Collaborative Solution Discovery

A suggestion: this branch is long, so first scan the headings, then read sections that are interesting.

WHY CHANGE IS NECESSARY

Collaborative Solution-Discovery (CSD) is clearly a good way to address complex issues, but is it necessary?  Are the usual, more familiar methods as good, or at least good enough?  Does CSD really avoid the flaws of the current adversarial paradigm.  Do we really need to make the effort to shift the paradigm from adversarial to collaborative?

The strength of CSD is in its ability to overcome barriers of issue complexity and contentiousness, and to build consensus support for the solution.  Let’s look at how CSD compares with the adversarial approach across the issue spectrum, from everyday issues at the neighborhood or community level, to the big, consequential and highly impassioned national and global issues.

At the low end of the spectrum, people involved tend to know one another and operate from good will.  When blessed with good leadership, they seem to do just fine with the usual adversarial methods, conducted in a civil manner.  Still, CSD is likely to get a better solution (or one at least as good), and do it quicker and more efficiently.  Further, and maybe more important, doing it with CSD anchors CSD in the common awareness as the better way to go, and trains people to expect it when it is truly necessary.

At the high end of the issue-intensity spectrum, history reveals a very poor record for the adversarial methods.  If a solution is created at all, often it is seriously flawed, and it is won at great cost in time, resources, and the society-poisoning rancor left among opponents.  The losers will attempt to undermine and overthrow the solution, and often succeed.  So, it would appear that CSD is necessary.  Failure to use it poses great, in come cases existential, threat to society.  We’ll now examine some reasons why this is so, stemming from the inherent and fatal flaws in adversarial power politics.  The contrasting strengths of CSD are discussed at the end of this branch

WHY ADVERSARIAL POWER POLITICS FAILS

Adversarial power politics is fundamentally incompetent as a process for creating effective and durable solutions to complex, contentious issues.

Can you refute that assertion?  Can you demonstrate that adversarial power politics is a universally acceptable and effective path to solutions for our critical issues, regardless of how complex and contentious they may be?  If so, we’re done, and you can forget about this website.

However, if you, like The Muddle Buster, are frustrated and apprehensive about the incompetence of current political process, and consider that process incorrigible as such, then proceed to explore this page and the rest of this site.  Examine why the current adversarial process can’t work and therefore, why it must be totally rejected.  Further, what is the alternative, how does that alternative work and why is it effective?  What is the strategy for flipping the adversarial paradigm and making the collaborative alternative the default choice for all issues, political or otherwise, where diverse stakeholders need to arrive at consensus on the answer to their shared problem?

The incompetence of adversarial power politics as a solution-discovery process for complex issues lies in five areas:

• The incorrigible structural weaknesses of adversarial power politics as a solution-discovery process
• The social consequences of adversarial power politics
• The wrong tool
• The political perception of reality
• The ineptitude of powerful people

STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS OF ADVERSARIAL POWER POLITICS

Adversarial Power Politics inverts the logic of valid solution-discovery.

Politics, as a formal process, approaches problems back-end-forward.  Under the current paradigm, which everyone seems to accept without question, the demand is to first present positions (proposed solutions), and then argue their merits.  All this is done in a vacuum of agreement on the problem, goals, and guiding principles.  A politician, party, or interest group which cannot state a position on an issue is considered wishy-washy.  To suggest that it might be premature to take a position, to suspend judgment pending further consideration of where we want to go and how we‘ll know when we have arrived, is political suicide.  As a result, everyone argues about the means (this or that position) without agreeing on what is really to be accomplished (the ends).

The decision logic of Adversarial Power Politics is backwards.

• Each side develops a definition of the problem that serves their own interests, which therefore is inherently incomplete and inaccurate.
• They then lunge at solution positions that are also self-serving, and therefore also incomplete, inaccurate and inept.
• Debate ensues.  At best this is an exercise in magical thinking under the supposition that going through the motions will somehow bring out the truth about the actual problem and result in a competent creation and evaluation of possible solution options.  At worst it is an exercise in power and domination in which one side prevails regardless of the damage done to other sides.

Contrast this with the effective logic of competent solution discovery.

