Category Archives: conflict transformation

Fall Public Participation Trainings from LET

Posted on by
Reply

There are some great trainings being offered this Fall by the League of Extraordinary Trainers, an NCDD org member and sponsor of the 2014 NCDD conference. We want to make sure NCDDers know not only that these great IAP2 certificate trainings are happening, but there is a discount on registration for NCDD members! Make sure to take a look at LET’s announcement about the trainings below or to find their full training schedule here.

LeagueOfExtraordinaryTrainers-logoIAP2’s Certificate Program has been revitalized to incorporate more international perspectives and to address and incorporate many thoughts and ideas provided as feedback from more than 6,000 participants who have taken the program since 2000. The updated curriculum, newly named Foundations in Public Participation, launched July 1, 2014. The Planning for Effective Public Participation course has been extended to three days, incorporating communications planning into the Planning course. An increased focus on deliberative dialogue, plus the addition of web-based and social media engagement tools were added.

Public anger is an increasing fact of society. Growing global citizen outrage causes government gridlock, lawsuits, stopped projects, election losses, loss of time, money, and destroyed credibility. Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation is a two-day workshop that builds on IAP2’s global best practices in public involvement and the work of Dr. Peter Sandman, a foremost researcher and expert in public outrage and risk communication. This course will help you move people from rage to reason and engage stakeholders in building consensus for better decisions.

If you work for or are involved in public participation and community engagement outreach projects in: government – municipalities, state and federal agencies; corporations; utilities; environmental agencies; community organizations; universities; advocacy and lobbying these courses can broaden your toolkit and bring greater creativity to your approach. The hands-on design of these courses and the expertise of the IAP2 Licensed Trainers ensure that you’ll be receiving the best public participation and community engagement training available globally.

LET Event Dates, Locations, Brochures and On-Line Registration are always available at to view www.extraordinarytrainers.com/schedules.

Certificate Program – Foundations In Public Participation (2 courses) –

Planning – (Mon-Wed, 3 days) Techniques – (Thu-Fri, 2 days)

  • Fort Worth, Texas – September 8-12
  • Chicago, Illinois – October 27-31

Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation – Moving from Rage to Reason (2-Days)

  • Las Vegas, Nevada – October 6-7
  • Austin, Texas – October 16-17
  • Chicago, Illinois – December 4-5

LET offers Early Bird Registration Discounts. Dues-paying NCDD members receive a discounted rate on all trainings. Email us directly to receive a Promo Code for the NCDD member discount: info@extraordinarytrainers.com.

New Study Finds Surprising Lack of Red-Blue Divide

Posted on by
Reply

We want to share the announcement on an insightful new study that we know will interest NCDD members that comes from NCDD supporting member Steven Kull of Voice of the People. VOP teamed up with the Program for Public Consultation to conduct a study on public policy opinions that has some pretty surprising results. You can learn more about the study in Steven’s announcement below or find the study by clicking here.

vop logoA new study conducted by NCDD members at Voice of the People and the Program for Public Consultation finds remarkably little difference between the views of people who live in red (Republican) districts or states, and those who live in blue (Democratic) districts or states on questions about what policies the government should pursue. The study analyzed 388 questions asking what the government should do in regard to a wide range of policy issues and found that that most people living in red districts/states disagreed with most people in blue districts/states on only four percent of the questions.

The study titled, “A Not So Divided America,” contradicts the conventional wisdom that the political gridlock between Democrats and Republicans in Congress arises from deep disagreements over policy among the general public.

The study analyzed questions from dozens of surveys from numerous sources including the National Election Studies, Pew, major media outlets, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs as well as the Program for Public Consultation. Responses were analyzed based on whether the respondents lived in red or blue districts or states.

  • On only four percent of the questions (14 out of 388) did a majority or plurality of those living in red congressional districts/states disagree with the majority or plurality in the blue districts/states.
  • For a large majority of questions – 69 percent – (266 of 388), there were no statistically significant differences between the views in the red districts/states and the blue districts/states.
  • For 23 percent, or 90 questions, there were statistically significant differences in the size of the majority or plurality, but the dominant position in both the red and blue districts/states was on the same side of the issue.
  • Thus for 92 percent of questions people in red and blue districts and states basically agreed.

The full study can be found at http://vop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Red-Blue-Report.pdf.

