Yeah, so good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining today's webinar on interest-based decision making, how to find win-win solutions for groups. My name is Liberty VanNatten, and I am the project specialist for the California Adult Ed Program Technical Assistance Project. Before we begin today's webinar, I'm going to just go over some general housekeeping. So there's no need to call in if you have speakers or a headset.

And if you can't hear, try clicking on the Speaker icon on the top left of your screen. You're going to change a little white-looking speaker to the green one. The resources are available for you in the handout pod. You're going to just select or highlight the file name and then select Download. At the top right of your screen, you'll find the Communications menu. And you're going to open the menu by clicking on the arrow. And an icon will then appear beside your name in the attendee list so you can laugh. You can applaud.

And at the top right-- I think it's at the dropdown-- of the chat pod, you can enter text at the bottom and click the Message bubble or just hit Enter, and then your message will be seen by everyone. And if you're attending with another colleague or others from your site, please type in the chat pod the names of those who are attending but not necessarily logged in. This is going to help us keep more accurate attendance.

And as a reminder, this webinar will be recorded. The session will be available later on today or tomorrow on the CalAdultEd website. If you need any technical support during the session, just type so in the chat pod and ask for help, and we will reach out. So without further ado, I'm going to hand things over to Sharise Moore from AIR to introduce our presenter today and get things started.

Wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Liberty. And welcome, everyone, again to our webinar. We are so grateful that you've joined us this Friday afternoon. I am delighted to have the pleasure to introduce Brigitte Marshall to you. I am sure that to many of you, she is not a stranger. But I just wanted to give you a little bit of background on Brigitte. She's been working in California and the public school system for around 27 years, and she has served in a variety of capacities, from teacher, principal, director, to associate superintendent.

And she brings with her a belief that it's really critical that, in having successful working relationships, that you prioritize the development of relationally healthy organizations. And what that allows for is the ability to have intentional structures that can work together, systems and people, to truly design high-quality, professional relationships with an organization. Brigitte comes to us today with many, many credentials, certificates, and degrees behind her.

But the thing to know most about Brigitte is that she's committed to the work that we do in adult education. And because of her experience as a previous director in an adult education program, she's uniquely positioned to understand how what we do can impact the outcome for who we do it for in a positive way. So with that, I'm going to turn this over to Brigitte Marshall to began her amazing webinar on interest-based decision making. Brigitte.

Thank you so much, Sharise, and thank you, Liberty, for setting us up. Welcome, everyone. I am looking forward to sharing ideas with all of you today about interest-based decision making, which I hope will position everyone to make decisions in a way that is just a little bit different from this. I hope that that experience isn't familiar to some of you, although you might have been on the wrong end of that decision-making experience where a decision that mattered to you was made behind closed doors, as it were.

So we're going to look at some definitions in just a minute. But before we do so, I have a question for you. What comes up for you when you think about solving problems and making complex decisions that will impact different stakeholders? Just type one- or two-word responses off the top of your head into the chat pod, and let's see what's coming up for folks. There must be some deep thinking going on. I'm not seeing anything in the chat pod yet.

What do we think? What comes up for you when you think about really complex decisions? This is a test of my waiting time. Are we going to be able to include everybody? High stakes. Anxiety. What if not everybody buys in? Is it going to be the right decision? Weighing the pros and cons.

How do we get collaboration so that we know we're doing what's right? Absolutely. I identify with so many of those. Often, when we're confronted with really complex decisions that we know are going to have impacts on lots of different people, we experience some of these kinds of sensations. Disorientation-- it can be super confusing.

Let's take a look, just to ground us, at some definitions that I want us to use to have some shared understanding. Problems, I'm assuming, we're going to refer to as matters or situations regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with or overcome. Positions are situations and conditions, especially with relation to favorable or unfavorable circumstances. So people generally take a position with regard to something.

