Patterns & Paradigms | The Pattern Podcast
Patterns & Paradigms | The Pattern Podcast
Season 2 Episode 17: Conflict & Resolution with Dr. Joshua N. Weiss
How do you approach conflict? Do you seek to change minds or do you seek common ground? As it turns out, our views may be closer than we think, and finding that out is the key to successfully negotiating resolution.
This week's episode features Dr. Joshua N. Weiss, the co-founder, with William Ury, of the Global Negotiation Initiative at Harvard University and a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project. He is also the Director and creator of the Master of Science degree in Leadership and Negotiation at Bay Path University. He received his Ph.D. from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in 2002.
We are experiencing a paradigm shift, a fundamental change in the way we usually do things. We are intentionally choosing to see the silver lining opportunity arises. We can shine a light on the things that weren't working well on those things that weren't really working at all, we can regroup reevaluate and re-engineer it's time to explore new patterns and paradigms those that inspire us to rise above the chaos and explore how the conditions of today and take us to a better tomorrow
Speaker 2:Patterns and paradigms the pattern podcast from Hudson Valley pattern for progress. You're listening to season two episode 17 conflict and resolution with your host pattern, president and CEO, Jonathan Dropkin. Hi everyone, and welcome to patterns and paradigms who knew water could be so interesting. I hope you had a chance and enjoy the conversation with Adam Bosch from New York city department of environmental protection. Please remember to subscribe to our podcasts at Apple or anywhere where you find your favorite podcasts and take a moment to share an episode with a friend this week's bubble or trend back to work. So the economy is picking up, but can you think of a sector that is not trying to hire people what's going on? There are millions of people unemployed, and there are millions of jobs to be filled, but it's just not that simple remote work is here to stay. And that changed the equation. Before we get to receiving texts from everybody about what did it mean to extend unemployment benefits? I will grant you that in some circumstances, people did a calculus of should they return to work? Should they collect unemployment until it runs out? And it is certainly the case that some people chose to do it, but is it enough to explain millions of vacant jobs? No. The further integration of technology has changed the nature of some jobs. People are burnt out and we're nearing retirement. And so they packed it in. People were not near retirement, but the trauma of the past 14 months has created a form of PTSD and people are not ready or comfortable returning to work from, to not-for-profits to retail and restaurants. The workforce equation is complicated. This bubble or trend is simply not decided yet. I'm here with my partner at pattern Joe Chakka Hey Joe, the census numbers started dribbling out this week. What happened? Well,
Speaker 3:We lost a seat, a congressional seat by 89 people. Unbelievable.
Speaker 2:89 eight. Wait, wait a second. You're saying that let's just be clear for our listeners. Had we counted 89 or 90 more people we would have held on to the current number of congressional.
Speaker 3:That's exactly right. We, we lost the seat. Seven States lost the seat, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, West, Virginia, Illinois, Michigan, and California. Very, very important.
Speaker 2:So leaving California at for a second, those are basically Northeast States.
Speaker 3:That's correct.
Speaker 2:So, so we've kind of seen that trend, but California.
Speaker 3:Yeah, immigration perhaps. Um, but different reasons, you know, just, just as important Texas grabbed two seats, they gained two seats.
Speaker 2:Texas is, is fascinating because it continues to have four cities that are growing. So you have, um, Euston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio among four of the largest. I think they're in the top 10 largest cities in the United States already. And there's continued growth. So taxes is also, you know, looking at some of the recent votes, you know, it's, it's always been considered a red state, but it's kind of moving more blue in eventually, you know? So although they got, you know, someone might say a red state gained two congressional seats, the question is who moved
Speaker 3:That's exactly right. And if, if they were from some of these States who, who lost population or didn't gain as much, um, that state could go bloke, we don't, we just don't know. But, but it's, it's very interesting overall. So to see the census numbers released at the national level, you know, we had the second lowest growth rate in history at 7.4% S the slowest growth rate was back in the 1930s, right after the, uh, after the great recession. Um, and so I'm sorry, after the great depression. And, and so, you know, you've, you've got to take a look at that and say, what is going on? Well, immigration is down death rates, higher birth rates, lower. Um, and so where, where are we growing? Sunbelt States? 62% of the nation's population growth is in the Sunbelt States. So New York, we gained just over 823,000 people. Is it, is it good? Is it bad? Well, it's 4.2%. It's not too awful bad if you consider all the other States that are losing and gaining. Um, but losing that congressional seat, that that is an important thing. Now, can the state fight it? They can, will it be successful? Probably not. It's awfully difficult to get that overturned. Um, but you know, the, the other important thing I think to understand is there are 10 States now that have more than 10 million people, North Carolina, Georgia, and Michigan now crossed over that 10 million threshold. Um, and four States now, including New York have more than 20 million people. So it's in New York, Florida, Texas, and California. So it, growth patterns are very interesting. Very, very interesting.