The report’s appendix with the survey questions analyzed can be found at http://vop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Red-Blue-Appendix.pdf.

Six Simple Changes for Better Public Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

NCDD supporting member Jennifer Wilding of Consensus and her team have been working to increase civility in Kansas City, and we love their infographic on what KC residents told them officials can do to improve public engagement. Learn more about Consensus’ Civility Project at www.consensuskc.org/civilityproject/ and in Jennifer’s write-up below the image.

SixChangesForOfficials-infographic

Old Habits for Engaging the Public Make it Harder to Be Civil

Americans have talked a lot about civility the last few years. Along with exploring the way individuals behave, it’s important to pay attention to the processes that are used to engage the public. Outmoded habits are ineffective with a population that increasingly expects to be consulted, and can be disastrous in situations where values are in conflict.

It’s possible to change these habits, though. Specific, relatively simple changes can move people’s behavior from angry to productive. The Civility Project helps inform and advocate for building new habits that increase civility.

Consensus, a Kansas City-based nonprofit that focuses on public engagement, launched The Civility Project out of frustration with the way the 2009 health-care town hall meetings were conducted. Using the public hearing model meant that meetings intended to give people a voice ended up driving them further apart.

The project so far includes awards for people who bring civility to life and a one-day class on building civility into public engagement based on findings from 20 focus groups with local citizens. In addition, Consensus has held public forums co-sponsored by KCPT Public Television, the Congressional Civility Caucus and the Dole Institute.

Consensus held 20 focus groups across metro Kansas City and in Lawrence to talk about civility in public life and how it affects our ability to solve problems. The groups represented the entire political spectrum, but were in perfect harmony when they described what concerns them about our public processes and what would make things better.

Detailed findings are available at www.consensuskc.org/civilityproject, and we have distilled what people want into six simple changes elected officials can make to engage their constituents more productively.

For more information: Jennifer Wilding, jenwilding@consensuskc.org.

 

Public Agenda Convenes Scientists, Evangelical Pastors for Dialogue

Posted on by
Reply

Public Agenda, an NCDD organization member, recently shared the piece below on their blog that we wanted to share with you. It is part of a series of pieces from the PA team reflecting on the experience of facilitating dialogue sessions between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors, and it’s fascinating. You can read the piece below or find the original here.

PublicAgenda-logoWhen I told people that I was headed to LA to facilitate a conversation between evangelical pastors and scientists, most reactions fell somewhere between surprise and cynicism. “Why bother,” asked a friend, “when they’re never going to agree on anything anyway?”

But a strange thing happens when you get a small group of people together in a room for a facilitated dialogue: they listen to one another. And instead of trying to persuade the group to support their worldviews, the pastors and scientists each respectfully introduced themselves and explained why they do what they do for a living. Similarities emerged right off the bat: curiosity, compassion and an unyielding search for truth.

It wasn’t long before the conversation took on a lighter tone. One participant, a reproductive biologist, acknowledged the tension in the room as he explained his research: “We already covered religion and politics,” he said, “so I figured I’d throw sex in there too.”

And there were profound moments as well, like when a scientist explained that he wasn’t 100 percent certain of anything, and that all scientific theories exist only until proven false. “What you just said makes me feel safe,” a pastor replied, “because many of the scientists I know seem so definite in their beliefs, so I don’t feel comfortable expressing my faith.”

Three hours later the group had hammered out areas of common ground and ideas for next steps to foster collaboration between the two communities. But more importantly, the conversations continued well past the end of the formal discussion. Most participants lingered in the room and talked, exchanging contact information and discussing how to keep the conversation going.

As a facilitator, it was humbling to witness a group of people overcome significant differences to explore how to work together to improve their community. Let’s hope that they can continue to defy expectations and set an example for the rest of us.

The original version of this piece is available at www.publicagenda.org/blogs/defying-expectations.

NCDD 2014 All-Star Sponsor: Public Conversations Project

Posted on by
Reply

NCDD is proud to announce that the Public Conversations Project is stepping up as an All-Star Sponsor of the 6th National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation…

Public Conversations ProjectSince 1989, the Public Conversation Project has worked in the U.S. and around the world facilitating dialogues on a wide range of contentious issues including abortion, forest management, homosexuality and faith, biodiversity, the use of animals in research, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many others. In a world bristling with tension, controversy, polarization, and war, PCP aims to reduce rancor in public squares and promote effective communication within organizations and communities. It also provides workshops and customized trainings that teach people how to use its dialogue methods.

