|
|
The Electronic
Discussion on |
|
Mediation and
Facilitation
A collection
of material on compiled by
Sandor P. Schuman, sschuman@albany.edu
Contents:
1.
A description of a workshop entitled: “Mediation vs. Facilitation: Are they really the same, or different”
2.
A 1995 series of posts on the Electronic Discussion on Group Facilitation: misc.business.facilitators /
grp-facl@albany.edu
3.
A post from Dispute-res that touches on the use of the term “facilitation.”
4.
A reference to a discussion of the issue by Roger Schwarz
5.
A questionnaire to explore differences in practice between mediators and
facilitators.
6.
A 2002 series of posts on grp-facl@listserv.albany.edu
1. Mediation
vs. Facilitation: Are they really the
same, or different?
A Workshop with Sandy Schuman
At the start of a meeting of the SPIDR Section
on Environmental and Public Disputes, each of about 75 attendees stood in turn
to introduce themselves. As the
introductions proceeded towards the back of the room, attendees started to
suffer from “introduction overload,” and few bothered to turn around to see the
people introducing themselves. As introductions proceeded, I was surprised at
the number of individuals who introduced themselves as a
“mediator/facilitator.” When my turn
came (I was near the back of the room) I introduced myself, saying that “I am a
facilitator, not a mediator.” At once,
the room of faces turned around.
Through the ensuing conference days, I was asked on many occasions what
I meant.
Mediation and facilitation are often
used interchangeably in describing the neutral role in multi-party
situations. At meetings of professional
mediators, those who work with multi-party disputes often introduce themselves
as a “mediator/facilitator.” Surprisingly,
this is not the case at meetings of professional facilitators.
The terms mediation and facilitation
are both applied to multi-party situations where the role of the neutral is to
help the parties reach agreement. In
such situations, is there a real difference between mediation and facilitation? Is facilitation simply the application of
mediation to multi-party disputes? Does
mediator training differ substantially from facilitator training? If a “mediator” and a “facilitator” were put
in the same situation would they respond in basically the same way?
This presentation brings into sharp
focus the similarities and differences between mediation and facilitation. The history of the development of each will
highlight some of the assumptions that underlie the behaviors of mediators and
facilitators. When to use mediation vs.
facilitation will be discussed.
2.
A series of posts on the Electronic Discussion on Group Facilitation: misc.business.facilitators /
Grp-Facl@Albany.edu
From:
russgold@netaxs.com (Russell Gold)
Newsgroups:
misc.business.facilitators
Subject:
Re: Facilitation vs. Mediation
Date:
Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:48:22 -0500
In
article <3k48vk$hnl@rebecca.albany.edu>, ss6250@albnyvms.bitnet wrote:
>
I am a facilitator. My expertise is in
how groups work and how they
>
can work together more effectively to solve problems and make decisions.
>
Most of my work involves public policy issues in which multiple
>
organizations and interest groups participate.
>
>
There is often some confusion about the difference (if any) between
>
facilitation and mediation. Mediators
often describe themselves as
>
a "mediator/ facilitator" without necessarily making any distinction.
>
(In contrast, I do not typically hear facilitators describe themselves
>
as "facilitators/ mediators.")
>
>
What do you view as the difference between mediation and facilitation?
In
the tug-of-war and intense rivalry of negotiations, a mediator helps
ease
the natural friction between the sides. He / she acts as a neutral
party and sometime go-between, trying to keep
negotiations focused,
offering
an outsider's perspective, and possibly suggesting ways to break
an
impasse.
With
regard to facilitation, the man who taught me (Jim Rough) claimed
that
there are three different forms of facilitation. I don't recall how
he
defined them and I only know the style that he teaches. In this style,
a
facilitator does not offer *any* content to a discussion, but only
guides
the process, reflecting the comments of the participants to ensure
that
all viewpoints are heard and understood. He helps achieve closure and
consensus
through a variety of techniques, including brainstorming and
creative
problem solving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell
Gold | "...
society is tradition and order
russgold@netaxs.com
(preferred) | and reverence, not a
series of cheap
russgold@aol.com | bargains between selfish
interests."
