Fundamentalism: Death by Choice

“All our problems, all our disputes, all our disagreements can be resolved quickly to mutual satisfaction if we address the question.”  Benazir Bhutto

A church confessional stands draped to protect it from the elements.  A sanctuary is empty and unused.  The Mary Queen of Peace Church in Habbaniya Cece lies vacant in a city which was once vibrant in its diversity and life.  Today Christians are leaving the cities in Iraq and elsewhere due to fundamentalist violence despite living for generations in peace with their Muslim neighbors.  However, not just Christians, but Muslims, Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites all lived together for decades without friction in cities like Habbaniya Cece.  Now it is no longer satisfactory to be an Iraqi, a Muslim, an Arab, a Kurd, Sunni or Shiite.  One must choose the right label to coexist.  Exits from ancestral homes are occurring not based on national origin or religion, but based on the prevailing view of the “correct” perspective of faith as enforced by coercion and power.  See: Last Christians Ponder Leaving a Hometown in Iraq.

As tragic as this story is, it is symptomatic of the last gasps of a dying world view.  As Harvey Cox proclaimed in The Future of Faith, “fundamentalism is dead”  That is not to say that fundamentalism has been eradicated.  Instead, when threatened, power fights back with an unequaled vengeance.  The rise of terrorism born of fundamental belief is evidence of its death struggle.  However, it cannot survive as a prevailing political force.

Habbaniya Cece demonstrates why this is true.  When the circle of acceptance is drawn in ever decreasing size, eventually only I stand inside its permissive bounds.  And I have doubts about even me.  Absolute agreement on every “jot and tittle” is impossible.  Our ability to comprehend absolute truth requires us to accommodate our differences and learn how to generate dialog about the things on which we disagree in the pursuit of more complete understanding.  Fundamentalism make the faulty assumption that there is no room for diversity.

Once we accept that diversity is the nature of life and all living things, we are forced to discover how to accommodate and explore the differences.  Doing so requires us to embrace and learn to appreciate the differences in the search for relationship among opposing thought.

Neuroscience is teaching us that the brain processes the conflict of disagreement by learning how to listen and seek understanding.  Fundamentalism as a brain function operates at the level of fear (fight/flight/freeze) in the brain regions of the amygdala (autonomic) and hypothalamus (emotions) as unconscious “thought” processes.  Higher level thinking which occurs at the frontal cortex of the brain can assimilate contrary ideas and create meaning from the tensions of opposing thought.  The path to the frontal cortex requires discussion, dialog and respectful listening.  Thinking people are not victims of their emotions and the reptilian responses to conflict.  Physiologically, respectful conversation changes the thought processes of the brain and invokes frontal cortex thinking which is creative and prone to problem solving.

Disagreement is the first level of conflict which if not addressed can escalate through increasingly hostile responses to the point of violence.  Fundamentalism permits no disagreement.  Difference of opinion becomes an enemy which must be denied or destroyed.  Failing to address disagreement is the path to increased conflict and ultimately the violent use of force to eliminate the potential for divergent thought.

In contrast, those who promote peace are proponents of dialog and discussion.  Moving people out of fear and into executive level thinking is the work of conflict managers and peacemakers.  Fundamentalists are threatened by conversation, sharing ideas and seeking agreement.  That is why they cannot survive.  They are victims of their own primitive thinking.

Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto and countless others have given their lives in the pursuit of peaceful, thoughtful dialog.  Others will follow.  Although many will die in the pursuit of peaceful co-existence, the alternative to respectful consultation which seeks understanding stands no chance of survival.  Fundamentalists of any persuasion, whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Jew, destroy life and their own prospects for living in the process.  Fundamentalism is not sustainable.

Will we chose thoughtful dialog, or will we run everyone out of town with whom we disagree?  The answer should be obvious.