• Develop a complete and accurate articulation of the problem.
• Create an image of the characteristics, in terms of qualities of outcome, of a successful solution.
• Compile a menu of solution options with high likelihood of containing at least one, and preferably several, good ones.
• Conduct an evaluation and selection process based on objective analysis of how well proposed solutions meet the success criteria.
• Do this in a manner that equitably maximizes aggregate satisfaction of stakeholder needs and wants.

Blocks Effective, Unbiased Search of Solution-Space

To avoid the appearance of weakness, the positions on all sides must be firmly drawn, lest territory be surrendered to a stronger opponent.  The effect is to divide solution-space into separate isolated domains.  The chance that a good solution lies totally within any one of these domains is virtually nil.  That good solution will be an amalgam of features from several partisan domains in various parts of solution-space, and likely will also need features from unclaimed and unrecognized territory outside all of the partisan domains.  As a battle for supremacy among the fixed domains, adversarial power politics is incapable of discovering the actual good solution.

Favors “Plunging and Lunging.”

Plunging (delving into detail without first appreciating the big picture) and Lunging (running off with the first plausible-looking but half-baked solution) are the natural impulses of people desperately seeking certainty in a world of uncertainty.  These impulses are encouraged by adversarial power politics.  They are the twin sins of ineffective solution-discovery.  Our proclivity for committing these sins probably developed when we evolved in the wilderness.  When getting food, or avoiding becoming food for some other species, was one of our constant concerns, we didn’t have time to conduct a deliberate study of the situation.  We had to act fast on spontaneous situations or die.  However, such behavior has become dangerous when the complexity of problems we face has become high and consequences of jumping to premature conclusions are wide-ranging

Creates and Locks-in Ineffective, Rigid, Brittle, Unstable Solutions

Solutions are devised, not so much for the purpose of solving a problem, but in order to mobilize and energize supporters for the powerful interests on various sides of the conflict.  As such, these solutions will inherently be incomplete and inaccurate because their supporters will at all costs avoid including any features that work against the supporter and favor the opposition. 

Because an adversarial solution-discovery process almost always ends up with dissatisfied losers who are eager to undo the winning decision, the winners must make sure that decision are rigid and impossible to change.  Admitting any flexibility (as necessary to accommodate correction of flaws and adaptation to change) provides an opening for the opposition to alter or sabotage the victor’s winning position.  Thus, these solutions are unstable because they enjoy only partial support of the society, have opponents ready to tear them down at any opportunity, and crumble in brittleness when subjected to the stress of reality.

This solution to the issue will almost certainly be flawed, because the adversarial process is incapable of objectively considering everything pertinent to the problem.  Consequently, the measures selected will be ineffective in actually solving the problem, yet because of the rigidity, impossible to improve.  The solution will inevitably fail from its brittleness, shattering under the stress of its ineffectiveness instead of flexing to accommodate.

Without a deadline, the battle goes on endlessly.

When two sides are locked in an adversarial battle, neither wants to be the first to give in. Consequently, the battle rages right up to the brink of whatever deadline is imposed, when finally reality forces some kind of resolution. If there is no deadline, the battle can be endless.

Unfortunately, issues like finding the remedy for climate disruption fall into this category. From the big picture view, we know that we’ve got just a very few years to get effective solution measures in place or we face very serious and even catastrophic consequences. However, “just a few years” is not a solid deadline. Those parties who believe they will be damaged by the climate solution measures want to hold out a long as possible before they are forced to make a commitment, and “as long as possible” can stretch from weeks to months to years. By that time, it may be Game Over for any realistic solution to the crisis.

Suppresses Creativity

Creativity is a threat to adversarial power politics.  The adversarial process depends on having clear opposing positions, to inspire the loyalty of allies and make clear distinctions among the various competing teams.  Furthermore, allowing creativity might introduce the possibility of a solution that resolves conflict, producing a win-win outcome instead of negating the opposition.

Solutions adopted through adversarial power politics must serve the interests of the power structure.  The power structure abhors creativity because it introduces factors beyond their control.  Consequently, only stale and inept solutions will be admitted.

 In any case, those involved in an adversarial battle don’t have the time, energy, and spare mental bandwidth to expend on creativity.  For these reasons, creativity doesn’t happen.

