Can we at least agree on what we are trying to achieve?

Thomas Friedman writes of the need for Obama to define a "a clear, simple, repeatable narrative to explain his politics." Friedman refers to this needed statement as a "rubric" (a statement of purpose or function).  It is this latter label that reveals the true value of such a statement.

A context or purpose is essential to a plan or strategy.  As a framework for suggested actions, it allows one to see clearly the actions' relative value in terms of achieving higher level objectives. It is more than just a means for "spinning" messages, or of preventing the possibility that actions will be "easily obstructed, picked off or delegitimized by opponents and lobbyists."  Although these may be some side benefits of having a clear purpose to frame one's actions, they should not be the primary intent.

Friedman has actually roughed out a good starting point for organizing the thinking in Obama's national plan.  Its purpose (depicted on the left in the illustration), the broad brush strokes of fairly high level objectives (in the mid section), and a general reference to tactical actions suggested to achieve the objectives (depicted on the right).

This outline should be taken a step further.  The key would be to weight the objectives (those in the middle).  Many people would argue that "All are needed.  They are all important."  This is not disputed. All objectives are on the list because of this very truth...they are all needed.  Health care, energy independence, education, infrastructure, national competitiveness.  However, there is still a relative priority, a relative importance to undertaking improvements to them.  Determination of this relative importance comes by comparative analysis of each against all others, in terms of the context and additionally considering in that comparison the current known status of each as well as the time frame of the plan.

Once relative priority of the objectives is defined, the next step is to assess the more tactical actions being suggested against all objectives.  Typically, one action will have been developed in terms of one objective. However, an action could serve multiple objectives. The critical nature of any action is determined by its influence upon supporting the achievement of more than one objective, factoring in the relative importance of each of those objectives.  It is the cumulative merit that makes some actions those that are the "king pins" of one's plan.

Most persons might think that this type of prioritization work would take days.  It doesn't.  It can be done in hours. Others will argue that politics will never allow this to work.  One can understand the frustration of Senator Evan Bayh leading to his recent resignation.  The key is of course, to have a willingness by a group to commit that time (hours), to be open for reasonable discussion, and to be respectful of others' thoughts.  We have seen the most divided groups find common ground, and elevate their work because of their ability to serve a greater purpose. Agreement on purpose is the beginning of the execution of a plan in which everyone is functioning as a team, which is why having such a statement is vital.

Valuing differences
Growing up in a highly rural area of a territory of the U.S., I'm old enough to remember when homogenization and pasteurization of milk were introduced at our local dairy.  Somehow we were led to believe that both processes made milk "better" for us.  I didn't realize for many years, that while pasteurization was the health-related process, homogenization was a cosmetic food "make over." We fervently believed in "Grade A Homogenized." We falsely assumed that both processes were irrevocably intertwined in producing the final "acceptable" product.

Over time, the word "homogenization"  has come to evoke conformity, being insipid and mediocre, and with the overall "bland-ing" of America. Ironically, in a nation in which individualism is touted as a hallmark, we have slowly become populated with uniform strip malls dotted with fast food chains and "big box" franchises.  One can move 3,000 miles and feel one is still in Anywhere, U.S.A.   This surface conformity cannot disguise significant underlying differences of opinions.   For many, the sense of a loss of individuality and the need to reaffirm it can surface at any time.

In our work supporting decision-making, we often see the combination of a strong desire to maintain separateness as an expression of individuality even when a group has acknowledged the need to reach agreement.  Often voiced is a fear that a decision will become "homogenized."  Fear that the result will be a bland choice, because the decision was made while "trying to satisfy everybody."

It is possible to find common ground, or reach agreement at a higher level, while at the same time seeking out and being respectful of differences.  Differences between us should not be masked, but unveiled.  Whether the subject is health care, going to war, choosing financial institutions to support or not, our differences when voiced are critical to finding better answers to our problems.  Our individual thoughts, when weighed and accounted for in terms of what is important to each of us, will surface more robust solutions than those developed from just one perspective.

A decision reached through consensus is not one that is homogenized.  A team of mature individuals soon recognizes that one should not strive to achieve individualism through stubborn, singular, inflexible disagreement, a sort of one-dimensional thinking.  Each voice, as one facet in an approach, contributes by helping produce a multi-dimensional solution.