Solutions are pretty obvious, right? They're explanations or answers. And interests-- here, the really key definition that we need to get grounded in-- things that concern someone and that are deeply relevant and important to their lives. And we're going to see why those are so important in just a second. And then decisions, I think, again, is pretty obvious-- conclusions or resolutions.

So now we've got some shared language and a shared understanding of the concepts that we're going to be kicking around today. Let's consider a baseline question. What's special about interest-based decision making in particular? When we make a decision, we're reaching a conclusion or identifying a solution to a problem after considering the relevant positions or situations and conditions that are in play. So how is that different?

When we engage in interest-based decision making after considering the positions that are in play, we make an intentional detour. And this is the really critical thing about interest-based decisions. We make an intentional detour to consider the interests of the various stakeholders in a situation before we move toward identifying a solution. If we don't, our decision making may be at risk of being unsustainable at best and vulnerable to being undermined by those whose interests have not been considered at worst.

And I think this is something I really want to emphasize, because sometimes we assume that making a decision is the end of the story. But it's actually implementation of the decision where the rubber hits the road. That's what really matters. And if our decision is not sustainable, or it's vulnerable to being actively undermined, then it hasn't actually done us much good. So that detour is all important to discover the interests. Another way of saying this is we need to figure out what's really going on with people so that our decision can take account of shared interests to the greatest extent possible.

And I have a way of illustrating this that I call the position-and-interests iceberg, also known as the "what's really going on?" iceberg. When we're presented with a position, an issue or a problem that needs resolution, it's tempting to push toward a solution right away. But in an interest-based approach to decision making, we're called to make a detour, as I indicated, to discover what the interests are. We want to get down below the surface, make that detour, and do some inquiry to discover the underlying interests.

Then, we've got an opportunity to craft a solution that is responsive to what's really going on under the surface of the situation. And it's worth recognizing that our interests and our needs, the things that are really going on under the surface, are informed by a lot of really deep stuff-- past experiences, beliefs, misconceptions, values that we hold. All of these things impact the positions that we take with regard to a particular situation. And it's important to learn as much as we possibly can about those in order to craft the right solution.

But I want to point out that it doesn't always make sense to make this detour. Decisions that can be made quickly should be made quickly. And if there's a range of options from which a workable solution can be selected, and expedience is really important, then taking an either-or approach in which there may be winners and losers can be very appropriate. It's when the problem is complex and there are many competing interests that taking what I call a both-and approach that seeks to find an inclusive solution that considers as many of the interests in play as possible-- that's when that's indicated.

This approach then offers durability and sustainability, and it's more compelling than decision-making speed. So the first thing to consider is what's in play with regard to the decision making. Does a speedy decision absolutely have to be made, and/or have you got some really viable outcomes from which to choose? In which case, it may not make sense to invest the time in taking an interest-based approach.

But let's just spend a little bit of time contrasting the two approaches that I just referenced. When we're looking at problem solving-- and you can see in the left-hand column various different aspects of problem solving-- these are the options that you have, an either-or approach-- and we just need to acknowledge what characterizes that approach. It's competitive. There are winners and losers. Someone comes out with an outcome that is not going to feel particularly good, often. It's generally faster in the short run, and we're recognizing that expedience is really, really important. There's an urgency.

In a both-and approach, the emphasis is on collaboration and maximizing the wins across as many different stakeholders as possible. And there's a sense that if someone loses, then everyone loses. We actually want to pay attention to as many different interests as possible. And if we look toward the bottom of that right-hand column, and we're considering about when to use that particular approach, we are, again, reminding ourselves that if the stakes are really high, and there are multi-party interests in play, then this both-and approach is probably indicated as a really good strategy.

Because it's collaborative, we know that there's going to be a greater level of investment. And people generally respond better and are more engaged in the outcome of a decision when those with decision-making power do things with them rather than for them or to them. That's an intuitive truth, I think, that most people will be able to agree with and appreciate.

