The Resistance Line is a tool that helps to track the development of tension and resistance in any situation. It is an analysis tool that raises awareness of resistance long before the conflict becomes visible, allowing you to take measures to reduce tension and prevent it from becoming destructive. In cases where conflict has escalated, it helps determine the necessary intervention level. Finally, it helps explain the need for dialogue as a conflict intervention for others.

Summary

Clear decisions are important. A minority voice that is ignored by the majority risks creating a sense of marginalization and escalation of tension. Including the wisdom of the minority, voice is possible if this wisdom is integrated into the majority decision. The “No” is not limited to the minority voice, it can also mean the dissenting, critical or doubtful voice in an individual or a group. 

The Problem

Many decisions are made through a voting process. The minority is expected to go along with the majority. Sometimes it does just that – perhaps grumbling a little, but submitting in the name of democracy. Some might go along because they have to but their sense of being overridden by the majority causes resentment and may lead to tension, resistance or even conflict in the group.

Raised with the idea that the majority vote decides, we often ignore the minority in any democratic decision-making process. An alternative to the majority voting system is to find a compromise. Compromising often leaves most participants dissatisfied. Nobody gets what they really want. Consensus decisions could result in an effective veto by the minority and a compromise may get everybody to feel dissatisfied.

How can you make a decision and include the minority or dissenting voice? And why would it be important to do so?

The Pattern

This method of making decisions acknowledges that the minority voice, the “no”, contains wisdom for the majority. It acknowledges that the majority decides, yet it allows the majority decision to be tempered or adjusted to include the wisdom of the minority or dissenting voice. 

The process, step by step: 

• Allow the participants to motivate their perspectives during a free discussion. Make it safe to express the “no” – doubt, uncertainty or opposition.
• When everybody has had a chance to speak, ask the group to vote on the issue. Say that the majority will decide, but that the wisdom of the minority will be included if possible.
• There will be a majority and a minority. Ask each person who has “lost the vote” in turn: “what is your concern with the majority decision?” Thank them for expressing their view. Check whether anybody else (even if they voted for the proposal) recognises the view within themselves. Thank any person for expressing the view – which seems to resonate with others too.
• Ask the person you are addressing: “what would it take (what would you need) in order for you to go along with the majority or to live with the decision?” Note the response for the next step. Proceed to others who voted against the majority proposal.
• Restate the decision in the following way: The majority voted for (proposal A) and the wisdom of the minority is (include the conditions suggested by the “no” voters). Ask them to vote again. You may need to repeat the process with new “no” votes.

Here’s an example that will illustrate the process:

A participant in a meeting insisted that he be heard despite their issue not being on the agenda. The facilitator asked the person to motivate their request and asked for other views. These included the need to stay structured and stick to the agenda. The facilitator asked the group to vote. The majority voted in favour of sticking to the agenda. Two participants voted to address the new issue. The facilitator asked each of those who voted what their concern with the majority decision was. The first was the person who had insisted on being heard. He said that his issue arose after the agenda was set and that he thought it would be negligent to just allow the issue to be shelved for two weeks The facilitator checked with the group and asked whether anybody else could resonate with the concern that not addressing the issue soon would be negligent. A number indicated that they shared the concern – if even in a minor degree. The facilitator said: “thank you for raising this issue, as you can see it is not only you who have this concern that it should be addressed. What would you need to go along with the majority decision?” After thinking a moment, the person said: “I can live with the decision if we agree to address it in an extra meeting early next week.” The facilitator asked the other person who voted against the proposal and answered that she shared the previous speaker’s concerns and suggestions. She then said to the group: “please listen carefully, we are going to make a decision now. We will stick to the agenda for today but agree to have a meeting early next week to discuss this new issue. Please raise your hand if you agree.” All participants voted for the new proposal.