================================================================================
From:
uhl@solaria.hac.com (Walter Paul Uhl)
Newsgroups:
misc.business.facilitators
Subject:
Re: Facilitation vs. Mediation
Date:
16 Mar 1995 01:36:40 GMT
My
experience suggests that facilitators are called into a situation
where
a team is attempting to solve a problem but can't quite find
the
direction or consensus. Usually to help
maintain the focus of the
group.
Mediators
on the other hand tend to be called in when two group reach
a
wall during negotiations. Some middle
ground needs to be found so
that
some compromise can be reached.
In
the first situation, one hopes the team as a whole will benefit
and
the greater good will be served. In the
second, each group
will
experience a loss or a gain because fairness is the focus, not
the
greater good.
But
then again, I have a nasty cold, my head is thumping and the
clock
says that it is time to go home.
The
Optimist 8;)
Walter
Uhl
uhl@solaria.hac.com
================================================================================
From:
sigurd@strauss.udel.edu (Sigurd Andersen)
Newsgroups:
misc.business.facilitators
Subject:
Re: Facilitation vs. Mediation
Date:
16 Mar 1995 18:21:20 -0500
To
me, mediation is involved when two (or more) parties are in
conflict,
and need to find some sort of resolution to that conflict.
Facilitation
is more general -- making the interactions in a meeting
work
more smoothly (I think of facilitation in terms of meetings;
others
may apply the term to other contexts, too).
--
Sigurd
Andersen Internet:
sigurd@strauss.udel.edu User Services
__o or
Sigurd.Andersen@MVS.udel.edu
023 Smith Hall
_ \<,_ or, simply,
sigurd@udel.edu Univ. of
Delaware
(_)/ (_) Ph: (302) 831-1992
Fax: 831-4205 Newark, DE. 19716
Date:
Wed, 15 Mar 1995 03:11:54 -0700 (MST)
From:
Daniel Mittleman <DMITTLEMAN@BPA.Arizona.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Facilitation vs. Mediation
A group of us sat and discussed this
question over beer at that IAF
(International Association of
Facilitators) conference in January.
The
gist of the discussion was that we agreed
that mediation is a subset of
facilitation. Mediation implies a particular type of problem with two
or more sides holding disparate views and
the mediator works with them
to resolve their differences. Facilitation can include such activity,
but includes a superset of other
activities where group can also be
cooperative (in the sense they have shared
goals).
But I would agree that this typology is
very rough - hey, we were
drinking!
One other thing we agreed upon was that
mediators are trained in
specific skills that would be of use to
facilitators. My ex-girlfriend
is a mediator and I have asked her to
proposed a "mediation training
for facilitators" workshop for IAF
next year.
daniel
david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu -
(602) 621-2932
===========================================================================
From
zzumeta@igc.apc.org Fri Mar 1 08:41:11
1996
Date:
Thu, 29 Feb 1996 22:07:13 -0800
From:
Zena Zumeta <zzumeta@igc.apc.org>
Reply
to: "Group Facilitation - Process Expertise for Group Effectiveness."
<GRP-FACL@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
To:
Multiple recipients of list GRP-FACL <GRP-FACL@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Conflict Management - how to?
Definitely,
a mediator has their own process, which the parties must go
through,
whereas a facilitator creates the process WITH the
clients/participants. Partly this is because the clients don't
know
the
process, and partly because with conflict, structure is ultra-important.
A
mediator is more comfortable with conflict, and studies resolution
techniques
and impasse-dissolving techniques. A
lot of the process IS
facilitation,
plus interpersonal dynamics and conflict resolution.
Zena
Zumeta
Ann
Arbor Mediation Center
===========================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 00:34:53 +0000
>From:
John Windmueller <jwind@cais.cais.com>
>Subject: Re: Conflict Management - how to?
>To:
Multiple recipients of list GRP-FACL <GRP-FACL@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
>
>>
But I return to the general idea that all of the above are skills that
>>
the Facilitator Excellent holds in his/er bag of tricks; it is just that
>>
some callings demand exceptional levels of a particular skill. Yet,
>>
it is all facilitating.
>
>I
agree completely that a well-rounded facilitator ought hold in his
>or
her "bag of tricks & skills" certain skills and process tools to
>help
deal with conflict. Likewise, a good
conflict resolution
>specialist
is going to hold several facilitation skills.
