Problems with Many Voices

DEFINITION

Examples

Environmentalists, developers, local agencies, and residents debate over the pathway for a new freeway

Landowners, regional agencies, environmentalists, and developers put together the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Competing companies creating industry standards to create a stable marketplace for their products

Owners, contractors, architects developing the specifications for a major construction project

Infighting among departments

[more detail]

These problems are characterized by multiple stakeholders with strong preferences for the final outcome. There is a shared resource or outcome that prevents everyone from pursuing their own choice independently; some constraint requires a single choice. These problems often represent enduring differences of opinion that will clash in a wide variety of specific situations. The players often come together repeatedly over new versions of old conflicts.

The political maneuvering of the players typically obscures key information as well as real interests.

The mere presence of disagreement is not sufficient to assign this problem type. People caught in a Dilemma will also evidence strong disagreement. For example, developers and environmentalists may easily present as a Problem with Many Voices. In fact, they are reflecting the two sides of the dilemma Economic Growth vs. Quality of Life. Until both sides embrace that dilemma, however, this problem type will often provide a temporary guide as to the best strategy.

What appears like a Problem of Many Voices could also be a Problem that Bites. The distinguishing difference will be the bitterness and long history of the conflict. It is also more difficult to even suggest "coming together to talk" in such situations. In a genuine Problem with Many Voices, the players are often eager to negotiate and readily welcome a neutral facilitator.

CHALLENGES

Creating a safe forum for negotiation, compromise, and agreement

A major challenge is creating the safe forum for debate that encourages people to present their interests candidly and search jointly for viable solutions. The players are likely to pursue more political strategies until they believe open negotiation will be to their advantage.

The hallmark of this "safe forum" is a neutral party who will enforce certain process agreements with a vengeance, but remains absolutely neutral on the outcome. Their first role may be to help the players negotiate the process rules, everything from the shape of the table to prohibitions against sarcasm and personal attack. The substance of the list is less important than the mere fact that the players have jointly created their own platform for coming together.

If there is a common authority over all the warring parties, the role of facilitation may blur into arbitration, but they would be well advised to let the parties resolve their conflict on their own as much as possible. For example, departments fighting over common resources (space, talent, money, etc.) should be forced through the process of listening, advocating, negotiation, and resolving their own conflict. The executive who jumps in too early and mandates a solution merely sows the seeds for future conflicts.

OUTCOMES

A durable agreement, and an agreement to come together again in the same spirit of compromise

The best outcome is a durable agreement among conflicting players which avoids a stalemate. People pursue a solution that is advantageous to all parties. If there was sacrifice, it feels fairly distributed. The final resolution will ultimately rest on the support (however reluctant) of all the parties.

Another key outcome is that the relationships among the players are not so damaged that their next conflict will be even more difficult to resolve. These problems often have relatively standard sets of players who come together repeatedly over time. Even if they are staunch enemies, they will have to agree on the rules of engagement for the next battle.