|
|
The Electronic
Discussion on |
|
Mediation and
Facilitation
A collection
of material on compiled by
Sandor P. Schuman, [email protected]
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 /
[email protected]
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 [email protected]
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 /
[email protected]
From:
[email protected] (Russell Gold)
Newsgroups:
misc.business.facilitators
Subject:
Re: Facilitation vs. Mediation
Date:
Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:48:22 -0500
In
article <[email protected]>, [email protected] 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
[email protected]
(preferred) | and reverence, not a
series of cheap
[email protected] | bargains between selfish
interests."
================================================================================
From:
[email protected] (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
================================================================================
From:
[email protected] (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:
[email protected] User Services
__o or
[email protected]
023 Smith Hall
_ \<,_ or, simply,
[email protected] 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 <[email protected]>
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 - [email protected] -
(602) 621-2932
===========================================================================
From
[email protected] Fri Mar 1 08:41:11
1996
Date:
Thu, 29 Feb 1996 22:07:13 -0800
From:
Zena Zumeta <[email protected]>
Reply
to: "Group Facilitation - Process Expertise for Group Effectiveness."
To:
Multiple recipients of list GRP-FACL <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: Conflict Management - how to?
>To:
Multiple recipients of list GRP-FACL <[email protected]>
>
>>
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" <[email protected]>
To:
Multiple recipients of list GRP-FACL <[email protected]>
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
<[email protected]>
>
>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 <[email protected]>
To:
Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
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);
[email protected]
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 [email protected]
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:40:44 EDT
Sender: Group Facilitation <[email protected]>
From: Deborah Levine <[email protected]>
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?
Deborah
Levine
Communication
Prose
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:31:45 -0400
From: Wayne Nelson <[email protected]>
On
10/16/02 2:40 PM, "Deborah Levine" wrote:
>
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.
It
sounds kind of "cute", but I think of most of the facilitation that
we do
as
conflict prevention. Setting up an
atmosphere in which conflict doesn't
happen. Like health promotion in relation to
treatment.
We
also facilitate when we are engaged in mediation and negotiation. It
becomes
joint problem solving once the parties have :
-
decided to get together
-
Identified what has happened
-
expressed how it has affected them
At
that point, they can work together to deal with the effects and impacts.
I
think of it as facilitating conciliation - enabling people to come
together
in a meaningful way.
They
are distinct, but they are also very closely connected.
Wayne
<
> < > < > < > <
> < > < > < >
Wayne
Nelson < > ICA Associates Inc.
416-691-2316
< > [email protected] < > http://icacan.ca
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:28:30 -0500
From: Richard Scherberger <[email protected]>
At
17:31 10/16/2002 -0400, Wayne Nelson wrote:
>It
sounds kind of "cute", but I think of most of the facilitation that
we do
>as
conflict prevention. Setting up an
atmosphere in which conflict doesn't
>happen. Like health promotion in relation to
treatment.
I'm
not sure I understand. What steps do
you take to ensure conflict won't
happen? It seems to me that when two or more people
are in one place,
there
is 100% potential for conflict. I
wonder if by preventing conflict
you
are taking steps to avoid it....
Richard
J. Scherberger, Jr.
Senior
Partner
Executive
Leadership Skills
128
Clubhouse Lane
Madison,
AL 35757
(256)
837-7230 (Voice)
(256)
837-5813 (Fax)
(256)
457-1887 (cell)
http://www.executiveleadershipskills.com
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:02:58 -0500
From: Robert Bacal <[email protected]>
On
16 Oct 02, at 17:28, Richard Scherberger wrote:
>
At 17:31 10/16/2002 -0400, Wayne Nelson wrote:
>
>
>It sounds kind of "cute", but I think of most of the facilitation
that we
>
>do as conflict prevention. Setting
up an atmosphere in which conflict
>
>doesn't happen. Like health
promotion in relation to treatment.
>
>
I'm not sure I understand. What steps
do you take to ensure conflict
>
won't happen? It seems to me that when
two or more people are in one
>
place, there is 100% potential for conflict.
I wonder if by preventing
>
conflict you are taking steps to avoid it....
It's
rare I see the phrase "conflict prevention" outside the work I do.
A
few years ago I wrote a book called Conflict Prevention In The
Workplace
- Using Cooperative Communication which looked at
one
aspect of preventing conflict.
There
are some articles on this topic at my site at
http://www.work911.com/articles.htm
One
of which tries to delineate between conflict avoidance and
conflict
prevention.
I'm
not sure I would agree with Wayne Nelson BUT certainly
facilitation
can be used as a process for ensuring that the "conflict
probability"
is minimized WITHOUT creating a conflict avoiding
culture.
There's
another issue perhaps and that is whether conflict is an
on/off,
yes/no thing, or whether it's more accurate to describe it as
a
process with a generally hard to define starting point, until it hits
a
certain level of impact.
Robert
Bacal
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:42:14 -0400
From: WayneNelson <[email protected]>
At
05:28 PM 10/16/02 -0500, Richard Scherberger wrote:
>What
steps do you take to ensure conflict won't
>happen? It seems to me that when two or more people
are in one place,
>there
is 100% potential for conflict.
I
guess I'm using the word "impressionisticly" rather than literally. I
think
you work with a group to ensure that genuine participation opens up a
healthy
dialogue and leads to common understandings.
Facilitators who work
that
way help people set up an atmosphere in which collaboration is more
likely
than conflict.
Of
course there will always be conflict. In a healthy atmosphere, conflict
is
part of the creative, collaborative process. A variety of perspectives
can
lead to a breakthrough in understanding rather than a clash.
Without
writing a treatise, that's how I think facilitation plays a role in
"preventing"
conflict.
Wayne
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:02:46 -0500
From: Richard Scherberger <[email protected]>
Thank
you for the clarification...and thank you especially for not writing
a
treatise.
At
22:42 10/16/2002 -0400, WayneNelson wrote:
IWithout
writing a treatise, that's how I think facilitation plays a role in
>"preventing"
conflict.
Richard
J. Scherberger, Jr.
Senior
Partner
Executive
Leadership Skills
128
Clubhouse Lane
Madison,
AL 35757
(256)
837-7230 (Voice)
(256)
837-5813 (Fax)
(256)
457-1887 (cell)
http://www.executiveleadershipskills.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:28:36 -0700
From: Alan Kitty <[email protected]>
Here
is a scenario where conflict did not exist WITHIN the group.
Suppose
a group is tasked with designing a widget. All agree on the design
and
the methods prior to the meeting. In this and all design-related
respects,
this group is well-aligned. A meeting is called to learn about and
recommend
best practices to ensure successful implementation (and
manufacture)
of the design.
To
ensure things run smoothly and in a timely fashion, a facilitator is
brought
in to moderate the meeting and analyze the results. Everyone quickly
reaches
agreement on best practices that should be used, but during the
discussion
a shared frustration is subtly mentioned: other groups in the
organization
were tasked with designing another type of widget that would
require
use of the same equipment, which indirectly affected best practices
decision-making.
The
facilitator understood that there was an organizational disconnect
caused
by an outside conflict which might affect the organization's
efficiency.
This was neither the meeting, nor the participants, to resolve
the
conflict. In other words, if the cause of the conflict is external, said
conflict
may or may not carry into the meeting. Discovery of a conflict does
make
it clear that conflict resolution facilitation is necessary.
