Has anyone else wondered about the possibilities for The Collaborative Process
in situations which have been in the news lately: the NBA and Donald Sterling;
the City of Detroit and its creditors; General Motors and the families who lost
loved ones due to delayed recalls? The Process has thrived when it comes to
resolving conflict amongst husbands and wives; when will it be a choice of
first resort when it comes to conflict between other "communities"? Perhaps
some issues are just too laden with financial overtones to take the chance; or
perhaps, those who know better, the conflict resolution specialists, haven't
done enough to identify the non-adversarial alternatives for those persons and
entities who find themselves in conflict with another upon whose well being
they still depend? Sterling, as disingenuous as he and his estranged wife
appear, speak of love for the league; we also love our cities; and, even GM, I
believe, understands, that in order to thrive, it needs to care about it's
customers. Why is litigation still the first alternative? Can we do more as
leaders in our field to move society toward examination of interests instead of
power? Is this not reminiscent of the debate over the providence of economic
sanctions versus boots on the ground? Just thinking....
