Common Ground Committee co-founder, Erik Olsen, journeyed to Washington, DC with a mission to reach out to legislators regarding the Common Ground Scorecard, a voting tool that measures how well an elected official seeks common ground.  The Scorecard does not assess ideology or positions on specific issues.

Erik was met with a very receptive audience. While partisan gridlock may seem like the norm, many lawmakers and their staff agree that seeking common ground is the most effective and pragmatic approach to moving forward on critical issues facing the country, and are concerned that more of it is not happening. His meetings included sessions with the staff of members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, as well as Democratic, Republican and Independent staff members, representatives and senators of the following offices as follows:

• Rep. Colin Allred – D, Texas
• Rep. Bilirakis – R, Fla.
• Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. – R, Louisiana
• Emmanuel Cleaver – D, Missouri
• Rep. Angie Craig, D, Minn,
• Rep. Debbie Dingell – D, Mich.
• Rep. Dusty Johnson – R, S.D.
• Rep. Derek Kilmer, D, Wash.
• Rep Young Kim – R, Calif.
• Rep. Mike Lawler – R, NY
• Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Independent, Arizona,
• Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D VA, Representative
• Sen. Jon Tester – D, Mont.
• Rep. William Timmons – R, S.C.

The lawmakers expressed support and great interest for the Common Ground Scorecard. Erik notes, “The lawmakers I met with had great concern over polarization in Congress – in particular, the budget and potential for a government shut down this coming fall. The mood was noticeably less upbeat than on previous visits.”

Erik’s visit to the Hill was one of several Common Ground Committee initiatives to expand awareness of the Common Ground Scorecard and encourage elected officials to improve their scores and continue to seek common ground with their colleagues.

News of the indictment of former President Donald Trump once again spotlights the current state of our politics. The concern is that we’ve become so polarized that many now see our nation’s once revered institutions as mere tools of the parties. 

The conversation — if we can call it that — taking place shows how we are constantly being pulled to either side by partisan forces who are just adding fuel to the polarization fire. And though we can acknowledge the skepticism or zealousness from either side, we must urge those engaging in this debate to identify and set aside their personal biases.

We ask our fellow Americans to not get drawn in by the conflict entrepreneurs on social media and on cable news shows. Instead, we hope citizens will resist the emotionally satisfying urge to join in the food fight. In that spirit, we also ask that our leaders curb their politically expedient temptation to get into the muck. More importantly, we staunchly condemn political violence and urge those who would use this as an opportunity to turn the fire into conflagration to stop and consider the cost of what would likely happen if violence were to break out. Lives lost, property and livelihoods destroyed, continual escalation. In that scenario, nobody wins. The country loses. 

Whatever your opinions of Mr. Trump or of the charges he faces, we must let the legal process take its course so that we might learn if the charges against him are merited. Otherwise, we are drawing conclusions about the case based on political ideology, which is exactly the mindset the Founding Fathers wanted citizens to avoid. “Innocent because the other party is out to get my guy” is not a sound legal principle. “Innocent until proven guilty” is, and that is why our legal system is based on it. The system is not perfect but its track record throughout our history shows it to be reliable in maintaining the rule of law (rather than persons) in America. This is key to keeping our nation strong. We acknowledge that the optics of the situation gives rise to the claim that there is a double standard between Mr. Trump and other political leaders whose actions have been deemed questionable. But we implore folks to let the arguments of the prosecution and the defense unfold before finalizing an opinion about fair treatment, guilt or innocence.

Our role at Common Ground Committee (CGC) is to neither be final arbiters nor passive witnesses. We do our best to be a voice that narrows divides rather than widens them. Our call for common ground and civility may sound naive, but perhaps that is because an open mind — not a cynical one  — is what this moment requires of us in order to rise above the fray rather than wade into it. Cooler heads must prevail and CGC’s mission is to remind our fellow Americans that finding common ground is a difficult but a worthwhile endeavor. It is at the heart of how our government was designed to work, and is the key to healing the “us vs. them” mindset that threatens to tear apart the social fabric of our country.

