You're tasked with resolving a public policy dispute between team members. How can you find common ground?

I agree most of the time it is best to listen first. While I never underestimate my adversary (I'm a lawyer), I have learned not to overestimate them either. I can make a proper assessment by listening first. They may tell me alot by not highlighting their strongest position or not exposing my weakest position. By listening, they may frame the issue much more narrowly to my advantage. And, if they do a great job in framing the argument, they have told me that they are very competent and I need to take that in consideration as we move forward.

Finding common ground in a public policy dispute involves several steps aimed at understanding the perspectives of all team members, identifying shared goals, and working towards a solution that balances differing viewpoints.

I agree that clearly framing the issues in the dispute at the outset is very helpful and asking all participants to commit to working hard to find solutions to the dispute being aired.

Active listening to identify main concerns and goals - since public interest is at stake there will be a common ground for sure.

listening ... I mean: deep listening ... builds trust so that when it comes to sharing your ideas you increase the chance to be taken seriously

In negotiations, try to find a way to give your "opponent" something they view as a victory, Usually, but not always, there is something they need that you can give up to give them satisfaction. Half of something is better than all of nothing.

Depending who the client is, it’s worth being clear who/which specific segments of society benefit from this - community as whole rarely benefit because most public policy is essentially about trade offs between groups. Your objectives are a reality check for those realities and this should be kept central - you are not benefitting everyone directly - although you may indirectly but the distribution of the effect of your policy outcome has to be understood

Once everyone has had an opportunity to express their concerns it should be easier to find common values and shared goals. In settlement negotiations in litigation in many instances parties are willing to compromise on smaller issues to achieve a more important outcome.

When doing any deal or sorting a settlement working out shared goals is the key to achieving a desired outcome. Find Common ground first and you can narrow the gap

Defining the what do we want to achieve and why builds consensus.in public policy disputes there can nearly always be common goals tailored to the greater good the policy is intended to address. The getting there can include many road maps to the same place.

Withholding judgment is not easy especially on matters of great concern. However, being opened to weigh the feasibility and likely outcome of many approaches can be fun and mind altering. Frequently, this open options approach creates WOWS !

Exploring ramifications of options is an important but imperfect exercise. While some outcomes may appear obvious, unexpected results cannot be ruled out. For example, in California bans on one-use plastic bags have created new waste disposal problems because more sturdy plastic bags are rarely re-used.

Getting people to want to do what they’re being asked to do is a hallmark of successful leadership. If you’re leading by fear, people will always find something that they’re more scared of than your disappointment or displeasure.

It's not always possible to achieve consensus. While desirable, there should be a mechanism available to respectfully disagree with the consensus and the dissenting party should be able to state the basis for their disagreement. Achieving consensus, however, should be the primary target of this phase of the dispute resolution process.