Peace on Earth

That peace was better than war; because in peace the sons did bury their fathers, but in wars the fathers bury their sons.
–Francis Bacon

 

Colosseum Christmas

 

On Christmas Day the world over people stop to consider the possibility of peace. I was reminded of this universal desire yesterday as I made visits on Christmas Eve to Imam Mohamed Ahamed and Rabbi Kliel Rose here in Nashville to deliver materials for an upcoming event we are hosting together next year.  As he escorted me through the decorated fellowship hall in his synagogue, Rabbi Rose explained how American Jews enjoy being together and sharing a Chinese meal on Christmas Eve .  Later, at the Islamic Center, the Imam reached out to grasp my hand with both of his in a warm greeting of affection.  Each wished me “Merry Christmas” as we parted.

As a Christian who celebrates the Christ story, I stopped to consider the coming of Emmanuel, God with us.  I marvel at a God who for the sake of peace among men would assume human form and live in our midst.

At the close of 2010 with the promise of a new year approaching, I am overwhelmed by the deep longing in the human heart for peace.  No war is commenced with the intent that it last forever.  We all want wars to end.  No conflict is capable of perpetuating itself indefinitely.  All disputes will be over.  Even the “100 Years War” ultimately concluded after a mere 116 years of conflict between French and English dynasties each claiming the French throne.  Although the real “mother of all wars” introduced gunpowder and artillery into human warfare, it too ended.

Here’s to 2011 as the year we pursue reconciliation with greater commitment.  May we learn the tools of making peace and better managing the inevitable conflict that arises in our communities, our workplaces and in the relationships we treasure.

In the Spirit of Christmas 2010, “Peace on earth, good will to all men and women.”

Major League Mediators: Idea Entrepreneurs

“A consultant solves problems, that is not my role. What I want is for companies to self-diagnose their problems and self-discover their own solutions through my thought leadership.”  Vijay Govindarajan

Dr. Govindarajan, co-author of The Other Side of Innovation, is one of a new breed of mediators on steroids.  Of course, he would never consider himself a mediator, nor would most of the mediators I know.  The vast majority of mediators think of themselves as the masters of an extremely small slice of innovation found in the litigated space.  “We settle cases,” they are heard to say.  Likewise, most people in need of the skills of a mediator would never allow themselves to be helped by a mediator.  “That’s something for people who have failed,” they protest.  Each group has fallen victim to categorical thinking (leaving the problem in the box they created and failing to “think outside the box”)

As yesterday’s New York Times article illustrated, In Pursuit of the Perfect Brainstorm is the skill set management, business and thought leaders will pay enormous sums of money to learn.  I know of no mediator who would consider him or herself worth $200,000 to $500,000 per month to do the thinking for a business in need of innovation.  That’s what major corporations are willing to pay “thought entrepreneurs”.  No mediator I am aware of would charge $200,000 for a day of training 25 employees in the art and skill of brainstorming problem solutions.  These sums are regularly being charged and paid to professionals like Dr. Govindarajan and groups like Jump Associates to help businesses break through categorical (“inside the box”) thinking.

Ironically, most mediators create their own box of small minded thinking to define the work they do while culture, society and businesses are craving professional assistance which challenges entrenched thinking, engenders creativity and empowers innovation.  While “we can’t know what we don’t know”, the work of mediators is to help people think about thinking.

The skills of mediators, if well developed, are precisely what idea entrepreneurs provide.  A great mediator is a master in promoting self-determination which allows people stuck in their unhelpful thinking to take out, examine and improve their way of thinking about a problem, then change it for the better.  Mediators hone the skills of reality testing in order to allow their clients to re-examine the confirmatory bias which has trapped them in unhelpful thought until a breakthrough is achieved.  Great mediators are masters of the question.  Similarly, the New York Times article states, “You often hear this from idea entrepreneurs: Don’t ask us for the answers. Let us help you frame the questions, so you can answer them yourself.”

Mediators arise!  Shake off your limited view of the work we do.  Meet the public’s need where it is most pronounced.  Leave the shackles of the litigated case to those who desire to stay there.  Jump into the pool of thought innovation.  Help change the processes of idea generation.  Assist organizations caught in the boxes of their own creation.