PCP was founded by Corky Becker, Laura Chasin, Richard Chasin, Margaret Herzig, and Sallyann Roth. The founders plus recent additions Raye Rawls and Mary Jacksteit, along with program staff members Robert Stains, Jr., David Joseph, Meenakshi Chakraverti, and Alison Streit Baron make up PCP’s team of associates.

The Public Conversations Project brings disputants together for the kind of dialogue that shifts relationships from ones of mistrust, defense, withdrawal, or attack to those of curiosity, connection, and compassionate understanding of differences. PCP does not seek to shift people’s core beliefs and commitments around the issues that have divided them.
Many of PCP’s approaches have roots in family systems therapy methods and goals. Family therapist skills help relatives to stop seeing each other as bitter adversaries, even if they do continue to disagree on important matters.

Photos from the Public Conversations Project website.

Photos from the Public Conversations Project website.

They also provide free training guides and dialogue resources. The organization and its staff publish widely in academic journals, are quoted in the mainstream press, and offer a cadre of materials related to planning and facilitating a dialogue.  The Public Conversations Project’s widely used resources include three guides that teach how to plan and facilitate dialogue about a wide range of topics.

You can learn a lot more about The Public Conversations Project by visiting their website and when you meet the good folks from PCP at the conference this Fall, please thank them for helping make NCDD 2014 possible!

Interested in Sponsoring the Conference?

Over the next few months leading up to NCDD’s 2014 National Conference (held this year at the Hyatt Regency in Reston, VA just outside DC), we’ll be highlighting the work of our event sponsors on our news blog, on social media, and on our listservs.  Those interested in helping us create our best event ever can learn more about sponsorship opportunities by downloading our 2014 Sponsorship Info PDF.

We also recommend you check out Seattle’s sponsors to get a sense of the fantastic organizations that step up to support NCDD events — and check out the guidebook from NCDD 2012 to see how sponsors are featured.

A Glimmer of Hope in Pew’s Polarization Report

Posted on by
Reply

The Pew Research Center recently released a report on polarization in the US that has important insights for our field. The report is huge, but luckily, NCDD Board of Directors member John Backman created a wonderful overview of the report’s findings, with an eye toward what it means for our work. We highly encourage you to read John’s thoughts below and add your reflections on the Pew study in the comments section. 

How Far Apart Are We, Really? A Closer Look at Pew’s Polarization Report

by John Backman

The findings look dark, no doubt about it. Play with the numbers, though, and you can begin to see glimmers of hope—and opportunities for D&D practitioners.

The report from the Pew Research Center bears the ominous title “Political Polarization in the American Public,” and the first sentence in the web version is no better: “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades.” The nationwide survey of 10,000 adults found that:

  • The two ends of the spectrum are growing. 21% of respondents now identify as “consistently liberal” or “consistently conservative”—double the percentage in 1994.
  • Overlap between parties is in steep decline. Twenty years ago, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat, and 70% of Democrats were more liberal than the median Republican. Today those figures are 92% and 94%, respectively.
  • Hostility is more intense. The percentage of respondents with a highly negative view of the other side has more than doubled since 1994. Worse, most of these “high negatives” believe the opposing party’s policies to be “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.”
  • The silos are hardening. Half of consistent conservatives and 35% of consistent liberals value living in a place where most people share their views. Nearly one-third of consistent conservatives and one-quarter of consistent liberals would be unhappy if one of their family married into the other side.

In other words, the American public is moving in a direction diametrically opposed to the bridge-building instincts of most D&D practitioners. On the whole, it’s hard to be happy about the situation.

Until you dig deeper. Some of the under reported findings and unexpressed facts hold more hope for both our public square and our ability as practitioners to make a difference:

If 21% of Americans are now firmly ensconced in their worldviews, then 79% are not.

That leaves roughly 250 million people who, in theory, might be open to an exchange of views with others of different opinion. One key strategy for ensconcing dialogue in our public square, as I see it, is to build a critical mass of people who are (or become) oriented toward dialogue. It’s easier to find participants for that critical mass in a pool of 250 million than it would be if the middle were actually vanishing instead of declining.