Wastes Brainpower

Many of those engaged in politics, either in the practice of politics itself or as concerned citizens, are intelligent.  Unfortunately, most of that intelligence is wasted on political maneuvers and counter maneuvers, instead of on solving our problems.

Baffled by Systems

Most significant issues involve systems.  See the branches on this site about the SuperSystem and the Behavior of Systems.  Adversarial process does not include any inherent capability to deal with systems as such, and is structurally antagonistic to having such capability inserted because that would necessitate recognizing a reality outside the perimeter of the battleground.

Ignorance of Process Knowledge

Success with complex problems requires mastery of sufficiently powerful solution-discovery methods, but political practitioners seem to be totally without a clue regarding this necessary skill set.  Their performance demonstrates this to be so.  They have no solution-discovery process framework and methodology in mind that would enable them to untangled the complexity that blocks the path to a solution.  This includes the policy wonks on staff as well as the elected or appointed officials.  Worse, the general public is blind to this failing.

What ARE the Criteria?

We should agree on the criteria to be used in selecting a winning candidate for solution to the issue in question, before proposing options?  What a strange idea.  Adversarial politics doesn’t work that way.

In the adversarial process, opposing sides first draw up their position for solving the issue in question, and advance that position against others in the debate.  The question of what criteria might apply to selecting the better position are not stated, but rather are expected to emerge through the pro and con arguments offered.  Thus there is no concise statement in advance of what constitutes the good outcome we seek.

Violates Separation of Concerns

Separation of Concerns is an important discipline for effective understanding of issues, and solution-discovery.  It means sorting out a complex issue into the individual concerns or sub-issues which are not further divisible, and maintaining the identity of each concern as distinct from the others throughout the deliberations.  It is the only way to avoid being muddle-headed.

Separation of Concerns is not the same as fragmenting the problem, although if done incompetently it can have that effect.  Separation of Concerns is done while maintaining cognizance of the interdependencies.

Fragments the Problem

Because of the limited cognitive span of the human mind (Law of  7 +/-2) and the urge to paint reality in a way that supports the ideologies of each opponent, the current political process is strongly driven to looking at any complex issue as a collection of disconnected parts.  We fragment the issue into bits that we can grasp.  Then we argue each sub-issue fervently, but with little regard for context or connection to other sub-issues.  As we settle each point, we wander on to the next, forgetting to account for decisions already made, not anticipating decisions to come, and ignoring interdependency.

Ignores, Suppresses, Distorts the Facts

Under the current adversarial political system, sides are drawn up around fixed positions, formulated to enhance the power of their supporters while ignoring what is “right” in some larger sense.  Allies are mobilized and enemies labeled.  The debate begins.

Facts are used as missiles to hurl at opponents, and as bulwarks against the opponents’ attack.  Consequently, it is more important that purported facts have the intended effect on the enemy, and appear plausible, than that they be true.  Of course, stretching the truth too far makes the argument vulnerable, so the process does include an incentive for honesty to some degree.  Nevertheless, there is an irresistible incentive to be selective with the truth; to advance only those facts which support one’s own position or damage the enemy, to suppress facts that might be damaging to one’s self, and to apply spin.

Fosters Innumeracy and Illogic

Decisions frequently depend on doing the numbers.  That’s boring, and challenging.  Actually, “boring” frequently means “I don’t get it, it’s over my head, and I’m not willing to try.”  It’s much easier to substitute bluster and emotion for logical analysis.  Innumeracy and illogic are common among politicians, as well as among the public who are asked to accept the politicians’ judgment.  When the decision requires more than a simplistic choice between black and white, when the answer requires quantifying distinctions in the gray area, when the relative influences of multiple factors must be quantified and weighed, people seem to leave their brains at home.  The dumbing down of our culture has left us helpless in the face of a problem requiring some complexity of thought, and has conditioned us to flee from the discomfort.

Perverts Technical Analysis

Technical analysis is often necessary to understand a problem and evaluate proposed solutions.  Yet nothing deflates a good rousing adversarial confrontation than smothering it in wonkish reasoning.  On the other hand, analytic quackery is a good way to snow the innocent public and con them into accepting fraudulent argument.