Have fun!  Pay the bills!  Change the world!

WikiLeaks: Power, Disclosure and Autonomy

“We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy, where everyone is open to surveillance at all times; where there are no secrets from government.”

–William O. Douglas

It is impossible to avoid confronting the dilemma posed by the WikiLeaks and Julian Assange saga.  As a finalist for Time magazine’s person of the year, Assange certainly has received more than his share of headlines.  Guilt or innocence aside, the WikiLeaks controversy poses significant questions for our culture, national security and the very concept of “secret”.  Communications intended as confidential lose their purpose for being if posted on the Internet for all to see.  Should we revise our concepts of privacy to expect potential disclosure of any communication exposed to the invisible eyes of the Internet.

As an employment lawyer engaged in the occasional litigation over workplace indiscretions, I have a much lower expectation of privacy for email traffic than I used to.  If I write it and send it, I know my email is accessible by many eyes and available for many years to be recovered, discovered and uncovered.  As a result of the power and reach of forensic computer discovery, I write every email correspondence with a recognition that those words and the interpretation someone might give them (actual or unintended) could see the light of day at some point (any point) in the future.  I have almost come to believe that there is no such thing as a  “secret”.

Should there be limits to the power of the Internet to reveal everything?  What does it mean to our culture, to national security and to human understanding to allow no boundaries for prying eyes?  For Julian Assange and those that see him as the man of the year, the answer is a  resounding “expose it all”.  They argue that in only that way can freedom exist and deception in high places be exposed.  However, I genuinely doubt that they have no expectation of privacy for their own communications intended as confidential.

Clearly, their’s is a sentiment that has force.  Power requires secrecy.  Hierarchy depends on fewer people with more access to information and more people kept in a “need to know” status.  Knowledge is power.  If everyone had all knowledge, all would be equally powerful.  It is obvious why governments are in such disarray attempting to staunch the flow of “classified information”.  Public disclosure of classified secret diplomatic wires intended for “your eyes only” has lead to embarrassment, diplomatic back peddling and the unleashing of armies of lawyers charged to find a way to stop the relentless flood of private communications.  Assange and his followers would argue disclosure is a good tool to keep the powerful in check and prevent abuses.  Those in power only see colossal damage resulting from unfettered disclosure.

Every institution or relationship is subject to the same dynamic in a less newsworthy manner.  No CEO could feel comfortable if every conversation, every meeting and every communication were available for review and critique by the entire organization.   Every personal relationship based on trust has theoretical limits on telling everything you know.  From something as simple as “Yes, dear that dress looks wonderful on you” to facts more potentially destructive regarding past indiscretions, sustainable relationships require self-imposed limits on “brutal honesty”.   Sometimes you really don’t want to know what I think.  More often, I should not tell you.

The limits on absolute disclosure took another interesting turn this week in a headline less titillating than the WikiLeaks controversies.  A below the radar project was announced by Google and a group of scholars.  As reported by the New York Times, Google is making available free downloads and online searches for a growing body of literature.  To date, 5.2 million books containing over 500 billion words in works published between 1500 and 2008 in seven languages have been digitized and are searchable by word or phrase.  Intended as a scholarly tool, this amazing project will allow the public as well as researchers to explore the use of phrases in comparative languages across the span of human endeavor.

In what might be viewed by most as a mere footnote in the incredible capability of the power of the Internet, an unexpected source of opposition has weighed in on this project.  Although seemingly neutral in its impact, humanist scholars are “hot and bothered” by the fact that the project is not engineered or managed by them.  Why, you ask, would that matter?  Great question.  What is it that humanist scholars fear will be disclosed by this massive research tool? What do they want to keep secret?  Wonderful imponderables.  Maybe time will tell. Perhaps disclosing what culture has captured through its written record over time will educate us all about the nature of human thought as it is, rather than as some would have it to be.