Another way of saying this is that people are generally more committed to sustaining the outcome of a decision when they feel there's been collaboration during the decision-making process. And I'd like to spend just a couple of minutes with this framework and invite us to see consideration of the respective interests in play in a decision-making situation as a required component of genuine collaboration. And that's illustrated here in this framework.

The horizontal axis represents an individual or a specific group's or institution's interests, and the framework represents the relationship between those interests and the interests of others on the vertical axis. And I'm not able to get my nice little green arrow to move. I'm going to try just one more time. All right, well, I'm just going to have to direct you to parts of my slide with my voice, and we'll hope that I'm clear enough. So interests of others or other groups or other organizations are represented on the vertical axis.

If we pay attention to neither when we're making a decision, I call this copping out. If I elevate my or my group's interests above those of others, I'm in competition mode. I'm way over on the right bottom quadrant. I'm competing, because I'm putting my needs or my institution's needs above those interests of others with whom I am working.

If I favor your interests and neglect my own, then I'm in that top left quadrant, and I'm doing what I call conceding. And the decision is likely to end up with me feeling resentful at some point over time and not really bought in for the long haul. If I feel like I've given in, or my organization has given into another organization, at some point that's not going to feel good. There's going to be a level of resentment. If I concede just a little bit, and others do, too, and we compromise, often we identify this as a good outcome. It's an outcome of negotiation, and it can be satisfactory. But there are losers, and losers and winners, and winners in that mix.

A commitment to pursue interest-based decision making has, as I've indicated, an embedded goal, which is the maximization of collaboration. And a situation where we take the time to identify and consider the interests of all those who are impacted by a decision means that we're going to be best positioned for collaborative engagement. And as we've said, we already know that people respond better when those with decision-making authority do things with them rather than to them or for them.

So I hope those frameworks provide some assistance in thinking about the kinds of things we want to take into consideration when we are wondering whether to approach a particular complex situation with an interest-based approach. I just want to recap a little bit. When and why does it make sense to take the interests discovery detour when making a decision? It's pretty simple.

For complex challenges that require thoughtful problem solving, and where sustainability and durability of the decision are more important than making the decision quickly, we know that people respond best and are most committed to the outcome when they are collaboratively involved in the decision-making process. And genuine collaboration requires identification and consideration of interests. So there's really a deep relationship between a collaborative approach to decision making and interest-based decisions.

We know that in complex situations in which the investment and commitment of the stakeholders is paramount, interest-based decision making is a good idea. So having sold you on that, hopefully, what does that mean? What are the steps in an interest-based decision-making process? I try to break it down and make it super simple. And on a very basic level, they look like this, six basic steps. And I'm going to have us work through them step by step. We're going to spend a little bit more time on some of the steps, for reasons which I hope will be clear.

Let's just pause for a second. We can chuckle about these cartoons, but this exact situation characterized on the left is probably actually very familiar to many of us, when a solution is identified before due diligence has been paid to actually defining the problem and making sure there's a shared and common understanding of what it is. We would do well to follow the advice of this very brilliant man depicted on the right.

Here are some good grounding guidelines for the problem-definition step. "How might we" is a great way to start crafting an issue or a problem statement. It's super important that you have shared understanding about the problem to be solved. Needless to say, if there are differing views on what you're solving for, unified support for a decision will be hard to reach.

And again, as I said a little bit earlier, the actual decision isn't the end of the story. It's implementation of that decision, successful implementation of that decision, and successful implementation requires support. But if we've got differences of opinion about what it is that we're actually solving, then obviously you're not going to have unified support.

And when we're defining the problem, it's both important to open it up and not artificially limit consideration of what's in play. But at the same time, we don't want to go so broad that we find ourselves taking on an issue that isn't actually within our ability to address. We sometimes call this boiling the ocean. And as we're working to define the problem, we need to resist the temptation to prematurely start moving into solutions. I see this very, very often when we start working on defining a problem, and people get excited about having named the problem and then immediately jump to solutions.

