Re: Industry + Public = LO?? LO2387

JOHN N. WARFIELD (jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu)
Fri, 11 Aug 1995 07:21:06 -0400 (EDT)

Replying to LO2381 --

On Thu, 10 Aug 1995 mdarling@warren.med.harvard.edu wrote:

> I did some work for an industry group to work on the question, "How can we
> start to hold an effective conversation with leading environmental
> groups?" Their intent, as I heard it, was not to persuade or manipulate,
> but to find ways to decrease posturing on both sides and increase
> dialogue.
>
> I agree with your assessment that "Forward thinking executives and
> companies... are thinking about how to improve the quality of dialog with
> the public" and was excited to participate. I also recognized the systemic
> constraints that a need for funding creates (by creating pressure for each
> side to take more extreme positions).

I WISH I COULD AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT. A FEW MONTHS BACK I SENT A
PERSONAL LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF 152 U. S.
COMPANIES. IN THIS LETTER, I MENTIONED THAT I HAD INVENTED A NEW SCIENCE
AND A SYSTEM OF INTERACTIVE MANAGEMENT THAT FACILITATED GROUP DIALOG AND
INVENTION, AND WHICH WAS SUPERIOR TO THE SYSTEMS NOW BEING PROMOTED BY
GURUS. I INVITED THEM TO LOOK AT THE BOOKS OR TO RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHAT I HAD SAID ON THE TYPICAL "ONE-PAGER" WHICH, FOLKLORE SAYS, IS ALL
THAT FORWARD THINKING EXECUTIVES EVER READ.

THE NET RESPONSE FROM THIS WAS TWOFOLD. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY REPLIED
IMMEDIATELY AND SAID THAT THEY DID NOT NEED THIS SYSTEM (THEY APPARENTLY
HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DIGEST 27 YEARS OF RESEARCH RESULTS IN A FEW
MOMENTS.) ABOUT A MONTH LATER, AT&T REPLIED THAT THEY HAD DONE SOME
INTERNAL CHECKING AND FOUND THAT NOBODY WAS INTERESTED. THIS IS RATHER
REMARKABLE IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTED SUCCESS STORIES AND READY
AVAILABILITY OF BUCKETS OF INFORMATION, ANY OF WHICH CAN BE CHECKED OUT
THOROUGHLY.

ANYWAY, IT IS ENCOURAGING THAT 2 OF THE COMPANIES CHOSE TO RESPOND, EVEN
IF THEIR RESPONSES WERE ESSENTIALLY P. R. REJOINDERS.

> With this group, I started by taking a look at their published papers to
> help them recognize how what they say is being heard by their various
> constituents as a result of the presuppositions revealed in their use of
> language. I did this not to encourage them to modify their language to
> match their constituents' thinking, but to reveal their own mental models
> (or whatever we want to call it), so that they would understand how their
> models might affect the dynamics of the conversation. It was sort of a
> reality check - do you really want to hold a dialogue? What does your
> language say about your intention? It was a revealing and challenging
> process for them.
>
> I also proposed a model to raise the logical level of the conversation to
> a point at which the concrete disagreement could be framed in terms of the
> intent of each position (this is a fairly standard approach to conflict
> resolution).

YES, IT IS A FAIRLY STANDARD APPROACH, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY WE HAVE SO
MUCH CONFLICT EVERYWHERE. IN MY WORK, IT IS INVARIABLY ESCHEWED TO HELP
SOLIDIFY CONFLICTING VIEWS, BECAUSE THIS FORMALIZES WHAT HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN A DISORGANIZED CONFLICT. THIS CREATES A NEW PROBLEM--THAT SUFFERS
FROM THE SAME FOUNDATIONAL DIFFICULTIES AS THE OLDER ONE.

WITHOUT GOING ON AD NAUSEUM, I'LL JUST SAY THAT IT'S TRUE THAT
PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTIES, BUT THAT THIS IS NOT GOING
TO BE CHANGED CRITICALLY BY DEFINING THEM BETTER, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON
THAT MANY OF THEM ARE NOT ARTICULATABLE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AND
THAT THE BEST APPROACH IS TO DO "JOINT DESIGN" WORK TO DEVELOP A SHARED
LINGUISTIC DOMAIN (A LA MARUYAMA) USING PROCESSES OF INTERACTIVE
MANAGEMENT WITH AN EXPERIENCED FACILITATOR AND COMPUTER SUPPORT.

> While these were fine starting points for preparing one side of the
> conversation, obviously I was not working with the public side, and the
> project went nowhere.
>
> I did all of this work a few years before learning about either Bill
> Isaacs' work in dialogue or The Natural Step, both of which I think would
> have enriched my framework greatly. I am very interested in learning more
> about The Natural Step and thinking about how it can be applied to this
> kind of situation. I hope this thread evolves.

I RECOMMEND YOU HOLD A CONVERSATION WITH PROFESSOR BEN BROOME OF GEORGE
MASON UNIVERSITY, WHO HAS JUST CONCLUDED HIS FULBRIGHT YEAR ON CYPRUS,
AND WILL BE RETURNING NOW AND THEN TO CONTINUE HIS WORK WITH THE GREEK
AND TURKISH CYPRIOTS. A YEAR OF DEDICATED EXPERIENCE WILL REVEAL THINGS
THAT AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF SPECULATION IS UNLIKELY TO GET QUITE RIGHT.

BY THE WAY, BEN IS NOT WITH THE GMU CONFLICT CENTER, JUST IN CASE YOU TRY
TO CONTACT HIM. HE IS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION.

--
JOHN WARFIELD
Jwarfiel@gmu.edu