The fact remains that secrets are power and operate in opposition to autonomy, or self-determination.   The more we know, the less others hold power over us and the greater our ability to decide matters in our own self-interest.

Which is right:  “Tell it all” or “Let me decide how much should be disclosed”?  As with most polarities, neither extreme can claim the exclusive high ground.  Perhaps, the answer lies in an ongoing dialogue about which polarity has the greatest value based on circumstances and consequences of disclosure in a case by case analysis.  This polarity of confidences to be disclosed is one that defies a “one size fits all” solution.  (See, Managing Polarities blog post.)

What we all know universally is that each of us wants to control the timing and the audiences to whom the secrets we hold are disclosed.  Don’t let them hook your brain up to the Internet.

Operation Broken Trust: Busted!

When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.
–Thomas Jefferson

It is amazing to see how good people doing good things are sometimes blinded to the consequences of a little exaggeration in order to make the numbers look better. What can be intended to generate trust can destroy it instantly. Recently, we have been treated to an example of this phenomena from a very unexpected source.

The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News report on the early returns of the U.S. Justice Department’s “Operation Broken Trust”. The irony of the program’s title is that it clearly was not intended to cultivate, but repair the public’s broken trust. Apparently, trust is in short supply indeed.

In August 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice announced its intention to bring swift justice to the recent perpetrators of financial fraud on investors, shareholders and the public.  In order to restore public trust, the Attorney General and his staff committed to “sweep” through the halls of Ponzi schemes, fraudulent conveyances and disreputable investment practices and bring wrongdoers to a quick and sure reckoning.

On December 8, 2010, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced amazing results from this full frontal assault on financial fraud.  Perhaps, “unbelievable results” was the better phrase.  Reportedly, in just under four months the Justice Department instituted 231 cases against 343 criminal defendants, 64 arrests, 158 indictments or complaints, 104 convictions and 87 sentencings.  In addition Holder indicated that the operation was responsible for 60 civil suits against 189 defendants.  We could only hope justice moved so swiftly. As reported by Bloomberg’s Jonathon Weil, the numbers seemed too good to be true. In fact, they weren’t . . . true.

Bloomberg’s Weil looked more closely at the numbers and discovered all was not as reported.  Instead, many of the cases cited had concluded long before Operation Broken Trust was instituted on August 16, 2010.  Some cases have not begun at all.  No support for the 60 civil suits could be provided.  In short, a little exaggeration was intended to go a long way to build public trust.  Isn’t that what got us here in the first place?

In contrast, Weil reports that there were thousands of convictions including high flyers like Charles Keating in response to the Savings and Loan scandals of the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Quite a contrast in criminal enforcement efforts in the wake of a far more disastrous series of financial self-dealings seen in recent years.

Whether intentional or negligent, the impact on the public trust is no different.  When statistics assume mythical status and “beating the numbers” becomes more important than truth, credibility will be sacrificed.

Following the debacles of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson and other high profile financial failures, Marianne Jennings wrote Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse: How to Spot Moral Meltdown in Companies . . . Before It’s Too Late. In her study of these cases of broken corporate trust, Jennings identifies the traits of companies on the brink of collapse.  The number one sign is pressure to maintain the numbers.  The other traits all evidence a culture of conflict aversion.

The companies, the individuals and the government agencies who break trust with the public depending on them to “do the right thing” are those who are afraid of the difficult conversations, unwilling to engage a culture of confrontation and unskilled in the power of consultation.

Perhaps, the U.S. Attorney’s General’s office is the victim of a culture similar to that of the high profile corporate financial failures and fraud they are sworn to protect us from.  Or perhaps the U.S. Attorney General’s office is less concerned with factual accuracy than with a message that “sells” and afraid to encourage the difficult conversations that lead to trustworthy conduct in the public interest.

In the final analysis, is there really a difference?

