This was the situation: For years, a large hospitality business had planned to invest 80+ million Euros in a new hotel. They presented an architectural design to the municipality, had it discussed in the political committees, revised the design on their request, several times. They commissioned all the necessary expert reports. The municipality had been encouraging, but criticised details, again and again. And the process dragged on, without ever getting to the stage where the application for planning permission could be submitted.

The tone got rougher, disappointment mounted. The mayor invited to conciliatory talks, but nothing really changed. - Finally, the investor threatened to walk out and take the money elsewhere.

The new mayor gave it one last try and asked me to moderate a mediation process. By that time, both parties were locked in a stalemate. The investor refused to talk to the head of the planning department and his deputy. 

This is what I did:

I requested strict confidentiality to have 1:1 conversations with all the people involved, plus a few observers. The mayor consented that she would not learn about what was being said. 

After these conversations, I condensed the different perspectives into a kind of heat map of the conflict. And let me say this: It’s hardly ever about the topic at hand, it’s almost always about who said what to whom, in what tone. It’s about what’s appropriate, if people are being heard, and about role clarity.

The mayor invited to the first gathering: everybody in one room - and a lot of tension. Since the history had been dealt with and every person had had a chance to get rid of their baggage, there was now one important thing to do: voice the grievances and frustrations.

Only then we could get to work:

• Collect what the issues were and what needed to be clarified
• agree on a set of rules for collaboration and communication
• define the next steps.

The investor’s architects agreed to meet with their municipal counterparts to identify the parameters for the design of the new hotel. After that, we held another workshop, again with everyone involved. The protocol of the architects’ meeting had been submitted late, which immediately created new tension and mistrust. Still, at the end of the workshop, everyone was exhausted, but happy.  They had:

• formulated a MOU
• agreed on a design variant
• compiled an update on what expert reports needed to be commissioned or updated
• defined a timeline, with clear responsibilities assigned
• and agreed on the chain of communication and an emergency option, should anything go wrong going forward.

My observation is that people usually wait too long until they ask a moderator to step in. Even though it gets more costly the more the tension rises. The interface between businesses and public bodies is particularly prone to conflict. The two systems speak different languages, misunderstandings are the norm, and then conflict takes a personal turn.