The middle of the political spectrum is quiet. Dialogue and deliberation could change that.

The Pew report notes that the people at the ends of the spectrum have a disproportionate voice in the political process because they are more vocal. “Many of those in the center,” the authors write, “remain on the edges of the political playing field, relatively distant and disengaged.” Yet they don’t have to stay on the edges, and anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that D&D can draw them in. For how many people has a dialogue been their first experience with any sort of civic engagement? And how many of them have been delighted with the process?

Data to validate or refute these impressions would be helpful here, of course. But if the impressions are accurate, they point to the power of dialogue, not only to engage people in the civic/political arena, but to start them out with a civil, productive approach.

There is still common ground to use as a starting point for dialogue, and much of it involves one of our most powerful motivators: the drive to make a good life for ourselves and our loved ones.

According to the Pew report, even the most strident conservatives and liberals want to live near extended family, high-quality public schools, and opportunities to get outdoors. By and large, concern for those closest to us trumps political affiliation: for about three-quarters of respondents, a family member’s marrying across political divides doesn’t matter.

Yes, the trends are troubling. Yet there is more than enough “raw material” for D&D practitioners to advance the cause of dialogue and deliberation.

What do you see in the numbers? Please share your thoughts below in our comments section.

Harwood on US Soccer’s Civic Lessons

Posted on by
Reply

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably know that the USA’s national soccer team has been advancing steadily in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Rich Harwood, director of NCDD organizational member The Harwood Institute, penned an article reflective piece this week (before the US played Germany yesterday) on the civic lessons we can take from the US team’s resolve early on in the Cup. You can read Rich’s article below or find the original here.

HarwoodLogoAs a huge soccer fan, I was ecstatic about the U.S. National Team’s 2-1 victory over Ghana Monday. As an American, I was struck even more by the words used by the players, commentators and others to describe the win: grittiness, grinding it out, gutsy, and resolve. Such words not only reflect the U.S. team’s play, but our national character. It is this very character that we must now tap into in order to make progress on our challenges at home.

The national team’s win is a perfect civic parable for our country at this time. Ghana beat the U.S. in the last two World Cups. In 2010, it was a heart-breaking overtime loss. This time, the U.S. came into the game as the clear underdog. But the team did not cower in the face of Ghana, nor did it sit back; it struck. A mere 34 seconds into the first half, forward Clint Dempsey scored to put the U.S. ahead.

Another 89+ minutes remained. And adversity came quickly to the U.S. team. Jose Altidore, the vaunted U.S. striker, went down with a strained hamstring. A young substitute named Aron Johannsson, with little experience at this level, took his place. At halftime, Matt Besler, a key defenseman, was pulled from the game with an injury. Again another young substitute, Anthony Brooks, came on to play. When members of the team fell down, other players stepped forward.

Even as the national team got back on its feet, the Ghanians turned up the heat. Their relentless attacks put the U.S. team back on their heels for much of the second half. But the U.S. team was undeterred and resilient, withstanding the onslaught even as they were outplayed.

But their luck finally broke. With just eight minutes remaining, the Ghanians scored to tie the game and firmly grabbed the momentum. It was as if throughout the U.S. one could hear a collective gulp: here comes a repeat of 2010.

Amid the heightened pressure, the U.S. team kept plugging away. They would bend but not break. With just minutes left, Graham Zusi, yet another substitute, took a corner kick and the 21-year-old Brooks headed the ball into the back of the net. A gutsy, stubborn and sometimes not-so-pretty team performance landed a U.S. victory.

Today, many Americans say the country is on the wrong path. They want to know how we can move forward together. The story of the U.S. team Monday night reminds us just what it takes to get on the right path: people coming together with a sense of common purpose and setting a common goal. When they fall down, they dust themselves off and find a way to keep moving forward. Then, when things go wrong, they recalibrate. And when certain individuals must step away, they pass the baton to others who are willing to step forward.

Throughout all this, people persevere. They realize they must be resilient – willing and able to bend, but not break. And when they achieve their near-term goal, other longer-term goals push them to keep moving ahead, together.

