C&K : Adopting Procedures, Educating Parties, and Developing Options (Chapter 6)

This chapter focuses on the first three stages of managing public disputes: adopting procedures, educating parties, and developing options. The main element of the adopting procedures stage is establishing ground rules. The ground rules can be established in written form or orally and they can be agreed upon in many different ways (vote, consensus, etc). Most ground rules are established with input from the parties. Some parties can bring up rules in the pre-interviews that will entice them to help problem solve (i.e. “don’t question motives). Some ground rules are established in the first meeting, but ground rules can change as the sessions progress.

Educating the parties entails having the parties explain their interests and their role in the conflict thus far to the other party(s). This includes telling their assumptions, their source of information, and their concerns. This can lead to a discussion about reliability of data and all parties can share their information sources and a common truth can be agreed upon. This stage also includes having discussions about the history of the conflict, which helps identify the key issues for each party. It is important to keep the parties focused on their interests, and this sometimes requires reframing statements and asking probing questions (i.e. what is your concern about that issue?).

Developing options is the first stage of problem solving. It is important for the parties to work together to develop a possible list of solutions. An outside expert can also provide more solutions that the parties may not have thought of. This stage is discussed more in subsequent chapters and other readings because this can be a tricky stage and there are many different models to come up with solutions and put them on the table.

Conflict: Problem Solving

The chapter focuses how to problem solve with two opposing groups. A goal of a problem solving meeting is to try and change the parties’ view of the conflict from something to be won to a problem that needs to be solved. A roadblock to this realization is the parties have skewed views of themselves and their action versus their adversary’s actions. This is a negative misperception. Often times in conflict the decision makers of one party get so wrapped up in the conflict that it is hard to envision other tactics besides harmful ones. It is difficult to consider other actions because of the potential risk associated with changing tactics. It is easy for that party to think that they have not choice but the other party is purposefully choosing the harmful tactics that they are. This is the principle of unrecognized entrapment and is one of the reasons why problem solving processes avoid the subject of blame (the principle of no-fault). Parties can’t often envision all of their options prior to a problem solving meeting because they are so stuck in their tactics and have the misperceptions of the other party (principle of unrecognized options).


The facilitators of a problem solving process can not choose sides or try to pin down responsibility. They serve as an analytical function in breaking the conflict down and helping to find solutions. An important aspect to the process is setting; the process has to take place in an open environment that does not make people feel angry or inhibited because that hinders the creative flow of ideas. The problem solving process can be insulated from interparty issues, isolated, and stimulating. A potential problem solving tactic is to host a problem solving workshop with people of the different parties. These workshops should be no more than 25 people maximum and the agenda should be simple and flexible. Facilitators should provide role model behavior (non-judgmental, supportive, questioning), a sympathetic audience, a neutral language, analytical insights, and be an agent of reality. If there are solutions proposed it is the facilitator’s responsibility to point out the weaknesses and potential road blocks. Andy did that for us in his role play be always asking us to think how the government would see our options and how we should frame things etc.