In a piece published by Fortune.com, Common Ground Committee Co-Founder Bruce Bond and Tom Fishman, CEO of Starts With Us, discuss the media’s role in polarization and signs that Americans may be ready for change.

Two of the news media’s most controversial figures are now without a job. Following its $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, Fox News parted ways with Tucker Carlson on Monday. On the same day, CNN fired Don Lemon, whose time at the network was marred by controversy both on and off camera.

These two hosts differ in many ways, from ideology to their relationships with the facts. But taken together, in light of their shared fates, they represent a microcosm of a media landscape that thrives on division and outrage. Carlson was the top-rated prime-time news host and CNN This Morning saw a ratings increase following Lemon’s return to co-hosting duties. News outlets must satisfy ratings–and nothing drives clicks more than conflict. Today, many would agree that the tenor of news has shifted too far towards sensationalism and partisanship–and it appears the networks themselves might be on the precipice of an introspective moment.

Our latest research found that, in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms, the most hyper-partisan politicians received more than four times as much media coverage as the most bipartisan politicians. The study by the nonpartisan organization Starts With Us (SWU) used the Common Ground Scorecard–a tool from Common Ground Committee that measures how likely an elected official is to work across the aisle. This discrepancy shows that bipartisan problem-solvers are too often left in the dust while America’s top news outlets give undivided attention to the loudest voices.

As former tech and media executives who are now working to reduce polarization in our country, we believe this is a critical moment to shift what gets covered and who covers it. With two prominent conflict entrepreneurs out of the picture, CNN and Fox can either maintain the status quo and bring in carbon copies who will continue stoking anger and division, or they can chart a new course that not only turns down the temperature but also stands to capture a sizable market. We know this market exists because every day, we come across people who are exhausted by the rancor that today’s media environment promulgates.

The networks aren’t the only ones with a role to play in making change. Now that there are two empty seats at America’s largest cable networks, citizens must tap into their power and help decide who comes next.

Sensationalist news is like junk food. It is fun to consume and cheaply satisfying. That is why hosts like Carlson and Lemon have historically been a boon to ratings–and it’s why 10 times more Americans have heard of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene than Rep. Don Bacon, according to the SWU study. But just because we like eating candy, it does not mean that is all we want. In fact, there is ample evidence that shows people want more balanced, solutions-oriented news coverage.

A new study from More in Common found that 63% of Americans believe the media should report on solutions as much as problems–and 88% want to celebrate what is right rather than criticize what is wrong. The same organization’s research discovered that two-thirds of Americans are part of an “exhausted majority” who have effectively tuned out politics.

The two nonprofits we lead are part of a larger bridge-building movement that seeks to engage this demographic. What started out as less than 10 organizations prior to the 2016 election has skyrocketed to more than 500 today.

There are signs that some outlets sense Americans’ desire for a change and are producing content that focuses more on where we agree than disagree. Even Bret Baier’s nightly Fox News show has a weekly segment and podcast called Common Ground. The existence of such a segment, which encourages two guests to find areas of agreement, would have been unthinkable even five years ago. Turning to the debt ceiling debate, multiple outlets highlighted the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus’ proposal. Finally, a Reuters Institute survey of international leaders indicated that three-quarters are planning a greater focus on solutions journalism.

CNN, Fox, and the entire industry should move quickly to capture this growing interest in solutions over conflict. If they choose to ignore the opportunity, citizens can help change their minds.

Every time we click on a salacious headline or watch even a minute of a divisive news program, we cast a vote in favor of that type of content. What if we encourage our friends and families to consume more stories featuring bipartisan leadership groups or about people with differing beliefs who find common ground? We must step into the power of our collective attention to create momentum for more balanced content that refuses to be defined by division.