Inhibits Tradeoffs

Tradeoffs in which various features of a possible solution are adjusted by comparing and evaluating alternatives is an important part of designing a good solution.  However, tradeoffs in which elements of an opposing position are introduced into one’s own position would be an admission of fallibility, and thus are suppressed in the adversarial contest.

A Political Solution is Optimum Only by Chance

Adversarial process affords only grudging authority to reality, so is not likely to arrive at an optimum as defined according to reality.

Confuses Interests of “Client” and “Architect”

The “client” is whoever has a need to be satisfied, and the resources to pay for a solution.  The “architect” supplies knowledge, creativity and analysis without personal bias to help the client articulate the need, and then to develop a solution.  For a good solution, these roles need to be clearly separated, and vested in different people who are free from encumbering ties.  However, in adversarial politics, client and architect are mashed together in a mess of conflicting interests.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF ADVERSARIAL POWER POLITICS

Tears apart the fabric of civil society.

This is certainly the case in the United States and much of the rest of the world in 2019.  We have become a nation of rival tribes, demonizing one another, employing weaponized rhetoric to destroy one another.

The result of a campaign of adversarial power politics invariably leaves a society-poisoning residue of rancor. How many families have been torn apart by arguments over politics at the Thanksgiving table?

Fails to Achieve Equity

Adversarial power politics has difficulty in achieving equity in accommodating the needs and aspirations of all the stakeholders, driven as it is by power rather than justice.

Stakeholders not directly involved in the contest are viewed merely as potential supporters to be wooed or potential opponents to be negated.  The totality of their interests as real living human beings are ignored or denied.

Fosters Stakeholder Backlash  

The most frequent cause of failure to correct a problem or launch a needed improvement is failure to give the stakeholders a voice.  If stakeholders are left out of the process of defining the problem or need, and cast aside in their desire to contribute to discovery of the solution, they will become dissatisfied and angry, often to the point of seriously curtailing or even completely blocking whatever efforts are instituted to resolve the issue.  History is rife with examples.

Vulnerable to Human Frailty

The political system is made of, run by, and intended to operate for – human beings.  We humans are physically, psychologically and morally frail.  Any system which does not recognize and compensate for human frailty is in big trouble.

Exploits Human Folly

Adversarial power politics presents an irresistible temptation to those in power to exploit human folly, to prey on greed and fear instead of cool rationality within the public, in order to get their way.

Shelters Those Pursuing Their Own Vested Interests

Professionals in the field of politics and governance – elected and appointed officials, their staff, consultants, lobbyists, public interest organizers, journalists, and the like – all find it obvious that their job security, access to power, and the ability to amass personal wealth, all benefit from the perpetuation of adversarial power politics.  This presents an extremely high barrier to the paradigm transformation from adversarial to collaborative.

A manifestation of this is the persistence of inept and incompetent processes for resolution of civic issues at the city level.  Issue resolution plans as developed by the city staff usual fall into the DAD style – Devise, Advance, Defend – in spite of the persistent failure of this approach.  Under this approach, when city fathers perceive an issue needing attention, they usually charge the staff to draft a plan.  This means that an elite, the city staff, operating behind closed doors with little or no direct public accountability, are the ones to devise the plan.  They may involve citizen panels and surveys to collect public input, but this is usually a very shallow dip into the vast field of citizen concerns about the issue.  There will also be plan refinement through presentation to and modification by the City Council.

When the plan is ready, it is advanced for acceptance by the public, often with considerable fanfare.  This will be the first time that many members of the public will hear about the plan, and hell breaks loose.  The plan may be exemplary, crafted with great regard for the full spectrum of public concern and exquisite technical competence.  Nevertheless the response is massive rejection.  The natural impulse of people when presented with a measure that can seriously effect their lives, in which they have had no voice, is to oppose.

The various community factions quickly organize around their particular gripes.  Neighborhood meetings are held,  Positions are clarified and talking points drafted.  Letters to the editor flow in.  Brochures are printed up and circulated on street corners.  Yard signs appear.   The city government goes on the defensive and the fray is joined.