If you think back to the slide of the iceberg, and that line that goes from position to solution, it feels exciting and dynamic and energizing to folks to start getting into solution space and start making things better. But we know that if we do so prematurely, we might be solving for the wrong problem. And at the same time, if we're ignoring the interests of the stakeholders, we're not going to have a durable solution at the end of the story.

And I also want to point out that it's highly likely that our issue statement may change over time, perhaps as the result of additional information and/or a deeper level of understanding. So it's important that we remain flexible and don't hold hard and fast to that original problem definition because things shift and change. And if our problem is shifting and changing, then a solution designed for a problem that is now different is obviously not going to be a good fit.

I think these guidelines are probably best understood in the context of an example, so I've put together a case study. And I'm hoping that some elements of this case study will feel familiar to folks. And I'm also hoping that it will be pretty clear that this is a highly complex scenario which calls for some well-informed, thoughtful decision making.

So in Apples Adult Education Consortium, there's a struggle going on to develop a portfolio of course offerings that is responsive to what adult learners say they want and also responsive to labor market demands, not necessarily duplicative of course offerings already in place at other adult schools across the consortium, and that there's alignment with courses at the community college.

Adult education has had a long-standing tradition as being a hub of the community. And there have been lots of community interest classes, and also ESL classes that have been attended over and over and over again by the same students who are participating more from a desire for social connection and community than anything else.

Some of the adult school administrators are really looking to professionalize their faculties and embed prep and planning and TLC time, professional learning community time into the paid hours of instructors to drive a focus on improved outcomes for adult learners. The Adult Education Consortium director has really been stressing the need to develop regional relationships and partnerships, but some instructors in the adult schools don't trust that doing so will result in benefits for adult learners.

They believe that their students will be lured into other, competing programs. And when you're English, and you've lived here for 27 years, you would think I would have confidence pronouncing the word "lured" in a way that is accessible to Americans. But it still trips me up, because I think it's going to sound funky. L-U-R-E-D, in case anyone was wondering.

So let's see what else about the Apples Adult Education Consortium. Some adult school instructors are resistant to change, and they don't want to see the focus of instructional programming shift. They've expressed skepticism about the ability to recruit teachers who can develop more employment-oriented programming. And they're saying this is not what students want anyway. Additionally, they're concerned that this shift could result in reduced work schedules for them.

So I hope what's emerging is a clear picture of how complex the situation is and how many different competing interests are in play. At the community college that is part of the Apples Consortium, some of the instructors and administrators believe strongly that the adult schools should focus on developing programs that is aligned to classes at the community college so that students are better prepared. They have no desire to take over all of adult education, because they recognize they couldn't provide the same extent of geographical scope and range of classes. But they critique course offerings and programming that is delighting-- diluting, excuse me, the adult learner pool and not maximizing alignment opportunities.

So perhaps there is some resonance there with some things that you're experiencing in some of your own consortia. And I hope you'll agree with me that it's highly complex. In this situation in which some very well-informed decisions need to be made, how would we define the problem? Let's refer back to the guidelines and see if you can come up with an issue statement that starts with "how might we."

I know this is going to be tricky for everybody off the top of your heads, but see if you can just type into the chat a few phrases that might capture some of the problem statements, a summary, an overall, global problem statement that characterizes what's in play in this highly complex situation. I'm going to pause for a minute or two and give you a chance to brainstorm. How might we--?

We're not going to go too broad. We don't want to go too narrow. But we want to capture all of the different things that are in play in this very complex situation and come up with a problem statement. Anyone want to have at a try at a simple summary statement? I'm just going to click back on the slides a little bit to-- Any suggestions from anyone?

I can see we've got some suggestions being drafted right now. We'll wait another minute or two. It doesn't have to be long, a high-level summary statement of the problem in play. Great. How might we revitalize our industry and share with others? How might we create buy-in from all members in order to collaborate to create effective solutions for all our students? How might we increase services and improve outcomes without increasing workloads?