If enough of us get on board, we can drive a profound change in our media landscape. As dark as things look, we believe the seeds of change are being sown, and we all have it in us to help them grow.

Bruce Bond is the co-founder and CEO of Common Ground Committee, and is a former group executive of industry research at Gartner. Tom Fishman is the CEO of Starts With Us and a former senior VP of MTV Digital and a former product strategist at Facebook.

Originally published on Fortune.com on April 27, 2023.

The Politics of Climate  

Is there a bipartisan path to climate change solutions?  

That was the central question of the panel “Finding Common Ground on the Politics of Climate,” a discussion between former U.S. Representatives Val Demings (D-FL) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). The two former members of Congress brought perspectives from both sides of the aisle to progress on climate policy with an eye to sustainability and equity. The conversation was moderated by journalist and political strategist Bob Shrum, Director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California.  

As a starting point, Shrum said, we can agree that “any rational debate about whether climate change is real has ended.” According to the Pew Research Center, 42 percent of all adults now view climate change as a top priority — 65 percent of Democrats, but only 11 percent of Republicans. When it comes to specific policies, 69 percent of U.S. adults favor the United States taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050 – that is, releasing no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is removed— which breaks down to 90 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of Republicans in favor of this goal. 

“I also think if we look at where we are these days, we’re in much greater agreement between Republicans and Democrats,” said Kinzinger. “I have actually been heartened over the last few years to see that there is in my party now a recognition that you can be pro-doing-something-about-climate,  and survive.” 

The real landscape of debate these days, Demings suggested, is the cost of solutions. Specifically, what strategies are worth the cost, how should they be prioritized, and to what extent responsibility rests with the public or private sector. “When I served as a law enforcement officer, and certainly as chief of police, the safety and security of the people in our community was our primary concern. When we talk about this very important issue of climate change, the safety and security of the American people should be our primary concern,” said Demings. “As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we looked at the threat of climate change as a national security issue. And it is.” 

Both former Representatives pointed to recent legislation representing the most ambitious climate and clean energy laws and next-generation technologies in the U.S.  

“I like the investment in green technology. You have to weigh the fact that we have 31 trillion in debt in this country. How do we make wise spending decisions?” asked Kinzinger. “There’s a debate between what role the government plays in that, and what role the private sector plays. One of the amazing things that doesn’t get talked about enough in this country is the fact that the private sector has stepped up and invested in reducing America’s carbon output.” 

Why is it that the points of disagreement get more airplay than the areas of agreement? Demings asked. “I think one of the mistakes that we make when we’re trying to solve problems is we get bogged down where we disagree,” she said. “I think we should start every discussion defining those areas where you agree. And then decide, ‘How can I improve on those areas?’ “ 

One area of agreement between both Demings and Kinzinger is the importance of climate justice — the effects of climate change and global warming on underserved communities, and the belief that low-income areas should not endure lower quality air and water or suffer from inadequate aid when their areas are hit harder by climate disasters.  

“I don’t care what party you’re in, how can that not be important to you?” Demings asked. “And how can you not reach across the aisle and work with your colleagues on the other side to address those environmental justice issues? If we agree on that, that ought to be pretty doggone simple.” 

 

This is the third in a three-part series on the rise of corporate civic engagement, an increasingly important component of good governance for an evolving business community and an evolving nation. Part 1 explained the importance of corporate civic engagement and Part 2 presented examples of how corporations have become engaged in civic and social issues.

There is no indication that corporations will find the political landscape easier to navigate in the coming years. In fact, as the Democratic and Republican parties become more entrenched thanks to partisan redistricting and the primary process continuing to weed out moderate candidates, it is more likely that the corporate leaders will find themselves trying to balance on an ever-narrower beam.

Often, corporations are compelled by stakeholders – employees, shareholders, customers, and government officials – to take a stand once a divisive issue becomes a major point of contention in the news media or on social media. Sometimes that may be unavoidable, but there are other occasions where prior planning can make those moments less confrontational and better for business. The Common Ground Committee has put together some resources that can help in either or both of those situations. Some are consultants, one is a coalition of businesses and another is a business-driven academic program. Each business will need to decide what option is appropriate and, in some cases, more than one might be a good fit.

