Step into the world of consensus building and collective action as Laura speaks with Rob Fersh and Monica Glowacki from the Convergence Center for Policy Resolution in the US, which is all about bringing diverse voices together to tackle critical national issues. From education to gun violence, they've seen it all! But what sets them apart is their secret sauce: the magic of co-creation and empathetic listening. Get ready to dive into this first full episode of the Conflict Tipping podcast, where Rob and Monika spill the beans on their successes, failures, and the transformative power of consensus building.
In this episode, you'll discover:
- The fascinating stories behind Convergence's projects, like how they brought gun control activists and Second Amendment enthusiasts together, and the impact they've made on the Affordable Care Act.
- The nitty-gritty of consensus building and why it leads to higher quality and more innovative solutions by incorporating diverse perspectives.
- How co-creation can transform adversarial interactions into cooperative problem-solving sessions, where all voices are heard and respected.
- The early successes that paved the way for Convergence's groundbreaking work, including their involvement in healthcare reform.
- The innovative project on digital disinformation, where they're bringing together tech platforms, media, academia, and more to combat the harmful effects of false information in our society.
- The challenges of power imbalances and disparities that they grapple with while striving for consensus and how they navigate those complexities.
So, if you're ready to explore the unexpected connections and transformative potential of consensus building, tune in to hear from Rob Fersh and Monica Glowacki as they take you on a journey of co-creation, collective action, and the pursuit of common ground.
===========================
About the guests:
Prior to co-founding Convergence, Rob served as the United States country director for Search for Common Ground, an international conflict resolution organization. While at SFCG, he directed national policy consensus projects on health care coverage for the uninsured and U.S.-Muslim relations. In the 1986-98 period, Rob served as president of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a leading NGO working to alleviate hunger in the United States. Rob also served on the staffs of three Congressional committees, working for U.S. Representative Leon Panetta and for Senators Patrick Leahy and Edmund Muskie. While a Congressional staff member and at FRAC, he was deeply involved in shepherding passage of bipartisan legislation to reduce hunger in the United States.
Monika is the Director of the initiative on Digital Disinformation at Convergence, where she will bring together people across differences to explore the root causes of problems with online information and media systems, and pathways towards a more equitable vision for the future of the internet. Monika has worked in research and analysis exploring the intersection of technology, people, politics and power. She is interested in critical analysis of the impact of technology on our lives, societies and economies, as well as how technology can be reimagined to serve the public interest and our wellbeing.
Learn more at http://convergencepolicy.org
About the host:
Laura is a facilitator, people and culture director, and former Executive Director of the International Mediation Institute. Her doctoral research asked “in what ways does blame make villains in politics” and covered the gamut from literature studies and linguistics to psychology and neuroscience, victimology to political science. Her expertise includes emotions, polarization, blame, and international politics. Feel free to connect with her on
who work to bring together peoplefrom across the aisle to generate
creative solutions to common problems.
Welcome Rob, and welcome Monica.
Rob Fersh (00:32):
Okay.
Thank you.
It's nice to be.
Monika Glowacki (00:35):
Happy to be here as well.
Laura (00:37):
Fabulous.
So Rob Fersh and Monica Glowacki are bothaffiliated with the Convergence Center for
Policy Resolution in the us, an NGO thatconvenes individuals and organizations
with different views to build trust,identify solutions and form alliances
for action on critical national issues.
Rob is the founder of the organizationand current senior advisor.
(00:58):
While Monica is a director of ConvergencesInitiative on digital disinformation, and
I'm very excited to have them both withme today, especially because we're coming
from three different time zones, so we'revery much taking this internationally.
Okay, so I'll I'll turn the first questionto Rob as the founder cuz he can give us
a bit of insight into the organization.
Rob, what led to your founding convergenceand what does it actually do in practical
(01:23):
terms?
Rob Fersh (01:25):
Thanks Laura, and thank
you for the opportunity to be on.
Very nice to be with you andto work with Monica on this
the idea of convergence actually gotstarted in late 1990s and we only
gave birth a convergence in 2009 as afull fledged independent organization.
I had a long history of working onnational policy issues in Washington, DC.
Over time, I became somewhatfrustrated that people had different
(01:48):
points of view, had no place to sitdown and hear each other out, and
potentially finances that were betterthan anyone brought to the table.
I'd worked for three congressionalcommittees always on a bipartisan basis,
and I was always struck by the factthat underneath it all people, great
decency probably had a lot in common,but the way we operate, our dialogues
and discussions on big policy issuestend to be more debates rather than a
(02:10):
search for common ground amongst us.