Inner level

We make many decisions during a normal day in our lives. We decide between two opposing inner voices. These decisions often unconsciously marginalise or ignore the inner dissenting voice. 
For example, I might wake up one morning feeling ill. One voice says: stay in bed and rest. The other says: I have an important meeting, I need to go to work. A couple of painkillers later, I am off to work. I effectively silence the voice of my body that feels that I need rest. If I make a habit of this, I will end up with a serious illness or simply burn out. I am ignoring my inner voice that says that I need rest and recuperation. 

Personal decisions can include the wisdom of the “no”. The first step is to become aware of the dissenting voice. I can ask it: “what do you need to come along?”
In the example above this might be “an agreement” to return home after the meeting and take the following day off. 

The same logic can be applied to both minor and important decisions on a personal level. 

Interpersonal level

Of course, you would not vote when making a decision in a relationship. Sometimes, however,  you are faced with a situation where a decision is made and both parties are not quite in agreement. 

Even in decisions on this level of scale, the wisdom of the doubtful or dissenting voice can be heard and integrated. Ask the question: what is the wisdom that can lead to a better decision – one that takes into account the “no”, however small it is. 

Group level

It is useful to those assisting groups who need to make decisions. When there are clear dissenting or more subtle doubtful voices during a decision-making process, allow them to be heard. 

Use the method described above to help the group make the decision. 

Societal level

In larger processes decisions are, of course, made in smaller groups. The process described above can be followed in such cases.

The spirit of this method can also guide the way in which larger processes are designed and carried out. At the stage of the process where perspectives are gathered (see the pattern A Dialogic Framework” for more information on this phase) one can specifically seek out the perspectives that represent the “no”. The voice of the minority is important and often overlooked or ignored.

In later phases of the dialogue process, the dissenting or doubtful voice can be included by asking the question: “what do you need in order to live with the decision of the majority – which in this case, can mean those with the most power. It does, of course, mean that those who have power (the majority, or those with institutional power) are open to including aspects of the minority voice.

The Context

This pattern can be used to make personal or group decisions. The spirit behind this method can also inspire more inclusive large-scale dialogue processes. The aim is to avoid unnecessary escalation of tension because a minority feels excluded by the majority.

The method described is formulated in such a way that it can be used by facilitators in meetings or working groups. There will be variations, depending on the level of scale on which this pattern is used.

Not sure what happened… brain power failure. Corrected now

Not sure what happened… brain power failure. Corrected now

Links

Listening

Awareness of your state

Asking perspective questions

A Dialogic Framework

More

This pattern is based on the work of Myrna Lewis and the Lewis method of Deep Democracy. Reference: Myrna Lewis, Inside the NO.

Including the marginalised, minority, dissenting or doubtful voice is a central theme in Deep Democracy. It implies identifying and integrating the unconscious part of the individual or group. 

Summary

The conversation from two sides (sometimes called The Argument) explores an issue by accentuating and exploring the polarity. It helps to resolve the problem of a conversation getting stuck or a conversation going around in circles. 

The Problem

Sometimes a conversation gets stuck. It may be because a situation has been polarised and there is no movement between the opposite sides.

Or the conversation goes around in circles. The same issue seems to arise again and again. This can be an indication that there is something that is being avoided.

The Pattern

A conversation from two sides allows one to explore a polarity and learn from it. It creates a flow between the two opposite sides and can lead to an increased mutual understanding of opposing viewpoints.

Firstly, the polarity needs to be made clear. It has two opposing sides. Then all arguments for one side are made. When this is done – and only then – the arguments for the opposing side are made. It is possible to return to the first side and again to the opposing side for the purpose of developing the arguments. The third step is to harvest the insights gained from exploring the polarity.

This might appear rather abstract. In the following sections, the method is described more clearly for every level.

Inner level

We are constantly faced with decisions. We have to choose between two alternatives. Should I work or spend more time with those I love? When I choose without reflecting on both sides of the polarity, the part that was not chosen often creates inner stress.

