Sears Island Planning Initiative
Steering Committee Meeting
Requested Stakeholder “Homework” for July-August, 2006
July 25, 2006
Dear colleagues & members of the Steering Committee—
I write this from my apartment in Tel Aviv, from which I will be working for the next 6 weeks, training Palestinians and Israelis in Negotiation, Mediation and Conflict Management. As my flight arrived over Israel at dawn yesterday, I looked northward toward the Lebanon/Israel border and understood at a new level the words “….and the rockets red glare…”
In a few days I begin my teaching in Haifa (currently under active bombardment) but for now, I have been reading your emails and thinking about where we currently stand in our Sears Island Planning Initiative. Maybe it’s the context of what’s happening around me here, but I truly believe the Steering Committee is making progress toward its goal.
As you know, at the Steering Committee meeting on July 12, affinity groups presented seven “visions” of acceptable uses for Sears Island. Those visions are described on pages 9-14 of the July 12 Meeting Summary. This “homework” assignment addresses the question: What can we do this summer to take those small group visions and begin to shape a common vision which would form the basis of a consensus approach when we reconvene in September?
The first step in assembling a package of options for mutual gain (one which meets their
interests and our interests) is to continue to use active listening—in this case to check to be sure that you have correctly understood another group’s vision. Each SC member should ask: Have I listened carefully to and probed the interests of the other side?
Did I learn anything that was surprising? What kinds of proposals are likely to create value for them? Remember my mantra: 90% of success in negotiation is understanding the OTHER side’s point of view.
If you think you understand the other groups’ point of view, I encourage you to actively use our summer “recess”: pick up the phone and call a representative of that group (or even get together face to face-- I do not recommend this task be conducted via email.) Explain that as requested at the last SC meeting, you are formulating your proposal in more detail and want to do so in a way which addresses the other group’s interests as well as your own. Then articulate what you think they have said is important to them and ask them to confirm that you have heard them correctly. If you are receiving the call, be appreciative that others want to understand your perspective more fully. If you are making the call, be willing to hear the other party out; you are likely to hear something that may be of use. You may even want to take the opportunity to ask them a series of “What-If” questions (“What if we proposed this….or modified our proposal in this way…..Would that meet your interests?”). Only when you are convinced that you have fully understood the other party’s perspective, should your affinity group reconvene to refine your proposal based on what you have learned.
When your group does reconvene, since you now understand more about others’ views, you should discuss internally how you can shape your proposal to help the other side “sell” your proposal to its constituency. Imagine them giving a presentation to their colleagues—what could they say about your proposal that would allow it to be deemed acceptable to their group (even they would prefer another solution, is there enough in your proposal that meets their interests that they could “live with it?”).
I would suggest a second focus for your summer’s work: what information do you (and ultimately the SC) need in order successfully argue for adoption of your ideas? In order to meet the Governor’s challenge to the SC to develop “sound policies,” they must be based on sound information and documentation. Is that information currently available to you and the SC? If so, please refer to the source of information when you refine your proposal. In order to prepare for successful advocacy, you might also familiarize yourself with information which contradicts your proposal. You will want to be able to articulate and document why that information is dated, inaccurate or otherwise unreliable.
Finally, you should begin to think about implementation of any idea or proposal. What implementation problems are likely to arise if the SC accepts my/our proposal and how might they be overcome? This is not something you need to explore in detail now, but it will be helpful to our discussions in the fall if you have given some thought to it as proposals are being refined.
This may seem like a lot of work, but I believe it is a critical part of this process. If we gather in September to review proposals which clearly reflect that groups have refined their thinking based on what others are saying, we will have moved the process forward substantially. To the extent I can be helpful, I am always available by email, and Karin knows how to reach me by phone.
Regards to all,
Jonathan Reitman
Sears Island Planning Initiative Facilitator