So starting in the late ninetiesand incubating over a decade or so.
I and others put together this ideathat we'd create an organization
that would address issues of greatnational consequence by bringing
together people who had the collectiveknowledge, experience, and influence.
That if they could reach agreementon ideas, they could then work
(02:32):
together to implement those ideas.
And so there's been, it's been quitea run over the last 13, 14 years now,
and convergence has worked on a widevariety of issues in the past that
we can talk about and certainly wecan talk about monica's wonderful new
project on digital disinformation.
Laura (02:49):
And Monica.
What drew you to work with convergence?
Monika Glowacki (02:53):
Sure, and I'll just
mention that my birth coincided with the
ideation of convergence in the 1990s.
, fun fact.
Laura May, I would say that I wascompelled by one the stories of impact.
So for example, one of theprojects Convergence tackled
previously was on education.
It spun off into its own non-profiton learner centered education.
(03:13):
An ongoing project we have on gunviolence and suicide prevention
brought together gun control activistwith Second Amendment activists with
people working in civil society,suicide in the LGBTQ plus community.
And that's a coalition ofpeople that never come together
before, not in a meaningful way.
Another example, healthcare and howsome of our recommendations might
(03:33):
their way into the Affordable Care Act.
So those stories of impactwere very impressive to me.
And then the second reason wasmy curiosity about the consensus
building methodology and itsunderlying evidence base.
So since we live in such aninterconnected, society and all
the problems that we grapplewith are so interrelated.
They affect very diverse groups ofpeople with different interests.
(03:56):
So consensus building has the potential toincrease the quality of solutions to these
problems because they're co-creative.
One based on a comprehensiveanalysis of the problem.
Each party has a different perspective.
So you have so many more anglesincorporated than if it was just a select
few developing the solution on their own.
So this makes the solutions higherquality and more innovative.
But also this approach seeks to transformwhat are typically adversarial and
(04:21):
very divisive interactions into acooperative search for information and
solutions by plugging in a variety ofpeople into the decision making process.
In a way you can even if you can'taddress some of the disparities
of power outside, at least at thisforum, all perspectives can be heard.
So this kind of flavor of co-creationand collective action in the sense that
(04:41):
like, convergence doesn't advocate forsolutions, but we usher people along.
This co-creation processwas also very compelling.
Laura (04:47):
I really like this framing
of co-creation and it sounds that
it's a lot of empathetic listeningand what have you involved as well.
So I think there's something suddenlya lot of mediators can relate to
and probably negotiators as well.
It sounds like a fantasticuh, thing that you do.
And so Rob, what was the first timeyou realized this kind of dialogue
driven model could actually work?
Were there any early successes or failuresthat led you to believe in the project?
Rob Fersh (05:11):
There weren't
any really clear indicators.
Some people had been working thisarena before I got into it more at
the local level or community level.
And I think we were, we broke newground in terms of using this kind
of best practices of the conflict.
Transformation field inlarger areas of public policy.
So it was a little bit of a jumpoff a cliff and Monica mentioned
(05:33):
one of our huge early successes,which is on K through 12 education.
But before I went off to startConvergence as an independent
organization, I was working out ofthe International Conflict Resolution
group, search for Common Ground.
And we did two very successfulprojects, which kind of amazed me.
One was on healthcarein the United States.
And it's actually that project thatmany people would say created the
(05:56):
framework and the ground and createdthe ability for the Affordable Care
Act to pass people from across thehealthcare spectrum in the United States.
Who'd been at war witheach other for years.
Many of them had fought over theBill Clinton plan for healthcare came
together and they actually designed thearchitecture of the Affordable Care Act.
And many people would say it wouldn'texist, but for the relationships we
(06:17):
build amongst pharmaceutical companies,hospitals, insurers, consumers, and so on.
So that was a proof, an earlyproof of concept, one of the most.
And then there was another projecton US Muslim relations that had
very high level participation.
Sorry to see that Madeline Albright hasrecently passed away, but she was at
our table in a fabulous participant.
(06:38):
We had former members ofCongress, of both parties.
We had Steven Covey, the author of TheSeven Habits of Highly Effective People.
They had the American Petroleum Instituteand Southern Baptist Convention, and they
came together to deal with what shouldthe United States do now to respond.
What's going on in the Muslimworld, in the wake of the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And we put together a series of ideasthat the, It turned out that the Obama
(07:02):
administration was elected shortlythereafter and implemented them so
quickly before convergence was startedas an independent organization,
we had two very strong proofs ofconcept, and now since then, we've
done other 10 or 12 projects in which.
