The whole group debriefs after each section so that the participants learn as they proceed. The rounds are often tape-recorded for review. The trainers guide the discussion with questions: “How did the emotions affect the process?” “Were the negotiators able to draw out emotions, unexpressed perspectives, and underlying needs?” “Were they able to create distance between the other’s position and needs in their paraphrases?” and, “What could they have done better?”
In this exercise, participants experience how difficult it can be to manage another’s attacks, emotions, and blaming behavior. Many acquire the insight that people have little control over someone else’s responses apart from developing their own collaborative skills. This is when they become “consciously incompetent”—beginning to know what they do not know. We consider this an important learning milestone because handling another’s anger is a common motivating concern for participants coming to the workshop. This exercise further motivates them to develop their own skills of listening and “going to the balcony,” or rising above the conflict to see it objectively from all perspectives (Ury, 1993).
Module 7: Introduction to Mediation
In the Coleman Raider model, we often introduce a one-hour overview of mediation in our three-day workshop. The longer version teaches mediation skills. Here we briefly discuss the longer program (see figure 35.6).
Figure 35.6 Coleman Raider Meditation Model
Source: Copyright © 1992, 1995 E. Raider and S. Coleman. Permission has been given for use in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Other use is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holder.
The negotiation model already learned forms the framework for understanding mediation. We might move into the mediation segment of the program by asking participants to create a model for mediation based on what they already know about collaborative negotiation. This task is surprisingly simple as students realize how closely mediation is related to negotiation.
Participants are introduced to four stages of the mediation process (which almost parallel negotiation): (1) setting up the mediation, (2) identifying the issues, (3) facilitating informing, opening, and uniting (IOU) behaviors, and (4) problem solving and reaching agreement. The vehicles used to practice these stages are skill practice and role playing, the latter constituting the bulk of the activity.
The role plays offer the participants the opportunity to practice everything learned in both the negotiation and mediation segments of the course. Each mediation stage is practiced in trios, rotating the role of mediator. In debriefing, the mediator receives feedback from the trainers and the disputants themselves—how they felt the mediator moved or blocked the process and how specifically the mediator could have helped their role-play character. (For further discussion of mediation, see chapter 34 in this Handbook.) Cases are either furnished by the trainers or elicited from the audience. In addition to small-group mediations, trainers may facilitate the role plays in the center of the room, fishbowl style, with the class watching. Audio- or videotape is often used in various ways and in any segment of the program.
Throughout the program, trainers present numerous videos of experienced mediators, each with a distinctive style. These show differences in pacing, amount of questioning or silence, and a variety of techniques. The message we intend to impart is that there is no one right way to mediate. We present our model like training wheels on a bicycle: as soon as the learner-mediator grasps the process, he can begin to discover how to make it his own.
Relevant topics (such as caucusing, shuttle diplomacy, getting the parties to the table, organizational context, and culture) are discussed at intervals throughout the program. Prepared videos are used wherever available and relevant to elaborate on these topics and enrich the participants’ learning.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have sought to give readers a sense of the theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical techniques used in our delivery of a conflict resolution training program. We have enumerated a number of insights, drawn from our years of practice, that inform our training designs. We have summarized the knowledge, skill, and attitude objectives we strive for in conducting the program. Finally, we have described in some detail the typical learning activities used in each module of the program.
We hope that sharing both what we have taught, as well as how we have taught it, will stimulate discussion as well as further research. More collaboration is needed with researchers to scientifically link training methods and content with resultant behaviors, along the lines of Peter Coleman and Ying Ying Lim’s pioneering study in 2001. In that study, they used a 360-degree feedback instrument to systematically examine the impact of this negotiation training on participants. One month following completion of the training, supervisors and subordinates reported more constructive outcomes to conflicts, and observers (who knew the participants well) also reported that participants used more uniting and informing behavior. Recently we have developed a conflict resolution 360-degree feedback instrument based on the AEIOU framework (Coleman and Raider, 2010), which could also be a tool that measures training impact in the future (http://cglobal.com/products/aeiou).
POSTSCRIPT
As we have grown as practitioners who have delivered this training over many years, we have come to the conclusion that while this training is very powerful, it is generally insufficient when it comes to systemic change. When conflict resolution was emerging as a popular topic in the 1980s, training was the intervention of choice for both clients and practitioners. When there was tension, difficulty, or conflict, both practitioners and clients chose conflict resolution training. It was always helpful but not the tool that could ultimately make a systemic impact given its focus on the individual. Human behavior is a function of the person and the environment (Lewin, 1936), and unfortunately training often focuses only on building capacity at the individual and interpersonal levels. As a result, when participants return to work, they may not feel that the climate or context adequately supports them to practice their new awareness and skills. The danger is that participants revert to their old behaviors.
As we and our clients have evolved, so have the types of interventions that we suggest and that our clients allow. We offer three examples to illustrate this evolution. Each example uses the training in different ways: for intact team building, as part of a collaborative inquiry project, and as a component of an organizational mediation with leadership coaching. Future research could compare and contrast the impact these other interventions have in relation to that of traditional training—for example, whether they result in more or less conflict, closer working relationships, or greater organizational performance. Finally, each of the case study examples below is based on interviews with the authors and their colleagues.