AK
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:45:49 -0400
From: Wayne Nelson <[email protected]>
On
10/17/02 7:27 AM, "Ned Ruete" wrote:
>
What do others think?
Having
though about it a little more, I think that the question I'd like to
be
exploring is how are these things related to each other. I think we are
likely
to find out more about their distinctness if we look at how they are
connected
than we are by looking at how they are separate.
Facilitators
facilitate strategic planning, team development, problem
solving
etc. and they also facilitate mediation, negotiation, conciliation
and
community building. Maybe the
distinctness comes in the fact that we
don¹t
play much of a role in litigation.
All
of these processes are regularly done without self conscious
facilitation
as well. There are approaches to all of
them that are more
related
to management, bargaining etc than they are to anything that I'd
call
facilitation. I don't think that the
people who originated the Harvard
model
for negotiation called themselves facilitators. As I recall most of
the
metaphors were more negotiator oriented.
It's a different approach.
Going
back to Jon Jenkin's "Trainer - Facilitator - Consultant"
descriptions,
I'd say that a lot of these approaches are more oriented to
consultation
than facilitation. Some negotiators do facilitate, but many
consult.
Wayne
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:05:24 -0400
From: Wayne Nelson <[email protected]>
On
10/17/02 1:28 PM, "Alan Kitty" wrote:
>
The facilitator understood that there was an organizational disconnect
>
caused by an outside conflict which might affect the organization's
>
efficiency. This was neither the meeting, nor the participants, to resolve
>
the conflict. In other words, if the cause of the conflict is external, said
>
conflict may or may not carry into the meeting. Discovery of a conflict does
>
make it clear that conflict resolution facilitation is necessary.
Exactly.
That's part of the facilitator's role - helping the group see the
relationships
among the factors affecting their work together.
Wayne
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:14:41 -0400
From: Peter Altschul <[email protected]>
Wayne
writes, in part:
"I
guess I'm using the word "impressionisticly" rather than literally. I
think
you work with a group to ensure that genuine participation opens up a
healthy
dialogue and leads to common understandings.
Facilitators who work
that
way help people set up an atmosphere in which collaboration is more
likely
than conflict."
I
would substitute "competition" in place of the last statement of the
word
"conflict".
Peter
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:07:09 -0400
From: Ned Ruete <[email protected]>
Elizabeth
wrote:
>
The skills that we use in facilitation are
>
mostly the same as we use in conflict resolution
>
but the whole element of emotion (how we express
>
it and how others react to how we express it) can
>
make discussions around issues/ needs much more difficult.
I
would like to hear some thoughts on how the transition from facilitation
to
conflict resolution is the same as/different than the transition from
basic
facilitation to developmental facilitation a la Schwarz. There seems
to
be a connection in the words, but I've never worked in either space so I
might
be missing some important differences.
Ned
Ruete
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:42:32 -0400
From: Elizabeth George <[email protected]>
I
just delivered a presentation on Conflict in the Workplace to a business
community
here in Kentucky. In it, I positioned
facilitation and
collaborative
decision-making processes as ways to help ensure that conflict
(which
is inevitable) does not become destructive. If one views conflict as
an
outgrowth of diversity, then it is inevitable.
It's how one handles the
diversity
that drives whether difference becomes an engine for creativity or
something
destructive in an organization. Daniel Dana wrote a really
practical
book on Conflict in the workplace which is geared toward
non-practioners
so very easy to understand/explain concepts to others. He
talked
about conflict as having four elements: interdependency in the
relationship,
feelings of anger and blame toward the other person for it,
and
behavior that causes a problem. One way
to make the transition from
facilitation
into conflict resolution might be to introduce this whole
concept
of emotion... The skills that we use in
facilitation are mostly the
same
as we use in conflict resolution but the whole element of emotion (how
we
express it and how others react to how we express it) can make
discussions
around issues/ needs much more difficult.
Then perhaps talk to
how
one deals with anger or withdrawal in other people so that both parties
can
get to the issues at hand rather than the issues getting lost in all the
emotion
and subsequent reactions.
Elizabeth
George (new listserv member; am learning lots from all of you!)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:53:23
-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Sandor P Schuman
<[email protected]>
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Ned Ruete
wrote:
> I would like to hear some
thoughts on how the transition from
> facilitation to conflict
resolution is the same as/different
> than the transition from basic
facilitation to developmental
> facilitation a la
Schwarz. There seems to be a connection
in
> the words, but I've never worked
in either space so I might
> be missing some important
differences.
Roger Schwarz addresses this
directly, though briefly, in the new
edition of his book. Pages 56-59 address "The Facilitator as
Mediator" and discuss the
distinctions between these two roles.
In this section he says, "In
general, mediation is more similar
to basic facilitation than to
developmental facilitation."
However, he also notes
"...that at least one approach to
mediation (by Bush and Folger,
1994) also focuses on transforming
relationships among participants
and the participants
themselves."
Both basic facilitation and
"traditional" or "directive"
mediation are focused on solving
the problem (which mediators
would refer to as "reaching a
settlement"). Developmental
facilitation or
"transformative" mediation focus on improving the
ability of the participants
(mediators would say "parties") to
work together effectively in the
future.
The US Post Office adopted
transformative mediation as the method
to be used in its Resolve
Employment Disputes REach Equitable
Solutions Swiftly (REDRESS)
Program, its workplace conflict
resolution program. I was trained as a REDRESS mediator along
with 20 or so other people, all of
whom came from "traditional"
mediation backgrounds. Most of them found it quite challenging
to shift to the
"transformative" mediation approach, while for
me, coming from a group
facilitation background, it was no change
at all.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:01:47
-0400
From: Busby Ann
<[email protected]>
Elizabeth said, >I just
delivered a presentation on Conflict in the
Workplace to a business community
here in Kentucky. In it, I positioned
facilitation and
collaborative decision-making
processes as ways to help ensure that conflict
(which is inevitable) does not
become destructive. If one views conflict as
an outgrowth of diversity, then it
is inevitable. It's how one handles the
diversity that drives whether
difference becomes an engine for creativity or
something destructive in an
organization. Daniel Dana wrote a really
practical book on Conflict in the
workplace which is geared toward
non-practioners so very easy to
understand/explain concepts to others.
He
talked about conflict as having
four elements: interdependency in the
relationship, feelings of anger and
blame toward the other person for it,
and behavior that causes a
problem. One way to make the transition
from
facilitation into conflict
resolution might be to introduce this whole
concept of emotion... The skills that we use in facilitation are
mostly the
same as we use in conflict
resolution but the whole element of emotion (how
we express it and how others react
to how we express it) can make
discussions around issues/ needs
much more difficult. Then perhaps talk
to
how one deals with anger or
withdrawal in other people so that both parties
can get to the issues at hand
rather than the issues getting lost in all the
emotion and subsequent
reactions.<
I like the way you worded
this. I have been pondering Alan Kitty's
statement that conflict resolution
is a subset of facilitation. I see
where
he's coming from in that when you
view a facilitator as a problem solver,
the conflict resolution negotiator
(CRN) who is called into to a dispute is
facilitating a communications
problem-guiding 2 people (or more) to a
reasonable agreement. The skills used are very different, and you,
Elizabeth, hit the nail on the head
when you talked about this expert
dealing with emotions. The CRN may not have had
"facilitation" skills per
se, but has had extensive training
and experience in resolving highly
charged emotional situations.