Speaker 2:So, Joe, you know, I think it's very important to, you know, for our listeners to understand, yes, New York grew in total population, but because the number of congressional seats is a fixed number. It's a portion by population. And so when we lose a seat, it's because other States are growing faster than we are.
Speaker 3:That's right. That's right.
Speaker 2:All right, Joe, what's the next thing to look for from the census? What comes out next? Any idea
Speaker 3:There's a little bit more granular data that will come out at the state level, but it's all actually a big unknown because there was some delays in getting the information from, from people to the census. So it's a little bit more delayed than in past years or past the decennial. So we'll know more probably towards the end of the year in terms of County and municipal data.
Speaker 2:Well, all I know is on our staff, the census, but like, it's like Christmas, it's like, you know, nothing gets us more excited than, you know, demographic data so that we can look at what's happening in trends. And, you know, you always caution me that in-between the census from 2010 to 2020. We're often looking at, uh, what the, the ACS, the American
Speaker 3:American community survey, and those are, those are done in five-year increments and they do tell a good story and that it is, and it's good, important data to have, but the decennial it's definitely more accurate.
Speaker 4:Well, thanks, Joe. And, and we look forward from, to you and the staff had pattern for more information. You got it. Our guest today is Dr. Joshua Weiss. Josh is the co-founder with William Murie of the global negotiation initiative at Harvard university and a senior fellow at the Harvard negotiation project. He is also the director and creator of the master of science degree in leadership and negotiation at Bay path university. He received his PhD from the Institute for conflict analysis and resolution at George Mason university. In 2002, Dr. Weiss has spoken and published on leadership negotiation, mediation, and systemic approaches to dealing with conflict in his current capacity. He conducts research consults with many different types of organizations, including pattern, um, delivers negotiation and mediation trainings and courses, and engages in negotiation and mediation at the organizational corporate government and international levels. Just not a personal note, I've gotten to know Josh well, I consider him a friend and a mentor for how to resolve some of the most difficult problems that we face in the Hudson Valley. He is my go-to guy to say, this seems intractable. It seems like there is no way. And one of the wonderful qualities about Josh is there is always a way it may not be as fast as you want, but there is always a way. So we look forward to our discussion with Dr. Joshua Weiss. Hi, Josh, and welcome to patterns and paradigms. How are you managing and how did the paradigm disrupt your life?
Speaker 5:Um, so I'm managing well, thanks, Jonathan. Uh, it's very nice to be with you, uh, in terms of the endemic, uh, how did it, um, how did it impact my life? I mean, I think it impacted everyone and obviously in very different ways. Um, you know, honestly we were quite lucky. I mean, I do a lot of work virtually and I've been doing that for a long time. And so, uh, for example, the master's program that I direct was developed to be entirely online. And so not a lot changed there for me. I mean, it certainly did for my students in terms of the impact and things like that. Um, you know, I have, uh, I have three daughters who are 2017 and 14, and so on some level, you know, uh, we were able to spend a lot of time together, a lot of quality family time. But when I think for them too, it was a, it's a difficult time to sort of, you know, keep their distance and be responsible and do all the things that we've asked of them. But, but they've really done a pretty good job. And, um, so, you know, we've been very lucky, uh, and, and I don't take that lightly at all. I know, um, it's not been, um, nearly that for many, many people. Uh, and so, but thankfully, um, you know, I've been able to do my work and continue to do that. And my wife was home working as well. So we've been fortunate in that regard.
Speaker 4:Um, so as you say, you know, comparatively, that's great news that you've been able to persist then and just have to do them the modest adjustments, which are still, you know, when you're doing it day by day it's, it's it it's, um, it's not that easy. So what let's, let's, you know, we're here to talk about Josh Weiss, his per fashion, what he does, and I'll let you explain it in your words since you and I have worked together for a couple of years now. Um, but, um, it's an interesting profession and, and it's not everybody that gets to build the body of work that you have written a number of books that you have no one for the work that you do. And it's, it's, you know, in my mind, it's quite impressive, but, um, it's not beauty of podcasts are sad for me to talk about Josh. So why don't you explain what you did? How did you get into it also? I'm curious.
