September 6, 2017 by Philip Lewenstein

Glen Taylor’s Win-Win Approach Can Help Resolve Conflicts and Restore Confidence in Government

It’s not surprising that public trust in government remains near historic lows. Only 20 percent of Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right, according to the Pew Research Center

This distrust and dissatisfaction likely stem from the inability of Congress to pass legislation. The last several years have been marked by gridlock rather than compromise or consensus between members of rival political parties and stubborn factions within parties, not to speak of relations between Congress and the White House.

But Glen Taylor, owner of the Star Tribune, offers a win-win approach that can resolve political deadlocks. In the August 13 Star Tribune Opinion section, Taylor describes the benefits of “win-win” negotiation, a method that he has used successfully in business, in politics, and in dealing with people generally. Taylor is not only a wealthy man but a wise man. I strongly support his approach to resolving conflicts.

When I was a college student, I was impressed by observing Minnesota’s US senators (and later vice presidents) Hubert H. Humphrey and Walter Mondale provide leadership in passing significant bipartisan legislation. And, later, as an employee coordinating legislative relations for a state agency, I was impressed seeing Minnesota legislators conclude sometimes bitter legislative sessions marked by partisan differences with compromise.

In fact, in the 1980s, I was able to watch Taylor apply the principles of the win-win approach in the Minnesota Legislature as he served on the Senate Finance Committee’s Education Finance Division where members of both parties worked together effectively to produce higher-education appropriations bills. I occasionally met with Taylor and was always impressed by his willingness to listen to our agency’s agenda.

In his opinion piece, Taylor discusses using the win-win approach in the legislature. A multibillionaire businessman, Taylor served as a state senator in the Republican minority (1981-1990) before he was owner of the Minnesota Timberwolves, Minnesota Lynx, and Star Tribune.

Taylor says that following the win-win pattern, he set goals that would be helpful to the state and its citizens. “I discovered that members of the opposition DFL party had similar goals, but their pathway to achieving them was not necessarily the ones I would choose,” he wrote.

“In negotiating with them, although I always wanted to achieve my ultimate goal, I was willing to select issues that were important to them. The result was that we crafted legislation that did not fully meet my goals but was a large step forward to help those I represented. My counterparts emerged with a similar view.”

Taylor, Senate minority leader for two years, highlights his negotiations with longtime Senate majority leader Roger Moe, the master of political compromise for many years. Despite differences, the two leaders were able build upon shared experiences and goals when working to pass legislation that helped Minnesota citizens, Taylor explains.

“While in public office, win-win helped me see that each bill was not a final achievement,” Taylor says.  “I came to see lawmaking as a process. I continued to work on my goal each legislative session by taking small but positive steps at each opportunity.”

The win-win approach is not novel. Taylor says he studied the practice in the 1980s at the Harvard Business School, where he took classes to improve his management skills and business results. I came across the concept a decade ago as a composition instructor, teaching students how to frame effective arguments. My textbooks introduced the term “Rogerian persuasion” almost as an afterthought in chapters on argumentation. About that time, I learned more about Rogerian persuasion while reading several columns by the writing consultant Stephen Wilbers in the Star Tribune Business section.

Whereas oppositional argumentation is geared to producing winners and losers, Rogerian persuasion involves two parties talking directly to each other and seeking common ground and compromise in a win-win situation. The goal is to resolve rather than to vanquish, to reach out rather than to prevail.

Wilbers explains that an alternative approach to persuasion began in 1951 when American psychologist Carl Rogers published a paper entitled “Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation.” In the paper, Rogers proposes a nonantagonistic approach based not on confrontation but on empathy and affirmation. Two parties talk directly to each other to seek common ground and compromise in a win-win scenario.

“The efficacy of Rogerian argument depends on its conciliatory tone,” Wilbers says. “It isn’t a question of proving one person right and the other wrong. It’s a matter of emphasizing commonality in a process that proceeds in this order. I understand your point of view even if it differs from mine. I recognize your right to hold it. In fact, if I were you, I would feel the same way. And I affirm the validity of your viewpoint, at least in certain circumstances.”

Wilbers explains that Rogerian affirmation is meant to facilitate resolution, not force capitulation. The parties can still disagree. “After affirming an opposing viewpoint under certain circumstances, either party can turn the argument in a direction closer to its own position,” Wilbers says. “But if the process is working and both sides are genuinely listening to the other, both are more likely to compromise.”

The American people understand the Rogerian approach but politicians don’t get it, Wilbers says. Likewise, Taylor says he hears too much of “I want it my way or nothing” from today’s politicians.

“Elected officials can find ways to help constituents on both sides if they listen to their political opponents and look for ways that can make progress toward their goals, too,” Taylor says. “They may think that’s impossible—just as I used to believe. But my experience over the last 40 years has convinced me that there is a way to achieve better results both nationally and in Minnesota.

“I’m not saying that win-win negotiating is easy. But we need to select leaders who would give it a chance for success. I might go as far to say that elected officials should take a course in win-win negotiation before they take office.”

The win-win approach seems almost too logical and sensible—to listen and talk directly to an opponent in to find middle ground. Now, more than ever, the win-win approach, as articulated by Taylor, is needed in order to restore confidence and trust in government. And this approach can also be applied in all areas of people’s lives to help ensure civility and respect.