These already exist when the CRN is
called in. The facilitator of a group
needs to have some knowledge of
these skills in order to try to prevent this
situation from occurring, but would
need the same skills/competencies as the
CRN to continue if a situation
should erupt. A CRN is a facilitator,
but
not all facilitators are CRNs. Agreed?
Elizabeth-I'm with you, learning a
lot and lots to think about! Ann
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:00:42
-0500
From: Gerry Sexton
<[email protected]>
Ned Wrote:
>I would like to hear some
thoughts on how the transition from facilitation
>to conflict resolution is the
same as/different than the transition from
>basic facilitation to
developmental facilitation a la Schwarz.
There seems
>to be a connection in the
words, but I've never worked in either space so I
>might be missing some important
differences.
I see conflict resolution as a
derivative of facilitation...the primary
difference being the added skills
and ability to facilitate the greater
amplitude of emotions and polarity
of opinions typically involved in
conflict resolution. Now, if I
intend to help the group learn the
skills/behaviors of managing their
conflicts (now and into the future)
independent of a facilitator...then
I move into developmental facilitation
(ala Schwarz)...Others?
Gerry Sexton
GrowthWorks, Inc.
Toll Free: 800-832-5385
GrowthWorks Office: 763-420-5685
Cell Phone: 612-554-8976
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.growthworksinc.com
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:23
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 8:07, Ned Ruete
wrote:
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > The skills that we use in
facilitation are
> > mostly the same as we use
in conflict resolution
> > but the whole element of
emotion (how we express
> > it and how others react
to how we express it) can
> > make discussions around
issues/ needs much more difficult.
>
> I would like to hear some
thoughts on how the transition from facilitation
> to conflict resolution is the
same as/different than the transition from
> basic facilitation to
developmental facilitation a la Schwarz.
There
> seems to be a connection in
the words, but I've never worked in either
> space so I might be missing
some important differences.
That only makes sense to me if
conflict resolution is driven by a
goal, while facilitation is driven
by a commitment to process.
It's possible I see this
differently than some since I'm much more
involved in conflict issues per se
than facilitation.
The point I'm struggling with is
that I suspect some people are
assuming that conflict resolution
is a facilitated process. Which, of
course, it can be. But it's not necessary
the only way to come at it
(it also depends on one's meaning
for conflict resolution).
I imagine that when one is a
facilitator one uses that to frame other
activities and goals, and I don't
know if that's a good thing or not. I
imagine that almost any set of
goals is amenable to facilitation but
that doesn't mean that the EQUAL
facilitation.
Make sense?
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:40:10
-0700
From: Harriet Whitman Lee
<[email protected]>
Hi all -
I don't think of Facilitation
*versus* conflict resolution.
I think facilitation can go quite
awry if the facilitator is not
prepared and able to help the group
do what the group needs to do
about any given conflict internal
or external, explicit or implicit,
surfaced or beneath the surface. I
think the facilitator can, in a
lot of instances, help the group
develop ways to deal with internal
and outside conflict
I think of conflict to be utlized rather
than prevented, managed or
resolved. I think of it as a necessary step (like necessary losses)
to a new and better level of
functioning.. Facilitation can make a
huge difference in how the group
operates with/through conflict. As
pointed out before, conflict can
take a very destructive form, so the
challenge for the facilitator, in
my opinion, is how to help the
group get through the pain part to
the ah hah and ahhhh part with the
group doing the work. (is that
developmental? transformative?)
yours for creative and constructive
conflict utilization
h.
About dealing with conflict with an
outside entity: we did work with
a group once that identified what
group membersy called a "WAaaaah!
(WA), because a WA makes you
go "WAaaaah!. WA stands for a "Work
Around" meaning a person or situation that calls for
working around
him/her/it to get the project
done. The group did a great job of
identifying what it could not do
and what it could do and agreed on a
series of strategies to pursue.
h.
--
harriet
Harriet Whitman Lee
Working in Concert
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:21:20
-0500
From: "Vukovic, David
(HCJPD)" <[email protected]>
To all:
My own study and training started
with mediation. It then moved into
emotional issues and family therapy
issues. After three years of study and
training into surfacing emotional
issues in conflict, I discovered the world
of facilitation. I have found the
tools that are used in mediation,
facilitation, family therapy,
individual psychology, group psychology
disciplines are all very similar
with a few differences in completion focus
in each case.
If we were to enumerate the factors
in the above disciplines we would find
things like 'being heard',
'respected', 'appreciated' are all expected.
When we ask each discipline what is
there final goal, the focus can be
different.
Mediation a livable decision
Facilitation a new future story
Family therapy live with each other
Individual psyc self realization
Group psyc working harmony
I know that these are all factors
that all disciplines would like see in
their interventions, however at the
end of the day I feel the different
disciplines are focused on
different targets.
What do others think? ( © Ned Ruete 2002)
All the best
David*Vukovic
Houston Texas
People will forget what you said,
people will forget what you did,
but people will never forget how
you made them feel.
-- Maya Angelou
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:21:22
-0400
From: Busby Ann
<[email protected]>
Cute story, Harriet, WA! I'll remember that one. I don't think any of us
are thinking of us/them kind of
"vs" but I do see them as differing.
I've
meet some conflict management
negotiaters who are highly specialized & I
wouldn't want to be called in to do
what they do. I think it's helpful for
people who facilitate groups to be
aware of some conflict managment
techniques to help the group reach
their goal, but the specialists go way
beyond what a facilitator would
normally need to know.
Robert's point, "...conflict resolution
is driven by a goal, while
facilitation is driven by a
commitment to process" makes sense to me.
There
is a distinction. A negotiator can be a facilitator, but a
facilitator is
not necessarily a negotiator.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:26:19 -0400
From: "Wallace, Jayne"
<[email protected]>
I especially appreciate that
conflict management language. I often
think
that there are some conflicts that
can't be resolved, but the content of the
conflict can often be turned into a
positive force.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:20:18
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 15:26, Wallace,
Jayne wrote:
> Robert's point,
"...conflict resolution is driven by a goal, while
> facilitation is driven by a
commitment to process" makes sense to me.
> There is a distinction. A negotiator can be a facilitator, but a
> facilitator is not necessarily
a negotiator.
I'd probably alter that just a bit
to say that a negotiator might use a
facilitative process, but not
necessarily.
Just to add, I make a
differentiation between conflict resolution and
conflict management, in terms of
the goals they are set to achieve.
Again, there can be overlap, but I
find it helpful to maintain an
awareness of differences.
Conflict resolution has as it's
goal the elimination of the conflict. In
other words the problem gets
resolved. HOW it gets resolved is
subservient to the goal. Maybe
through facilitation. Maybe through
fiat.
Conflict management is different.
It has as it's goal the
minimization of negative effects of
conflict, and the enhancement of
positive outcomes. It is
essentially a problem solving process. So,
for example, it may be that in a
particular situation, the best way to
minimize negative effects is
actually to ignore the conflict. Most of
you are probably familiar with the
different methods uses going
from ignoring through to
collaboration. Again, facilitation may be a
part of the process, but it may
not.
Conflict prevention is less used. I
haven't find too many people
besides myself how use that term,
so my definition (unlike the
other two) is not a
"standard" one.
Conflict prevention refers to the
prevention of unnecessary
destructive conflict that derives
from issues not directly related to a
substantive conflict issue. The work
I do here generally has to do
with conflict that is a result of
what many people call personality
conflict, or, I think a better
phrasing, which is clashes of
communication.
