My interest lies in helping my colleagues, clients and partners to move from their probably very good sustainability project or proposal, to successful implementation. And within this process it is the key but often neglected phase of "negotiation through dialogue" where I think I have something useful to add.

Sustainability problem-solving means and methods

1. The wall of inertia: The one thing that virtually all projects that aim at sustainability have in common - and once again this is in both in public and private sectors alike - is that they inevitably require behavioral and other change of some sort. And most of us are essentially inertial creatures and hence at the very least suspicious of change, especially if we feel that it is being imposed on us and will influence our daily lives in some important way, our immediate reactions tend to be essentially negative. And all the more so if we feel, if we are certain in our minds, that this change is going to leave us individually somehow worse off. All of which creates what we can reasonably think of as a "wall of inertia" that acts to hold back the changes needed in the usually tortuous move to sustainability. 2. Hubris: That's half the coin. And the other half is what goes on in the minds of those who see themselves as the agents of sustainability, often a bit god-like if you will. Our experience shows that in all too many cases these splendid people and agents of change also have a mind set, but in their case they often feel that since their changes are necessary, those involved simply need to bow to better sense and get on with it. There is thus a certain impatience, a certain arrogance even, which often works against the very thing that they wish to achieve. Think of it as a kind of hubris. 3. Politics of sustainability: This brings us smack to the politics of sustainability, which if it is to succeed has take into account each step of the following ineluctable process: Identification: Problems and solution(s) Dialogue Negotiation Ownership Execution Feedback and Fine-tuning (continuous) What we can observe though in all too many cases is that those in a position of power - and once again this can be in an individual enterprise as well as in a city or some other public entity - is that the experts are often far better at steps (1) and (5) than the rest. Which can be a fatal exercise. Back to top A quick example Let's consider a simple real-world example to see how this works, say that of creating a pedestrian zone or more radical parking policy in a commercial part of town. Both are almost always great ideas, and these days have enough examples around to ensure that we careful preparation a strong technical project results. And those involved in the process are absolutely confident in their minds that the greater public good is going to result from these new changes. But there is as we have seen on many occasions a lot more to it than that. Thus, whenever such a project is announced one of the first things that can be guaranteed is a wave of noisy protest. First from the businesses within the impacted area who are absolutely certain that there sales are going to suffer. And soon after from the local automobile interests who see this as a move to certain their liberty to move in their own city. And often to real estate and other financial interests who are fearful of the negative impacts on their businesses of these changes. Moreover, as red faces and heart felt arguments tend to make good news, the media more often than not ends up feeding the protest. In this case, and no matter how many "impact statements" and local "consultation projects" may have been ground out to get the project underway, the main agents have a choice. First, if they can, simply to over-ride the objections and assure all those who will listen that this is all going to work out in the common interest, including in those of the merchants and others in question (and usually rightly so, but that is not the end fo the game). Alternatively and much more time and trouble, the challenge is to find ways not only to address these protests but also to see if this can be achieved through a process which will in fact even improve not only the project's changes of seeing the light of day but also to make it into a better, a more robust project with stronger chances of long term success. We know for example that if "ownership" of the project is somehow given to the largest number of players and interests, the better the long term prospects. And this is what I like to do. To listen, to learn, and then to try to figure out how to factor all this into a stronger and better supported project. Back to top Behaviour Modification: Thee and me Not a very pretty phrase, but one with which we in the sustainability push have got to become far more familiar. The basic precepts are as clear as they can be. We have on the one hand a problem and with it at least the first rudiments of a solution set, and then on the other we have a world of individuals and institutions who are going about their business without making the individual adjustments that are needed if we are to become more sustainable. And since this is true, it also suggests that there has to be a greatly expanded role for behavioral psychologists and social scientists familiar with learning problems and barriers, both individual and collective. How can I get you to