Q3: Social Proposals (II)

derived from t1: Essential Rationale

Essence: The rationale for any proposal is the need that is currently unmet often due to an issue that ought to be resolved. All other proposal details are based on that essence. The initial task, therefore, is to explain the need so that all understand the importance of the proposal.

Consequence: The proposal and its rationale has been communicated.

Settling Here: You can stop at this point if there is a spontaneous swell of overwhelming popular support for your proposal,

Transition: More often, your proposal is viewed as only an opinion, and perhaps impractical. So it can be easily challenged by numerous diverse opinions of others. To proceed, you need some social proof that others recognize what seems obvious and necessary to you.

derived from t2: Notable Supporters

Essence: You must seek support from some influential members of the group who will be willing to act and speak in favour of the proposal. This involves identifying them, explaining your proposal in some depth, and dealing with their concerns and objections.

Consequence: Your proposal has backing from at least a few influential group members.

Settling Here: You can stop at this point if these individuals are confident that they can bring the rest of the group along in support of the proposal.

Transition: When it is uncertain whether or not the group will back the proposal, then discretion calls for proceeding more carefully. A broad appeal is always desirable and so the waters must be tested before more active measures are taken.

derived from t3: Sufficient Popularity

Essence: The group will likely have a diverse membership and soundings must be taken from a variety of people. This is a way to get a sense of whether the need is well-recognized and whether the proposal is likely to be welcomed as it stands.

Consequence: The degree of popularity of the proposal is now appreciated.

Settling Here: You can stop at this point if you find that the proposal enjoys overwhelming widespread support.

Transition: Often many, too many, will be disturbed by the disruption or the cost and are either opposed or at least undecided as to whether to support the proposal. Some incentive is then required to win more people over.

derived from t4: Diverse Benefits

Essence: The time has come to re-affirm the benefits that come from meeting the need identified initially. However, it is necessary to add diverse additional benefits that will emerge as a side-effect of the proposal, and to explain how any potential ill-effects will be avoided or mostly mitigated.

Consequence: At this point, your presentation of the rationale (μ1) moves naturally from an explanation to a popular confirmation that the need should be met by accepting your proposal.

Settling Here: You can stop at this Stage if there is now broad support for the proposal based on its deliverable benefits and management of unwanted side-effects.

Transition: However, if there is still serious opposition, there may be a insufficient support. Given a majority, proceeding might be possible but it would mean disrupting the harmony so desired in any group. Without consensus, your fitting in is at risk. You may be right but you are on the way to becoming a trouble-maker, and eventually unwanted despite your cleverness.

derived from t5: Factional Backing

Essence: The first target of your efforts needs to be those who explicitly oppose the proposal. By discussing with them and refining aspects of the proposal, it can be possible to reconcile them to its adoption and implementation.

Consequence: You have engaged opponents by appreciating that they are part of the process and valued members of the group.

Settling Here: If opponents are successfully brought around, then consensus has been achieved and there is no need for further effort.

Transition: If opponents are mollified but not fully reconciled, then they likely realize that the need is now popularly confirmed and something must be done. As a result, they have to offer alternative proposals and be prepared to argue for these in front of the group.

derived from t6: Open Debate

Essence: Given that the need is confirmed, it must be dealt with one way or another. Organising a debate allows opponents to bring forward alternatives to your proposal and get a fair hearing. Debates can usefully reveal strengths and weaknesses of various options. As your proposal went through a lengthy diligent process during which alternatives were examined, it should be revealed as the preferred option.

Consequence: The proposal is fully exposed to public criticism and, despite any weaknesses or problems, should be shown to be better than alternatives.

Settling Here: If an open debate shows that your proposal is able to survive criticism, perhaps with minor adjustments, and is undeniably the most appropriate way forward, then consensus will have been achieved, even if there are a few holdouts.

Transition: Even if there are no satisfactory alternatives, the debate may have left a sense of uncertainty as to the value or necessity of the proposal. The group, being close to consensus, now needs closure on the issue.

derived from t7: Social Imperatives

Essence: It is possible to push people off the fence by identifying social imperatives that are compelling because they are ethical at root. The compulsion may be pragmatic: if nothing is done, then an adverse outcome results e.g. future costs will explode, or legal action will be taken against the group. There may also be a moral imperative: if nothing is done, then the group will cause harm to itself or to certain individuals or to wider society.

Consequence: You have clarified why the proposal is absolutely necessary and deserves group support.

Settling Here: This is the final stage. It is now possible to insist on the need and its handling via the proposal—and expect consensus support.