These are really excellent suggestions. I love the emphasis on acknowledgment of the variety of different needs that are in play. I love the outcome focus, knowing that a shift needs to happen. How might we add these additional programs with other competing tasks? Yeah, I like that. So that's a little bit narrower than some of the others, and that may be where a group decides that it's important to focus. These are really great, particularly just off the top of your heads at very short notice.

Here's something that I would offer up for us to continue to play with as we work through the steps in the context of this particular case study. How might we develop a realistic portfolio of high-demand, aligned course offerings that are designed to prioritize rigorous adult learner outcomes? So that's how I'm going to define the problem for our case study. And now I think we need to move on to step two.

And step two is naming the stakeholders. Who would we name as stakeholders in this situation? Again, just type into the chat box. Who do you think are the stakeholders in our Apples Adult Education Consortium case study? Teachers, students, the community, administrators, instructors, exactly. Students, ultimately, yes, important stakeholders.

Once we've identified the stakeholders, we need to be clear about what their respective positions are. And if you think back to the definitions, their position is the stance that they are taking with regard to a particular situation. For our example, I've listed some possible positions for each of the stakeholders. And you can see them here on the slide.

Here's the thing. When people hold positions that are at odds with each other, we know that we run the risk of decision making that compromises, competes, or concedes to one or more parties. If you think back to that framework I shared with you, and when we think about the relationship of interests to each other, there's a very high risk as we make decisions that we're going to be operating in the realm of compromise, competition, or conceding, which means there are winners and losers, which in turn, as I've said several times, can be a setup for a final decision to be actively undermined by stakeholders at worst and unsupported at best, bringing its success and sustainability into question.

So in order to engage with stakeholders appropriately, we need to do the work of identifying the interests or needs behind their respective positions. And again, I want you to cast your mind back to the iceberg. And what we've done is just named in this chart the position of each of the stakeholders. And now we need to get underneath the surface and identify what the interests or needs are behind their respective positions.

Once we've done that next step-- you can see the empty column on the right there-- then we're positioned to look for shared interests and prioritize and leverage those during decision making. So you can see how much pre-work there is before we even get close to active decision making. So how do you find out about the interests behind people's positions? A very important factor to consider is the need to preserve relationships in this process.

We know that if we get into competition mode or conceding or compromising, we're at risk of damaged relationships, arguments, disagreements, confrontation. So we want to go about doing this in a way that prioritizes keeping relationships healthy and strong. At the end of the day, we also have to work together, and our ongoing ability to get it done in service of adult learners is really what matters. So efforts to identify interests or needs have to be really sensitively executed because we're interacting in very personal and often high-stakes territory.

So let's have a look at some strategies around this. Interest identification can be achieved through thoughtful and sensitive inquiry, using learning questions rather than critical questions. And again, I want to emphasize that we're still in the pre-pre-pre-pre-work. We're way far away from making a decision yet, appropriately so, from my perspective. So when we are engaged in really high-quality inquiry, we use learning questions.

And as you will probably know, we characterize those as who, how, what, when, where questions. And we contrast those with why questions, which are often experienced by the listener as implying a judgment, right? And I think the examples that I've put up on the screen there hopefully are a clear indication of the difference. Learning questions focus on understanding what people are thinking and feeling about a situation.

Let's take one of our stakeholders as an example, the adult education instructor whose position supports the maximization of class offerings to adult learners. If you're charged with leading this inquiry, you may have a hunch, a hypothesis, an idea about the interests or needs behind a particular position. Your questions can be informed by this hunch but not blinded by it, so that you remain curious about figuring out what's really going on for your stakeholders.

We don't want to come with a lot of prejudgment and, oh, I know what's going on for this person. We want to come with genuine curiosity to figure out what's at stake for each particular individual. So we're remembering that we're in learning, not teaching or directing, mode in this phase. And every situation is different, and you know your people. So a well-crafted conversation with this educator-- maybe we would want to look something along these lines.