Rational Optimism vs. Professional Cynicism

“I  have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage.”  John Stuart Mill

In today’s Wall Street Journal essay section, both Bill Gates and Matt Ridley cite the above Mill quote approvingly.   There is much else about which they agree as Gates takes issue with a single chapter in Ridely’s new work, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.  In fact, all these two great thinkers-achievers-writers disagree about is the degree to which climate change and African poverty are problems which can  be resolved with the application of normal human effort.  When you carefully analyze their debate, I am not sure they even disagree about the methods needed to solve these concerns they both share.  Because I lack substantive understanding about these significant challenges to human well being, I will not offer an opinion on their “debate”.

However, the discussion generates a more fundamental question about which is the more effective approach to problem solving:  optimism or cynicism?  The thoughts shared by the essays remind me of over 40 years of experience in law, politics, education and religion.  I have never ceased to be amazed at the power of cynicism to thwart forward progress.

When an erstwhile graduate student aspiring to a professorship in English literature and theater, I learned quickly that the powerful commentator was the one who found fatal fault with another’s work.  I was taught that great thinkers don’t agree, they criticize.  Higher education required one to achieve such supreme status of thought that criticism was unavailing.  This means that one must know more and more about less and less until you remain the last man standing knowing all there is to know about nothing at all.  I abandoned academia in large part because this seems like a lousy way to build a railroad.

Surprise! The study and practice of law proved similar in many respects.  What I hoped would be a practical approach to innovation and positive change in the world’s condition, proved to be another arena in which your ideas must be challenged and diminished so mine can prevail.  It is amazing how often the lawyer’s answer to a question about strategy or approach is, “You can’t do that.”  Little wonder clients are loath to ask.  Risk aversion is one thing.  The lack of creative innovation in response to clients’ needs is another.

Politics and religion seem to fall prey to the same win/lose dynamic. Oneupsmanship must be endemic to the human condition.

Ironically, the Gates and Ridley debate today in the WSJ demonstrates the value in building on great ideas and advancing them without destroying the other’s.  Are these great thinkers demonstrating the power of managing polarities?  See, Polarity Management post.  Apparently, they don’t need to build a career in law, education, politics or religion.

 

Apology: Power in Purpose

Never make a defense or apology before you be accused.
–King Charles I

By now you have certainly heard of the tragic death of Notre Dame student, Declan Sullivan.   During a football practice in inclement weather, Declan was videotaping the activity from an elevated hydraulic lift as a student worker employed by the university football team. High winds caused the lift to topple dropping Declan to his death. Should he have been allowed to work in such a dangerous situation? Was he trained in the use of the equipment? Were state or safety worker safety laws violated. Who’s at fault? Who should pay for this tragedy? Investigations and potential lawsuits may ultimately answer these questions.

In our litigious “blame/shame” culture, an unexpected statement to the Notre Dame university community was issued by its President, Fr. John Jenkins. (See, Chicago Tribune, November 5, 2010)  Despite the high likelihood that such a statement might equate to legal liability, Rev. Jenkins apologized for Declan’s death and accepted responsibility on behalf of the University less than a week after the tragedy.

What’s unusual is the fact that he wasn’t forced to.  The investigations are ongoing.  No lawsuit had been filed.  No legal blame had been determined.  Some would declare the move foolish.  Many have questioned the university’s motives.  Others have proclaimed the apology empty and devoid of meaning or authenticity.  Most simply don’t understand why an apology would be offered so soon and so publicly.  Maybe the passage of time will shed light on these concerns.

The fascinating effect of the president’s apology is that it was so unexpected it is inexplicable to the commentators.  Why should something as genuine as an apology be suspect?  Could it be that accepting responsibility is so foreign to our culture’s values that someone who chooses to do so is suspected of improper motives or worse, lunacy?

