Getting to Yes…the micro-processes of public deliberation

by Lyn Carson (with Max Hardy)

Public deliberation is challenging. We know that. When scholars are unleashed on the public deliberation debate the challenges seem even more immense. For practitioners who spend their days trying to do public deliberation, the theoretical thrusting and parrying is somewhat irrelevant, but their challenges are real. In Australia, I spend time talking and collaborating with practitioners who are dedicated to good practice and their experience often informs my own research and practice.

One of the practitioners with whom I collaborate is Max Hardy, a senior consultant with Twyford Consulting, a firm whose work I consistently appreciate. Max and his fellow consultants have convened citizens’ juries for clients and helped local governments establish resident feedback panels and have generally flirted boldly with deliberative innovation.

Recently Max shared a story with me that struck me as a classic demonstration of Fisher and Ury’s Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Instead of remaining stuck in positional bargaining which is inefficient because it leads to stubbornness and harms the relationship, Max demonstrated how a good agreement which arises from a ‘stuck’ position can actually enhance a relationship. He intuitively separated the person from the problem, and focused away from the position to the person’s interests. More importantly he took the next step of exposing the values that informed the person’s world.

While we were discussing the experiences and events that shape our deliberative practice, Max told me this simple story that helped him appreciate that many disputes and disagreements are carried out at an unhelpfully shallow level. It shows how exploring values that underpin our positions and interests offer an opportunity for people to reflect on their priorities and how they connect to their environment.

Here is Max’s story, told in his own words.

It was 1998 and the Water Authority (Sydney Water) was undertaking a feasibility study to upgrade sewerage infrastructure in the Upper Blue Mountains (in New South Wales, Australia). As the consultant engaged to facilitate meetings with local people I encountered an articulate and vocal opponent of the plans to provide sewerage to the small village of Medlow Bath.

This resident expressed one major objection. She believed that she should not be forced to pay (in the form of ongoing rates) for infrastructure (dirty big pipes) that was to be laid out along the front of her house, when she had no intention whatsoever of connecting to it. She was quite satisfied having a septic system! This was her position.

This resident, let’s call her Pam, was invited onto the Community Advisory Group whose role was to advise about ways to broker conversations between Sydney Water and residents about the sewerage upgrade proposal. She got to know other community representatives, the Project Manager and the Sydney Water staff.

Attempts to convince her about the merits of the proposed scheme were less than successful. The more the technical people tried to argue the need for the scheme the more she seemed to dig into her stance. In an attempt to build a more constructive relationship with Pam we arranged to visit her fabulous garden, so we could understand the importance of it for her. In truth, we were probably hoping that she might let go of needing to put her case so forcefully if we took the time to see, touch and taste the fruits of her labour. As we did this we became more curious about what lay beneath her zest for gardening.

We learnt that Pam used the transpiration bed from the septic system to irrigate and fertilise her vegetable garden and fruit trees. This was quite productive and important to her, and in addition she did not have a lot of money to throw around for fertiliser, town water or infrastructure services. These represented her interests.

But wait – there’s more. After admiring her garden at length, walking and talking together, we learnt that Pam was highly committed to ecological sustainability and self sufficiency. This commitment guided her approach to organic gardening: companion plantings, no dig gardens, pesticide-free and chemical-free gardening techniques. She was making it work. Balance was important to her. We learnt about some of her important values which underpinned her interests and her espoused position on sewerage infrastructure.

Being on the Community Advisory Committee she became exposed to some disturbing images—the impacts of the current non-sewered system. Poorly maintained septic systems, combined with shallow rocky soils of the Blue Mountains, meant that nutrient rich effluent found its way into nearby creeks. The result of this was algal blooms, weed infestation, threatened species/habitats, and polluted waterways. Pam’s growing appreciation about the threats to her surrounding bushland, which she valued highly given her interest in ecology, as a direct result of the area being unsewered posed a dilemma for her. How could she maintain her position about the sewerage infrastructure, which supported her interest in sustainable organic gardening, when the current system was in conflict with her values about sustainability and ecological balance.

Pam courageously announced her 180 degree change in direction. She said she could no longer fight against sewerage infrastructure when it meant that, if she won her fight, it would contribute to ongoing environmental devastation of the bushland. In fact she said she could no longer enjoy her garden in quite the same way, knowing that it represented a systemic problem in the area.

Pam became an advocate for the proposal even though, for her personally, it was not in accordance with her initial expressed position. Having become engaged and connected to the broader picture, through the receipt of comprehensive information about the proposal, but, more importantly, having a space created that allowed her own values to surface, Pam was able to shift into a new way of thinking about the project. She was able to move beyond a fixed position, and even to set aside her own interests, because of the likely disturbance to her values.

Printer Friendly View