However, to
>me
that doesn't imply that no important difference exists.
>
>My
own personal experience (a key disclaimer), is that conflict
>resolution
practitioners tend to:
> - Have a more focused grounding in theories
of the roots and
>dynamics
of conflict, and that those theories of conflict focus less
>on
communication styles and dynamics than those adopted by many
>facilitators.
> - Have a set of process models (e.g. formal
mediation, the problem
>solving
workshop, etc.) that differ from many used in facilitation.
> - Definitely as a "mediator", and
usually as an "intervener" or
>"resolutionary",
CR folk define their role in the process (and in
>relation
to crafting that process) in different ways then a
>facilitator
might. I've often noticed that
interveners, by training,
>often
tend to craft and own the process of intervention more so than
>many
facilitation models I've witnessed.
(that's only based on
>anecdotal
experience). It certainly varies.
>
>These
aren't deep truths... just some observations that come to mind.
>
> -- John
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>John
Windmueller
>http://osf1.gmu.edu/~jwindmue/conflict.html
>Doctoral
Student
>Institute
for Conflict Analysis & Resolution
===========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 01 Mar 1996 10:01:56 -0500
From:
"Sandor P. Schuman" <sschuman@cnsvax.albany.edu>
To:
Multiple recipients of list GRP-FACL <GRP-FACL@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Conflict Management - how to?
Another
demonstration of the difficulty in differentiating mediation and
facilitation. My apologies for "shooting this one
down," but it can be
interpreted
in a way that would make for an unfair generalization:
On
Thu, 29 Feb 1996, Zena Zumeta wrote:
>
Definitely, a mediator has their own process, which the parties must go
>
through, whereas a facilitator creates the process WITH the
>
clients/participants. Partly this is
because the clients don't know
>
the process, and partly because with conflict, structure is ultra-important.
Many,
perhaps most, processes used by facilitators are highly prescribed;
the
group is not involved at all in their creation. NGT (Delbecq, Van de
Ven
and Gustafson, 1975, Group Techniques for Program Planning, Scott
Foresman)
is perhaps the best known example. Van
Gundy (Techniques of
Structured
Problem Solving, Second Edition, 1988, Van Nostrand Reinhold)
catalogues
nearly 150 "prescriptions" for structured processes that can be
used
by group facilitators. Also,
facilitators may prescribe the ground
rules
which underlie the application of any particular process (Schwartz,
1994,
The Skilled Facilitator, Jossey-Bass).
Nonetheless,
it may be that facilitators are more likely than mediators to
involve
the group in the development of ground rules and in making
decisions
about the process to be used, perhaps especially where the aim of
facilitation
is to aid in the process of group development, not just in
the
process of solving the problem at hand.
Also,
it is worth noting that in mediation of complex cases involving
multiple
parties (such as negotiated rulemaking), the parties are quite
often
heavily involved in the development of ground rules or protocols
and
often have a great deal to say about the process. It is also
interesting
to note that in these highly conflictual situations the
"intervener"
is often referred to as a "facilitator" rather than
"mediator."
What
John says below holds an important key to the difference between
mediation
and facilitation. People who have been
trained as
"facilitators"
have a very heritage from those who have been trained as
"mediators." While two experts, one a facilitator by
training, and the
other
a mediator, might each be well equipped to work with a group
addressing
a highly complex and conflictual situation, each would likely
approach
the group quite differently based on the norms, biases, and
traditions
that stem from their quite different training backgrounds.
> >From: John Windmueller
<jwind@cais.cais.com>
>
>My own personal experience (a key disclaimer), is that conflict
>
>resolution practitioners tend to:
>
> - Have a more focused grounding in
theories of the roots and
>
>dynamics of conflict, and that those theories of conflict focus less
>
>on communication styles and dynamics than those adopted by many
>
>facilitators.
>
> - Have a set of process models
(e.g. formal mediation, the problem
>
>solving workshop, etc.) that differ from many used in facilitation.
>
> - Definitely as a
"mediator", and usually as an "intervener" or
>
>"resolutionary", CR folk define their role in the process (and in
>
>relation to crafting that process) in different ways then a
>
>facilitator might. I've often
noticed that interveners, by training,
>
>often tend to craft and own the process of intervention more so than
>
>many facilitation models I've witnessed.