Speaker 5:Sure. Well, uh, so, um, for those folks listening, so I work in the world of leadership negotiation and dealing with conflict and, uh, and it's a, it is a realm that's fascinating. You know, I remember, uh, growing up and wondering what it was that I was going to do and, and this, this kind of field never really crossed my mind. Um, it wasn't something, in fact, you know, when I was younger, this, this field, it's hard to say that there was actually a field at that point. I think there's no question there is now. Um, but it was definitely growing and burgeoning and, and, um, and has, has, um, certainly shown, I think to the broader public and different levels of society, the value, because the reality is that conflict is everywhere. Um, and conflict is the kind of thing that we have to address. And, you know, I take a view of conflict that, you know, um, conflict to me is kind of neutral. It's something that happens because you and I see different worlds, we have very different backgrounds, experiences, things along those lines, and, um, how you handle it, makes it positive or negative. Um, and I don't know if most people see it that way, but I've certainly seen that when you work through a conflict, a difficult one, if you think about it with a spouse or your children or your colleagues, um, you come out the other side and there's a, uh, another level of trust and, uh, a renewed sort of sense of some kind of a relationship that exists. So I believe conflict is, is a kind of a natural part of the decision making process. And we don't have that many tools to deal with it. One of which, from my point of view is negotiation. And, you know, a lot of people, when they think of negotiation, they think of business deals or procurement or things along those lines. But for me, you know, negotiation is used for three things. One is to, is those deals, if you will. The other is to, is to build and solidify relationships. Um, we negotiate with each other so that we can do work going forward on a consistent basis. Um, and then the third is to handle disagreements, conflicts, challenges that come up. So, you know, I really see negotiation as a process that's vital for our everyday working lives. And, you know, the students in my master's degree program, uh, you know, they come out of that and they have a completely different view of the world saying now I see everything as a negotiation and it it's a different orientation altogether, so that when something comes up, I don't feel like, Oh my God, what am I going to do? I feel, um, more like, okay, what skill do I use that I've learned? Or what knowledge can I bring to bear? Um, and I think that's part of the problem is that most people never got any skills, knowledge understanding of this, and it's not their fault. It's just that we didn't really, you know, put an emphasis on it as a society. And I think that's changing to a degree. Um, you know, I think this needs to be our first response to a lot of things, not the second or third or fourth, um, which sometimes it feels like it is. Um, I mean, I honestly got into this in a very roundabout kind of way. Um, I had graduated from Syracuse university up the road from all of you, uh, in, in New York. And, uh, and I was a history major. And actually my mother grew up in Canada and, uh, my family had a land management company and they were looking for somebody from my background, uh, or from my generation really to get involved. So I thought, well, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I'll go try that out. And it was very interesting. Um, I learned a lot, but I could tell it wasn't quite for me. And I ended up speaking to a friend of mine toward the end of the year that I had been there and I spoke and he said, what are you up to? And I said, well, you know, doing this work and I said, what are you doing? He said, Oh, I just bought around the world ticket. I'm going to go backpacking for a year. And I thought you are, that's fascinating. And he said, yeah, why do you want to go? And I thought in sort of in a split second, I said, yes. And so I pretty much sold everything I owned and I had 15 or so around the world tickets at that time were about$1,500. And I had about$15,000 to my name. So I used it all. And, you know, in backpacking is a very different endeavor, uh, than traveling in the traditional sense. You know, you're staying at youth hostels for a couple dollars a night when I was in Asia and traveling around India and places like that, it was a dollar or two. Uh, and so, but what happened when I was doing all, that was that conflict was this theme that just kept coming up over and over again. Um, about what you about what year are we talking? This was 1991, 92. Uh, so right after the fall of the, you know, sort of communism and things like that. So it was also an interesting time, but, you know, I was in India, um, and sort of found myself in the middle of a, uh, a mini Hindu Muslim riot. And then I was in Nepal and there was a, a lorry or truck drivers strike. And I was stuck on the one road between a place called pakora and Katmandu. And we had to sit there for 24 hours, why these guys pulled out a card table and we're negotiating a new labor agreement. Um, and you know, and then, and then I got to Europe and, um, the former Yugoslavia was coming apart. And, and the, the other big piece to this when I was growing up, my, my grandmother, uh, had left Poland, a small village in Poland in 1939. She left with her brother and her parents and other four siblings all died in the Holocaust. And she never knew what happened to them or what or where they died. Um, and so that was a very big part of the narrative of me growing up was, you know, that this was, um, a tragedy and you need to know who you are and you need to understand your background. And, and so I spent a better part of about a month going from camp to camp, trying to find anything I could about her family. So all that taken together, um, you know, essentially was when I got back, I thought to myself, you know, I'm, I'm seeing all these things and all these problems, and I got to do something. I, you know, I know I'm one person, but I feel I'm feeling compelled to, to try to make some kind of a difference in the world. So I came back and I applied to international relations programs, and hadn't been the greatest student, um, in college, it took me a little while to get going. And, um, anyways, I got wait-listed at American university and then I got in and, and I was quite excited, uh, down in DC. And they said, well, you know, within international relations, you've got to pick a concentration. And I said, okay. So I looked at the, the booklet and, and peace and conflict resolution flew off the page at me, uh, and really sort of hit me in the forehead. And I was like, that's it, that's what I want to do. And when I went to grad school there and then started working at Harvard and then went, uh, to do my PhD at, down at George Mason university, um, ever since then, it's been a passion. Um, and it's a fascinating realm. It's not easy at all. It's very difficult, but it's also, uh, it's, it's, you know, I, I don't think it's, um, crazy to say that in part, as human beings, our survival hinges on how we all deal with these things. Um, and we now have a capability to blow up the world many times over, you know, we need these skills and this knowledge, and we need people with it more than ever.