The Common Ground Committee does not endorse any of these resources, nor has it conducted business with any of them. Any company interested in exploring these options should fully investigate what works best for their needs. We welcome your feedback that may inform possible updates to this research.

Business for America

During her 15 years at Apple, Sarah Bonk devoted considerable volunteer time to nonpartisan political reform and civic organizations. But by 2017 she wanted to do more, to have a greater impact. After initially considering a focus on climate, Bonk realized policy could not be changed until the public policy system was addressed. So, leaning on her expertise in the business community, she launched Business for America, which works with the corporate world on bipartisan political reforms and technological improvements for democracy. 

As Bonk explains it, “No one in business intentionally means to harm democracy. Having a well-functioning democracy is in the best interest of business in the long-term.” As a membership-oriented trade group, BFA works to mobilize corporations toward action on behalf of democracy.

“We believe that the business community and the public have a shared interest in the health of our representative democracy — and we see immense potential for the business community to take a leadership role.”

What began as a platform for addressing the role of money in politics has expanded to include electoral reform and civic education. Members may pick and choose which activities are best for them. “You get to choose what is the right flavor for your business, the right way to lean in,” Bonk says. But the bulk of the work is focused on public policy advocacy rather than civic engagement, separating BFA’s work from some of the other organizations introduced below.

Not only is the work limited to issues of democracy, but it is further narrowed to concepts that have broad, bipartisan support. For example, BFA has invited its members to join the push for the Electoral Count Reform Act and the Civic Secures Democracy Act. The former would revise the rules governing the role of Congress and vice president in ratifying the electoral votes, while the latter would invest $1 billion in civic education. Both measures are supported by Republicans and Democrats.

On the other hand, BFA did not support the sweeping election reform bill known as the For the People Act, or H.R. 1, because it was a partisan bill pushed through the House by Democrats without any Republican input or support.

(BFA is supporting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would replace elements of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court, even though it lacks Republican support. As Bonk notes, until recently, the VRA had always received widespread backing from both parties, from initial passage through multiple renewals.)

There are no preconditions for joining BFA. Members must merely be for-profit corporations and pay a membership fee. Then they choose how to demonstrate their support for democracy. Some decide that providing financial support and lending their brand is sufficient. Others want to engage in advocacy efforts. They may do so by signing on to a letter in support of legislation, joining a coordinated lobbying campaign, taking action on their own or writing op-eds.

“You’re under pressure to do something about this crisis, about democracy, about voting rights, about election integrity. It’s hard to know what to do or to stick your head out there alone,” Bonk says. “BFA is there to help with a practical, bipartisan approach to a system of government that can endure as our Founders envisioned.”

In fact, she believes corporations have an obligation to defend democracy.

“As businesses who have benefited from the economic system and the stability it has afforded and the freedoms it has afforded us, you have a responsibility to help other people benefit from what you benefited from.”

Civic Alliance

In recent years, individual companies have increased their support for voter participation by offering time off to vote, providing voter education tools, and donating time and resources for election administration. But there’s a growing understanding that corporate civic engagement requires year-round efforts to support employees and customers, not just programming geared around Election Day.

That idea led to Civic Alliance, a coalition that has grown to nearly 1,300 corporations pledging to strengthen democracy. Democracy Works, a nonprofit that develops technology to help people vote, and the CAA Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the high-powered Creative Artists Agency, united in early 2020 to launch the Civic Alliance as a way to support corporations that want to increase voter engagement.

That first year, Civic Alliance focused on promoting voter registration, helping people find where to voter, and encouraging first-time voters. Before uniting in that effort, the two organizations claimed to have nearly 5 million people vote in 2018.

