to resolve. Canadians are justifiably proud of and attached to parklands. If prairie farms become nonviable and people are hungry, there could be policy crises over protected natural lands. The conflict might be a forced choice between keeping parklands as a bastion against further environment degradation; or, overturning parklands’ status because they are needed for growing crops and grazing domestic herds. Conflict over food reduces life to its most basic.

Another likely conflict may be over health care services, which will make current complaints about long wait times and inadequate numbers of health care practitioners seem trivial. The medical system will be dealing with quantities and types of patients it is badly equipped to handle. Health administrators have feared being overwhelmed by flu pandemics that sweep through, devastate, and leave, after which life returns to normal. Climate change is not likely to behave that neatly. Unpredictable messiness may be the new long-term normal for public health.

Finally, the forms any of these potential policy conflicts take will depend on the totality of the conditions at the time. Conflicts are nonlinear dynamic systems that are dependent on their initial conditions. Conflict reacts to what happens to and around it. If the initial conditions of the conflicts are well managed, the outcomes for people are more likely to be tolerable and productive. The outcomes for governments are, on the other hand, slightly more predictable but far less comforting. Most states, whether democratic or totalitarian, whether successful or failed, are solely mandated to apply force; although violent and failed states may have competing non-mandated forces. Canadian governments have used force against citizens in various policy conflicts but it really ought to be the very last resort, when all other policies are inadequate. In the absence of strategic plans and policies to manage climate change conflicts, there is a risk that government sanctioned and citizen self-organized forces will become the available choice.

This list barely begins to itemize the many sources of potential conflicts that scarcity, change, turbulence, and uncertainty might bring. Conflict resolution would be useful after such conflicts arise, but it is not necessary to wait for that harm before thinking about the policy applications of fair and wise conflict management strategies. Those conflict management policies will need to be long term and systemic, or the conflicts may escalate over who gets what, how much, and when.

Some of the conflicts can be seen on the horizon, and ought not to be ignored. In fact, ignoring them, while at the same time having a discussion about, for example, adaptation to climate change, detracts from the strategic value of that discussion. Conflict management policies ought to be a necessary adjunct to the climate change policies already being developed.  The point is to have in place policies to address how to manage climate related conflicts as they become known or anticipated.

The Premiers have agreed to get scientific studies to aid strategic policies for adapting to climate changes. Hard sciences are not a complete solution, since policy will then be used to interpret those scientific findings. It is almost guaranteed that there will be competing interpretations of that scientific data; that is normal. All information is subject to having its meaning interpreted. Conflict management also helps set policy directions in anticipation of whatever disagreement over the science may occur. When developing plans to manage the environmental risks, it is prudent to include plans to manage the risks of environmental and public policy related conflicts.