For example, you and I could be in
a conflict situation over the
color of the office walls, where
neither one of us really cares, but
what we are really conflicted about
is the WAY I ordered you to
paint the walls puce.
Hence, the notion that one can work
to prevent certain kinds of
conflict that will not really push
us to a better place.
Conflict avoidance is the general
tendency for some people and
organizations to sweep any and all
conflict under the rug, whether
it needs to be pursued or not, and
regardless of the outcomes.
The general point in making these
distinctions is to help people
think more intentionally about how
a very specific conflict situation
should be addressed.
Sometimes there's no point in
addressing it. Sometimes, the best
approach is for someone to simply
make a power based decision.
Sometimes the best approach is a
facilitated process.
Some of the things that can be
considered in this decision making
process include type and permancy
of the relationship, degree of
inter-dependence of the parties,
cost of the conflict, degree of
emotionality attached to the
conflict, and so on.
...anyway that's how I come at it.
I'm sure there are alternative
ways to define these things that
can work just as well. I DO think
that we need some coherent system
for looking at conflict, which
is where these definitions come
into play. For me, the above
definitions work as a kind of
intellectual system for understanding
conflict that works for me.
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:02:56
-0400
From: Lisa Singh
<[email protected]>
I think Sandor has said what I have
been trying to formulate in my mind. I
come from a mediation background
into facilitation. In fact, I am still
new
to the broader aspects of
facilitation.
Initially I was trained in a
problem-solving methods of mediation.
This is
a somewhat directive process which
leads participants to a negotiated
settlement. In transformative mediation, however, the
participants are
supported in their own decision making
process. This is much more similar
to facilitation.
I first approached facilitation
through introducing family group decision
making models. This approach to conflict leads community,
family and others
through a facilitated discussion of
a problem that has lead to 1. crime or
2. family disputes. The same process has been redesigned from
its origins
for use in business as a
conferencing technique. It helps
participants
define the problem that is causing
conflict within the organization and
supports them in the decisions they
wish to make to address these problems.
Both facilitation and conflict
resolution are broad topics. Both use
varying models. Facilitation can be a method used in
conflict resolution,
but is not the only process. Conversely, facilitation is used in broader
contexts and for broader purposes.
So, if I could draw two circles --
I would have those circles intersect.
One would be facilitation -- the
other would represent conflict resolution.
This to me would be the way I
define the two. They intersect and may
be
dependent on -- but are also
independent of one another.
This is the first time I have
posted to the list. I have been very
happy
with the depth and support everyone
provides. Thank you so much for all of
the conversation.
Incidently, I think you were only
up to 9 in the count a while back.
Lisa Singh
A New Day: Center for Peace and
Community
Dayton, Ohio
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:11:51
-0400
From: WayneNelson
<[email protected]>
Facilitation IS how it is practiced. Conflict resolution IS how people do
it. There is no single IS for any of these things. There are about a
gazillion.
Some people adopt a very
facilitative approach to resolving conflict,
mediating disputes and negotiating
disagreements. That approach is
probably the equivalent of
"developmental facilitation."
They engage
people in creating the atmosphere
and the process as well as focusing on
the content.
Some people take a more
consultative approach to these things. Some take a
legalistic approach to them. Some take a therapeutic approach to
them. Some take an artistic / expressionistic depth conversational
approach. Most people probably use a multi-modal approach.
I can't see that there is any one
thing called conflict resolution any more
than there is one thing called
facilitation.
Wayne
******************
Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates
416-691-2316
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:35:37
-0700
From: Harriet Whitman Lee
<[email protected]>
thank you Wayne.
h.
=======
snippets from Wayne's post:
There is no single IS for any of
these things. There are about a
gazillion.
Some people adopt a very
facilitative approach to resolving conflict,
mediating disputes and negotiating
disagreements.
Some people take a more
consultative approach to these things. Some take a
legalistic approach to them. Some take a therapeutic approach to
them. Some take an artistic / expressionistic depth conversational
approach. Most people probably use a multi-modal approach.
I can't see that there is any one
thing called conflict resolution any more
than there is one thing called
facilitation.
--
harriet
Harriet Whitman Lee
Working in Concert
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:55:14
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 17:11, WayneNelson
wrote:
> Facilitation IS how it is
practiced. Conflict resolution IS how
people do
> it. There is no single IS for any of these things. There are about a
> gazillion.
I'm trying to get my head around
this. It seems to me that this
could apply to anything, training,
management, consulting, etc.
What does this mean for the use of
definitions?
My take on this stuff is that if we
have words, they have to have
some meaning besides what
"IS". Otherwise we would have
difficulty communicating about the
thing.
The idea behind a term or words is
that the term refers to
something that has a number of
things in common. A concept if
you will.
So, with something simple, like the
word dog, the word dog refers
to something that has common
characterstics and excludes things
that lack that characteristic.
To my understanding, facilitation
isn't siimply "how it is practiced"
but is a process that has certain
things that characterize it.
The same with conflict issues. This
doesn't mean you can't have
diverse techniques and so on,
clearly, but it does mean that the
word has to have some meaning,
perhaps some "IS".
> I can't see that there is any
one thing called conflict resolution any
> more than there is one thing
called facilitation.
By the same logic, I guess I could
say there's no "one thing" called
an automobile, or the legal system,
or ?
Is that what you are saying, Wayne?
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:31:44
-0700
From: Harriet Whitman Lee
<[email protected]>
Robert Bacal says
>By the same logic, I guess I
could say there's no "one thing" called
>an automobile, or the legal
system, or ?
What I heard and liked in what
Wayne said is that terms like
automobile, legal system, conflict
resolution, mediation,
facilitation and therapy, etc. mean
wildly different things to
different people. Differences often have to do with
background,
training, experience and
personality style preferences. So, to
me,
it is very worthwhile to get clear
about the range of perceptions and
expectations attached to terms
used.
As Ned sez: What do others think?
h.
--
harriet
Harriet Whitman Lee
Working in Concert
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:03:15
-0500
From: Robert Bacal <[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 16:31, Harriet
Whitman Lee wrote:
> Robert Bacal says
>
> >By the same logic, I guess
I could say there's no "one thing" called an
> >automobile, or the legal
system, or ?
>
> What I heard and liked in what
Wayne said is that terms like
> automobile, legal system,
conflict resolution, mediation,
> facilitation and therapy, etc.
mean wildly different things to
> different people. Differences often have to do with
background,
> training, experience and
personality style preferences. So, to
me,
> it is very worthwhile to get
clear about the range of perceptions and
> expectations attached to terms
used.
I'm sure they have different
connotative meanings, and often
differing denotative meanings.
I guess I have some discomfort
around the idea that since
something can mean different things
to different people, that we
shouldn't work towards definitions
that actually mean something.
From reading this list, for
example, I get the impression that
facilitators here have a good grasp
of what differentiates facilitating
from, let's say training. How do we
profit from saying that training
and facilitating are what
"is", except to move to a situation where
whatever we label something is what
it is.
That facilitation can be done in
numerous ways, and the same for
training, doesn't negate the
distinction between the two. If I call my
training, facilitation, or
vice-versa, and disregard the core
differences, I don't know what
we've gained.
When I talk about training, or I
talk about facilitation here, I have
little doubt that people know I'm
talking about two differing things.
Overlaps may occur, but we know
they are different things at their
core.
It seems to me that this kind of
linguistic nihilism of "isness" is a
real concern, particularly in terms
of explaining what we do and
teaching people in the field what
facilitating means.