Speaker 4:So I, you know, I know a bit about your background, but for our listeners, um, it's not just conflict resolution in the sense that as you've said, you know, we needed between spouses, we needed in our families. We need it even internationally. You began to recognize it. But, um, you've been in the middle of some, if, is, I remember there's, if there was a major conflict that I've mentioned to you, you've probably had some exposure to it, you know, whether it was the former Yugoslavia is, you know, the Serbs and the Croatians, I think you've said Northern Ireland. And then of course the middle East, um, is there one that maybe you could share a bit more about your experience in, so that we understand, um, better the kind of work that it is that you would do?
Speaker 5:Sure. Uh, yeah. And, and as you say to, to different degrees, you know, um, I mean, in the former Yugoslavia in Bosnia, it was actually my first international overseas experience. I started out as an election monitor actually in the first elections after the war. And then did some work with a organization called the OSC, the organization for cooperation in Europe, um, working with the communities to try to begin to stitch back what have existed for many years. Um, I mean, I think in general, th the one that I've had the most experience with, um, was, is the middle East and the Israeli Palestinian conflict, uh, in particular. And that's taken a few different forms. Um, when I was back, many years ago, I was working and we did, we do something called the problem solving workshop. So problem solving workshops are where you bring unofficial parties from each side to say a university or something like that to a place for three or four days. And now these people are what we would call influentials. There are people who have the ear of a prime minister, they're a prominent journalist or something like that, but they don't need hold any capacity, any sort of official capacity. So I was involved in a handful of processes where we did that in the idea was to try to, um, generate ideas and concepts that could be fed into the public PR and into the public process. So we often talk about track one and track two processes. So track one processes are the official channels, the state department, or whatever. It might be government to government relations, track to it's kind of unofficial work that happens that tries to support the, create the solution and ultimate solution. Um, and, and that would take place, for example, at the NGO level, uh, there are a lot of NGOs that are working that bring parties together sort of more informally. So there's not as much pressure. Um, non-governmental sorry, non-governmental organization.
Speaker 4:Yeah, no, no, no, no. That's okay. Just, I realized that I speak and most of my guests speak in letters, but okay.
Speaker 5:Yeah. So, you know, working at the civil society level, uh, bringing people together, um, and, and, you know, to me, when you're dealing with some larger conflicts, you know, you have to work at multiple levels. And I think a very good example of that was South Africa, where, you know, the official process happens between Mandela and Declerk and things along those lines, but, but they had national peace commissions that were set up that ran the gamut down through society so that people were, you know, the average person was part of the process. There were all kinds of different things happening to support that effort. Um, so the, the problem solving process is one that, you know, again, like I said, we, we would bring parties together and then those folks would go back. They would spend three or four days talking about the core issues and the conflict and what creative solutions might there be to those situations. Uh, and, and then, you know, when, when folks would go home, you know, they would, part of the deal was they would meet with government officials or others and infuse those ideas into the track one process. And part of the reason for that is because a lot of times, you know, um, governmental approaches tend to have, are a little less creative, you know, they don't always, um, enable that kind of thinking. And so when you, you know, get people out of the conflict, bring them somewhere else. And, and, you know, and people are not in an official capacity. They can think differently. They can think about how to approach something in a slightly different manner. Um, so there's that, you know, that was, that was certainly a process that we, that I was part of for a number of different years. And in fact, some of my colleagues had worked with, um, uh, some of the people who were involved in the Oslo process in 1993, um, to infuse those ideas. And, and, you know, some of those folks were actually in those problem solving processes that, that ultimately became, you know, part of that and reached a deal. Um,
Speaker 4:I have, let me just stop you for a second of the many lessons that you've taught me about conflict resolution. One that always stands out to me is this notion of ripeness. Um, and I think we've, uh, I've often asked you about some of the work you've done in the Palestinian Israeli. And, you know, I always think, you know, you get the parties to the table, they're negotiating and you make progress. And you've said, eh, not always quite like that. There are simply some times that you have to let things rest because they're not your, the likelihood of success is not great. There may have been a recent incident let's say, and in that section of the world, and they're just not going to be in the spirit of gee, let's mediate it. Do I have that right? That there are, there are some times it's just hard to do this work. Well, I think timing,