Since then the mission has expanded. Civic Alliance now works with companies to develop civic engagement plans that go beyond voting, including educating employees and customers about how to run for office, serve on a board or simply have a voice. But the organization also helps companies stand up for democracy.

“We stand together in support of fair and transparent elections, in which voting is safe and accessible. And we use the combined influence of our platforms to empower every American to use their voice.”

Civic Alliance has issued three nonpartisan public statements, each of which member companies were invited to sign, in response to attacks on democracy. One promoted election integrity, calling for safe access to the polls, trust in election officials, and patience as the 2020 votes were counted. The second called for a peaceful transition of power following the events of Jan. 6, 2021. And the third protested a wave of state legislation offered in the spring of 2021 that made it harder for people to vote.

During 2021-22, Civic Alliance has offered its members toolkits on redistricting, civic holidays, and midterm elections to encourage engagement year-round. Looking ahead, materials will be prepared on the off-year state elections, civic education, and other opportunities to engage beyond voting.

“We talk about a company building a civic culture internally, whether providing civic education or helping people navigate civics in their [employee resource groups],” says Sarah Gwilliam, a senior program manager at Meteorite and a member of the Civic Alliance team.

One of the key initiatives is continuing the Election Day of Service. Launched for the 2020 election, the program encourages companies to contribute poll workers, physical space for voting, legal support for election workers and other resources.

Joining Civic Alliance is a simple, cost-free process. A company representative just needs to visit the Civic Alliance website, pledge to encourage civic engagement by employees and/or customers, and then start building programs.

The core toolkit available to members is the Corporate Civic Playbook, which helps companies develop an action plan specific to their culture and goals and apply best practices developed by other Civic Alliance members.

Corporate Civic Consultants

 

Recognizing a gap in the market, Mairin Macaluso co-founded Corporate Civic Consultants in late 2021 to help companies that “have a need and don’t know how to rise to the moment.” As Macaluso explains, not responding to political, civic and societal issues is no longer an option for companies – not when they are getting pressure from employees and investors and need to rebuild trust among all stakeholders.

CCC’s strategy for corporate leaders and boards involves proactively addressing issues, rather than waiting for the market to force action. 

“CCC partners with companies to reduce risks, realize opportunities and build the civic capabilities that modern stakeholders demand.”

To achieve those goals, CCC is building a set of tools and guidelines that will help companies build a “probiotic” strategy, in Macaluso’s vision, rather than waiting for employees, investors or customers to demand action. The broad strategy focuses first on business strategy (“What is the business problem you’re trying to solve?”) and then addressing the societal implications (“How can having a good civic engagement strategy help that?”)

One key part of the CCC strategy is to break down the walls that silo civic engagement efforts within a company. For example, roles may be divided among governmental affairs, communications, and talent human resources all have pieces of this pie. Without one point of contact, there may be little responsibility and little accountability.

Before launching CCC, Macaluso was the director of member impact and engagement at the Leadership Now Project, a membership organization focused on helping business leaders support and improve American democracy. While CCC is separate from Leadership Now, Macaluso is able to leverage relationships built during that phase of her career to broaden the services she can now offer. 

For example, if a corporation wants to work on resolving polarization within its workforce, she can tap into groups like More in Common, Civic Genius and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

Macaluso acknowledges there are pre-existing resources for corporations in the marketplace, such as crisis communications advisors and traditional consulting firms that offer environmental, social and governance (ESG) or corporate social responsibility (CSR) guidance, but those have drawbacks. Often, they are reactive rather than proactive, and they are careful about engaging on divisive issues. “Why would McKinsey jeopardize their business by rocking the boat with one company while helping another?” Macaluso says. “No one focuses on corporate civic engagement or corporate political responsibility.”

Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce

Housed within the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainability in Business, the Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce is designed to help companies be more proactive, principled and integrated, according to Doty. With the public and stakeholders looking to corporations to take a more active role in solving the societal problems, business leaders are under pressure to develop plans that will meet those demands while also protecting the economic goals. CPRT aims to help them accomplish both by creating a framework to follow.

“We are trying to help companies better align their approach to political influence to their commitments,” Doty says.

CPRT is currently working with six Fortune 500 companies, including IBM, to build the initial version of that framework. To be included in that initial cohort, corporations had to meet three criteria: 

• Each had to have already placed a stake in the ground as good corporate citizens
• Their names had to carry the weight necessary to make other corporate leaders curious.
• They had to be a work in progress, looking to improve on their corporate political responsibility.

One of the big ideas developed by the taskforce is the use of an outbound impact assessment, commonly used in Europe for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues. Such an assessment can help a corporation predict where it might face pressure in the future. For example, a retail business might consider whether it is impacting employees’ ability to vote. 

The taskforce has also identified three criteria for determining when to engage on an issue:

• If the company is contributing to the problem.
• If the company has already made a related commitment (such as encouraging people to vote, employee empowerment, promoting women’s rights, etc.)
• If the problem is of such consequence that it is foundational to the entire system.

For many companies, voting rights (particularly for people of color), hits all three bullet points, according to Doty, noting that they contribute to the problem by donating to state legislators who change the voting rules

In the end companies want to know how they can increase trust among their customers, employees and investors. The taskforce believes that can be accomplished through transparent and accountable participation in society. The framework will help companies develop cross-functional structures with accountability reporting that focuses on their contributions and commitments to the public space.

Over the course of 2022 and 2023, the taskforce expects to double its membership as it refines the framework and grows the program. Eventually, the framework will become available to more businesses, which will also be able to participate in an annual forum.

Impactual

A strategy and consulting firm that claims its expertise is “creating a healthy democracy,” Impactual traces its lineage to one of of the biggest brands in voter engagement. The agency’s founder and president, Ashley Spillane, ran the MTV-spawned Rock the Vote and has been credited with rebuilding the program at a time when young voters were seeking news ways to get engaged.

Spillane also co-authored a Harvard Kennedy school study on the voter participation initiatives run by eight companies during the 2018 elections. “Civic Responsibility: The Power of Companies to Increase Voter Turnout” found the companies were able to support democracy and improve their businesses without significant financial investment.

Impactual works with philanthropic organizations, corporate brands, influencers and nonprofits, providing a range of services that cover marketing and communications, creative work, program support, philanthropic advising and strategic planning – all with a goal of achieving nonpartisan civic engagement.

Clients have included Uber, YouTube, Converse and Viacom as well as philanthropic organizations like Democracy Fund and the James Beard Foundation.

Impactual “helps figure out how brands touch consumers and how to build a brand that is authentic,” according to Juiette Boberg, a senior director at the firm. And for companies that need crisis communication support when an issue of corporate civic responsibility arises, Impactual does it in “a more organized, pre-planned way.”

The firm’s past projects include:

• Helping MTV Entertainment Group successfully run a program encouraging people to vote early, recruiting polls workers and explaining the election progress through creative digital content and in-person events.
• Working with Uber to create election tools available within the ridesharing company’s app. By adding on email and social media elements, Uber reached tens of millions of people.

Additional Resources

The Dialogue Project

Housed at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, The Dialogue Project produced a report in 2021 on ways the business community can help improve civil discourse and reduce polarization. Researchers prepared case studies, conducted interviews with CEOs and other business leaders, and utilized quantitative data from Morning Consult in preparing the report, which contained some eye-opening results.

They found that more than half of Americans said the inability of people to have respectful dialogue with someone who has opposing views is a major problem. And the hardest issues to discuss are politics, race/ethnicity, immigration, gun laws and sexual orientation – and those are also the hardest issues on which to find common ground, according to the research.