...not to mention how not
understanding the core elements of
facilitation may affect the actual
practice of it.
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:08:15
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 17:21, Rosa
Zubizarreta wrote:
> Lisa, thank you for your post...
I like the "overlapping circles" image.
>
> As i was reading this various
posts in the thread, i was feeling
> strongly that, while there are
logical ways in which either
> facilitation or conflict
resolution could be defined as a "subset" of the
> other, in practice each is
broader than that... and then i read your post
> and grinned!
So, if they aren't the same thing,
then we should be able to define
what they share and what
distinguishes them from each other.
Which is way I think we are
confusing process and goals here.
Commitment to facilitation is
commitment to a set of core values
and core processes.
Entering into conflict management
or resolution is a commitment to
achieve specific goals.
What we are trying to do here is
ignore the process/outcomes
distinction, which seems to me a
bad thing.
Actually, facilitation in and of
itself is different from many other
things like training,
organizational development, etc, in that it is a
process which can be used to
achieve a variety of outcomes,
where the others are more outcome
defined.
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:21:03
-0700
From: Rosa Zubizarreta
<[email protected]>
Lisa wrote:
>Both facilitation and conflict
resolution are broad topics. Both use
>varying models. Facilitation can be a method used in
conflict resolution,
>but is not the only
process. Conversely, facilitation is
used in broader
>contexts and for broader
purposes.
>
>So, if I could draw two circles
-- I would have those circles intersect.
>One would be facilitation --
the other would represent conflict resolution.
>This to me would be the way I
define the two. They intersect and may
be
>dependent on -- but are also
independent of one another.
Lisa, thank you for your post... I
like the "overlapping circles" image.
As i was reading this various posts
in the thread, i was feeling
strongly that, while there are
logical ways in which either
facilitation or conflict resolution
could be defined as a "subset" of
the other, in practice each is
broader than that... and then i read
your post and grinned!
(and, as Wayne said, there are a
gazillion ways to do each one...
and, at the same time, there does
seem to be some general clusters of
patterns within each; i found all
of the distinctions various folks
have offered quite helpful.)
with all best wishes,
Rosa
*************************
Rosa Zubizarreta, M.A.
Facilitating Creative
Collaboration:
Process Consulting * Conflict
Transformation * Human Systems Redesign
Phone: 707-824-8876 E-mail: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:28:06
-0400
From: WayneNelson
<[email protected]>
At 05:55 PM 10/18/02 -0500, Robert
Bacal wrote:
>By the same logic, I guess I
could say there's no "one thing" called
>an automobile, or the legal
system, or ?
>
>Is that what you are saying,
Wayne?
No, it is not.
I think that trying to reduce these
highly complex disciplines to a single
"definition" is not the direction
to take. I think that the most
productive discussions will be
about how we practice them.
Wayne
******************
Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates
416-691-2316
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:51:51
-0700
From: Harriet Whitman Lee
<[email protected]>
Robert Bacal writes:
>I'm sure they have different
connotative meanings, and often
>differing denotative meanings.
>I guess I have some discomfort
around the idea that since
>something can mean different
things to different people, that we
>shouldn't work towards
definitions that actually mean something.
Since its true that there will be
different meanings to different
people it works better for me to be
careful about exploring with
others what they mean by their
terms. For me, being sure I know what
a term means without that
exploration has gotten me into trouble
about perceptions and expectations.
An example would be that some
trainers use a very "facilitative
approach;" they
"facilitate" the learning of their "trainees."
There was a whole list serve
discussion about "facilitation" and
"training," discerning
the differences and identifying the overlap on
this list serve a couple of years
ago.
If I am contracting, I believe
things will turn out best for all if
we get clear about what is meant by
the terms we use. What are our
perceptions and expectations when
we use a given term? I know its
"mushy" or it seems that
there isn't anything you can count on.
I
just know the ways in which I have
been burned by not paying
attention to the possible pitfalls
contained in this subject matter.
I think we are both working toward
clarity in communications and need
to put together what we are saying.
h.
--
harriet
Harriet Whitman Lee
Working in Concert
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:05:00
-0500
From: Robert Bacal <[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 20:28, WayneNelson
wrote:
> No, it is not.
>
> I think that trying to reduce
these highly complex disciplines to a single
> "definition" is not
the direction to take. I think that the
most
> productive discussions will be
about how we practice them.
Ok. Fair enough. what would such a
productive discussion "look
like" to you?
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:09:53
-0700
From: Rosa Zubizarreta
<[email protected]>
Robert,
you said,
>Commitment to facilitation is
commitment to a set of core values
>and core processes.
>
>Entering into conflict
management or resolution is a commitment to
>achieve specific goals.
I think this distinction may work
fairly well, as far as it goes...
and, as Sandor and others mentioned
earlier, conflict transformation
is much closer to the above
definition of "facilitation" than to your
description of "conflict management or resolution".
Therefore, it
would be one element that might fit
into the overlapping part of the
two circles...
I also enjoyed your helpful
distinctions between conflict resolution,
conflict management, conflict
avoidance, and conflict prevention.
best wishes,
Rosa
*************************
Rosa Zubizarreta, M.A.
Facilitating Creative
Collaboration:
Process Consulting * Conflict
Transformation * Human Systems Redesign
Phone: 707-824-8876 E-mail: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:21:06
+1300
From: Gabrielle
<[email protected]>
A fascinating discussion.
It seemed to me at first, surely it was obvious that conflict
resolution/mediation where a subset
of facilitation. But through
listening to the discussion I came
to realise that the form of mediation
that I practice ( community
mediation, drawing on transformative and
conflict partnership) can be
considered a subset of facilitation because
it is based on the same values as
facilitation, including the emphasis
on process rather than being outcome focused. But other
forms of
mediation and conflict resolution
don't necessarily share those basic
values.
I feel a bit uncomfotable with
Roberts distinction: "...conflict
resolution is driven by a goal,
while
facilitation is driven by a
commitment to process" .
For me mediation is driven by a
commitment to process in just the same
way as facilitation.What
distinguihes mediation and other CR processes
from facilitation is the focus -
conflict. I feel much more comfortable
with the word focus rather than
goal.
Gabrielle Panckhurst
Dunedin Community Mediation
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:05:42
-0400
From: WayneNelson
<[email protected]>
At 08:05 PM 10/18/02 -0500, Robert
Bacal wrote:
>Ok. Fair enough. what would
such a productive discussion "look
>like" to you?
The conversations on this list
about the ways we practice are far more
interesting than those about
definitions. I think the question in
this
area is probably something like:
- "What kinds of methods and
approaches do you use when you are trying to
enable people to resolve
conflict?"
- " How do those methods and
approaches relate to facilitation methods and
approaches?"
I think we gaining a fuller
understanding of these things when we expand
them than we do when we try to
reduce them. At least, that's my experience.
The defining comes at the end
rather than the beginning.
Wayne
******************
Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates
416-691-2316
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:06:47
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 19 Oct 02, at 11:05, WayneNelson
wrote:
> The conversations on this list
about the ways we practice are far more
> interesting than those about
definitions. I think the question in
this
> area is probably something
like:
I think you are probably right.
>
> I think we gaining a fuller
understanding of these things when we expand
> them than we do when we try to
reduce them. At least, that's my
> experience. The defining comes
at the end rather than the beginning.
I don't agree with you, but that's
fine, since I can see what you are
saying about what's more
interesting for you.
