This document provides an overview of a presentation on collaborative governance and conflict resolution. It begins with introductions and defines the evolution of collaborative governance. It then discusses public participation spectra and problem solving approaches. Several models and techniques are presented for collaborative decision making, including identifying issues, brainstorming alternatives, considering values, and reaching consensus. The role of technical information in conflicts is addressed. Decision making tools like decision tables and modeling are demonstrated. Challenges of public policy processes like establishing protocols and dealing with impasses are also covered.

1. . 1
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
0
Sam Imperati, JD
Institute for Conflict Management, Inc.
SamImperati@comcast.net ~ www.mediate.com/icm
(503) 244-1174 ~ © 1992 – 2014 ICM, Inc. Except Cartoons and Where Noted
COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE:
TURNING CONFLICT INTO RESOLUTION
3-20-14

2. . 2
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
1
Introduction
 Sam Imperati, JD
 Former Trial Attorney and
Pro Tem Judge
 Taught: Willamette MBA,
L&C Law
 Currently: a Mediator,
Facilitator, and Trainer
 Father of Two Mini-Mes!
 Uncle “Big Al” Capone
 Presentation vs. Handout
Educational Purposes – Not Legal Advice
Sam
Before
IAP2!

3. . 3
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
2
Evolution of “Collaborative Governance”
1970’s– 80’s: Beginnings
• Public Involvement (Tell)
1990’s: Shift toward prevention
• Public Participation (Tell and ask)
2000’s: Collaborative Governance
• Collaborative Problem Solving / Recommendation Making
Stakeholder Advisory Committees (SACs)
2010’s: Moving Toward “Competitive” Governance,”
“Mediation vs. Facilitation,” and “Pretend Public
Participation?”
• Is this real, imagined, or is Sam just getting older and
more cynical?!

4. . 4
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
3
Public Participation Spectrum
(

5. . 5
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
4
Problem Solving Spectrum
Parties collaborate Parties collaborate with Parties have someone
to make decision help of facilitator decide for them
Cooperative Adversarial
Informal Formal
Unassisted Assisted
Inexpensive Expensive
Low Intensity High Intensity
( )

6. . 6
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
5
They Polarize and Entrench …
Civility Goes Out the Window…
We accept no evidence that doesn’t fit our mindset.
Conflict …
When someone insists that they are right and you are wrong.

7. . 7
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
6
“I’m NOT settling. That’s my BOTTOM
Line. It’s a matter of PRINCIPLE!”
… The Process Breaks …

8. . 8
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
7
... During The Typical Process Dance …
PLAYING FIELD
First
“Real”
Proposal
First
“Real”
Proposal
A B C D E F G H I J H L M N O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
B
L
E
A
C
H
E
R
S
B
L
E
A
C
H
E
R
S
TRUTH & JUSTICE
Initial
Range
Initial
Range
RESOLUTION ZONE
Competing Perceptions
Of Truth & Fairness
… With Its Three Impasses!

9. . 9
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Avoidant Compromising Aggressive
Typical Conflict Approaches

10. . 10
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
9
We Help Them Navigate
the Intersection of Logic & Emotion …
Logic
E
m
o
t
i
o
n
Handsome Italian Mediator
(Excuse the Redundancy!)

11. . 11
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
10
“Our life is what our thoughts make it…” (Marcus Aurelius)
… “We have a choice as we spin in the intersection of logic and emotion.”
(Sam “Aurelius”)
STIMULI
NEGATIVE
THOUGHTS
(Reactive)
NEUTRAL
THOUGHTS
(Exploratory)
POSTIVE
THOUGHTS
(Proactive)
LIFE!CHOICE

12. . 12
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
11
Anatomy of a Conflict
Perceived Differences
Scarce Resources
Inaccurate Information
Unfulfilled Needs
Power Struggles
SUCCESS
POSITIONS:
What each party
says they want –
their preconceived
solution
ARGUMENTS:
Statements
about facts, laws,
policies
INTERESTS:
Underlying
motivations,
values, needs,
hopes, and
contingencies that
must be satisfied
to achieve a
durable resolution.
Competitive
Hybrid
Collaborative