If you have read other parts of this website, you will be generally aware that this approach is counter to the established best practices of the collaborative paradigm.  Further, you may be on the way to accepting that the collaborative paradigm is superior to the adversarial.  The people attempting to follow this inept approach are not dumb, and the must know the ineffectiveness of the approach they are taking.  So why do they persist?  Go back to the list of professional at the top of this section.  If the paradigm shift from adversarial to collaborative occurs, what happens to their job security, grasp on personal power, and access to personal wealth?

ADVERSARIAL POLITICS IS THE WRONG TOOL

When The Muddle Buster declares that adversarial politics is incompetent, that’s not saying the people in politics are incompetent.  For the most part, they are quite competent, and conscientious.  It’s just that the tool they are attempting to use can’t do the job.  You can’t crochet a tablecloth with a hammer.  You can’t drive nails with a crochet hook.  Adversarial process is a perfectly good tool for determining guilt or innocence in a courtroom trial, but it is incompetent as a tool for solution-discovery when the problem and solution involve understanding and creating complex systems that resolve conflicting interests to maximize stakeholder benefit and adapt to ever-changing and unexpected conditions.  In that case, CSD is the tool.

Politics: Folk Craft, Not Professional Discipline

In what other area of life would you put your life in the hands of an amateur, whose only qualification was training in the school of hard knocks, who was not certified as competent through compliance with an accepted standard?  Other fields like law, medicine or engineering are no more demanding than politics and no more guardians of the public trust, yet they require certified completion of formal training or apprenticeship under the tutelage of a master before a practitioner can set out unsupervised.

Of course, politics is different, being the business of all the citizens and therefore open to all citizens.  An entrance requirement, other than citizenship, should not be imposed officially, since doing so would be open invitation to the abuse of excluding those who displease the current power elite.  Nevertheless, the need for training in the processes and methods of effective governance should be self-evident.  If mastery of the skills of governance is not an official requirement to hold office, it should still be demanded by the voters.  CSD is a skill that citizens should understand and demand of all who represent us in politics.

ADVERSARIAL POLITICS DISTORTS AND IGNORES REALITY

The Political Perception of Reality is Illusion

The political world-view defines reality as what we perceive it to be, believe it to be, want it to be, choose it to be, and no more.  This forces people, perhaps knowing better in their hearts, to adopt an outward stance of omniscience and infallibility.  To appear less than absolutely sure is to show weakness, risking defeat on the floor of debate or in the voting booth.  It becomes nearly impossible to admit ignorance or error, hence impossible to acknowledge the need to continually change and adapt.  Political positions tend to be simplistic and rigid.  Political actions are taken with finality.  It is very difficult to correct a false step.  The idea of some external reality which cannot be bent to serve our purposes or fit our ideology is very challenging to the political mind.

On the other hand, real reality is still there, doing what it does without regard for any human fantasy.  In the clash between political reality and real reality, in the long run, which one wins?

Politics Relies on Magical Thinking 

Magical thinking is the belief that rituals and symbols as such have power in themselves.  The magic we rely on in politics is the belief that “We have used debate (adversarial proceedings) in the halls of legislatures since colonial times to reach agreement on resolution to all our issues.  That worked then and it will work now.” There is no rational reason for the belief that the ritual we call “debate” has the power to solve all disputes.  There is plenty of evidence that it doesn’t work in the current world, as you’ll see by reading on.

The political process as currently practiced is based on the theory that the heat of debate will refine the gold that lies scattered within the dross of various competing positions.  By exposing positions to attack, their strengths will be elevated and weaknesses driven out.  This is magical thinking, faith in trial by ordeal.  We once believed that God fireproofs the innocent, that if a person turns crispy when burned at the stake, that is proof of guilt.  Echoes of this belief, a manifestation of magical thinking, still resound in our faith that truth will prevail through combat in the adversarial arena.  That mechanism may work if the issue is simple, but for the complex issues that now demand solution, it cannot work.  That so many issues end up in litigation exposes the failure of a legislative process bogged down in adversarial mode.

Haven for True Believers

The combination of magical thinking and tribal loyalties creates organizational pockets in the political world where true believers in various dogmas congregate and self-justify.  Their presence and excessive influence through the primary election process gums up the works.

Special Interests Dominate

Special interests can organize people and resources around a narrow common interest, gathering sufficient volume to overwhelm the players in the adversarial game whose efforts are not so narrowly focused.