Personally, and perhaps I am in the
minority here, it helps me
clarify my thinking on techniques
to understand the differences in
meaning. I think that helps me in
practice to shift gears more
consciously from one approach to
another, and to understand when
I'm using one set of values and
beliefs as opposed to another.
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:37:17
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 17:51, Harriet
Whitman Lee wrote:
> If I am contracting, I believe
things will turn out best for all if
> we get clear about what is
meant by the terms we use. What are our
> perceptions and expectations
when we use a given term? I know its
> "mushy" or it seems
that there isn't anything you can count on.
I
> just know the ways in which I
have been burned by not paying
> attention to the possible
pitfalls contained in this subject matter.
Yes. A big ABSOLUTELY. I can't
speak for others but I know I've
been in situations where that lack
of clarity derailed a process. In
those situations, I wasn't always
in the lead role, and didn't get a
chance to clarify those expectations,
values and roles, but the
bottom line it is still my
responsibility.
If only because "it hurts so
bad" when things get derailed.
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:47:03
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 19 Oct 02, at 18:21, Gabrielle
wrote:
> I feel a bit uncomfotable with
Roberts distinction: "...conflict
> resolution is driven by a
goal, while
> facilitation is driven by a
commitment to process" .
I think the value in these
discussions is often in the self-clarification
process. I'm probably also
uncomfortable with it.
>
> For me mediation is driven by
a commitment to process in just the same way
> as facilitation.What distinguihes
mediation and other CR processes from
> facilitation is the focus -
conflict. I feel much more comfortable with
> the word focus rather than
goal.
I agree. LIke you, I see mediation
as much closer to facilitation
because it is indeed based on a set
of values and beliefs about
how best to deal with a situation.
But there's no doubt its target is
conflict resolution.
Perhaps what I try and do with
definitions is to come up with
working definitions that, when
taken together, help me work with
clients and help other people. A
working definition, to me, is
something useful, but not
necessarily definitive.
I sometimes use the phrase
"useful fiction" to refer to things that
are useful but not necessarily
universally accurate or "true".
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:32:47
-0400
From: Ned Ruete
<[email protected]>
Robert wrote:
> I sometimes use the phrase
"useful fiction" to
> refer to things that are useful
but not
> necessarily universally
accurate or "true".
You mean things like myths?
See, all the threads really are
just one.... ;-)
Ned
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:51:47
-0700
From: Rosa Zubizarreta
<[email protected]>
Dear Robert,
> > I feel a bit uncomfotable
with Roberts distinction:
"...conflict
> > resolution is driven by a
goal, while
> > facilitation is driven by
a commitment to process" .
>
>I think the value in these
discussions is often in the self-clarification
>process. I'm probably also
uncomfortable with it.
> >
I appreciate your emphasis on the
"process" of clarification, as well
as your perspective on working
definitions as "useful fictions"...
At the risk of exceeding some
folk's tolerance for
nitpicking...(remember, just hit
delete!) i do want to offer the
following, for clarity's sake...
I may be wrong on this, but as far
as i understand it, there is
nothing in set theory that prevents
us from comparing "apples and
oranges"... for example, i could
create a Venn diagram where one
circle is "ways to get over a
cold" and another is "things
that grow
on trees"... and, there would
still be a meaningful intersection of
the two, even if the two categories
themselves are not the same
"kind" of thing...
As to my other point... i was only
mentioning an experiential fact
that sometimes, whenever we are
metaphorically standing "inside" one
of the circles, it can sometimes
happen that the only part of the
other circle that we
"see" is the one that lies within the
intersection of the two circles...
So, for example, as a facilitator,
i might view the elementary
conflict resolution skills that i
possess as a "subset" of my larger
set of facilitation skills...
(leaving aside for the moment the rest
of the CR circle!)
And vice versa; as someone who has
written extensively about CR, you
correctly emphasize that
facilitation is only ONE of the many ways to
get there (so, in THAT sense, and
in that sense only, a subset...)
One way to visually represent this
might be to have the same two
intersecting circles... and, if i
am "inside" one of them, the other
would appear to be made up of a
dotted line instead of a solid one
(i.e. less visible) EXCEPT for the
part that lies within the
intersection.
And, i do agree with Wayne that
discussions of practice are often
more interesting to many. Glad to
know that there's room for all of
us here...
best wishes,
Rosa
*************************
Rosa Zubizarreta, M.A.
Facilitating Creative
Collaboration:
Process Consulting * Conflict
Transformation * Human Systems Redesign
Phone: 707-824-8876 E-mail: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:18:16
-0700
From: Rosa Zubizarreta
<[email protected]>
i've made an attempt to weave
together some of the contributions to
this thread...
first, an overall perspective on
conflict... Wayne wrote:
>Of course there will always be
conflict. In a healthy atmosphere, conflict
>is part of the creative,
collaborative process. A variety of perspectives
>can lead to a breakthrough in
understanding rather than a clash.
>
>Without writing a treatise,
that's how I think facilitation plays a role in
>"preventing"
conflict.
Margo was one of the first to
mention the "overlap":
>These two roles (facilitator and
conflict resolution specialist) have a lot
>of overlapping skills, such as
good listening, ability to include all
>parties, etc.
This foreshadows Lisa's later
mention of "overlapping circles"....
****
On reviewing the earlier posts, i
was struck by how, whenever there
are "overlapping
circles," each circle (or at least the overlapping
portion of it) could be seen a
"subset" of the other...
especially if we take a perspective
that overlooks the rest of the
other circle, either
unintentionally, or else for the purpose of
simplification.. ( note: some
degree of simplification is often
useful in model-making! :-)
for example, on conflict resolution
as a subset of facilitation, Alan
Kitty wrote:
Conflict resolution is a subset of facilitation. It may or may not be an
> issue in any given
facilitation; It may develop during a facilitation; or
> it may exist in an
undiscovered state until the process of facilitation
> brings it out. The facilitator
may become a mediator in such an instance.
Robert disagreed, pointing out the
distinction between facilitation
(process-based) and CR (goal set).
However, a question for Robert: if
we were to modify Alan's statement
above to focus on SKILLS rather
than FIELDS, would it work for you
to say that
basic conflict resolution SKILLS
can be seen as a subset of
facilitation SKILLS?
*******
with regard to facilitation (a
tool) being a subset of the available
tools for conflict resolution
(goal), Robert described this in the
following passage:
"Conflict resolution is not
really a process but a goal set, for
which facilitation may be used as a
tool to reach that goal... as a
goal set, conflict resolution can
be achieved through a number of
ways, including straight out
arguing, and other techniques that have
nothing to do with a third
party."
Ned offered another perspective on
this... going beyond viewing
facilitation skills as a subset of
the CR toolbox, to defining the
very purpose of facilitation in
terms of CR:
>There is a school of thought
that says all facilitation is conflict
>resolution. If there is not conflict of ideas, you don't
need a meeting.
>If there aren't different
people with different perspectives, issues,
>concerns, and interests, then
you only need one person to make the decision
>or plot the course. The action research process, the political
process,
>which we attempt to facilitate
is one of finding the common position that
>allows people with conflicting
ideas to work together.
he then described CR (the rest of
that circle?) as the more
specialized set of skills needed
when "ideas in conflict" have
escalated to personal
confrontation...
********
if we look at the definitions that
have been offered, it can also
help clarify the way in which each
of these circles can be (for
certain purposes) defined in terms
of the other...
