Who They Are
|
Everyone has to make tactical decisions about which dragon
to fight. Discover how vetoers have allocated their resources
. They may decide your dragon is too costly to slay or
they are battling more significant dragons. Try to reach
an agreement not to fight. If you can't, see if your dragon
is worth the price of the battle. |
|
|
|
Today, anyone can delay or even stop your
process by lobbying Congress, initiating court action, or rallying
a grassroots effort to oppose your action. You cannot take away
their right to fight.
You may be tempted to call anyone sufficiently
motivated to stop your project "the opposition" or "the enemy."
These terms preclude the possibility of working together to
develop a more comprehensive solution and may separate "them"
into a true opposition.
Managing conflict is a large
part of solving the problem. Thus, you need to pay attention
to potential vetoer's issues and actively seek
their participation and consent --no
matter how grudgingly it may be given. Government actions everyone
can support are extremely rare. Some
people may be directly or indirectly harmed by the action, some
people may think they will be harmed, others have been burned
by previous government actions, and still others are opposed
to any action--governmental or private.
Providing vetoers with an active, substantive role within
your process will do far more than stave off resistance. It
will:
- Bring new ideas and perspectives
- Uncover fatal flaws in your proposed
solutions
- Point out areas that need to be considered
- Find watchdogs to ensure your actions follow your words
- Bring credibility to your
process
Thus, identifying all potential vetoers and making them
a part of the process is essential. Identify the vetoers, research
their networks, and involve all vetoers in the process. If you
have a group that holds out, try to enlist participation from
groups that are close to them. Also, keep that group informed
and give them regular opportunities to participate.
|
|
Working With Potential Vetoers
|
Establishing ground
rules for communication and following these rules
will buy respect and may yield some support from vetoers.
|
|
|
Pitfall:
Manipulating or ignoring
vetoers is at best naive and at worst suicidal. If they
suspect any machinations, you will probably lose your
credibility and ability to solve this or any future problems.
Ignoring vetoers also lays the groundwork for costly court
battles. |
|
|
|
If groups are involved, they are more likely
to understand the complexities and interactions. This understanding
helps to reach compromises and avoid conflicts. You can involve
these groups and individuals by:
- Finding out what their real issues are (don't rely on
rumors, mythtruths or superficial
statements)
- Communicating informally as well
as formally
- Consider giving them materials (even drafts) when you
give them to core team members
(plan and discuss this ahead of time).
- Addressing their comments
- Respecting their position
- Recognizing their issues
- Negotiating aspects of the process (e.g., timing, definitions,
or analyses)
- Providing opportunities for them to speak
At times, vetoers will still refuse to participate. You
need to demonstrate that it is to their advantage to participate--that
their concerns will be better addressed within the process rather
than outside the process because:
- If they participate, their needs may be met.
- Even if the study doesn't lead to their preferred outcome,
their participation may make the results less harmful to their
interests through compromises and tradeoffs.
- If they don't participate, they'll miss the opportunity
to mitigate impacts and tell others about
their concerns.
Some groups may refuse to participate and may actually seek
to subvert the process. Take the time to figure out why. Some
parties don't want to be at the table because it preserves their
options for going outside the process. For example, groups with
little political power may not feel that the process will result
in recommendations they can support. Outlining the steps and
showing the process as open and equitable may provide a foundation
to resolve differences.
Vetoers may be trying to maintain an image of being against
the project or solution. Giving them the leeway to posture for
their cause and talking informally will make it easier for them
to participate in the process. Find a way to reach an understanding
(formal or informal) if you possibly can. If vetoers have too
much of a stake in the outcome, or if they are willing to spend
a lot of resources to stop the process, then you need to reconsider
your position.
Can you resolve the impasse (e.g., re define
the problem , consider additional needs
, make tradeoffs , or add
analyses )? Are you willing to spend the resources that
will be necessary to continue the process?
Training in dispute resolution and other facilitation techniques
and communicating face to face can help the core team understand
that conflict is not the end of the world.
|
|