Always, there have been ample areasof common ground that have been found
in many cases, in most cases reportsthat actually reflected a consensus.
(07:25):
And as mon indicated, a lot of strongimpacts for most of the projects in terms
of these people not even working together.
But I think the other thing to mentionthat's really important is that in
many cases, Relationships of formeradversaries have been transformed.
They now talk to each other differently.
Many are working together differently.
They even take back into their owncommunities and their own organizations.
(07:47):
Another mindset about how tosolve problems besides just the
win-loss, adversarial mindsetthat so many people hold when
they have opinions on big issues.
Laura (07:57):
It sounds like it's very
interesting, for sure, Rob, And
I'm gonna ask Monica about thedisinformation project in just a
moment, but I'm wondering if youcould shine a bit more light into
how this magic actually happens.
You've talked about these really effectiveresults and co-creation and bringing
people together, but what does thatactually look like within the projects?
Probably Rob, I think, will go with this.
Rob Fersh (08:17):
Sure.
Let me give you the a thumbnailsketch, and both Monica and
I certainly can fill in.
The basic notion is firstto identify an issue.
Needs to be resolved and then to frameit up in a way that's inviting to
people, all different points of view.
Cause if you already framed up ina way that's loaded to one side,
then people won't come to the table.
(08:38):
So identify an issue thatpeople really need to resolve.
Identify people who would need totalk to each other, who would need to
talk to whom in order to move the dialforward if they reached the agreement.
So you identify what we call stakeholders.
And in this case it could be peopleof great influence and power brokers.
But we've also found it very importantto have what we call people with
lived experience and people moreat the grassroots level to have
(09:00):
their voice end 11, the nationalexperts, and you assemble that table.
And throughout the processit's about building trust.
That people can listen to each other.
It's operating from what I calla collaborative mindset, which
is a belief that, no one personor group has all the answers.
And as Monica laid out beautifully,that when you bring together all
(09:21):
different people with differentperspectives and different sectors,
you get a much more panoramic view.
Of the issues, you get a chanceto explore them more deeply.
You have a chance to generate probablymore holistic, systemic kinds of answers,
and they're likely to be more enduringbecause you have widespread buy-in.
So then you engage in a process,and it's hard to explain in
(09:43):
just a couple of minutes of.
Identifying maybe some basicprinciples that will guide the
stakeholders that they agree on.
Like we had a project on economicmobility where we had the US Chamber
of Commerce, the business groups andlabor unions and advocacy groups.
And while they couldn't agree ona national minimum wage figure,
everyone at the table agreed.
That if you worked full time, this is inthe United States, but hopefully applies
(10:06):
elsewhere, you shouldn't live in poverty.
So that gave, that was a big trustbuilding notion that, yeah, we agree
on that and now what are the solutionswe can all agree to get there.
So that's the process.
You identify certain principles youagree on, you begin with skillful
facilitation to identify where.
Barriers to reaching agreement.
What are the hard issueswe need to discuss?
(10:27):
And you need to frame up what are theissues that really are resolvable and
what issues are such issues of such deepprinciple that you'll never get anywhere.
And with that you engagein a back and forth.
And you begin to resolve those issues.
And in the course of that,people listen differently.
In many cases, invent, as Monicasaid, creative new answers.
Sometimes it's a compromise of existingideas, but in many cases, like our
(10:49):
education project, the ideas really wereout of the box and they were unifying cuz
people saw a way to solve the problem thatmet the needs of everybody at the table.
Laura (10:59):
Oh, that's fascinating.
Thank you for that insight, Rob.
And so Monica, you are currently leadingthe initiative on digital disinformation.
So what does that project involve and whatdo you actually aim to achieve with it?
Monika Glowacki (11:13):
Sure.
And I can maybe start with just a brief,overview of digital disinformation and
what is the problem and why it matters.
So we're all pretty aware of how,unprecedented the power of the internet
is to connect and inform people.
At the same time, social media and networktechnologies are being leveraged to
(11:34):
amplify disinformation so deliberately.
Misleading or false informationthat harms their society.
It harms their democracyand everyday lives.
And so disinformation and alsomisinformation and other forms
of media manipulation they shapethese harmful narratives that
mislead and polarize the public.
They so disruption.
They exacerbate distrust notonly in institutions, but within
(11:57):
and between communities andourselves most fundamentally.
And this has the potential to under.
Elections, Public health, nationalsecurity business and of course,
deception and manipulation of informationand content predate the internet,
but the acceleration and scale andreach are so much greater on the web.
So these bad actors are targetingpeople on communities based on.