I'll give you a second to review those questions. The how, the what, the who questions-- they're curious. So through thoughtful inquiry, you can understand the interests that are behind each stakeholder's position. And I want to acknowledge that this process takes time, which is why you think hard about whether you're going to pursue an interest-based decision-making strategy, because you're going to need to commit time. But if the decision is complex, and you want it to be durable, I would argue that that investment of time on the front end is really, really worth it.

Our commitment to undertaking the process recognizes that we're valuing effectiveness over expedience. So a little bit like those cooking shows where the next version, the next part of the process is already done, and we move on to the next step, we're going to do the same thing here and assume that sufficient time has been invested to figure out what's really going on for each of the stakeholders in our example, so that we think we have a pretty good idea of what their respective interests are.

So we continue to document and capture that in the following way. So we're continuing to build out our chart. And you can see now that we've identified the stakeholder, we've summarized their position, and then we've done the inquiry work to determine what is informing that position. What are their interests or needs, beliefs, experiences, conceptions that are causing them to take the position that they are? And when we've done that for all of our stakeholders, we begin to be very well positioned to understand what's really in play.

So now what? We've gathered this great data on all the different positions and the interests that are behind them. How does that help us move forward? We've invested a great deal of time so far. I'm wondering if in reviewing these interests, you can see an area of shared interests. Is there something that all or most of the stakeholders have in common? How could it be described? And again, I'm going to invite you, just off the top of your heads, to type into the chat box, what do you think are the shared interests?

And maybe they're not interests shared by every single stakeholder. But is there a set of interests that we could be confident are shared by many of the stakeholders? I see increasing adult learner outcomes. They all want to serve students, but they see this in different ways. Absolutely. So there's a shared interest about service, ensuring success in and out of the classroom.

So in some way, everybody who's in the mix is recognizing that it's about outcomes generated in the classroom, but it's also about outcomes that are real to adult learners outside of the classroom. Yeah, there's some really value-based elements to the shared interests. Yeah, those are great observations. Thank you very much for sharing those.

So again, here is my precooked version that I'm going to invite us to continue to work with as we move through this particular case study. We share an interest in ensuring that we are offering a high-quality portfolio of course offerings that maximize the potential of adult learners in our community. And even though that statement is very short and brief, every word is very thoughtfully and carefully chosen.

If you think about high-quality portfolio, there are a number of different ways that that phrase could be interpreted. So there's no prejudgment that a high-quality portfolio is, for example, only employment-focused classes. But it is setting a bar high, and it is inviting further work to be done around the definition of quality, high quality, a high-quality portfolio of course offerings that maximize the potential of adult learners in our community.

And again, those words are chosen very carefully because we don't want to get too narrow and predetermine too much. What we're trying to do here is enlist people and get buy-in. So we want to craft a statement that is as inclusive as possible of the interests, the various different interests that people have.

There are a number of different ways that we can map interests. The chart that I used in the previous two slides might appeal to some of you, but there are other ways of doing it. And I wanted to share another possible strategy. It wasn't intended to be a flower, but it just ended up looking like a flower. It's a Venn diagram, right? And sometimes, when dealing with these highly complex situations with multiple different stakeholders, I've found it helpful to chart things or develop some kind of graphic that helps me see visually, in one place, where interests are overlapping and are shared, and where there are outliers.

And then we have the opportunity to really see what's going on. And we can see that a statement of shared interests offers a unifying principle around which people can be gathered and activated. And that's our intent, right? We're really trying to enlist people and get buy-in. But it's also important to be mindful of the outlier interests that have been uncovered in the process that might be very specific to one particular stakeholder or one group, for example, again, the adult education instructor who's concerned about losing their job and livelihood, or the adult learner who may no longer have access to classes that were keeping them connected to community.

In a really thoughtful, interest-based decision-making process, we're going to pay high regard and respect to these issues, and not just discount them as a minority perspective that is out of sync with the critical mass. And it's pretty tempting, I have to say, to do that, because the situation is complex. It's easy to fall into that, well, we can't expect to please everybody. If you're really engaged in high-integrity interest-based decision making, you're going to commit time and resources to taking very seriously those outlier perspectives.