The reality is that when an apology is provided in authentic ways at appropriate times, the doorway to reconciliation and healing is opened.  Apology offered too soon can appear manipulative.  Expressions of regret provided to the wrong audience in the wrong way can be mistrusted.  However, genuine apology is a powerful tool to be used for proper purposes in order to start the dialog. Constructive conversation can begin between parties in conflict following the offer of an honest expression of regret.

In health care about half the states have “apology laws” which prohibit the offensive use of apologies as evidence in a subsequent lawsuit when offered by a health care provider to families or patients who believe they have suffered injury or adverse medical outcomes.  Legal “cover” for apologies can go a long way to incentivize expressions of regret.  However, many hospitals and health care systems are willing to run the risk of “doing the right thing” even if not legally protected by state law.  The data generated from these practices indicates that liability is lessened, not increased, by a legally unprotected apology.  The power of a purposeful apology can accomplish what the law cannot:  dignity, dialog and disposition.

You might recall that Charles I of England (who refused to apologize before accused) was responsible for the temporary abolition of the English monarchy.  His defiant refusal to accept responsibility for two civil wars and his arrogant use of power to achieve his own selfish purposes (without apology) led to his trial, conviction and execution for treason.  As a result, the Commonwealth of England (a republic form of government) was established by Oliver Cromwell and lasted for a brief period before the English monarchy was restored.

Thank you Fr. Jenkins for reminding us of what we all know innately:  refusal to accept responsibility before being forced to do so deprives apology of any meaning whatever.  Perhaps, our society can benefit from your example of apologizing before accusations force us to.

Bipartisan Partisanship: The Missing Link

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it – this is knowledge. Confucius

We can’t know what we don’t know.  Acknowledging that we might not know it is the beginning of wisdom.

Have you listened to dialogue carefully since last Tuesday’s elections?  Two things emerge.  The public is tired of partisan wrangling and duality policy making (“Its our turn to be right”).  Those in power (newly or otherwise) maintain they have a mandate to work the problems out “their way”.  This either/or approach to public policy is exactly what the public has lost trust in.  There is a missing link.

The missing element in the dialogue is as simple as the old Southern question: “Do you have a dog in the hunt?”  If so, will the public trust you to be an honest broker?  The cry for bipartisan partisanship is an oxymoron.  Will the new sheriff in town be any less likely to promote her self-interest than the sheriff that preceded her?  The partisanship trap is thinking that my win looks better than your win.  That’s win/lose thinking without end.

The missing link or the puzzle piece that remains to be discovered is how to bridge the opposing poles and discover a truly non-partisan solution.  By definition, “bi-partisan” retains the partisan character of the win/lose struggle for supremacy.  In contrast, non-partisan public policy sheds the dual win/lose struggle in exchange for a new approach, one in which opposing polarities are forged into a new reality which is superior to either polarity alone.

Why is it so difficult to discover the missing link?  Because our lenses are focused only on our own preferred positions and unable to see the values in the positions others hold.  Our positional certainty has blinded to truths other than our own.  Do we actually believe we alone hold the truth tightly and no one else can see it differently?  Of course not (if we’re honest).  However, our positional certainty precludes us from seeing truth as others see it.  (See:  Confronting Erroneous Thinking:  A Lost Art)

What the current call for bipartisanship fails to know is that once we have attained positional certainty we have reached the point where we are physiologically unable to step back from the precipice.  Neuroscience assures us that positional certainty will only become more entrenched when challenged.  The classic model describing five levels of conflict illustrates that when conflict rises to the intergroup level, the groups are unable to resolve their problems without outside assistance.  (See e.g. Nancy Borkowski, Organizational Behavior in Health Care.)  If we have problems with each other that we can’t solve together, I am highly unlikely to trust you to solve them for me.  That’s capitulation and another form of win/lose strategy.

The current public disgust and distrust of partisanship should lead the parties in conflict to welcome the assistance of outside, impartial (no dog in the hunt) facilitation.  Our cities, our states and our nation enjoy the benefit of thousands of professionals trained in the skills of assisting parties in conflict reach acceptable/acceptable outcomes.  Public policy can become a far more satisfying search for the common good than choosing between the two polar extremes.  Compromise is not necessary.  Creative collaboration can generate extremely satisfactory results in a non-hierarchical way.  (See, Mass Collaboration:  Will Management Really Die?)