take the challenges of sustainable development and, say, climate modification more seriously? What is the process that I need to engage to bring you and millions like you over one notch at a time (which is the only way this works in most cases)? To the point of actually modifying your own conduct and choices in your daily life. Can I talk you into it in a directive manner? Can I force you into it? Well, we are seeing that neither of these are doing the trick. We thus must be prepared to engage a process, which will over time and possibly in a certain number of deliberate iterations create a more welcoming attitude toward the issues and the need for change. Including at the level of the individual, thee and me. There is of course an abundant literature on this subject, but we rarely seem to run into it in the world of sustainability programs and messages. However in all our work in the future we need to give this much greater stress. Back to top A word on listening It seems so obvious but somehow it does not have the value that it clearly must have in a world of pluralistic, often sharply divided democracies. In our society we seem to be a lot better at broadcasting than listening. And all the more if we happen to be an overworked public servant or manager who has a job of work to get done on schedule and who simply does not have time to listen. But if we are to move toward a more sustainable world, at least half of the translation process must involve listening. And not only that: listening to a very large number of often highly discordant, apparently redundant, and almost always highly conflicted voices. For us to move ahead on the sustainability agenda, we need to hear from all those voices out there, but how to do this and still get the job done. There is a definite art to this, and while this is not the time or place to try to take this into detail, I nonetheless can note that the answer does most certainly not lay in the kinds of "outreach" programs or traveling circuses which are simply too cumbersome and too oriented to do the trick of diversity. And certainly not in passive rote questionnaires or multiple choice surveys. The first and most important step is to understand that it is important, in these cases almost always critical to listen to all those voices out there. And once this decision has been taken, well the next step is to learn to get good at it. A word in closing about the reasons that people cite for being for or against any given action or project. One scholar, Charles Tully from Columbia University, has done a useful analysis of this in his book "Why" (Princeton University Press), where he explains to us that most of us "make up our minds" (or at least think we do at the moment) at any of four levels of reasoning. It is useful to recall them briefly since these are the kinds of things of which we can be usefully aware when listening to all the discordant voices in one of our projects - as a first step to trying to reconcile them in a final plan. Briefly and in my words, these are: "Conventions" (socially accepted clichés or knee-jerk reaction): People (in this city, country, etc.) love their cars. "Stories" (simplified cause-effect narratives): If my business cannot be conveniently accessed by people with their cars, then it is going to suffer accordingly. (The "story" always reduces the focus, takes place purely in the mind of the "teller", and it also circumscribes time and space, limits the number of activities, and abstracts from institutional considerations. It is thus inevitably partial and personal. It is, in effect, really a story.) "Codes" (which is really a high level convention, a formula which sometimes invokes recondite procedural rules and categories.) This project is not going to possible here (in Houston, Paris, wherever) because Local Ordinances # xyz require that on-street parking be available on those streets from which you are proposing to remove automobile traffic and access. "Technical Accounts " (Complicated narratives, often impenetrable to non-specialists) I find this topology very useful in our case. Why? Well, because in the negotiation process when we are confronted with citizens who are explaining to us their reasoning against (or for) any given project or action, it is helpful to be able to put their ideas into some kind of analytic context Mr. Tilly offers here. Thus, if I can figure out from some sort of deeper analytic perspective what they think are their objections or reasons, I am thus one small step closer to being able at least to understand them, and possibly to either (a) be able to clarify to them explanations which may alleviate at least some of their fears and/or (b) possibly to modify the original project to take certain of these better into account. Like it or not, the truth is that the sustainability agenda is lagging badly. And a good part of the fault lies with those of us who feel that change Is necessary. Politicians, social scientists, and activists need to make their theories more accessible and persuasive. And to do that, they need to listen more closely. Listening is the first step in the process of negotiation and success.     Home   About Translate   The Commons   Always On   Contact   Top Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France, Europe. T: +331 4326 1323 Copyright © 1994-2006 The Commons ® All rights reserved. Last updated on 15 April 2006