The conversation from two sides can help us to become more aware and to understand the consequences of the choices we make. One way of doing this is to write, another is to put out two chairs, each representing a part of a polarity. We argue strongly from one side and direct our arguments to the other side. Then we change sides and do the same from the other side. Often the choice becomes clearer because we take the time to explore each side. What happens to the part that is not chosen? Have a look at the pattern: Include the “no” in your decisions.

This method can also be used when you are at a loss as to how to proceed when facing a challenge. Look for the polarity and argue from both sides. Which are the insights you gain? Can you now decide how to proceed? 

Interpersonal level

In relationships, we often find ourselves in situations where the conversation gets stuck. We disagree on something or we keep repeating a conversation that never seems to resolve an issue.

Instead of arguing it out between you, try doing the conversation from two sides. Identify the polarity. Now, both take one side and argue from that side. Then go to the other side and argue from that perspective. Take some time to reflect together on the insights each of you gained from the exercise. This works best when each speaks about their insight about their own actions, thoughts or feelings. 

Group level

This is a useful method for groups. When the conversation seems to have become stuck or goes around in circles, identify and name the polarity. Now the whole group argues from one side and then goes to the other side. If necessary repeat this one or two times. Ask each group member to share their insights from the exercise. When doing so, ask each person to make an “I-statement” – an insight about themselves, something they have realised about their own behaviour, thoughts or feelings. 

Societal level

This method can be used in smaller meetings where people engage in conversation. It may be difficult, but not impossible, to do with larger groups. If attempted, the larger group could be divided into smaller groups or the person leading the exercise can ask for a few people to speak. Participants could then be asked to volunteer their insights – sharing them first with a partner and then hearing from a number of people in the larger group.

Additional thoughts

As you may realise, this method invites voices from both sides to be heard. Those involved in a situation which has become polarised are invited to argue from their opponent’s side and visa versa. This counteracts fragmentation and contributes to mutual understanding. 

The Context

This method can be used on all levels, but in different ways. It is particularly useful when a conversation has stagnated or when the same issue is repeated again and again. It also helps to provide clarity when a conversation has become confused. 

Links

Making decisions that include the “no”

More

The method has been developed by Myrna Lewis. She calls it “The Argument”. 

Summary

This pattern is about setting people at ease and giving them a sense of what they will be doing for the next few hours. Providing a frame for a meeting or conversation implies setting boundaries for what will be covered and what not. 

The Problem

Meetings often start off without anybody giving a clear sense of the purpose of the meeting. This creates a sense of uneasiness – even if the atmosphere is pleasant and the welcome warm and friendly.

The discomfort is usually a result of confusion. It may not be very conscious, but there is a sense of the meeting not really being what one expected it to be. When people are confused, uncomfortable, or critical, they do not readily participate fully in the conversation or may do so with a critical or questioning tone.

The Pattern

Clearly state at the beginning of the meeting what the reason is that people are gathered together and what they can expect. Sometimes it is helpful to state what the meeting is not about, especially if you have a sense that people might have different expectations. This framing of the meeting at the start sets people at ease and helps them to focus – which in turn contributes to making the conversation more alive.

The word “frame” can refer to the kind of border one finds around a picture, or it can refer to the structure of a building. Both meanings are helpful. On the one hand, one can set boundaries for a conversation. For example: in this conversation, we will explore the issue of deforestation and deepen our understanding, but we will not be making any decisions at this point. A frame – as in a framework – is also relevant. Providing a clear statement of the structure of the meeting provides certainty even if the outcome is unclear.

For example, we will gather all the views on littering in the suburb for an hour, then we will take a break and after that, we will brainstorm possible solutions.

This kind of frame relates to the structure of the meeting, but it also gives information on the purpose of each section.

The Context

This pattern can be used when you are planning a meeting and wish to provide the participants with a clear understanding of what the meeting is about. 

Links to related patterns

 Setting clear objectives for a meeting 

More

This pattern was inspired by watching a skilled facilitator, Klara Sucher, lead a meeting during the Lift Project.