Money and its Influence Rule

Money buys the big bullhorn of propaganda.  Money buys access to the decision makers.  Those without the advantage of money are unseen and unheard.

Focus on Blame and Credit, not Results 

Regardless of the true importance of whatever is happening in the world, much of the energy in politics is focused on proving one’s own position to be infallibly right and the opposition incorrigibly wrong.  When things go well, all players compete to hog the credit.  When they go poorly, everybody scrambles to shift the blame. Until some scapegoat has been identified and punished, nobody pays attention to the ongoing problem. Consequently, very little is devoted to actually understanding the problem and marshaling a consensus-supported effort to fix it.

Misrepresenting Risk and Manipulating Fear

Intuitive assessment of risk is notoriously inaccurate, and sources of fear are easily exaggerated.  These failings of human perception are quite easily and cynically exploited by contending parties in an adversarial conflict.

WHEN POWER ENCOUNTERS ITS OWN INEPTITUDE

The purpose of this section is not to vilify people of power.  It is to recognize that even the powerful are human and suffer from human frailty.  That frailty is failure to recognize the limits of their competence, manifest in the “reality distortion field” they radiate. That field maintains their own illusion of omniscience and fools others into believing in it too.  That can get in the way of achieving the common good when we are searching for resolution of a complex, contentious issue that is beyond the comprehension of any single individual.  We can wish the powerful people would admit their shortcomings and act responsibly in use of their power, but that is unlikely.  Lacking the power ourselves to change them, our only option is to change the situation so their shortcomings becomes irrelevant.  That means rejecting the adversarial paradigm where their power can dominate.

A characteristic of people in power is a monumental confidence in the quickness and sureness of their own judgment, together with a sense of noblesse oblige, or maybe just the craving to dominate.  Such people thrive in the adversarial environment.  However, when they encounter a challenge beyond their competence, these same characteristics cause them to plunge ahead into failure. It is so painful for them to admit their shortcomings, and they cannot adapt.

Usually being unskilled and unwilling to engage in self-examination, their impulse is to fall back on familiar methods of adversarial power politics where their personal strength will prevail.  They seek to impose their own idea of the solution, by charismatic persuasion or by coercive force.  However, denying their incompetence they also deny the daunting reality that lies ahead, and this is the path to eventual failure.

Siege Mentality

The old, entrenched powers hunker down behind massive defenses, hoping to outlast the attacks from more numerous, more mobile, but lightly armed forces of change.  The urge to defend the status quo, particularly among those at the top of the heap, is natural.  It is compounded of self-preservation and a strong sense of being betrayed.  The leaders see themselves as heroes of society.  They have played by the traditional rules and delivered the goods.  If they enjoy status and an opulent lifestyle, it is their due. 

The Remedy: Power-With Instead of Power-Over

Resolving complex and contentious issues needs a good solution that actually works, adapts to change, and endures because it enjoys consensus support.  Getting there requires the efforts of a collaborative team, because the minds of a single leader or an elite committee are too limited for the scope and complexity of the problem, and consensus support of stakeholders is necessary for the solution to endure.  This demands a leader who exerts power-with, the power to engage and inspire the team, not power-over that imposes its own will over the wisdom of the people.

AVOIDING THE FLAWS OF ADVERSARIAL CONFLICT

What Are the Alternatives?

What are the alternatives to adversarial power politics?  The Muddle Buster envisions two, and maybe there are more.

• Benevolent Despotism:  Just turn everything over to a powerful and benevolent authoritarian leadership.  That leadership power might be vested in a single person, or in a ruling committee.  That’s the way it works in China, for instance, and it is efficient, but what does it do for the fundamental need of all people for liberty and self-realization?

• A Republic, operating on a Collaborative Solution-Discovery paradigm for the high-profile issues: The Muddle Buster knows of no nation that operates that way, and the path to get there appears very daunting.  However, as the message recently discovered in a fortune cookie says, “It is necessary; therefore, it is possible.”

Recognizing that sticking with the current adversarial paradigm is at best very undesirable, and at worst, extremely dangerous for our nation, which of the two alternatives above would you choose, and why?  The Muddle Buster has no affinity for despotism and presumes that most people would agree.

Is CSD Immune to the Flaws?