As Americans, we are builders. It’s part of our DNA, central to our character. The U.S. national team demonstrated the meaning of this last night. And it reflects back to us something we already know but sometimes forget or push aside: we must tap our collective character to move this nation forward. What I know from my long experience working in communities across the country is this: Americans want to be builders again.

You can find the original version of this piece at www.theharwoodinstitute.org/2014/06/u-s-world-cup-win-a-civic-parable-for-our-time.

Featured D&D Story: Class Discussion on Gun Violence

Posted on by
Reply

Today we’d like to feature a great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, a class discussion on gun violence from University of Missouri. This mini case study was submitted by NCDD supporting member Sarah Read of the Communications Center, Inc. via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool. Do you have a dialogue story that our network could learn from? Add YOUR dialogue story today! 

ShareYourStory-sidebarimageTitle of Project: Class Discussions on Gun Violence

Description

Last summer I was asked to redesign and teach the Public Policy Dispute Resolution class at the University of Missouri School of Law which I then taught in the fall semester. At the outset of the semester, the students were asked to write an essay about why they had enrolled and what they hoped to learn.

The majority of those essays reflected the students’ deep concerns, as citizens, with the partisan nature of our political discourse and their frustration at how quickly discussions on difficult issues, even with friends and family, turned into name-calling and debate. The students expressed a desire to better understand and address such things as “media-fueled divisiveness”, lack of “nuance in everyday politics”, and “polarization”. They also asked to learn about how points of view form, how policies are made, how to help opposing groups communicate, and how to “explore the area between two extreme views.”

These questions were discussed in the first part of the semester when we focused on skills such as conflict mapping, question framing, and use of non-adversarial dialogue patterns, and the use of different processes to navigate conflict. The last third of the semester focused on actually applying this learning to a difficult dialogue, and the topic chosen by the class was issues relating to gun control or violence.

The classes that followed were designed to allow the students to directly experience how the choice and sequencing of dialogue structures (here informal dialogue, through a World Cafe type forum, to a more deliberative issue forum), paired with dialogue-based phrasing, can change the usual scripts used in discussion of a politicized, highly charged issue like gun violence.

To focus the discussion students were given a real-world hypothetical of adopting a policy on who could carry guns in public schools. This hypothetical used the demographics of an identified nearby school district and a law that had been recently adopted in Kansas. Class members came into the discussions with a wide range of viewpoints (which had been reflected in their prior essays) and were loosely assigned roles as community members.

The two students who agreed to serve as (i) a school board member highly supportive of both the law and of allowing more guns in the schools, and (ii) the superintendent responsible for managing budgets, safety, personnel, and overall administration, received more detailed supporting information for their roles. They were instructed to raise or share thoughts and information as seemed natural or appropriate in the discussions.

Although starting from very different places, the students were (to their surprise), over three sessions, able to reach unanimous agreement on an interim policy that could be placed into effect immediately. Much of this progress had to do with how the dialogues were sequenced.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?

  • National Issues Forums
  • World Cafe
  • Conversation Cafe

What was your role in the project?

Professor / Convener

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Crime and safety
  • Education
  • Partisan divide

Lessons Learned

The sequencing of different dialogue processes, with time off between sessions, when done thoughtfully, can substantially lessen the overall in-person time needed for groups to come to agreement. Sequencing also allows for better option development, and promotes more productive deliberations at the time deliberative thinking is required. This is because successful resolution of complex issues requires integrative thinking about several different factors – information, interests, values, and rules or standards.

Integrative thinking takes time. Sequencing discussions can provide the necessary time for new ideas and options to emerge. Effective integrative thinking within a group also takes trust in the others that you are making decisions with. Without trust, information is discounted and risk to one’s personal interests is likely to take precedence over the effects on others in the community.

Simply put, building trust requires an effort to build relationships. Building relationships also takes time, and multiple contacts. By sequencing conversations so that deliberation does not occur too soon allows for better relationship development.

Where to learn more about the project:

Read full series of posts here: http://buildingdialogue.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/teaching-the-navigation-of-difficult-dialogues-intro.

Featured D&D Story: Class Discussion on Gun Violence

Posted on by
Reply

Today we’d like to feature a great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, a class discussion on gun violence from University of Missouri. This mini case study was submitted by NCDD supporting member Sarah Read of the Communications Center, Inc. via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool. Do you have a dialogue story that our network could learn from? Add YOUR dialogue story today! 