13. . 13
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
12
Goal: “Resolution” or “Settlement”
“Resolution” “Settlement”
Definition
Durable, Satisfying
Solution
Walk Away
Equally Unhappy
Getting the Deal Slower Faster
Acceptance Sooner Later
Result Success Compliance
Maintenance Low High
Approach “Collaborative” “Competitive”
“Build a Relationship and Fix the Problem” or
“Build a Case and Fix Blame”

14. . 14
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
13
Guiding Them With a Public Policy
Process Protocol
Establish/Agree on How You Are Going To Decide
(Adapt it for Your Fuss!)
1. Identify the issue, expressing it in neutral
terms, using an Umbrella Question
Public Policy Example
How can we achieve economic viability, a net
increase in environmental function, and
social equity; while at the same time being
good stewards of WHI’s unique assets;
thereby, collaboratively creating a shared
vision for our sustainable community ?

15. . 15
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
14
Diagramming The Umbrella Question
How can we address
while at the same time
thereby satisfying our
(interests of Party A)
(interests of Party B)
(common interests)
?
National Coalition Building Institute International

16. . 16
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
15
2. Discuss and acknowledge that the results of
this process will be treated as brainstorming,
recommendations, or decisions.
3. What legal mandates, if any, might impact
the process and/or outcome?
“You say it’s a win-win, but what if
you’re wrong-wrong and it all goes
bad-bad?”

17. . 17
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
16
4. What other outside influences, if any, might
impact the process and/or outcome? How
will others be involved in the process?
5. What are the ramifications if we do not make
a decision or do not reach consensus?
6. Brainstorm alternatives realistically and
creatively.
Mood, Observation, Conversation, Checklists,
Analogies, Break (Jonah Lehrer, Imagine: How Creativity Works – 2012)
7. What are the underlying values?

18. . 18
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
17
8. Prioritize and consider weighting them.
9. Explore (don’t debate) the problem.
a) List advantages and disadvantages of
competing options.
b) Weigh alternatives against potential impacts
on values
c) Eliminate alternatives.
d) Combine alternatives.
e) Identify key uncertainties and gather
information to resolve them.

19. . 19
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
18
10. Make a proposal and refine it using the “1-2-3”
consensus method, where:
a) A “1” = I fully support the proposal.
b) A “2” = The proposal is not perfect, but I can
support the proposal.
c) A “3” = I cannot support the proposal.
Ask those who feel the proposal is a “2” what needs
to be done to improve it. Edit the proposal and then
ask all those who feel it is a 3, what does not meet
their needs. Work the process. Be patient. An
“impasse” is simply the place where we get tired of
thinking!

20. . 20
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
19
11. Select optimal decision, create matrix to
measure success, and agree upon action
plan (Who What, When, Where, Why and
How).
12. Implement decision, monitor it, and have a
plan to re-engage if problems are
encountered.
13. Publish results and successes, learning
from mistakes.
14. Have some fun!
15. “Hey, let’s do this graphically with a decision
table.”

21. . 21
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
20
Good Decision Making Brings Together
Logic and Intuition: Help Them!

22. . 22
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
21
Decision Making and Cognitive Conflict
“Cognitive Conflict” = Importance x Uncertainty
Examples:
1) High Importance and High Uncertainty
2) High Importance and Low Uncertainty
3) Low Importance and High Uncertainty
4) Low Importance and Low Uncertainty
Too Much Cognitive Conflict Can Create Panic
Too Little Cognitive Conflict Can Create
Apathy/Boredom
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. Decision Making: A psychological analysis of conflict. NY: Free Press.
Berlyne, D. E. Structure and Direction in Thinking. NY: Wiley.