For example, Alan defines
facilitation "a process for defining and
reaching goals"... which, if
we add values into the mix, begins to
approximate Robert's "a
commitment to a set of core values and core
processes" -- especially if we
come from a pragmatic perspective
where we see values and processes
not occurring in a vacuum, but
instead as always being 'in
relation to' SOME goal or other...
In turn, Robert's definition of
conflict management or resolution is
"a commitment to achieve
SPECIFIC goals" (emphasis added.)
Therefore, if our focus is on
PROCESS, CR could be seen as a subset
of facilitation since it relates to
accomplishing ONE set of specific
goals, within the larger set of all
possible goals that facilitation
could help to achieve...
while, if our focus is on achieving
the GOALS of conflict resolution,
then facilitation could be seen as
a subset of CR, since facilitation
processes can be ONE way to achieve
that goal, as Robert pointed out
so clearly...
***
and, while both of the above
perspectives are useful, i still think
that Lisa framed the subject very
clearly when she said,
>Both facilitation and conflict
resolution are broad topics. Both use
>varying models. Facilitation can be a method used in
conflict resolution,
>but is not the only
process. Conversely, facilitation is
used in broader
>contexts and for broader
purposes.
>
>So, if I could draw two circles
-- I would have those circles intersect.
>One would be facilitation --
the other would represent conflict resolution.
>This to me would be the way I
define the two. They intersect and may
be
>dependent on -- but are also
independent of one another.
well, that's (more than) enough for
now!
best wishes,
Rosa
*************************
Rosa Zubizarreta, M.A.
Facilitating Creative
Collaboration:
Process Consulting * Conflict
Transformation * Human Systems Redesign
Phone: 707-824-8876 E-mail: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:26:00
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
On 18 Oct 02, at 19:18, Rosa
Zubizarreta wrote:
> Robert disagreed, pointing out
the distinction between facilitation
> (process-based) and CR (goal
set). However, a question for Robert: if we
> were to modify Alan's
statement above to focus on SKILLS rather than
> FIELDS, would it work for you
to say that
>
> basic conflict resolution
SKILLS can be seen as a subset of
> facilitation SKILLS?
I'm not sure. I have to admit to
not feeling like I have a grasp of this
topic to the extent I would like.
My problem is I can't divorce the
skills from the values.
Facilitation, unlike a lot of other fields,
seems to me to have a core set of
values, many of which have
been talked up to great benefit in
this forum.
So, the question I would have to
answer first is:
Is it possible to enter into a
conflict resolution role where we would
violate facilitation principles,
but STILL be effective in conflict
resolution?
If the answer is no, that conflict
resolution process is restricted
ONLY to the same values and skills
used in facilitation, them my
answer would be yes.
If the answer is yes, which I
believe it is, then conflict resolution
may INCLUDE facilitation skills,
but not be confined to facilitation
skills. Facilitation skills may be
one of a number of conflict
resolution practices. I can
envision, for example, the use of various
forms of manipulation and power to
resolve a conflict, that would
make any true facilitator wince.
> Ned offered another
perspective on this... going beyond viewing
> facilitation skills as a
subset of the CR toolbox, to defining the
> very purpose of facilitation
in terms of CR:
>
> >There is a school of thought
that says all facilitation is conflict
> >resolution.
Brief aside: If I try to adopt what
I think is implicit or underlying this
thinking, yes, it makes sense. It
kinda flows out of the meaning of
conflict.
> In turn, Robert's definition
of conflict management or resolution is
> "a commitment to achieve
SPECIFIC goals" (emphasis added.)
>
> Therefore, if our focus is on
PROCESS, CR could be seen as a subset
> of facilitation since it
relates to accomplishing ONE set of specific
> goals, within the larger set
of all possible goals that facilitation could
> help to achieve...
This is where I get stuck. I don't
see the two as the same type of
thing. One is not a subset of the
other. Let me see if I can clarify
this at least for myself.
Let's take a process (walking).
Let's take a destination (getting
downtown).
Is one a subset of the other? No.
They are two different levels of
analysis. I may walk downtown. I
may drive downtown. I may also
be commited to walking independent of
the outcome and walk for
other reasons.
But, they aren't the same kind of
thing. I will pick walking when I
have a goal that I feel is
appropriate for walking, and not pick it
when it isn't (let's say walking to
Texas). Walking is the means.
Getting to the destination is the
end. I can get to the destination
using a variety of different
methods.
> while, if our focus is on
achieving the GOALS of conflict resolution, then
> facilitation could be seen as
a subset of CR, since facilitation processes
> can be ONE way to achieve that
goal, as Robert pointed out so clearly...
How about this? Faciliation is one
MEANS of working towards
conflict resolution, but not the
only means.
Also: In the facilitation process,
there is often a need to address
conflict using facilitative
methods.
However, when IN a facilitative
process, and having to address
certain conflicts, in that context,
the ONLY means that fits that is
consistent with facilitative values
is to use the facilitative process.
So, in that sense, when one is
facilitating, hits a conflict barrier,
then facilitates THROUGH it, then
they are, for all practical
purposes one and the same thing.
Because you can't use a different
form of conflict resolution (eg.
telling someone he's fired because
he disagrees, which is a way of
resolving a conflict, albeit not a
pleasant way)
> ***
> and, while both of the above
perspectives are useful, i still think
> that Lisa framed the subject
very clearly when she said,
>
> >Both facilitation and conflict
resolution are broad topics. Both use
> >varying models. Facilitation can be a method used in
conflict
> >resolution, but is not the
only process. Conversely, facilitation
is
> >used in broader contexts
and for broader purposes.
Yes. Lisa probably framed this in
an excellent and concise way. I
like it.
> >So, if I could draw two
circles -- I would have those circles intersect.
> >One would be facilitation
-- the other would represent conflict
> >resolution. This to me
would be the way I define the two. They
intersect
> >and may be dependent on --
but are also independent of one another.
Yes. To carry on the analogy of set
theory, that means neither is a
subset. A subset is defined as a
circle completely contained by
another circle.
Overlapping, yes. Subset, no.
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 23:41:03
-0400
From: Lisa Singh
<[email protected]>
Robert Bacall said:
"I'm not sure. I have to admit
to not feeling like I have a grasp of this
topic to the extent I would like.
My problem is I can't divorce the
skills from the values.
Facilitation, unlike a lot of other fields,
seems to me to have a core set of
values, many of which have
been talked up to great benefit in
this forum.
So, the question I would have to
answer first is:
Is it possible to enter into a
conflict resolution role where we would
violate facilitation principles,
but STILL be effective in conflict
resolution?"
As I think about Conflict
Resolution Techniques, I can think of differing
values and assumptions for each
model used. The goals as well differ
depending on the model.
For example:
Arbitration:
Values:
Assumptions: Goals:
Neutral party
People need help resolving conflict Determine a fair
settlement
Problem Solving Model in Mediation:
Values:
Assumptions:
Goals:
Negotiation
People need help resolving conflict Resolution of
interpersonal conflict
Neutrality
People need help identifying issues Intersection of
interests
Respect for
process People need process to
resolve conflict
Transformative Method of Mediation:
Values:
Assumptions: Goals:
Empowerment
People can solve their own conflicts Transforming
individuals through conflict
Recognition
People are capable of making decisions Empower decision
making of parties
Respect
decisions of individuals in conflict
Family Group Decison
Making/Community Conferencing:
Values:
Assumptions: Goals:
Parties decisions
With right information, parties can Empower
parties towards their own
process determine their own
solution to
Encourage a planning process to
meet
behaviors that cause conflict the needs of parties
to
encourage
change in behaviors/practices
Peacemaking Circles:
Values:
Assumptions: Goals:
Community All are equal in the process Encourage community around
an event
Respect People need social
interaction
Provide social interaction
and support
to solve conflict in communities
Social contracts
People have well defined social Provide a forum
for discussion of community
responsibilities processes and culture to enhance
social interactions within communities
As pointed out previously confict resolution
is not only these processes.