ShareYourStory-sidebarimageTitle of Project: Class Discussions on Gun Violence

Description

Last summer I was asked to redesign and teach the Public Policy Dispute Resolution class at the University of Missouri School of Law which I then taught in the fall semester. At the outset of the semester, the students were asked to write an essay about why they had enrolled and what they hoped to learn.

The majority of those essays reflected the students’ deep concerns, as citizens, with the partisan nature of our political discourse and their frustration at how quickly discussions on difficult issues, even with friends and family, turned into name-calling and debate. The students expressed a desire to better understand and address such things as “media-fueled divisiveness”, lack of “nuance in everyday politics”, and “polarization”. They also asked to learn about how points of view form, how policies are made, how to help opposing groups communicate, and how to “explore the area between two extreme views.”

These questions were discussed in the first part of the semester when we focused on skills such as conflict mapping, question framing, and use of non-adversarial dialogue patterns, and the use of different processes to navigate conflict. The last third of the semester focused on actually applying this learning to a difficult dialogue, and the topic chosen by the class was issues relating to gun control or violence.

The classes that followed were designed to allow the students to directly experience how the choice and sequencing of dialogue structures (here informal dialogue, through a World Cafe type forum, to a more deliberative issue forum), paired with dialogue-based phrasing, can change the usual scripts used in discussion of a politicized, highly charged issue like gun violence.

To focus the discussion students were given a real-world hypothetical of adopting a policy on who could carry guns in public schools. This hypothetical used the demographics of an identified nearby school district and a law that had been recently adopted in Kansas. Class members came into the discussions with a wide range of viewpoints (which had been reflected in their prior essays) and were loosely assigned roles as community members.

The two students who agreed to serve as (i) a school board member highly supportive of both the law and of allowing more guns in the schools, and (ii) the superintendent responsible for managing budgets, safety, personnel, and overall administration, received more detailed supporting information for their roles. They were instructed to raise or share thoughts and information as seemed natural or appropriate in the discussions.

Although starting from very different places, the students were (to their surprise), over three sessions, able to reach unanimous agreement on an interim policy that could be placed into effect immediately. Much of this progress had to do with how the dialogues were sequenced.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?

  • National Issues Forums
  • World Cafe
  • Conversation Cafe

What was your role in the project?

Professor / Convener

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Crime and safety
  • Education
  • Partisan divide

Lessons Learned

The sequencing of different dialogue processes, with time off between sessions, when done thoughtfully, can substantially lessen the overall in-person time needed for groups to come to agreement. Sequencing also allows for better option development, and promotes more productive deliberations at the time deliberative thinking is required. This is because successful resolution of complex issues requires integrative thinking about several different factors – information, interests, values, and rules or standards.

Integrative thinking takes time. Sequencing discussions can provide the necessary time for new ideas and options to emerge. Effective integrative thinking within a group also takes trust in the others that you are making decisions with. Without trust, information is discounted and risk to one’s personal interests is likely to take precedence over the effects on others in the community.

Simply put, building trust requires an effort to build relationships. Building relationships also takes time, and multiple contacts. By sequencing conversations so that deliberation does not occur too soon allows for better relationship development.

Where to learn more about the project:

Read full series of posts here: http://buildingdialogue.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/teaching-the-navigation-of-difficult-dialogues-intro.

Group Decision Tip: What’s the problem?

Posted on by
Reply

In principle, more often than not, a group will develop a great solution to the wrong problem. Before proceeding with a solution we need to see that it is aimed at the problem, and to do that we need to bring the problem into focus. Taking time to define the problem may seem annoying and unnecessary in the short term, but can save huge amounts of time and energy over the long run.

Group Decision Tips IconDefining the problem as a group also checks our shared expectations. It helps me decide, “Is this something that I want to participate in?”

Practical Tip: Before discussing solutions, discuss the problem. What are we trying to fix? What is the specific scope of the problem that we are willing to take on? How would we know if the problem were fixed? Are we the right group to fix it?

On paper, write something like, “The problem is that _____________.” It could be a sentence or it could be a paragraph.

Refrain from discussing solutions until you have agreement on the problem statement. Make sure that all those working on the problem are aware of the written problem statement and agree with it.

Before firing off solutions, make sure the problem is squarely in your sights.