(12:19):
Their race, their gender, their age,politics, or other demographics trying to
influence their mindsets and behaviors.
You also have institutions such asthe platforms in government and media
feeding the cycle of disinformation anddivision for profit or votes or clicks
and vulnerable audiences consume it.
You also have the rise in hyperpartisanreporting and local news deserts.
(12:40):
This further fuels the problem.
And then you also have emergent artificialintelligence, such as deep fakes or
ephemeral content such as live streamsor Instagram stories or audio chats
on clubhouse that make it harder todetect than address this information.
So this is how we're thinkingabout the problem and why it's so
important and how it's impactingall different layers in society.
(13:02):
So why is convergencechoosing to take this.
As I outlined, these causes are socomplex difficult to disentangle.
The solutions are hard to scale due toideological and sectoral differences.
And there are also several offlinehistorical and structural roots
that further convolute the problem.
And that's why it actually makes.
(13:22):
What makes it such a fitting problem forconvergence to take on with our process?
So what we're trying to do hereis bring together diverse sectors
so industry actors like the techplatforms, advertising media,
academia, civil society, healthcare, and medical professionals.
Professionals, faith-based leaders,psychologists and also communities
(13:43):
For a very intensive year longfacilitated dialogue, we'll be
exploring people-centered solutionsthat mitigate disinformation
and its impact and strengthenpro-social and pro civic discourse.
And together we hope thatparticipants will build trust.
Learn to understand each other'sperspectives and values and arrive at
either new fresh solutions to this issuethat move us past places where we've
(14:05):
been stuck in divisiveness and failureto coordinate or maybe this uniquely
configured group will generate fresh, afresh set of solutions just because these
people never came together to work insuch a collaborative environment before.
So I'll pause.
Oh, I forgot the secondhalf of your question.
What do we aim to achieve?
I would say there are three things.
(14:27):
I think one.
Impact.
And this ranges from a deeply informedunderstanding of the challenges involved,
but also this could take on a widevariety of formats so we could potentially
organize private action coalitions.
Maybe there are policies, ideally policiesthat are more nuanced and content agnostic
(14:48):
that we get onto the congressional record.
These could be education researchinitiatives, or community
engagement and public programming.
The beauty of the convergence process iswe don't commit to any of these upfront.
These are all, this isthe menu of options.
We bring the group together to explore asecond impact especially for this project
is grassroots engagement and impact.
So how do we enlist not only nationalleaders and experts, but also local
(15:12):
leaders and everyday citizens?
It's a model we're testingnow in partnership.
Three other bridge buildingorganizations, civic genius,
Interfaith America, and more in common.
Very excited about this model.
And then lastly, I would love ifthis project opened the conversation
into a convergence taking onrelated tech and society issues.
(15:32):
So for example, privacy or digitalinclusion, and having a broader portfolio
of work that inspires society to demandbetter technology and a better world.
Laura (15:41):
No, that's really fascinating,
honestly, and I think that one of the
things that I find really interestingabout this project and this type of
project is, when people think aboutmediation or facilitation or bringing
people together, they don't necessarilythink about this tech space, right?
Or disinformation space.
But of course it's in exactly thesekind of spaces that we start to see
a lot more social conflict as youhighlight it to yourself as far as the
(16:04):
reach of the web and what have you.
So it's really interesting to type ofproject being tackled with really a
dialogue and, bridge building approach.
So good job guys likefantastic initiative there.
And but what are some of the, thekey challenges that you do face
when applying a model such as this?
And how can they be addressed?
(16:25):
Monica, did you
Monika Glowacki (16:26):
want to take us?
Sure, I can kick us off for sure.
So I think some of the challengesare specific to the topic but some
of them pertain to bridge buildingand consensus building more broadly.
So for example, In general, a lotof these intractable problems are
ill defined or there is disagreementabout how they should be defined.
(16:49):
They're characterized by technicalcomplexity and scientific uncertainty.
So for example, on this information,there's some academic consensus on
definitions, but there's disagreementabout what is considered false.
Beyond that, there's disagreementabout how do we know what
is false and not false.
So it's a bit of anepistemological crisis.
And then some people disagree on towhat extent it is a problem, and then
(17:11):
people disagree on how to solve it.
So you have people talking about,okay, should government take more of
a role in mitigating disinformation?
But then there are concerns thatit trickles down to incentivize
over moderation or censorship.
Historically it's been.
Miss or disinformation to saythat the AIDS epidemic was real
or systemic, Racism was real.
(17:32):
On the other hand, youhave the tech platforms.