Really thoughtful decision makers will actually look for opportunities to ensure that stakeholders feel heard and that their interests have been acknowledged and validated, even if you can't satisfy them. If people walk away with a deep sense that they've been taken seriously, that their needs and interests have been understood, there is a much greater likelihood of not alienating them even if their interests can't be met.

So that demonstration of empathy and really careful listening to their interests is a critical part of the process. A decision maker can ultimately move through implementation with a much greater degree of success when she demonstrates that she understands where people are coming from. This is really relational work.

So we've done that really complex part of the process. What's next? Let's say that after much work, we have identified a unifying principle that has the potential to bring stakeholders together in service of crafting decisions and solving problems that most people can support. Let's say that we've been thoughtful about looking for some responses to some of the outlier interests. Now we're finally ready to move forward, right? Not quite.

It's time for step five, which is develop options. And there's lots of different ways to develop a slate of options. And here are a few. It's always a good idea to turn to the experts, right? What do the leaders in the field have to say? What are they recommending? Is there a research base that it would make sense to review, or is there a body of accepted wisdom that it makes sense to consult? And are there others who've already trodden this path, who've already done it, either successfully or not?

And we're great believers in adult education, of not reinventing the wheel. And we're great collaborators, and we share really well. So looking at those best practices is always a really good idea. And brainstorming can continue this feeling of inclusiveness. It can be remarkably fruitful. And excellent ideas can emerge when people are given the opportunity to be creative and think outside the usual parameters, although we do need to remember to define the scope of the brainstorming so that we are focused on the problem that has been defined, and we're not spoiling the ocean again and just going to board.

So developing a proposed decision and then trying it on for viability can be very productive. Some of you may be familiar with design thinking. I think it's a very helpful notion to bring alongside an interest-based decision-making approach. Coming up with a potential option, trying it on, trying to break it, trying to consider, what would work? How could we modify it? Let's try it again. Let's look at it from a variety of different perspectives. Does it stand up to this consideration or that consideration?

And then, once you have a number of options identified, so you have narrowed it down, perhaps, to some things that you think are viable-- we haven't landed yet. We've got a slate of options. That's when we move, finally, to step six, crafting a solution. And I will say that step six looks disarmingly simple and straightforward, but we all know that a complex problem is going to need a multilayered, detailed response that won't be linear. We're going to be called on to reconsider, adjust, modify, which is as it should be.

If it was a problem that we could solve with one run at a simple decision, then it wasn't complex enough to warrant engaging in this very detailed, thoughtful process. We'll be called in to reconsider, adjust, modify, as I've said. What matters in a complex situation is that we have done our due diligence in identifying the interests of the stakeholders, and that in that process, stakeholders feel heard and acknowledged.

So again, I want to emphasize that this really is a process that is a combination of technical and tactical steps and really high-quality relational engagement. So the amount of attention that we pay to developing good structure and process should be equal to the amount of time and consideration that we give to thinking through how we're going to craft those careful questions, how we're going to very intentionally convey respect and regard for our stakeholders and their interests. So the process calls on a high level of combined skills, tactical and practical and strategic, and really, relational and interpersonal.

When we do this, when things get complicated-- and they will-- I think we've really maximized the likelihood that people will stay with us as we work through the complications. Again, I'm going to repeat that people respond better, they're more bought in when those in authority are doing things with them rather than for them or to them. And this process really is very much a part of way of-- is a way of operating like that.

We need to remember to keep pointing attention back to the shared interests and reminding people of what we're all focused on resolving. We invested time and energy on the front end in getting people enlisted into that statement of shared interests. We need to keep feeding that. We need to keep pointing back to that and reminding people that we're all in this together, and here's the statement that describes the in that we are.