However, under the current political thinking this is a most unlikely outcome.  Until the “pain of change is less than the pain of staying the same” we will stay the course and maintain our win/lose mentality.  Wouldn’t our pursuit of the public good be better served by acknowledging that we don’t know how to coerce our way to a better outcome?  Shouldn’t we welcome the assistance of impartial facilitation as a new tool for achieving satisfactory public policy?

Make no mistake, some issues are and will always remain highly partisan.  However, even the politicians indicate that the range of uncompromisable issues is as little as 10% of the matters that come before the administrative and legislative branches.  Furthermore, there is a great middle ground of matters that require only the application of majority rule leadership as a matter of good governance.  Where the difficulty lies is the band of issues outside the obvious common good and just short of the uncompromisable concerns that the special interests will attempt to pull the politicians into partisan positions in order to build support for their cause.  It is this 20 to 30% of public policy matters that the special interests must be enticed into dialog with their adversaries to illuminate the path to better outcomes.

The public waits and patience is running out.  The missing link is ready, willing and able to serve.  Is anyone listening?

If not, the next election cycle could result in yet another round of “out with the bums”.  Makes you kind of dizzy doesn’t it?  Responding to public cries for Statesmanship with even more strident brinkmanship clearly is not working for those who elect the representatives they expect more from than just a different version of the same ole thing.

Dial Down the Rhetoric?: “Yes, we can!”

As the mid-term elections come to an end and polls start to close across the country, the question begins to ring loudly.  As the pendulum swings from one pole to the next, do we really stand any chance of lowering the volume, reducing the partisan gridlock and accomplishing something of value?  Can we start working on the problems and stop fixing blame?  Is it remotely possible to become problem solvers instead being satisfied with being problem “pointer outers”?

The answer is a resounding “Yes”.  Public interests can be articulated, explored and encouraging outcomes can be developed through process based dialog and facilitated conversation.  Win/lose may not always be converted into ideal win/win results.  However, through the hard work of facilitated consensus building, public policy can approach acceptable/acceptable.  Often, in facilitated problem solving, creative ideas emerge which neither partisan position could fully comprehend or achieve. Managing polarities is the skill our public discourse is calling for.  (See prior post at:  Managing Polarity:  The Creative Power of the Conceptual Age)

Even very difficult public policy issues can be facilitated with all the stakeholders in the same room and promising solutions can be generated which address a variety of seemingly opposing interests and needs.  The volatile health care reform debate provided an example of how constituent leaders, some of whom had never been in the same room together, could converge on approaches and solutions the partisan wrangling was unable to achieve. (Summit to Build Bridges and Create an Action Plan)

Tennessee is perfectly poised to make a difference in showing how the search for common ground is neither compromise nor capitulation.  Instead, constituent based consensus building is a powerful tool to address difficult issues like immigration, religious co-existence, health care and economic development.

Before the governor’s race is declared, both gubernatorial camps in Tennessee have entertained robust conversation about expanding the role of mediative outcomes in state government.  Efficiency in problem solving and acceptable outcomes can be realized through the power of mediated disputes.  It is to be hoped that Tennessee continues to expand the power and presence of mediation in the judicial setting and in communities across the state.  Access to justice demands no less.  The state’s Supreme Court has come down firmly in favor of the growth of mediation as a preferred problem solving tool.

The Tennessee legislature has already begun to explore the use of collaborative tools in public policy development where appropriate.  In 2009, the Republican Caucus of the Tennessee General Assembly undertook training in the skills of managing conflict in the legislative process.  In 2010, the Democratic Caucus has requested similar instruction.  What if the Tennessee legislature became known nation wide as the place where tough problems are solved collaboratively more often than competitively?