And yeah, it's true that there is anelement of the business model and the
algorithms and how they operate that makethem ideal for manipulation and abuse.
And there's a lot of complexity tocontent moderation and making it scale.
But there are others who areworried about if we want a future
of free speech, do, is it a future?
(17:52):
The richest people on earth can purchasethe platform that millions of people
do depend on for their work or forcommunication outside the us For example,
this is very, Facebook is basically theinternet on a, in a continent like Africa.
And then change the rules to their liking.
So these are some of the tensionsthat we're grappling with.
I would also say another challenge.
(18:13):
The diplomacy and facilitation requiredto run this process effectively.
People need to talk andthey need to listen.
And when several people are involved,especially if they don't know each
other or they really strongly disagreeyou need to get the talking, listening
and decision making sequence in order.
And that's why facilitation and mediation.
(18:34):
Such such important and suchdifficult skills to acquire.
And I have so much respectfor a lot of the facilitators
that we engage in this work.
And it's a skill I'mhoping to hone myself.
And then lastly, and this is a challengethat I really care about, it's The
challenge of disparity of power andresources and dealing with some of
these problems and of doing consensusbuilding within a broader world that
(18:56):
many people consider to be unjust.
So it's often hard to do negotiationand collaboration when there
is not a balance of power yet.
Sometimes outside inequalitiesare reflected inside our groups.
And even when you make internal decisionsthat are equal, sometimes it's hard to
implement those in the outside world.
And this is very much underscored withthe Covid 19 pandemic with the killings
(19:19):
of black Americans by police even therecent leak of the Roe v Wade decision.
So to me it's a big question.
How do we engage in consensusbuilding and mediation?
Without risking the duplicationand reification of power imbalances
that exist outside our dialogues.
And how do we embed guardrails andrules and values and norms into
the process so that it's a veryimportant and crucial compliment to
(19:43):
other processes like activism andphilanthropy on the path to addressing
some of these intractable problems.
So those are probably my typeof, top of mind challenges.
But I am really curious to hearfrom Rob as he's been in this
space so much longer than I have.
Rob Fersh (19:58):
Sure.
I can jump in and I'll try tospeak a little more generically
about, this is very difficult work.
It's challenging work.
We start out.
Who the heck's convergence and who areyou to pull us together and what do you
know about the topic that you're doing?
So we now have a track record to pointto where it's the methodology that works.
But, so you know, most people don'tthink in these terms that they're
(20:18):
gonna sit down with their enemies ortheir adversaries or the people they
disagree with or do it comfortably.
They're used to showing upsomeplace, having debate, then
leaving, and then people summarizehere's where their differences lay.
So this notion of skillful facilitation,building relationships to trust, It's
pretty unique and different and, weperhaps later talk more about what
the vision might be if we could createa cultural change for more and more
(20:41):
people understand how to do this.
It's not rocket science, but itrequires great seriousness of purpose
and great character to be able to holda safe place for everyone to talk to
each other and for us to maintain ourneutrality so it doesn't look like.
We come in with any preconceived notions,cuz if we do, then the trust is broken.
So we want everyone to feelthat they can be with us.
(21:03):
And there are.
So the second next questionis who do you invite?
And my view has always been the widestpossible range of groups that makes
it more difficult to get consensus,but the consensus is more powerful.
The extent the legs ofthe stool are wider.
But I need to say in the last few yearsespecially it's become more difficult to
figure out who to invite to in the room.
(21:24):
And while I still believe everybody, thebroadest spectrum of people in the United
States and elsewhere should be brought in.
You have to have certain codesof people willing to look at
facts and be honest about things.
And there's certainquestions about whether.
Who is being honest and who'snot, and then who is it that
makes that judgment to begin with?
So I'd rather be inclusive.
(21:44):
And I also think a certainmagic happens in a room.
As people talk to each other and hear eachother, something changes inside of them.
They listen differently.
They're just not there to debate.
Most people in the room becomefriends with each other, although
there are some notable exceptions.
And with that, when you, your heartopens up a bit, I think your mind open.
And you can learn from it andyou can learn from each other and
you can often find common ground.
(22:06):
And then I think one of the largestchallenges, and Monica touched on this
beautifully, and I, probably should haveelaborated in my earlier answer, one of
the biggest challenges, even if people inthe room go through some transformation,
how does it get translated out?
Can they deliver their ownorganizations and are they willing
then to step in and fight for.
What they've come up with.
At times, the politics aredifficult and or they may suffer
(22:30):
for having sat with the enemy.
There's some people we haven'table to be public about the
participation of some people.
It's been so sensitive whenthey're sitting with enemies.