These are simply models used based
on differing values, assumptions and
goals. But, conflict resolution includes the improvement of
communication
and social interaction, pvoerty
reduction, assessment of organization or
community, removal of barriers to
peaceful coexistance, and much much more.
i can't speak as well to processes
and differing models used in
facilitation. I am still in the process of learning. But, I think we have
simplified the topic a bit.
Also, the above are just my
thoughts. I am sure with more careful
literature review I may find places
where I could have better defined the
values, assumptions and goals.
Anyway, I really would like to talk
about values and assumptions in both
facilitation and conflict
resolution because I think they are extremely
important to how we choose to work
within both fields.
/lisa
Lisa Singh
A New Day: Center For Peace and
Community
Dayton, Ohio
Phone: 937-320-1108
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 23:34:09
-0500
From: Robert Bacal
<[email protected]>
That's a great list. It came out a
bit garbled at this end. I'll have to
see if I can fix the formating so I
can save it.
On 18 Oct 02, at 23:41, Lisa Singh
wrote:
> As pointed out previously
confict resolution is not only these processes.
> These are simply models used
based on differing values, assumptions and
> goals. But, conflict resolution includes the
improvement of communication
> and social interaction,
pvoerty reduction, assessment of organization or
> community, removal of barriers
to peaceful coexistance, and much much
> more.
OK. So long as we could agree that
while it CAN include the
above, it may not necessarily
include any of them being present to
achieve the purpose of resolving
conflict. (but I'm using a
particularly narrow definition of
conflict resolution here).
>
> Anyway, I really would like to
talk about values and assumptions in both
> facilitation and conflict
resolution because I think they are extremely
> important to how we choose to
work within both fields.
Absolutely. If I hold a particular
world view and hold related values
(let's say about human interaction
and what is important), that
should certainly affect my
approaches. If I don't hold true to those
values, then I can't be at all congruent.
I think it makes perfect sense to
start with ones values and beliefs
and work to application.
I also think it's perfectly valid
to work pragmatically, and use
whatever techniques
"work" regardless of what values they
represent.
One of the things I admire about
facilitators is that there is a
central core of values and beliefs
that seems to separate them from
other fields. Mediators, too seem
to hold similar beliefs. OD
practioners seem to also have core
beliefs
Oddly enough, trainers don't seem
to have a coherent and more
universal core of values and
beliefs. I wonder why that is?
Robert Bacal
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:44:15
-0400
From: Paula Diller <[email protected]>
As both a facilitator and a
mediator, I have my own take on the differences
and similarities of facitation vs.
"conflict resolution" conditions,
approaches and objectives.
When I'm facilitating a group, I
operate under the assumption that conflict
(with a small "c") exists
- conflict in the sense of differing ideas,
assumptions, information, interests
and positions. It just is. In that sense,
I use various process models to
help a group identify and work with and
through these conflicts so they can
go where they want to go.
If a conflict arises in the group
that creates an impasse the group (or some
members of the group) cannot get
past, then that becomes a Conflict with a big
"c." That's where
so-called conflict resolution - let's call it mediation -
comes into play.
There are a number of mediation
models, including facilitative,
transformative,
mediation-arbitration (and vice versa),
"negotiation/settlement,"
etc.. I happen to subscribe to the facilitative
model. This means that it is *not*
a given for *me* in my mediator role that
"entering into conflict
resolution is a commitment to achieve specific goals."
[I infer 'specific goals' to mean
'resolve the conflict'.] Rather, my goal is
to create an environment that frees
the *conflicted parties* to resolve their
conflict. Which to me means that
mediation is process-driven and based on a
set of my core values and processes
as a mediator.
Indeed, if as the mediator, *my*
goal is to resolve the conflict, I embark on
a slippery slope that could result
in an agreement that is unworkable, unjust
and/or is not committed to by one
or both of the parties.
Paula Diller
Another Way
Missouri
> Commitment to facilitation is
commitment to a
> set of core values
> and core processes.
>
> Entering into conflict
management or resolution
> is a commitment to
> achieve specific goals.
Date:
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:45:13 +0000
From:
Margaret Nichols <[email protected]>
Subject:
Re: [GF] Control, Chaos, and the Project Manager
John
Brown wrote:
>
That involves stuff around
>
getting people to work together harmoniously using things that
>
facilitators (or mediators) use although I don't often do it explicitly.
I'm
curious -- being a mediator, but not a facilitator, how do you describe
the
"things that . . . mediators . . . use?
Justpeace,
Peg
Nichols
Coordinator,
Small Claims Mediation Program
Olathe,
Kansas, US
Date:
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:05:35 -0400
From:
John Brown <[email protected]>
Peg
Nichols wrote: "I'm curious - being a mediator, but not a
facilitator,
how do you describe the "things that . . . mediators . . .
use?"
I
wouldn't make such a sharp distinction.
I find it useful to work with
the
ideal that a mediator is a facilitator; that mediation is
facilitated
negotiation.
As an
engineer and a sociologist working in international development my
specialty
is managing projects that have a requirement to maximize the
participation
of the stakeholders "throughout the project cycle" as we
say. That means maximizing the local people's
participation in
selecting,
planning, designing, implementing and maintaining, the works
(usually
there are "works.")
Almost
every professional bureaucrat has a different understanding of
what
"participation" means and how broad a mandate that is. Their
understanding
will often include people in a rigid hierarchy who think
that
participation means "doing what you're told."
Add to
that the fact that the project design almost always throws in a
significant
amount of "capacity development" for the bureaucracy itself
and may
add NGO-private-public sector partnership to the mix. I think
you can
see that this already provides some scope for practicing
mediation.
Then
there is the team working on the project.
The team will almost
always
be an ad hoc group of discipline specialists - international and
host
country professionals - thrown together for a particular project
that
may run two or three or five years under one project manager. Some
of the
host-country professionals may be seconded from a ministry and
others
come as consultants from the private sector (and so paid
substantially
more than their civil servant colleagues).
Here too there
is
usually lots of room to practice peace-making if one is to build a
productive
workplace with an affirmative ("can-do") environment.
Probably
the most important among the things that I've learned from
mediation
is active non-judgemental listening.
Sometimes it has
astonishing
power. But even relatively simple
things that I have been
taught
as good mediation practice like asking people not to interrupt
each
other but to write down the points they wish to respond to so they
don't
forget them when it comes to their turn have proven extremely
useful
in difficult meetings I have managed.
I also
emphasize focusing on what we're going to do rather than whose
fault
it is; reframing, and emphasizing interests over positions.
Unpacking
the interests. Clarifying and asking
the team members to, as
far as
possible, come up with their own solutions while keeping an eye
on
where we're going.
I think
I've learned most of these techniques in my mediation training
but I
guess some of them are just [un]common sense made conscious.
John
Brown, Principal
Brown
& Leowinata Ltd.
Human
& Organization Development Consultants
52
Eleanor Drive, Ottawa ON K2E 5Z7
Voice
613-274-3972