The public demands it. The public trust deserves it.  Let’s support and engage in a different style of governing and send landlocked partisanship back to its room, without dinner.  It hasn’t worked very well.

Quantum Physics: The Universe Calls, Are We Listening?

Nothing that I can do will change the structure of the universe. But maybe, by raising my voice I can help the greatest of all causes — goodwill among men and peace on earth.

Einstein’s Last Laugh

Many thanks to my friend and mentor, Earl Lavender, for pointing out a powerful scientific development which is turning theory into observable fact.  He noted that quantum or particle physics is providing dramatic proof of a world view, nay a universe view, vastly different than the one we have all grown to accept.  Data is beginning to emerge as generated by the Large Hadron Collider on the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland. The first human engineered collisions of sub-atomic particles in this high energy collider have begun to take place this year, at fractions of the energy the collider is capable of generating.

The data emerging  is proving that Einstein’s theory of relativity is more reality than theory.  E=mc2 is more than a mathematical equation, it represents a fundamental shift from mechanical descriptions of how the world works to one of immensely interdependent relationships.  The theory of relativity (actually two theories which work in combination:  special relativity and general relativity) hypothesized algebraic relationships between seemingly incompatible physical forces: energy, time and matter.  More particularly, the relativity between these fundamental cosmic forces is precise, predictable and quantifiable.  As energy increases, time (speed of light) and matter increase with time increasing as a square of matter’s increase. Simply stated the theory of relativity maintains that all is not constant, but variable and in direct proportional relationship with opposing forces.  In other words, the universe is not a zero sum game,  but infinitely and proportionately variable. As dark increases, light decreases.  Thus theoretical “black holes” exist in space where the density of dark is so great, neither light nor energy could escape.

However, without proof a theory is just a theory.  The LHC has begun to provide the proof. In controlled experiments beginning this year (105 years after first theorized by Einstein), particle theorists (or quantum theorists) are having a field day.  Depending on how deep you want to go, you can understand why these discoveries are so formative and energizing to the scientific, astrophysical, religious and behavioral science communities.  For folks like me, Quantum Physics for Dummies might be sufficient to “get it”.  If you want to dig a little deeper and get a more detailed introduction for lay people, try Discovering the Quantum Universe.  For the Bravehearts who want to dig deep and wallow in technical jargon, try Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time:  Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics.

I know you’re waiting for me so say it, so here goes:  “What does all this have to do with conflict management?”  You know the answer, “Everything!”

Now that the LHC is operational, it will be increasingly difficult to cling to dualistic thinking.  “Either/or” outcomes will have increasingly less logical force.  “Both/and” thinking will become the hallmark of innovation and forward progress: relationally, economically, socially and politically.  Partisanship is dying.  Like management and fundamentalism, dualistic approaches to life must suffer a well deserved burial.  (See prior posts in this space:  Mass Collaboration:  Will Management Really Die? and The End of Coercive Power:  Really?)

Win/lose approaches no longer have scientific support.  “I win at your expense” has become neanderthal thinking.  Public policy must no longer become choices between the extreme poles of a continuum of positions.  Einstein is laughing from his grave at our prevailing conflict solving strategies as a relic of the dark ages.

Are we willing to learn how to manage the polarities of opposing thought?  See:  Polarity Management: The Creative Power of the Conceptual Age Those who are willing to acquire these skills will be leading our culture into the future.  An abundant future, rich with potential and innovation.  Those who are not, will be seen as relics of an age of scarcity thinking and competitive destruction, fighting for ever smaller pieces of a shrinking pie.

Let’s join Einstein in the laughter.  The cosmos is watching . . . and waiting.

This post is dedicated to a group of professionals who dedicate themselves daily to the work of managing polarities.  The International Academy of Mediators just concluded its Fall 2010 meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. A more accomplished and robust association of problem solvers cannot be found.  Thank you, IAM colleagues and friends, for allowing me to join your merry band. www.iamed.org