But we try to get peoplein the room in that moment.
They're in the room and they seeeach other and they hear each
other, then the trust does develop.
I also agree, I think there aretremendous issues about power dynamics.
(22:51):
I think our job at convergence isn'tto correct the co power dynamics in
the society, but we don't want to addto the continuing inequalities and to
the extent we can help soften those.
I think it's a really good.
So we try to create that balanceand we also try to create
great equality in the room.
So the quality, what you have to say, getslistened to by everybody and it's not a
matter of cowtowing to different people.
(23:14):
On the other hand, some people in the roomhave more capacity to deliver impacts,
and that needs to be taken into account.
Not everyone in the room has equalcapacity to put resources in.
And some of our projects, we'vehad foundation heads at the table.
And man, that was really helpful.
, get them bought in cuz then they fundother people and projects going forward.
There are people who haveconstituencies or ability to affect
(23:37):
politics more than other people.
So while everyone's voice in the roomshould be equal I think some, like
everyone else, we have to adjust tothe fact there are inequalities of
power, but I think we do everythingwe can to democratize the process.
And bring in all the voicesthat need to be heard.
So it's a big deal.
It's a difficult thing to do.
We've never done it perfectly.
On the other hand, I'd also saythis at a time when so much of
(24:01):
the world is ascribing motives toeach other and is angry with each
other and can't believe they'd eventalk to people on the other side.
Just getting them to talk to each other.
Have those barriers come down, havepeople see each other as full human.
That's a big step toward us havinga more civil world in civil society.
And while that alone isn't sufficientfor our goals, I think it's an
(24:22):
important achievement if we startto get people talking to each
other and in many ways lower thetemperature of the toxic polarization.
We all are upset about these days.
Laura (24:33):
It sounds like a very delicate
balancing act for sure, but you've also
paid to the very inspirational picture.
So thank you for thatsort of morning buzz.
And so I'm gonna ask you then, so if youhad an unlimited budget to do this kind
of work, what would be your dream project?
And I'll go to Monica
Monika Glowacki (24:51):
first.
Thanks, Laura, May.
I'm very excited by this question becauseI love imagining all the issues that
it would be great for us to resolve.
I hope it's okay if I mention afew and then Rob can riff off that.
I think it would be unsurprising if Imention climate change and working to
increase biodiversity and wilderness.
I think this is an existentialissue and a first order one.
(25:15):
It puts a strain and impacts thewellbeing of entire communities
and addressing climate change.
Pro positively affect many of theother issues that we're probably
thinking about and working on.
So that's one another.
And this is poorly, the, like poorlyscoped right now because it's so
broad, but I'll say it anyway.
And it's socioeconomic inequityor the concentration of wealth.
(25:39):
And even if you look at thiswithin the scope, Tech and society
problems or digital disinformation.
That, you know the richestperson in the world right now.
Jeff Bezos, at leaston the Forbes 400 list.
He owns the Washington Post, Elon Musk.
The second richest person may soonclose the deal and own Twitter.
Mark Zuckerberg is the thirdrichest one and he owns Facebook.
(25:59):
And then the top 10, I think arerounded out by people who started
Google on Microsoft at own Bloomberg.
And so you see that in so far as alot of the increasing social division
and polarized political rhetoric.
Are attributed to beproducts of these spaces.
There's also something to be said forthe fact that income inequality has
returned to the pre-grad depressionlevels and there's something rooted
(26:21):
in these fundamental social andeconomic conditions in our society.
Another first order issue.
I would love convergence to expandon, and we've already done a lot
of great work on economic mobilityand wellbeing, so it'd be cool to
see this bubble up into a broaderportfolio that takes on this issue.
And then maybe the last twowould be the refugee crisis.
Just because I, it, 70 millionpeople are affected by this, I think.
(26:45):
70 million are forced from their homes.
Maybe 30 million are refugees, and thenover half of those people are under 18.
And it's come to the forefront, especiallywith the situation in Ukraine, but
elsewhere, it's been a huge issue foryears too in Syria or Afghanistan.
And then the last one would probably be,How to create a sustainable food system
(27:06):
that tackles hunger and food and security.
I'm personally invested in this becauseI would love a system that does not
inflict, mass suffering on animalsand does not exploit farmers, but even
more broadly, just food and securitysuch as stubborn issue to resolve.
To resolve.
And I read a very interestingsurvey recently where it's
one of the top concerns.
(27:28):
For Gen Z.
They believe poverty and hungeressential matters to address and
older generations actually rate itlower on the social issues list.