Speaker 5:It is an essential part of all of this. You know, you have to look at the situation and you also have to analyze, you know, for the parties that are there, is this a time that makes sense for them to be negotiating, you know, or are they not there? You know, I think over the last few years when you're looking at the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I think it's fair to say that, uh, on the Israeli side, in particular, they didn't feel like there was a need to negotiate. Uh, and so, you know, there really wasn't a tremendous amount of efforts going on. Um, there were unilateral moves at other kinds of things that were were transpiring. And I think for the Palestinians, you know, they, um, I think they would have been interested in negotiating, but not just on any terms as you saw. And, and I think you saw, for example, with the, the Trump peace plan and other kinds of things, I mean, the Palestinians didn't really play a role in that. So it really didn't have much of a chance of going anywhere. But I think in terms of this notion of ripeness, you know, it's easy for us as analysts and people on the ed side looking at and saying, well, that doesn't look like it's ripe. So let's just wait. Um, you know, people are dying and people don't want to wait. So, you know, one thing that we often talk about just, if you think about it, it's a crude analogy, but, but one that I think would help people who are listening to this, you know, if you buy bananas that are green, one way to ripen them is to put them in the sun. Right. And so we often will ask ourselves, is there a way to try to ripe in the conflict so that people are more ready? Are there, are there, you know, and this is where things like sanctions come in or other tools that can, you know, encourage people to get back to the table and to solve this. I mean, look, the reality is that virtually every conflict, uh, and with some kind of negotiated settlement, that's how it works. If you look at, you know, history, that's, that's how things go. The question is always for me, you know, can the parties get there, um, without having to do all this fighting and killing and, you know, the sort of disastrous consequences, because in the end, we kind of know in a lot of places where they're going to end up, you know, usually the solutions are not a mystery. It really requires political, will, it requires the leaders to say, this is a chance that I'm willing to take. I believe it's the right way to go. Like you talk Rabine did, uh, and Yasser Arafat did eventually at a certain point, right. And, you know, and Ruby and paid with his life. Uh, and so, but those are a lot of the times those are political calculations that people have to make. Um, I mean, it's unfortunate in one sense that we're so reliant on, on you select leaders to, to make peace, um, or to deal with conflicts because, um, you know, there's a lot of other calculations that go into that. Uh, you know, I think in general, over the years, there've been a lot of very creative solutions to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but they've never really made it to pass because there wasn't the will, um, people had different agendas and there wasn't a way to sort of force them down that road. Um, so, so that's the idea of ripeness. And I think we're always asking, you know, is it ripe? And, and, um, I mean, you're, you're still trying when it's not, you're still keeping channels open and trying to work some of that, um, those angles, but you also recognize that it's going to be difficult and, and you probably want to hold off, um, you know, on a, on a serious push until circumstances on the ground change.
Speaker 4:So, so with all of this international experience, you recently released the book, the book of real world negotiations. So was it all of these experiences that you said collectively, there's a, a, um, an opportunity to give, um, lessons learned as to how to solve conflicts? What was the, what was the aha moment for you to say? I think there's enough material that I want to create a book that could help people in solving conflict resolution. And this isn't your first book, but it's just your most recent. Yeah,
Speaker 5:Well, you know, this actually, and actually, so this is a case study book of a real world negotiations. There's 25 cases in there. Um, they're not, I purposely wrote it. I wrote it for people who teach and train, um, and students that are learning about negotiation. But I also wrote it for the average person, because I feel like there are a lot of misnomers about negotiation and what effective negotiation looks like. People are always rushing to compromise. Uh, and what do I have to give up to get there? And they're not focused on how do we, is there a creative solution here that maybe doesn't require as much compromise or things along those lines? And in fact, the vast majority of the cases, um, we're about that now, um, most of the cases in the book are not mine. There are colleagues, um, that were willing to share, um, some of them, one of their names attributed to the cases others didn't, um, for sensitive reasons. But the idea came about, I mean, when I first started working at a place called the program on negotiation at Harvard law school, back in 1995, I was, I had the real privilege of going to dinners and other kinds of events where the faculty there were talking about the negotiations they were involved in, um, and either as a party or as a consultant, that advisor. And it was fascinating. I mean, the, you know, the kind of examples that came up and the solutions that people talked about were just really, really, and so, but the, here was the issue. The issue was there were 25 of us in a room. And I thought, you know, if people are going to really understand how important this is and how valuable it can be, like this has to get out to the broader world. And so I thought to myself, you know, um, if I get a chance to write a book, I'd really like to do something that's rooted in the real world so that, you know, people can't say to me, well, that's not how it works because it is how it worked in practice. And so, um, instead of, you know, sort of trying to persuade people and have a long, a lot of conversations, I thought, you know, let me show people what this looks like through these real cases. And, um, and, and that's, you know, and so that's where the book really came from. And, you know, I've had a lot of people comment to me that it's, you know, it's a very persuasive approach because it's hard to argue with reality. Um, but it's also, I've had a lot of people say to me, this is not what I thought negotiation was. I didn't realize that if you were able to really think differently and to slow the process down and get creative, that lot of times you can solve these things without, you know, these major concessions that people often take, talk about taking. Um, so that was the idea. And I, and like I said, I hope that people come away, um, having read this with, uh, a new sense of how valuable, um, negotiation is across the board, whether it's at work, um, in the world, around you at home, whatever it might be.