Because it's a complex problem, there's going to be fallout and unanticipated consequences and secondary impacts that we will need to take account of. For every action, there's a reaction. And to the extent that we can map the ripple effect of our decisions, the better able we will be to move through the complexities in collaboration. So in this step of the process, we are intentionally seeking to sustain what we've so carefully built up in the process.

And I really want to emphasize that, because again, people tend to think that once you've made the decision, you're free and clear. Even if you've done all of this super thoughtful preparation, and you've enlisted people, and you've paid attention to them, if you don't continue to bring that same level of consideration, things are at risk of falling to pieces.

So flexibility is a must. There's no such thing as a perfect plan. We're going to need to be ready to pivot in service of ongoing movement toward the identified outcome. And the last point that I really want to emphasize here is you've got to keep talking to everybody, all the time, a lot, often. Name what's happening. Name why. Name what's happening next. Name why what you said was going to happen isn't going to happen because of what changed. It's almost impossible to over-communicate in a situation like this.

So that is pretty much it, six steps to interest-based decision making. It's a process that can be pursued by anyone or any group of people who are committed to prioritizing effectiveness over expedience. If you want something to stick, maximize stakeholder engagement, and commit the time to the steps two, three, and four, then you're going to be well positioned.

If you really invest high quality and sufficient time to steps two, three, and four, steps five and six tend to generate themselves. The options become clear, and the decision-making process finally, in step six, becomes pretty evident. And as long as you wrap step six around with all of the things that were listed in the previous slide, you can potentially be well positioned for a really durable outcome.

With practice, a team can become proficient in the process and guide themselves through it without the need for a facilitator. But I will note that first attempts are often really well supported if you have an objective facilitator who doesn't have a stake in the game, because they can then really focus on keeping people true to the process. But once it becomes the normal way of working through complex issues, breakthrough results with sustainable outcomes that enjoy strong support from stakeholders can really become the norm.

So that was an enormous amount of highly complex information that I have shared with you. I do hope that the dense slides-- I recognize that I've broken every rule of PowerPoint slides, but I hope you can appreciate the need in this situation to build out the structure and document it felt important in terms of making the process transparent.

So I do hope that the PowerPoint will be an ongoing support to you as you think about working with an interest-based decision-making approach to complex decisions. And that concludes my webinar for you today. We have just a couple of minutes. If anybody wants to send a quick question in the chat, I'd be happy to address it. I recognize it's not easy to-- you're most welcome. I'm sure that people have complex questions rather than simple ones.

I see some typing happening. And so we'll give folks a few minutes. And Liberty, I know, had some closing comments. But please feel free to type in any questions. If there's one step that you think will be more challenging than others, One more suggestion there's a question for you. I like the idea of information questions [interposing voices]

Yeah, it's a really simple strategy that can be deeply, deeply helpful. And often, we tend to get a little tied up when we're trying to think up good questions. And I just hold back in my head, as long as I don't ask the why question, it's going to be OK, and just staying curious. It's amazing how affirming and validating it can feel to people when they are asked questions from a place of genuine curiosity. It's as if, wow, this person is really interested in what matters to me.

Thank you for that, Brigitte. And Dana, thank you for the question. Any other questions before we turn it over to Liberty? I know that this process works not only in organizations but with our families, too. So thank you for sharing it and going through the process with us. Liberty, I will turn it over to you if there are no other questions.

All right, thank you. I just want to thank Brigitte and our audience for participating in today's thoughtful and relevant webinar. And I just wanted to remind everyone that the recording of this webinar will be available online on the Cal Adult Education website. There's a link in the chat box. Our next webinar is the first in a three-part series on diving into data. This webinar is going to be on March 25 from 12:00 to 1:30.

Today, after the webinar ends, an evaluation link will open on the screen. We really want to encourage participants to complete this evaluation, as it supports our efforts of continuous improvement. I also want to remind folks that if there is a need for technical assistance or professional development, please contact TAP. I'm going to put a link in the chat box right now. And that is a great place where you can just ask us questions and reach out. So that's going to end today's webinar. Thank you all, and have a great rest of your day.