And I would love to take on anissue that will be top of mind
for the generations to come.
So those are some of the thingsthat are very top of mind for me.
And I'm super curious to see if Rob, ifyou, if any of those are particularly
inspiring to you or if you have your own
Rob Fersh (27:49):
thoughts.
Good segue, Monica.
So yeah, I love all those.
And some of them have been onour parking lot for a while.
It's a matter of time and resource,but now that Laura has offered us
all the money we could possibly need,we can probably just do all of them.
But in all seriousness, it takestremendous energy and research to
organize these and get 'em done well.
But sure, climate changewould be huge and.
(28:11):
There's some, we're looking intoit a bit US China relations.
I would add to that, it's just someway to deal with both the economic
and human rights issues there.
As on a call before I went intothis field, I ran a national
anti-hunger organization.
I.
And I'm hearing about the dislocationsfrom Russia and Ukraine and the
disruption of wheat supplies and increasesin world hunger that are ensuing.
(28:35):
And up to now.
Convergence has mainlyfocused on domestic issues.
That's how we were formed.
There was enough to be doneand more manageable, but that
would be something to look into.
To what extent can we eitherourselves are working in partnership
with people around the world?
And Laura, you might be a good.
Resource on this, take themethodology out to deal with more
international issues, which are big.
(28:56):
We can't go encroaching on the roles ofgovernment who have, legitimate roles
of diplomacy and power and authority.
But there may be complimentarythings we can do.
I'd also say this, there are dozens ofissues we could take on immigration.
US immigration issues have beenon our list for a long time.
And I'm thrilled We're doing economicmobility issues and that's a.
(29:18):
The important thing, and there's more workto beat on healthcare, particularly on
the cost of healthcare in this country.
One of the things that I'm focusing on,I think if I had unlimited resources,
I would put money into this, is that,this isn't only about convergence.
This is about, there's a methodologyhere that so many other people have
employed, maybe not exactly what we'vedone, but employed, and they get this.
(29:39):
There are mediators around theworld who understand this in their.
Frankly, I think almost everytherapist in the world understands
that this is how you solve problems.
No one person is alwaysright, no one wrong.
You get people to talk to each otherand you communicate and you understand
that people's feelings and your thoughtsand their fears and their concerns.
So the one of the big playsI would make is to help.
(30:03):
If you will, inculcate, train,expose people this way of thinking.
Give them examples.
Give them experiences so that thereare hundreds of organizations doing
the kind of work we do around the worldwho generate solution after solutions
so that we actually over time achievea culture change where people begin to
look at collaboration as a first resortrather than the last resort, and see
(30:25):
that it's not soft, it's not naive.
It's very hardnosed, but it's aboutunderstanding that you can tap human
potential, avoid unnecessary suffering,and actually avoid unnecessary conflict.
Some conflict is necessary andappropriate and maybe irreconcilable.
My experience has been, andthis is directly from working
(30:45):
for three congressionalcommittees on a bipartisan basis.
Most people can find largeareas of agreement even though
they disagree on many things.
And that is not really a skillfulmeans by which people normally partake
in a process where they can actuallyhear each other out and understand it.
All that underneath it all, theymay not be as quite as different
(31:06):
as they thought they were.
And many times they actuallywant the same things.
Disagree on how to get there, but withcareful and patient exploration can
often tease out ideas that actuallycreate winners for all, for everybody.
So that would be the bigger vision.
How do we create a groundswelland a cultural transformation
toward this mindset?
And more and more people adoptingthis approach as a first resort to
(31:31):
resolve problems when they have thetime and energy and resources to do.
Monika Glowacki (31:36):
I love the, I don't
know if it was intentional or in,
and the plug for therapy and maybethere's some collaboration here
between the therapists of the worldand the mediators and facilitators
and bridge builders of the world.
Rob Fersh (31:48):
I'm of that mind.
It seems to me, and this is a bigidea for someone to pursue that.
Religious leaders, many of, many,maybe not all, they're preaching
the golden rule every day.
And for some reason, people think thatthe golden rule maybe applies to how
you treat your kids and your familyand your friends, but it doesn't apply
in the world of policy or politics.
But of course it should,and it works that way.
(32:10):
So I think that, and so I dothink that religious leaders,
therapists, mediators, many peoplealso just naturally resonate with.
There's a whole, I think,reservoir of people.
Who, if they understood the powerof this work could get behind it.
And we could, and they could hasen theadoption of these ideas into the world.
(32:31):
And I think a lot more problems wouldbe assault and a lot more effectively.
In a way that would be much more durablethan many of the fixes we get that leave
people spoiling for a fight afterward.
