We learned that the degree of polarization can be driven by: (1) discourse that evokes fear and hate; (2) cohesive practices for dissidence; (3) disinformation; (4) emotional intelligence; (5) interpersonal trust; (6) capacity to resist sanctions for dissidence; and (7) lack of effective mediation.  We learned that two key uncertainties that can help anticipate polarization are the effectiveness of campaigns that evoque fear, hate or confusion, as well as the capacity of institutions to mediate differences or increase them.  We learned that in scenarios of high polarization it's important to be attentive of sensitivities. It's useful to focus attention on a shared future, prepare conditions for dialogue addressing preferences of participants, being receptive of symbolism associated with respect, to concrete rules and enforce them.  We learned that in scenarios of low polarization it's possible to increase the number and diversity of participants, move to action quickly, incorporate disruptive methodologies, and engage through digital platforms.  We learned that public officials feel polarization affects their work by affecting social relations and weakening institutional capacity. Social relations are affected by misinformed and confused expectations, apathy, hostility, and lack of interactions. Institutional capacity is weakened by mistrust from society, overloading and distracting public officials, lack of unified decisions, and limiting quality and coverage of public services.  We learned that public officials see benefits in investing in internal and external communications, addressing difficult emotions among public officers, facilitating exchanges between institutions. We learned that the methodologies used and the results are able to engage other private sector actors.  

The results from the workshops and methodologies were given back to participants. Some of them appropriated the methodology and results to expand them within their sectors. In particular, this was done by one of the leaders of a think tank linked to private sector (Centro de Investigaciones Económicas Nacionales) who replicated workshops among private sector leaders.  The results from the workshops were presented along the launch of UNDP's global Human Development Report. This gained the attention of the General Secretariat of the Presidency. Who engaged with UNDP to lead a series of five additional workshops that engaged over 60 public institutions from the executive and 300 public officials.  From the workshops with public officials, a report with results was made to guide public policies, decisions from high level officials, and empower public officials.  These exercises have lead to contributions to the governments priorities: a legitimate and effective government. And have lead to recognizing the value of institutionalizing the practice of listening to public officials to gain insights on their perspectives and knowledge. 

We adapted a version of future analysis in two steps, first using the axis of uncertainty, then the policy stress test under different scenarios. This was necessary to identify the key factors that determine polarization and evaluate policies.  Note that to prepare for the future analysis, it was important to review the literature, administrative records, and public opinion data.  Co-creation, collective intelligence, focus groups, and facilitation were used during the workshops to integrate the contributions from participants regarding how polarization affects the work of public officials and the actions that can be done. 

We had to combine and adapt innovation methods and new forms of data in order to address a complex task: understand how to promote dialogue and collaboration in different scenarios of polarization. This helped us understand the drivers of the problem, anticipate situations, evaluate alternative courses of action. Also, we needed to scale methodologies to engage a large number of public officials quickly and effectively.