Dealing with extremes!!..
Thomas Paine
once said, “to argue with a person who
has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
There are allot of extremes out there fuelling irrational behaviour delivering
a sense of learnt helplessness to many whom seem to think we are all powerless
to do anything about it. Can we really influence, confront and change extremes
that have grown powerful in today’s world with a few chiseling out a future
that affects the overwhelming many? So from the epically large to the
annoyingly small, what can we do when dealing with the extremes of polarised
positions?
Firstly, we
need to address the common vector here, which are the extreme positions of one
or more parties to a situation. Such extreme positions don’t happen overnight,
they often surface without full facts brought to light and do considerable
damage before counter parties address them in an effective manner. Parties will
be seeking to pull you into their stratosphere of thinking in an effort to
achieve a win-lose outcome in their favour. This is practically assured so one
cannot overstate the critical nature of objectivity when coming to grips with a
polarised situation.
An objective
mind has clear sight, which should be used to understand to an extent, the
positions of all parties involved. However, pursuing a line of enquiry to
understand each party’s interests is far more reaching into each party’s modus
opperandi, the motives behind said modus and what they really hope to achieve
in terms of outcome. Understand this, and solutions are never far behind. That
said, when polarised positions have complicated matters increasing the distance
between parties in any dispute, its important to use one’s understanding of
common ‘all party’ interests to engage in the following process of resolution;
Landscape. Understand the difference between counter party
interests and the drivers of conflict fuelling polarised positions.
Personalisation. Use the insights gained into the above to ensure
that each party can connect on a personal level. It’s important to connect as
people if the process cannot move past positions.
Bridge The Gap. Understanding each parties interests and what
drives them. Map out where each party is and understand the reasons for the gap
between each party’s position. Use this insight to connect each party with
their common interests and aligned humanity to start addressing their
differences for a win-win outcome if possible.
Changing party positions. Monitor and respond to each party’s
positional change given some parties will be adversarial by design/nature and
will change negatively as much as some will change positively. Negative
positional changes can escalate a contentious situation with trust in you as
the first casualty and positive change potential as the second. Be sure to
assert common purpose and if there is no response to addressing negative positional
changes. Also, be sure to suspend a negotiation if necessary to enforce a
change in position by persistently negative parties.
Follow up. Parties, ultimately revealed with ulterior motives and
have no real interest in a resolution should be removed from a negotiation once
there is coverage of their relevant interests at the table. Its important to
consider one’s credibility when making a decision on follow up to persuade or
enforce a change using what ever is necessary to make the party see the gain
for them in a common resolution. Such follow up could connect them with their
real interests thus altering their position to one of collaborative from
adversarial.
The above is
far from detailed, but if we can simply focus on interests and not positions
then the relevance of polarised positions becomes relegated in importance and
impact when we all try to work together for a common future. After all, we live
under the same sun, so why not try make the most of our time together; for time
is a commodity we cannot get back!
Sources/Credits:
Pics:
Credits:
