As a co-determination body, you represent the students and/or staff at your institution by monitoring policies or proposing new policies. Sometimes your executive will agree with you right away, and you’ll come to an agreement without too much negotiation. Sometimes, however, this is not the case. At such times you are faced with a choice: Will you let it go, or will you stay committed to your objective? In the latter case, the question is also: How do you do that? So far in our handouts, we have focused mainly on the regular methods of influence. However, sometimes those methods are not enough. In such cases you might choose to use other methods. Policy priorities, maintaining your relationship with your executive, the rights you can rely on, and other factors can inform this choice. In the handbook disagreement with your executive, how we discuss what these methods might be and how to use them responsibly and effectively.
If after going through the first three stages of file handling , you find out that you are not going to agree with your executive (and that you do not want to make concessions on this particular issue) then you have several options. The first option is to go back to earlier stages in the file handling process. It may be the case that the executive does not think your arguments are good enough or that your proposal has insufficient support within your institution. In that case, it is possible to achieve more by fine-tuning your arguments or by seeking more allies.
If you still do not succeed in convincing your executive, you may choose to move to more coercive measures. This may sound more intense than it is. It is important to realize that disagreeing with your executive is part of co-determination work. After all, you have been given coercive rights precisely to represent your constituency. Sometimes those rights are not necessary, and sometimes they are. There is nothing harsh about that, nor should your relationship with the executive suffer. If the executive is well-intentioned, it may even help to show that this issue is important to you. It is true, however, that you should be conscientious when dealing with files on which you disagree with your executive.
When you disagree with the executive on a matter, you must make a choice. Are you going to apply pressure, or not? In what way will you apply that pressure? It is important to remember that escalating (by applying pressure) carries risks, but that not applying pressure also carries risks.
Indeed, it is true that there can be risks in various ways of pressuring executives. How much opportunity there is to apply pressure in the first place also varies from case to case. For many of your policy goals you will be (largely) dependent on the goodwill of your executive, and goodwill can be lost by pushing too hard elsewhere. Moreover, an escalation into (open) conflict can also make it more difficult to get your way. As long as you discuss matters behind the scenes, executives can act as if they came up with your opinion themselves. Some executives will perceive giving in after an open conflict as a loss of face. That can make it harder to meet in the middle.
On the other hand, co-determination is designed to influence the decisions of the executive, including through coercive rights such as the right of consent. In order to perform this task well, it is crucial that the co-determination bodies do not simply fold on (the important) policy goals when the executive does not adopt their views. This is precisely when strong and stubborn co-determination members are sorely needed. If you show that you can’t be pushed around (by escalating where necessary), executives are also more likely to take you seriously.
The art is thus to decide which subjects you will escalate further, and which you won’t. The following considerations in making this decision are generally quite important.
- Is this issue important enough to apply pressure in the first place?
It may be that you’ve asked your executive for a particular concession that you simply don’t think is important enough to go after if you don’t get it right away. Maybe it’s because of the workload of other files. Maybe it’s just not a major issue. Maybe the executive has given a very good reason for not making the concession. In any case: the council may decide that escalating is simply not worth it. And that’s OK! - What is the likelihood of success if we escalate?
The probability of success is, of course, very important. Escalating takes time, effort, and involves risk, and if the expectation is that it is not going to have a tangible effect in the end anyway, you may decide as a council that escalating is not worth it. Sometimes it is even the case that the executive has no choice; they may have to comply with a law or regulation. Just know: if an executive claims to have no choice, that doesn’t mean it is actually true! And in certain situations, escalating can itself be the purpose, for example to show your constituents that you are working hard on a particular issue and won’t back down. - Can escalating/not escalating on this topic compromise other current or future important ambitions?
We have already briefly discussed that there are risks associated with escalating. It may be that by pushing hard on this issue, another important ambition of the council may be compromised, perhaps because the executive can or will only accommodate one of them, or because you need the goodwill of your executive and you may forfeit it by escalating. We often see that the relationship between the executive and co-determination bodies is one of give and take; is there a risk that by taking now, you will not be given something later on? - Does the council or committee think the above risk is worth it?
Ultimately, as a co-determination body you decide internally not only what your positions are, but also how you prioritize them and how you communicate them. If you decide as a council that you don’t think this is worth the risk (perhaps because you have an important core issue coming up that absolutely cannot be compromised) then of course that’s okay, and you choose not to escalate.
We do need to mention here that in practice we see that co-determination bodies are quick to fold because they fear a bad relationship with their executive. We also see that executives are quick to talk about a “bad relationship” that “really needs to be worked on”. Of course it’s annoying for the executive if they have to make adjustments in policy because the co-determination does not agree with them, but this is exactly what co-determination is for. Doing your job should not be a reason for a bad relationship, and a bad relationship is not immediately a problem, you always retain your formal rights. So don’t let yourself be fooled! - Can escalating actually bring benefits on other issues?
It is also important to be aware of the potential benefits of conflict. These go beyond the possibility of getting your way on a file. In fact, engaging in conflict appropriately can also be good for the relationship with an executive. After all, a healthy relationship means not only that you like each other, but also that you take each other seriously. Even if you still don’t get your way, the realization that the executive cannot simply take your compliance for granted can ensure that executives take your concerns a lot more seriously. In addition, executives may not be used to taking the rights of co-determination into account. Sometimes this is because they are just new or because they are used to working with a non- or malfunctioning co-determination. In other cases, executives try to sideline the co-determination process so they can push their decisions through quickly. Whatever the reason, it will probably be important for you to guard the co-determination rights. If executives know that they can’t just get away with ignoring your rights, that can help with other issues as well. Not only will you do yourself a favor with that, but future generations in co-determination will benefit greatly as well.