But nearly 80 percent said people “need to be more respectful when talking to people who do not agree with them.” And that’s where the Dialogue Project’s recommendations come in. The people running the program developed eight principles that companies should follow if they want to be part of the solution:

1. Commitment starts from the top: listen and be accountable.
2. Listen to understand, not win.
3. Encourage and reward/acknowledge compromise.
4. Value diverse points of view and make space for new ideas.
5. Build and have empathy.
6. Rely on facts instead of emotion.
7. Ensure everyone feels heard.
8. Start at the root of the problem.

Among the corporate leaders who have contributed their expertise to The Dialogue Project: Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Antonio Neri, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Suzanne Clark, General Motors CEO Mary Barra, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Walmart Inc. CEO Doug McMillon.

Traditional Crisis Communications 

The Common Ground Committee recognizes that some corporate leaders may still require traditional resources to support public relations campaigns, either because they are more comfortable with more established firms or need to respond to stakeholder demands.

These firms have not been vetted by CGC, nor do we recommend any of them. Each company should conduct any research necessary before hiring consultants.

• Miller Ink (Nathan Miller)
• Red Banyan (Evan Nierman)
• Otter PR (Jay Feldman)
• 10 to 1 Public Relations (Josh Weiss)
• Communications Strategy Group (general contact)
• Atlas Marketing (Chris Martin)
• Red Fan Communications (Kathleen Lucente)
• ICR (Tom Ryan)
• AGPR (general contact)
• Temin and Company (Davia Temin)

Training Resources

Often, one piece of a corporate responsibility plan will include providing training opportunities for employees and other stakeholders. A number of organizations offer a range of services to teach people to engage in civil dialogue and how to find ways to bridge differences. The Common Ground Committee has no formal relationship with any of these organizations but offers them as a starting point. Companies interested in such services should fully research these and other options.

• Better Arguments Project (Seth Henderson)
• Beyond Conflict (Tim Phillips)
• Braver Angels (John Wood, Jr.)
• Bridges Intergroup Relations Consulting (Maia Ferdman)
• Build Up (Anooj Bhandari)
• Building Bridgers (Marla Estes)
• Citizen Discourse (Karen Gross)
• Davenport Institute (Pooja Digiovanna)
• Dignity Dialogues (Larry Visser)
• Emergence Institute (Holly Woods)
• Institute for Civility in Government (Tomas Spath)
• Listen Courageously (Juliana Tafur)
• Matsunaga Institute for Peace (general contact)
• Minnesota State Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution (Mariah Levison)
• National Institute for Civil Discourse (Cheryl Graeve)
• Open Mind Platform (Mike Wasserman)
• The Othering & Belonging Institute (Ashley Gallegos)
• Resetting the Table (Melissa Weintraub)

Mediation Resources

Sometimes, training isn’t enough and additional resources are needed to resolve conflicts – conflicts that can be detrimental to business goals. These organizations offer mediation resources, but, again, they are not recommended by Common Ground – merely provided as a starting point for research and vetting.

• Consensus Building Institute (Patrick Field)
• Mediators Beyond Borders (Prabha Sankaranarayan)
• Tara West Mediation (Tara West)
• The Institute for Global Leadership (Virginia Swain)
• The Mediation Center of the Coastal Empire (Jill Checks)

 

Corporate leaders interested in pursuing these (or other) options should take proper steps to determine what approaches best fits the business. The first step should be to determine the corporation’s values and needs? Do you need a way to support employees’ ability to vote? Do you want to become a prominent support of a healthy democracy? Do you need to be better prepared for possible criticisms for your stance on divisive political issues? Your mission, vision and values statements should help you determine what is needed.

While the Common Ground Committee does not endorse any specific solutions or solution providers, we believe this document offers a starting point for you to determine the best path forward. Inevitably, your employees, customers or shareholders are going to demand something more. These resources can help you address those concerns before they are even raised.

Common Ground Committee recommends that business decision makers move out of a defensive position and get in front of the effects resulting from polarization. Common Ground Committee can advise your company on understanding polarization, navigating resources and finding a more proactive posture to help depolarize a business environment, a community and the country.