Speaker 4:So, um, let's, if we can, and we're only in the beginning stages, there's a project that brought you and I together, which is the desire of some in the orange County legislature here in the Hudson Valley to address the growth of the ultra Orthodox or her Eddy population in the orange County area. It's actually much broader in the Hudson Valley. And the let's for lack of a better phrase. The secular community one group is expanding. One group is really not growing. It is led to a series of issues. And, um, many of them had reached the newspaper over issues of growth. The village of curious, Joel became the town of Palm tree, the very dense population versus a more rural population. How w any sense, and I w I know, and I'm going to be very careful about this, that we're at the very beginning of what our process is. We've actually been hired by the orange County legislature to, to work on this, but at the 10,000 foot level, any initial thoughts on how do you take that real-world experience and apply to a local issue?
Speaker 5:Sure. I mean, I think that, you know, conflicts do follow certain patterns, and I think what you're seeing, um, you know, in this particular case is, uh, is sort of a values based conflict. It's a very different way of viewing the world and, and, and living, um, those things don't necessarily need to be in contradiction to each other, but at the moment they certainly seem to be. And so the question is, you know, how do you go about trying to modify that or adjust it? Um, you know, uh, my experience when you're dealing with a broader kind of conflict is that you either come up with, uh, uh, you know, sort of a grand bargain, if you will, that tries to address that kind of an issue, or you start in a slightly different place, and you start in a place where, um, you know, right now, I don't think the communities really believe that they can work together. They have a negative view of the other. And so, you know, starting small, starting with very practical, um, challenges and issues is really where I've seen a lot of progress. It's not going to solve the bigger issue that, that confronts the County and the region. But I think what it will do is it will help people to start slowly working together on different issues and seeing the other, perhaps a little bit differently, which then would enable a different kind of conversation. Um, and so I think there's different ways into a, uh, kind of challenge like this. And that's the one that I've seen that, um, you know, has had the most success because it's dealing, you know, you deal with very practical issues, things that are impacting people's lives. And, and, you know, I'm a big fan, again, back to the case study book, I'm a big fan of what, what I often called proof of concept, where, you know, you show people, you know, words are cheap and people don't often believe them at times, especially when they're skepticism. So instead better to sort of say, look, you know, we just did this small little pilot example here, and folks were able to reach an agreement around something, and that's great. And that's probably surprising to some folks because you didn't think you could reach an agreement. What's next, what do we do after that? And, and you build some positive momentum around that. And, and like I said, and eventually that may ultimately enable, uh, a larger conversation about, you know, how can folks live with different values and different approaches to life live near each other. Side-by-side whatever it might look like it, you know, in a different kind of way.
Speaker 4:So I, I know better than to want to talk in detail about a project that, that is it's in its infancy. So let, let me take your skills and apply it to a couple of other things that are definitely, um, uh, almost they're part of almost every branch of work that I, um, have to do at pattern. And that is the extreme polarization in this country. So the ability to drive people to a practical solution, often when I peel the onion, I find, Oh, wait a minute. This is really not what I think it is. It's part of this, there's 50% on one side and there's 50% on another, and they're just not going to see the world the same way. Any thoughts about polarization in America right now? And, and how do we pull people together?
Speaker 5:I mean, it's certainly the$64,000 question that everybody's asking, you know,
Speaker 4:Thing, you too, like, you know, have the magic pill here, the magic beans, but yeah. Any thoughts on, on, you know, if someone said to you, Josh, you know, that there seems to be this problem of polarization in America, you know, w w we'd like you to take this on?