23. . 23
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
22
Decision Tables Reduce Errors by:
A) Providing external memory
B) Comparing alternatives
C) Focusing on outcomes and facts
D) Analyzing outcomes by attributes/values
E) Arranging attributes/values into groups
Table Examples:
Consumer Reports
www.edmunds.com

24. . 24
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
23
The choice that, at first glance, seems right often isn’t, as
good decisions often require time & thought.
Those who employ good decision processes tend to get
higher grades and salaries. (Larrick, Nisbett, & Morgan, 1993)
When decision makers' judgments are incorporated into
decision models, the models tend to outperform the decision
makers, themselves. (Dawes, 1989)
Good Processes = Good Outcomes

25. . 25
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
24
Wise Decider
It’s Free and “Free” is a Very Good Price!
Unlock it by going to http://wisedecider.net/ and either:
A) Create your own account, or
B) Use the Demo Account (You can delete/transfer
info at the end of class)
1) username = demo
2) password = demo
C. Watch Videos

26. . 26
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
25
Need for
Infra-
structure
→←
Ecological
enhancement
→←
Need
for
Natural
Areas
→← Expense →← Timing →← Complexity
↓
Upgrade
capacity
in existing
easement
Need is Met 1 acre enhanced Need is Met $400,000 1 year 15 steps
↑
↓
Easement -
river
Need is Met
6 acres
enhanced
2 acres
impacted
$300,000 1 year 10 steps
↑
↓
Expand
easement
along road
Need is Met
3 acres
enhanced
1 acres
impacted
$200,000 1 year 10 steps
↑
↓
Easement -
wetland
Need is Met
9 acres
enhanced
3 acres
impacted
$100,000 1 year 10 steps
↑
↓
Easement
across
highway
Need is Met
0 areas
enhanced
Need is Met $500,000 3 years 20 steps
↑
No
easement /
No Develop
No growth
0 areas
enhanced
Need is Met $0 0 years 1 step
Easement Decision – Example
Alternatives

27. . 27
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
26
1) Transfer Names into Excel (Column A - Alternatives and Row 1 -
Values); then, Convert Shadings form Table into 1-5 Ratings with 5
being Best (Columns B - G/Rows 3-8)
2) Determine Relative Importance of Each Value So the Total
= 1.00 and Place it in Row 2, Columns B-G
3. Enter Formula in Column H for Rows 3-8 to Get Rank Order, and see if it Matches
Your Intuition – Explore Accordingly. 4) Sensitivity (Next Slide)
Decision Table Mathematics in Excel
1.0
Rank
Order
4
1
1
3
5
6
Weights
Alternatives

28. . 28
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
27
Do it for the top 2 Alternatives and the 2 highest weights. (E.g. This decision is not
sensitive to “Expenses” (Column E) because even changing its shaded/numeric
rating all the way from 1 to 5 doesn’t change the alternative that’s in first place,
“Road.”) If it were sensitive, check it against your intuition, reevaluate, and
“uncertainty proof it” – Next Slide
Sensitivity Analysis

29. . 29
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
28
Managing Scientific & Technical Info
I. Nature of Knowledge
A)All information is subject to questions
about validity, accuracy, authenticity and
reliability
B) Many people think science is conducted
wholly in the realm of testable knowledge
C) Subjective knowledge plays a larger role
than people know or experts admit

30. . 30
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
29
II. Information and Conflict Resolution
A) Disputes are rarely caused by technical
information, per se. Most often, they are
about:
(1) competition over interests
(2) different criteria for evaluating ideas
(3) differing goals, values and ways of life
(4) lack of, and differing ways of interpreting
data, and/or
(5) unequal power

31. . 31
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
30
B) Technical issues are embedded in a political
context where value choices are at play.
These underlying, often competing values
are the ultimate arbiters.
C) Parties make better decisions when the
“black box” is opened for them.

