Getting to Consensus in the Congress

When the Millennial Mayors Congress came together in June, the city officials and young leaders at the table made a conscious decision to take a different approach to problem solving. Rather than use traditional majority-rule to make decisions, MMC delegates created a consensus-driven forum in which open dialogue is encouraged and each voice at the table equally weighted.

Step one was deciding on a new approach. Step two was implementing it—considerably more ambitious. The Congress put the new approach to work in its first two meetings and came to consensus on several key issues, but delegates soon realized that using a new process—especially within a group that crosses generations, jurisdictions and politics—takes some adjustment. So last week the Millennial Mayors Congress came together for a skill building workshop on interest-based problem-solving. What I learned convinced me that all elected officials should be putting the interest-based approach to work, so let me share a few nuggets of wisdom with you.

First, a quick definition: The theory behind interest-based problem solving is that there is usually a more creative solution that can satisfy all parties’ interests better than a compromise between just two proposed solutions. The IBA is an alternative to what we often see:

Party one wants X. Party two wants Y. They duke it out, and the result is either a winner/loser scenario or both walk away having lost something.

For details on the interest-based approach, check here or contact me. We’re moving onto the lessons learned.

The durability of decisions

The concept of “durable decisions” was new to me. What makes decisions hold up over time? Stakeholder buy-in. When you don’t have it, people often end up going back on their decisions or not following through on their commitments. You get buy-in when people feel their needs are being met, and they genuinely agree with the solution, which is what an interest-based approach accomplishes. It’s that simple.

Don’t cry about it

One observation that emerged several times during the MMC workshop was the need for some level of emotional detachment during interest-based problem solving. Heated, passionate argument might get you somewhere in traditional forums, but the consensus-building process requires problem-solvers to try to understand the perspective of others at the table, meaning you have to put your own feelings aside for a bit. Would it really be so bad if we did a little more of this?

Interest-based approach + majority rule?

While the MMC thinks the interest-based approach and consensus building are essential, nobody’s claiming we should abandon traditional processes. In fact, sometimes traditional systems just might be better. That said, interest-based problem solving might not be appropriate for council meetings where majority rules and parliamentary procedure reigns supreme, but we all know that the negotiation and alliance-building happens well before the meetings anyway. Might I suggest a marriage of the two approaches? Couldn’t we put the interest-based approach to use in conjunction with traditional systems?



Many thanks to Mike Polzin and Donna Winthrop from Michigan State University’s School of Labor and Industrial Relations who facilitated the training and, in the process, began prepping a new generation of civic leaders to be effective, cooperative problem-solvers.

MMC delegates and other workshop participants, what did I miss? What else can we take from the workshop and apply to public problem solving?