Principles for Dealing with an Issue

The “fiscal cliff” provides a national stage on which the Democratic or Republican party could demonstrate their skills and abilities for leading the nation through a crisis during difficult times. Given the starring role opportunity that this dramatic production offers you might think that someone in one of the parties could rise to the occasion and take on the leading role. But it seems that the current casting auditions have only brought forth political actors that are only able to mimic and re-interpret the same old styles that past politicians have displayed before; however, the current contenders for effective leaders are not even able to bring off those reprisal roles. Lacking energy, devoid of passion and replete with uninspired dialogue these inept performers are failing not only to put on a good show; they are failing to serve the public interests and to lead the nation forward.

Pivotal to these failures is I suspect that they don’t have the training or tools for solving problems in their own careers’ chosen arenas nor any other arena from which they can attempt to transfer learned skills. The absence of effective methods and techniques in our political leaders may not be that surprising in as much as the general public seems caught up in showing no recognition that our leaders are trapped in nonproductive, incompetent and uninspired routine approaches for dealing with the nation’s most important issue. Just like the politicians, the public and the media by and large seem to think that the most effective technique for addressing the issue is to blame the ‘other’ side.

In an effort to help our ‘leaders’?, here are a couple of rules that they can use to change the dynamic in the problem-solving or as they refer to it – negotiations.

First, open up the next negotiation discussion with an acceptance of “total and complete blame”. To help the other side get out from under the trap of seeking some way to make sure that they aren’t blamed for anything that has happened before, just tell them that “It’s all my fault. So no one needs to worry about whom to blame, or how to find someone to blame. Everyone can blame me.” This will either result in everyone being stunned and not knowing what to say, or someone may try and come to your rescue and state that it’s not all your fault. Stop that person immediately and insist that there is no point is further discussion on whose fault it is or isn’t, you are taking on that responsibility. Now this is where you follow-up with the next step in move the negotiations forward.

Now that the “blame game” is off the table (note: you may have to remind some folks occasionally that you’ve already taken the blame so let’s not go back there to revisit a resolved issue), you ask if the group can now agree to work together to find a solution to the problem. It’s the problem that is important after all, and that’s where the focus needs to be.

This is where the more difficult rule comes in. In working on the issue and the proposals and positions that are still points of discussion, the leader needs to step back and let people discuss and argue their various plan and recommendations for a little bit. At some point it will be clear that the group has either settled on a path forward or are still caught in some impasse. If they have a consensus then make sure you understand and agree with it, if you do then simply ask: “So do we have an agreed solution?” If you don’t support the decision then ask some well thought out questions to see where there are disconnects with your position. At this point it’s up to you to frame a proposal that will resolve those disconnects. If you can’t get a negotiated settlement then you need to consider how to offer an ‘If Then - If not Then” solution.

At this point if you know what you’re doing you have what you need and a solution.