|
Mania in Madison: 7 Steps towards Resolution.
"Given that resolution in Madison seems impossible, how do we make it possible?"
Diane Amundson
As we follow the contentious situation in Madison, Wisconsin, we wonder how it will end? The State's Governor, Scott Walker, has proposed a budget repair bill that will limit public employees' ability to bargain collectively For those who are new to the term "collective bargaining", this is a process of negotiation that most members of a union use to discuss the hours, wages, benefits and working conditions of their employer. Governor Walker is looking to limit public employees' ability to bargain regarding benefits leaving their ability to bargain for pay in tact, if kept below inflation. The Governor believes that limiting the collective bargaining of public workers regarding benefits will help save the State money and reduce the current $137 million deficit by June 30th.
As Democratic legislators opposed to the repair bill flee Wisconsin for other states, an example of balancing power by the "flight" response, Governor Walker is threatening to layoff or furlough public employees by using an aggressive "fight" response. As a facilitator and consensus builder of many conflicts over the years, I need to be aware of my thoughts and feelings regarding a conflict and ask myself if I am able to remain neutral to the issues. Once I am working within a conflict and truly understand all sides, I find it easier to remain neutral. If there is a conflict of interest with the facilitator, i.e., a family member employed by the union etc. then a good facilitator will remove themselves from the role and find someone else for the client.
So, with an understanding of the importance of neutrality, I offer these 7 steps towards resolution:
- Interview All Sides. This is always the first step towards consensus building. I would spend equal time with the union leadership and Governor Walker to lay out all of the issues as well as the feelings behind those issues. There needs to be a commitment from both sides that the conflict is solvable and they are willing to come to a meeting with an open mind. I will ask each side if there are additional people I should interview to gain a wider perspective. The purpose for the interviews is so I am factually grounded on the issues and can offer a perspective based on fact if the parties are not able to agree on certain facts.
- Determine What They Need Before Meeting. As part of my interview questions, I ask each side what they will need to help confront and resolve the conflict. This could mean that one side wants twenty other people in the room and the other side wants the discussion in a certain location. I do whatever I can to make these requests a reality.
- Determine Who Starts. The party that is the most upset or emotionally charged will begin answering my questions first.
- Follow Reflective Listening Process. In this case, I would guess that the union leadership would start my process by answering the question, "What is the situation that confronts you and how do you feel about it?" Governor Walker is only allowed to listen, take notes and repeat back what the union leadership has said. If the union leadership feels that Governor Walker has heard everything correctly and can repeat the issues and feelings accurately does the question then go to Governor Walker to answer the same two questions. The union leadership then must listen, take notes and repeat back what Governor Walker has said and feels. This goes back and forth until all issues and feelings are on the table.
- Ask Creative Questions. Once the reflective listening has occurred, the room will feel much lighter as the tension has subsided and each party is now willing and able to look at "possibility" thinking. It is at this point that I ask the union leadership to answer, "What is the worst outcome for you and Governor Walker if these issues are not resolved?" The union leadership answers the question and Governor Walker must repeat back the answer with the feeling behind the words. Then Governor walker is asked the same questions with the union repeating back. The next question for the union is, "What is the best outcome for you and Governor Walker if these issues are resolved?" These best outcomes become the vision of consensus that both parties want to happen but do not know how they will happen. The next question for the union leadership is, "What needs to happen for these best outcomes to become a reality?" Governor Walker must repeat the response before he is able to answer the same question. The answer to this last question becomes the road map of behavior that must be followed for resolution to take place. My final question to both sides would be, "Are you committed to these best outcomes and the action items that will get you there?" If either side says no to the commitment question , then I ask the question of the side that answered no, "What is the situation that keeps you from committing?"
- Take Great Notes. Throughout the process a note taker is gathering the insights and action items so both sides see the issues and can immediately agree or disagree with what is being recorded. I recommend the old fashioned flipchart paper on a wall that is visible and flexible to changing ideas and commitments if needed.
- Meet Again. This is often the most important step that is overlooked. Both parties agree to get together again at a predetermined time to see if the agreed upon steps are being followed and if any changes in the agreement need to happen. Reflective listening may still be used if emotions are charged once again and the ability to listen with respect is blocked.
While these steps may seem simple and straight-forward, they are not. At any time one side may determine that they do not want to proceed with the consensus process but would rather use non-adult ways to gain power, i.e., fight or flight responses. Right now the situation seems impossible to resolve but another powerful question I ask my clients is, "Given that the situation seems impossible to resolve, how do we make it possible?" This honors the thinking of the brain that is "fear" based and the portion of the brain that thinks and believes in "possibilities".
|