(that's only based on
>
>anecdotal experience). It certainly
varies.
===========================================================================
3.
A post from Dispute-res that touches on the use of the term “facilitation.”
Date:
Tue, 05 Mar 1996 03:28:22 -0500
From:
George R Coppen <alacrity@dircon.co.uk>
To:
Multiple recipients of list <dispute-res@listserv.law.cornell.edu>
Subject:
Self Knowledge of the Mediator
Hi,
This
is my first input to this meeting so please forgive me if I have picked
up
on something that has already been suggested.
Also, I have never been
involved
in 'mediation' as it has been described on this meeting so perhaps
it
is a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread.
Looking
at it from the outside, I feel that self knowledge of the mediator
is
of the utmost importance. It is, I
think, very difficult to listen to
what
another person is saying (the music behind the words) without the self
butting
in and saying, "I know what you are talking about, I understand, I
have
been there before." It is then
that the process of listening and
understanding
ceases because the mediator then only listens to the self and
perhaps
then seeks to mediate his or her own problems with those seeking
mediation
on their own volition or otherwise.
Also,
I'm not too keen on the word "mediator" to describe this particular
function
as it describes someone who intervenes between people in order to
bring
about an agreement. I am sure that this
is quite accurate as
intervention
is what mediation seems to be all about but perhaps it would be
more
helpful to everyone concerned to call a mediator a "Facilitator",
that
is,
someone who helps others to arrive at an agreement. It puts a different
mind-frame
on the whole process.
Best
wishes,
George
Coppen
4.
A reference to a discussion of the issue by Roger Schwarz
Schwarz,
Roger (1994). The Skilled
Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for
Developing Effective Groups. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
On
pages 12-15 Schwarz presents a thoughtful discussion of the similarities and
differences in a section entitled “Comparing Facilitation and Mediation.”
5.
A questionnaire to explore differences in practice between mediators and
facilitators.
Mediation vs. Facilitation
Following is
a questionnaire to explore what, if any, differences are found in the practices
of mediators vs. facilitators. Your
comments are welcome.
I identify myself as a:
¨
Mediator Facilitator
¨
Mediator/ Facilitator Facilitator/ Mediator
Generally speaking, in situations where there is conflict
among parties or factions, I am more likely to:
¨
Stand during meetings
¨
Sit during meetings
¨
Other (specify)
¨
Record notes privately (e.g., on a
notepad)
¨
Record notes publicly (e.g., on a flip
chart)
¨
Other (specify)
¨
Meet with parties or factions
separately and also with
¨
Meet only with everyone together
¨
Other (specify)
¨
Arrange seating so that people from the
same party are together
¨
Arrange seating so that people are
intermixed
¨
Allow people to sit wherever they want
¨
Other (specify)
In general, which is a more important outcome?
¨
Reaching a consensus agreement
¨
Enhancing the ability of the participants
to work together in the future
Do you think mediation and facilitation mean much the same
thing?
¨
Yes
¨
No
If no, how would you characterize the differences? What practices, values, or assumptions do
you think reflect differences between mediation and facilitation?
Please return
this questionnaire to:
Sandy Schuman, Program on Group Effectiveness, University at Albany,
Draper 118, Albany NY 12222; (518) 465-8872 (voice and fax);
S.Schuman@Albany.edu
This
questionnaire was administered only in a small pilot study, the results of
which were very limited. Two behaviors
that appeared to be differentiate mediators and facilitators were that
mediators sit while facilitators stand; and mediators do not allow choice in seating
while facilitators do.
6.
A 2002 series of posts on grp-facl@listserv.albany.edu
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:40:44 EDT
Sender: Group Facilitation <GRP-FACL@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU>
From: Deborah Levine <Councildiversity@cs.com>
Subject: Facilitation vs. Conflict Resoution
I
have been asked to teach a workshop on facilitation and one on conflict
resolution
for the same company. I would
appreciate any thoughts on defining
the
two so that they are quite different.
My own thinking is that the
conflict
resolution workshop should flow naturally from the one on
facilitation
but not sure how to make that happen. Any advice?