32. . 32
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
31
III. Research and Information Gathering
A) Stakeholders should drive the technical
process and determine the questions
they need answered and to what level
of certainty. Monitoring studies are
often used.
B) Overly simplified or excessively
summarized information often
discounts the potential impacts of the
ultimate policy choices.

33. . 33
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
32
IV.Modeling
A) Many conflicts benefit from modeling in order
to define problems impacts, or choices.
B) Stakeholders must understand there is a
range of error reflecting the assumptions of
the stakeholders and modelers. Develop
together.
C) Models do not enumerate the one correct
answer and have wide margins of error.
D) Assumptions must be transparent.
These “Managing” slides are edited excerpts from Peter Adler’s
"Managing Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental
Cases: Principles and Practices for Mediators and Facilitators," a
must read! www.mediate.com/articles/envir_wjc11.pdf

34. . 34
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
33
PDX Airport Futures
2035 Operations Modeling

35. . 35
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
34
Select Public Policy Challenges
A. “In the Beginning . . .”
1. What, no case assessment? How can we proceed?
2. Sponsoring Agency at the Table? (Voting or Ex
Officio)
3. A Collaboration Memorandum Avoids Process
Paralysis (Scope: In and Out)
4. The Missing Interest Groups
5. Decision-Making Protocol: “1-2-3 Consensus” with
Majority Voting
6. The Thin and Changing Quorum: Do we “re-vote?”
7. Public Comment: During the Meeting, Survey
Monkey, and Web Sites R’ Us

36. . 36
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
35
B. Obstacles to Resolution
1. Unfamiliarity with Agency’s Rules
Surrounding the Negotiation
2. Inter-and Intra-Agency Politics: The
mediation within the mediation!
3. Negotiators Saving Face with Constituent
Group
4. “Oh by the way …”
5. “The Package Deal: Interim or Final Voting

37. . 37
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
36
C. “Impasse-Busting” Techniques
1. Work Sheets, “One Text Draft” with InFocus and
Meeting Minutes
2. “The Sub-committee”
3. Meeting Evaluations and Transparency
4. The Non-Confidential Caucus:
BATNA/WATNA/MLATNA
5. “Reality Therapy” and the “Mediator’s Proposal”
6. One-Year Review or “Sun-setting”
7. “What Happens If” - Deal Contingent on External
Approval(s)
8. Humor, Ethics, and the “Energizer Bunny of
Resolution”

38. . 38
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
37
D. “In the End . . .”
1. “Settlement” vs. “Resolution” - Rx for “Settlement
Remorse”
2. Stakeholders’ Help with Rollout and Review
3. Agree on How to Process Future “Yuck” and
Changed Circumstances
4. The “Loyal Opposition’s” Report
5. The “Oral Pitch” to the Decision-Maker
6. “We gonna CEL-E-BRATE and have a good time . .
.” with a “T” Shirt!

39. . 39
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
38
Closing Dance Number

40. . 40
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
39
Suggested Reading
 Breaking Robert’s Rules
 Problem-Solving 101
 Negotiation Genius
 Deterring Fake Public Participation, Snider, IAP2 2010
 A Practical Guide to Consensus
http://www.policyconsensus.org/publications/practicalguide/c
ollaborative_governance.html
 West Hayden Island
www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?&c=49815
 Airport Futures: www.pdxairportfutures.com/Documents.aspx
www.pdxairportfutures.com/Documents/PDX_Airport_Ftrs_P
AG_FinAl_Rprt.pdf
 The Three Secrets of Wise Decision Making, Barry
Anderson. http://personaldecisions.net/secrets.pdf

41. . 41
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
40
Ethics
“Let’s just go with the commandments
and work out ethics later.”
Humor

42. . 42
Management, Inc.
Institute
for Conflict
41
Final Thought
Go Forth, Involve the Public,
Resolve Disputes, and
Promote Collaborative Governance!
Sam, may I be excused,
my brain hurts!