And that's certainly true in theRoe versus Wade situation in the
United States that many people felt.
That it certainly years ago, thedecision that a lot of other people
(32:51):
applaud maybe went too far too fastand people weren't ready for it.
So left people really angry.
And now other countries are movingforward to make changes that I think maybe
reflect the broader will of the public.
So I don't, I'm not an expert on that.
I don't mean to say too much about that,but I do think there are all sorts of
people we could tap into worldwide whosesensibilities agree with this, and they
(33:12):
are not aware that this can be appliedinto the world of policy and politics.
This is a,
Laura (33:22):
Absolutely wonderful response.
So thank you Rob, and thank you Monica.
And so just a final question then.
So what advice would you offer otherswanting to do this kind of work?
Rob Fersh (33:37):
I'll hazard a quick answer and
then we can both think about it a bit.
So first of all, I'd say this, that thismindset that we're recommending and these
approaches can apply in so many settings.
You don't have to be takenon big public policy issue.
If you're a leader of a school board,if you're a leader of a church or
synagogue, if you're an academic dean,if you're a business leader, a union
(34:02):
leader, you can decide to, whetheryou're gonna be a collaborative,
inclusive problem solver, to bring allthe voices in and try to deal with it.
Or you can try to do it moreon a top down basis and it, and
look, there's room for both.
And at times you just have to do that.
Even running convergence formany years it wasn't a democracy.
I had to make decisionsotherwise we could be paralyzed.
(34:23):
You could debate everything endlessly.
But I think that's really a big thing, isthat people can think about their own laws
and begin to identify these principles ofcollaborative problem solving and apply.
Even in their family levels and theircommunity levels, it may not help
you with the Thanksgiving dinnerdebates you need to have, and there
are groups out there who can helpyou do better direct, communications.
(34:47):
But when it comes to problemsolving, everybody's got issues
that need to be dealt with.
And I think the important place tostart is, To get interested and hey,
maybe there's another be a better wayto doing this than me just fighting
and arguing and trying to win theargument or put down the other person.
And then people can find theirway to apply it as they wish.
And I especially love to engage peoplewho I say has have convening power.
(35:11):
So people who have some ability to say,This is a problem I have to deal with,
let me help bring people together.
What's the local mayor?
As I said, a school board, a countycouncil, even an academic dean and so
on, phila, philanthropic institutions.
They all can suggest to peoplethey need to talk to each other.
And we have leaders who adapt or adopt youknow what I, what people call a mediative,
(35:33):
a facilitative leadership style.
Then this can really grow exponential.
Monika Glowacki (35:39):
That's so
interesting to hear, Rob.
When I think on the question onadvice, I think maybe two things
come to mind for me, both of whichI'm actively working to practice as
someone who recently entered the space.
And one would be to engage, tolisten rather than speak, hold space
and be comfortable with silence.
(36:00):
I tend to skew very solutions oriented.
Starting from theempathetic listening space.
It's a skill that I've been honing.
And then a second piece ofadvice would probably pertain to
reflection, and this on two levels.
So a, developing an internal awarenessof your own identity and role as a
(36:20):
facilitator or director, mediator.
And where you sit in relation to theconflict you're working to resolve and
the balance of power amongst partiesso that you can enable these diverse
groups of people to take on interrelatedissues, not just the subject matter.
So in my case, disinformation, but alsoother issues that interrelated to that.
So it might be race and gender.
(36:42):
And the second.
Think to reflect on, I think would beon what are we learning in our work and
what the broader bridge building field iscalling for more broadly, and then what
society is demanding of us more broadly.
And I think a little bit of humility isimportant here because sometimes it means
yes, we need to step up to the plate andtackle these truly intractable issues from
(37:03):
the space of negotiation and mediation.
And sometimes it means recognizing.
It may or may not be the best approach,or it's not the first approach.
Maybe it plays a secondarycomplementary role.
And I fully believe it shouldbe in the menu of options, in a
repertoire of things to pursue.
But I think a little bit ofreflection just to make sure you
know where you stand always helps.
Laura (37:25):
Wonderful.
Both, you've given me a lot ofinspiration this morning and hopefully
also our listeners, some inspiration.
So thank you for painting this pictureof a world where we can all build
bridges and collaborate and givingus some insight into how we can
actually get to that world as well.
So for those who are interestedin checking out convergences
projects and reports, you canvisit convergence policy.org.
(37:46):
Thank you so much again, both toRob and Monica for joining me today.
And until next time, this is Laura Maywith a conflicting podcast, remediate.com.