Rather than addressing, one by one, each of the flaws so far enumerated for adversarial process, The Muddle Buster prefers to invoke the structural strengths of CSD as protection against those flaws.

All Participants Commit to Collaboration

In deciding to participate in a CSD project, all the participants accept and agree that collaboration will get them a better result than fighting, stonewalling, or running away. 

Stakeholders Rule

CSD engages and empowers all the stakeholders, and is very transparent in laying out the whole solution-discovery pathway to stakeholder review and approval.  Thus it would be very difficult for supporters of one position to resort to deceptive or coercive maneuvers in support of their position without being detected and challenged.

It is highly likely that clear thinking and well-informed people will be included among the stakeholders.  As empowered participants in the process, they would be able to catch and correct erroneous and faulty thinking in their various manifestations.

Goals Are Clearly Articulated

The goals of a CSD project are clearly laid out, with stakeholder consensus support, at various places in the project: in the Definition of Success based on stakeholder interests, in the search strategy that identifies potential solutions, and in the evaluation analysis used in selecting the final solution.  With adherence to the goals and major objective, many of the flaws of adversarial process are avoided.

A Complete and Logically Sound Path to the Solution is Followed

That path is set up by addressing the questions posed by the Solution Search Path.  In following that path, all the decision points on the way from initial problem awareness to selection of the preferred solution are identified and addressed.  Further, they are addressed in their logical sequence, thereby building consensus for the final solution as the process proceeds.

Participant Roles Are Clearly Defined

Stakeholders own the values to be realized. The results to be achieved are for the benefit of the stakeholders.  The job of experts is to create solution options and evaluate them, demonstrating to the stakeholders that the selected solution does what the stakeholders need and want.  The stakeholders then review the recommendation, and offer either critique or approval. By separating the stakeholders with their passions from the unbiased and objective solution-discoverers, the likelihood of arriving at an effective solution is greatly enhanced.

Leadership is Above the Fray

The leadership style adopted with CSD keeps the leadership out of the give-and-take among various alternatives as they are generated and evaluated.  The leadership is concerned with achieving full stakeholder participation, and in assuring the excellence of the process as it addresses the various decisions encountered along the path.  So, the leadership is on guard against flawed process and in a position to take corrective action if it is detected.

Is CSD Bulletproof?

Being a product of fallible humanity, CSD is most assuredly not bulletproof.  However, in the opinion of The Muddle Buster, it is much, much better than the adversarial process.

CSD IN THE HALLS AND CHAMBERS OF GOVERNMENT

Can the paradigm shift from adversarial to collaborative be realized? Can CSD (or the equivalent) become the go-to choice for resolving complex, contentious issues under our current system of governance, instead of adversarial power politics? If a strong majority of citizens understand CSD and its benefits, if they demand that it be the preferred process, can it be stitched onto our current government institutions? Actually, history suggests that something of this sort was the vision of our Founding Fathers, who warned against the rise of partisan politics.

The diagram below is a roadmap for how collaborative politics might work. This example is of course highly speculative but, the Muddle Buster hopes, a plausible organizational process. Making it real would be a tall order. Many people in powerful positions would have to release their grip. Procedural rules would have to change in major ways and institutional infrastructure to support the process would need to be installed

This process roadmap is built upon concepts developed on other branches of this website.

• The Solution Search Path and the Definition of Success which is a part of that path
• The benefits of doing solution-discovery as a Project with dedicated leadership and core team
• The principles of Stakeholder Engagement, and clear separation of the roles of stakeholders from the technical solution-builders
• The necessity for Leadership that is unbiased toward any particular solution choice and interested only in a successful outcome.

One can imagine how the process might be initiated to address a critical issue by a member of the legislature, the administration, or a government agency. The impetus might bubble up from lower levels of the government, bringing the issue to the attention of the “cognizant official.” It might come from grassroots agitation. With procedural rules and supporting infrastructure in place, the wheels would begin to turn.

This roadmap is offered here as pointer to what collaborative politics might look like. This branch, focusing on why adversarial power politics fails, is not the place to explain or justify the collaborative model in depth. You will find that in other branches of this website.

SO WHAT?

So, the rest of this site is about the What?, Why? and How? of collaborative process.  Enjoy the trip.