Speaker 5:Yeah, well, I mean, you know, one of the things that I can say, you know, I worked on a project, uh, I still am working on it, um, in, in the middle East, um, called the Abraham path. And the idea was to create sort of a long distance walking and traveling route, um, across the region. Um, so that people from around the world could come and actually see the region and engage with people very differently. You know? Uh, I, it's interesting. Cause when I had gone to previously before this project, um, I, when I had gone to Israel, like I realized, I didn't really know anybody. I didn't really meet anybody, you know, I would do the touristy thing, um, or I would be in meetings and I never really met folks. And so the reason I bring this up is because the project was all about was started actually after, um, United States went into Iraq. And the idea was that the world, you know, there was an increasing Gulf between the West and the middle East in particularly the Muslim world. And, um, you know, was there a way that people could bridge that chasm and, and we thought, you know, if people went and actually walked and stayed with families and shared meals together, um, what kind of a difference would that have? What kind of, you know, what would that do to people's views of things and what we ultimately found, because now the Abraham Abraham path spans many different countries. There's a thousand miles of path that's been way marked. And, and there's been a lot of people over 50,000 people have, have used this path in some way, shape or form, whether it's walking for weeks on end or a day, you know, trip out of Jerusalem or something like that. But, uh, what I'm really struck by is, is that anybody that's gone on this path, um, and spent any time, their view of things has changed dramatically. They went thinking this and they came away thinking, Hmm, that didn't fit into what I thought at all. And, you know, so I, the analogy here is that, you know, first of all, we're, you know, we are polarized. We have very different views. A lot of that is generated and persists the resourceful media and a lack of contact, you know, and I think COVID has added a layer to this cause people were home. They couldn't go anywhere. I spent a lot of time online and, and they ended up, most people end up in echo chambers and hear what they want to hear, hear what they think and what the Abraham path did. Was it put people in touch with those who are very different than them who have very different views. Um, and yet somehow people were able to take that in and see things differently, begin to think maybe the world's not quite what I imagined it was. So I think part of the answer is that we need to find ways of getting people to engage with each other, um, in, you know, who typically don't. So, you know, if I'm a little more on the liberal side, I need to put myself into positions in situations where, you know, people are more conservative. But the other thing that's really important is that we can't go into these conversations trying to change each other's minds. That's not how this works. And in fact, that's, that's actually where we get into a problem. What we have to do is go into the conversation, try and understand how it is that they see what they see, because we see something very different and people change their own minds. They don't change their mind because I might say something that is incredibly persuasive. They have to do, you know, and changing your mind is a challenging thing because it goes to your identity, right? If I see myself as, as X supporter and I listened to you and it makes a lot of sense, what you're saying, um, and I begin to think, Hmm, maybe I should change my view. And then I started having conversations with my friends who were in my bubble. Um, they start to say, what's wrong with you? You're you, you sound like you've drunk the Kool-Aid of the other side. We actually call that the re-entry problem in conflict. So when we had member, if you recall, I talked about the problem solving workshops when people would leave and go back to their communities in different countries or, um, and they would tell people of their experience, you know, they would often be, um, be a lot of pushback, um, about what they were saying. And so we, that, that, that idea is called the re-entry problem. And so when people have these experiences that break down these barriers, um, and you take it back to your community, you're confronted with challenge, which is, are you siding with the enemy and things along those lines, but, but I think the reality is that that's really what we need. We need to find ways of, of getting people to engage in a, in a manner where we're not, uh, telling people, you know, you have to agree, you have to do this, you have to, you just have to have a conversation and, and see where that goes. And, you know, again, it's interesting because I believe that, you know, a lot of the things that that are happening now, I mean, these are not new phenomenon. You know, the conversation for example, around abortion. And what people believe related to abortion is, has been around for a very, very long time. It's just that they're heightened. And, um, and people have gotten more entrenched in their beliefs, um, you know, and not looked around for. Are there things that we agree on? Um, and just as an example, I remember years ago there was an organization called the public conversations project that took on this question of, you know, the abortion debate and what they found actually, interestingly enough, was that neither side thought abortion was a, you know, an ideal thing. It was. And so there was actually common ground, like neither wanted that. Um, but it was more of a question of, you know, one side was talking about the sanctity of life and the other was talking about the rights of the woman to choose, right. But it was a bit of a, a pretty significant aha when both of them said, actually neither of us, you know, see this as, as, as an ideal, like none of us really wants that, but it's a question of choice. And, and so there are, I think when we get into these polarized discussions and debates, um, we don't probe for those nuances and, and we don't look at what are the things that we actually agree on. Um, and in fact, there was a recent study that I just saw that Americans actually, um, their views are actually closer than we think it was actually quite a hopeful report. I wish I could remember exactly where it was. Maybe I can get you the details of it, but it talked about the fact that, that actually a lot of Americans share many similar values. The problem is that the conversation when they're put into the public sphere are, are presented in a, in a either or kind of way. Uh, and that's what kind of pushes us further and further.
Speaker 4:Um, there was a poll released yesterday. And so this is, um, I think it was on Biden's presidency, you know, where as we're bounded a hundred days or so. So, um, I think it was, um, that when asked, how was he doing on handling the pandemic very high scores, 62% said the president's doing a really good job, but when asked, how are you doing and bringing us together, which was one of his, you know, platform, uh, you know, talking points during the election, 82% of the country said, he's not bringing us together. And so I guess, while I have you and what you do, I want to take another shot at this to say, so how do we do, I mean, this seems to get in the way of so much of what we wanted. It doesn't matter by the way, for, for an organization like pattern that works on infrastructure, land, use housing, there are always people on different sides and conflict resolution. Um, you know, we don't want them living in our neighborhood is actually what underlies building affordable housing, um, land use. You know, I'm just trying to make it very practical for people listening in the Hudson Valley here. Um, land use issues are also about, well, what do you want the character of our community to look like? Which underlies that, um, we know, we know that conflict in America can get much worse. We just can go back to the 1860s to understand how bad it could get. Right. But right now there are people that feel like it's nearing something like that. And they've used the term civil war, and I don't want it. I don't want to go there. I'd rather have someone who is skilled at negotiation, say we don't have to get there. Here's some other practical ways in which we can start to break this down.
