|
Introduction:
How do interveners deal with the messiness to reality when trying to
make assessments of incredibly complex conflicts? Larry Susskind, co-director of the
Public Disputes Program at Harvard Law School, says that by keeping
his methodology simple, straightforward and transparent, he is able to cope with the
complexities that arise.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Complex Problem Solving
Larry Susskind
Co-Director of the Public Disputes Program, Inter-University Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School
| |
Q: It must be a lot more complicated on the ground. I mean, I don't know if
we can talk about this, I can erase this later if you like but in terms
of the Mexico City contamination thing, I mean that is just such a huge, I am sure you have dealt with a lot of huge things but you know the idea in my
mind in dealing with Mexican bureaucracy companies etcetera in a structure whose
regulation is pretty loose. This must be incredibly different from the neatness
of the conversation were having. How do you deal with the sloppiness the
reality of it?
A: There's nothing so practical as a good theory. The way we intervene in
Mexico can be explained in simple declarative sentences. Anybody can check to
see that we always do the same thing and the way we cope with the complexity, and
the messiness, and the confusion, and the difficulty is by adhering rigidly to
these absolutely crucial key elements of the process. When the convenor says,
"Well, we don't have time for you to really do that many interviews and really
want to get started with the mediation," we say, "Then get somebody else." We can
only proceed if there's a credible, legitimate, written assessment that anybody
will be able to pick up and say, "Well that made sense for the why they went
forward and why they chose those parties and scope the issue that way" and we say,
"Go slow to go fast." If some convener says, "I want to skip over this and in real
life we go right to this and we can't get two contracts, one for assessment and
one for mediation, we just give you the contract for mediation and if you say
'this is the organizational part,' that's fine." We respond, "No, we mean it. Get somebody else,
we don't do that. We don't short change assessment." They might say, "Don't you
want this work?" and we say, "Only if these conditions can be met."
Once people think they know about this, and they understand it and want it, then they just want to get going, and we have to hold them back. First, we can't get them to go forward; then, we have to hold them back to make sure that the assessment is done right, so that we can increase the odds that the thing is going to be successful.
So I mean either you believe in the procedure that you use or not. If you do
however, I agree with you there is messiness out there in the world, there's
gaps, there's pressure, there's misconceptions, there's people pulling their
strings for their own ulterior motives, all that's going on. The only way to
survive is to hold tight to what you believe is the right way to do it meaning
that you have a theory of what you're about. So as messy as things get and I can tell you
boy they do get messy, the messier they are, the harder I push on the key
principles that guide what I do.
|