Speaker 5:Yeah. Well, first of all, I mean, the one thing that I would say is that we look far too much to political leaders for this kind of thing. Um, I don't think Joe Biden, uh, I, I look, I certainly believe in the message, you know, I mean, we're all Americans, like, we have to recognize the similarities that we have, but, but right now in this climate, there are too many things pushing us away from that. There's too many reasons why people want to stay entrenched. It's a little bit like the ripeness question. Right. Which is that right now, there are more reasons to say no than, yes. Um, so how do you change that? Well, I think part of it is, and I, and I really do believe this. Like I, you know, I have a friend who's a state Senator and he, and I had a conversation, something like this on for my university. And I said, you know, I kind of feel like national politics are broken. Like there's no conversation. Um, if you're forward, I'm against it. If it's a Democrat, you're a whatever, like there's just no conversation. And he said, I don't disagree with it. And I thought, that's interesting, you said, but I don't think local politics are broken. And he said, in fact, I believe that that the, the real work that happens in this country happens at the local level happens in the States. It happens as close to the ground as possible. So what I would, you know, for me, what I would say is we have to stop looking to the national level for solutions. What we need is actually the average person to reach out, to engage with others, to do the kinds of things that used to sort of be talked about as civic engagement and civic pride, and, um, stop looking out there to the politicians. There's too many reasons for them to do, to have other agendas and other kinds of things. And start looking to yourself, start looking to your own community. You don't have to change the world, just change what you're doing in your world. Um, that's, you know, from where I sit, you know, if you hear somebody or you meet somebody new that you didn't know, um, and you know, you have a good interaction. Well, now all of a sudden you say, well, wait a minute. Maybe not everybody thinks that way. Um, and, and so I think that we have to own this all of us, and we have to take actions that, that put ourselves into situations where we can do things differently, change and get back to, you know, some of those feelings that existed. Um, I remember as a kid, when you, you know, you lived in a community, there were community events and there were different things that people did. What do we do that stuff nearly as much today as we did then no, we've lost a lot of that. And I think we need to go back to that. And I think local communities, you know, they know their place best. And, and so they ought to spend the time organizing, bringing people together. Um, you know, I I've become a big fan after having worked on the Abraham path of walking and, you know, I, I had in my head this idea of sort of a purple path, so bringing blue and red together and, you know, use paths like the Appalachian trail and say, Hey, go walk and have some places along the route where people could sit down and have a burger together and, and talk about their view of the world in a much less controversial kind of way. But just as a, when we walk away from here, there's, there's no major consequences except that you and I engaged and we shared some different views on what's happening here. Um, you know, there's a lot of opportunities for those things if we look for them and if we, you know, reach out to folks that I think, you know, hopefully as, as COVID slowly, uh, you know, dissipates, and we can get back to some semblance of normalcy, you know, for people to look to do those kinds of things, to organize kinds of things. Don't,
Speaker 4:You know, the problem is we have a tendency in this country to look to others and say, you fix it. That's not how this works. It, it, cause that's passing the buck. You know, when people have a conflict more often than not, they call the first thing to do is pick up the phone and call a lawyer. You don't go to your neighbor and say, Hey, can we just talk about this? Cause we've got a problem, right? And then we have to go back to that. This is not to just give to everybody else to do. We all have to own it and get off of our sort of, uh, our Duffs and, and, and take responsibility. So, you know, it's funny you say that because I've often I've done a lot of teaching in the public administration field. And I've often said that the capstone, which is your last project that you need to do, what if all the masters in public administration programs for their capstone required you to, instead of, you know, whatever your project is in your own community, if the, if the public administration program was located in a blue state, you had to do your capstone and you're at state and you had to spend six months learning about the way, um, other people look at it. And I think, um, we're going to end the conversation where, you know, you've given us so many good thoughts about, you know, maybe it's not the national level. It's remembering that, you know, we have neighbors, there's ways to talk to each other. And, um, Josh wise, it's always a pleasure. I, I, you know, during this conversation, I've taken two pages of notes because it's, it, there's just so much that I've learned from someone who is in your position. Um, your recent book is the book of real world negotiations. Um, please find it on Amazon or wherever out, where else can they find it? Is that the best way? Uh, it's pretty much out there wherever. So if they just Google that, they'll get more, that more information than they cared to have on it. All right. Thank you Josh, for your time as always.
Speaker 1:You're welcome. My pleasure. Thank you for tuning in to patterns and paradigms the pattern podcast. For more information about this episode, visit our website pattern for progress.org Ford slash podcast.