Intact Team Building, by Krister Lowe
A regional headquarters of an international organization, located in the Caribbean, was struggling with conflict resulting from a slow leadership succession process. The region consisted of approximately fifty staff members and had been without an official leader for approximately one year. During that time, numerous divisions emerged among personnel related to the absence of clear direction from the top. The organization engaged me, as a conflict resolution specialist, in the hopes that they could get their house in order before a new leader was selected, which was set to occur in the coming months. The client and I agreed to conduct conflict resolution training, followed by a whole-system meeting, in order to give personnel both the skills and a forum to have constructive dialogue about the state of affairs. Since all staff members located in the regional office participated in the intervention, ranging from senior management to administrative support personnel, we called it an intact team-building initiative.
I split the staff into two groups of approximately twenty-five people each, so that half of the office could continue conducting business, while the other half received training. I then delivered two, two-day conflict resolution trainings
back-to-back and brought the entire office together on a fifth, final day. Despite the logistical challenges, working with an intact team enabled me to influence the conflict culture within which the participants operated.
During the first four days of training, I encouraged the entire staff to focus on the individual and interpersonal levels of conflict. By the end of the four days, a climate of collaboration, consultation, and creativity emerged, such that when the fifth day arrived, the participants were primed for a discussion of group norms and culture. The group engaged in an honest and constructive dialogue, something that had been perceived as impossible earlier in the week. The group also engaged in collective group problem solving and convened in subunits to address insights at the team level of analysis. Following the week-long intervention, I provided one-on-one coaching to help resolve remaining disputes. In addition, a number of individuals requested coaching support; they realized they faced some long-standing intrapersonal conflicts and wanted to initiate a process of individual change.
In conclusion, in contrast to just delivering training, I had the privilege in this intervention of focusing on multiple systemic levels—individual, interpersonal, team, and regional office—all resulting in a shift in the climate and context within which the participants functioned. I witnessed how conflict resolution training for intact groups can create a climate for deeper reflection and systematic learning. The emotional nature inherent in the topic, if managed well, can segue into deeper, more longitudinal interventions that other training topics often do not create.
Collaborative Inquiry Project, by Sandra Hayes
A school approached me, an adult learning and development specialist, to facilitate improvements in teacher pedagogy to enhance student achievement. The client recognized that there might be differences among faculty, including different teacher and administrator perspectives, about how to improve pedagogy and wanted to create some good discussion. The client also wanted to test assumptions about who can achieve and in what context given that most of the educators were members of privileged groups (race, class) in contrast to their students.
We agreed to conduct two collaborative inquiry processes, one for teachers and one for administrators, to begin sharing perspectives on this complex topic. Collaborative inquiry is an innovative approach to action research that enables participants to address questions and challenges that matter to them most. Based on cycles of action and reflection, the process offers a rich opportunity to reflect on issues while providing a space to learn from each other and envision action that will enhance their practice and improve their organization. In this case, both teachers and administrators were united in their goal of increasing student achievement. However, different, and sometimes strong, perspectives emerged both within and between these two groups. Despite their shared value of teamwork and belief that their successful collaboration was key to increasing student achievement, they struggled to reconcile differences. As is common in many systems, power dynamics inhibited dialogue, and many participants did not feel comfortable exploring or challenging assumptions held by others.
It became clear to me that these participants would benefit from a deeper understanding of collaboration and the expanded vocabulary that conflict resolution training provides. I therefore integrated a half-day session on conflict resolution into the program design. The training helped the participants deepen their level of dialogue by shifting their focus from positions to underlying needs and determining whether those needs were being satisfied or frustrated. Clearly, the half-day training format did not give participants sufficient time to practice their skills as the longer conflict resolution training format does. However, the shorter module did offer participants new insight into the dynamics they were experiencing and increased their ability to reframe situations more positively. They also expressed commitment to fully engage with one another moving forward and not be conflict avoidant, as they had in the past. One final result worth noting was that the short module whet participants’ appetite for additional learning, a healthy outcome, particularly for a school.
Organizational Mediation with Leadership Coaching, by Susan Coleman
A regular part of my practice is building common ground with groups and departments that are experiencing conflict. I have done this work in different parts of the world with various clients, including large universities, health care organizations, the United Nations, and high-tech start-ups. Both my client and I frame the work in different ways depending on the situation. It can be called “mediation,” “retreat facilitation,” “leadership coaching,” or just “consulting.” The presenting problem is also defined differently depending on the situation: it can be “the leader,” “those two employees,” or “a nonperforming team.” Regardless of how the situation presents, my focus is systemic. One key theoretical foundation for my work is negotiation theory and concepts, including the Coleman Raider model.
A few years ago, I did one of these interventions in West Africa with a UN group of about ten people with a mutiny on its hands. The presenting issue was a conflict between the group leader, Fatou (I use fictitious names), an African woman from another country, and the local staff headed by the most senior man, Derick. The client who retained me was Fatou’s supervisor, Pierre. Tension was high when I became involved.
One of the first things I do in these situations is map the actors using the ingredients of the negotiation planning analysis. I send out a confidential questionnaire that asks each party in lay terms for information on their positions, needs and interests, chips/chops, worldview, emotions, and best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Based on their answers, I identify the issues that need to be addressed. The negotiation and conflict lens is a very turbocharged way to get clear about what is actually going on in a system and how I might best support the client.
My work in West Africa was conducted over a five-day period with different processes, all designed to support positive shifts in climate and build common ground:
An opening interactive group session to help people learn more about each other and convey some key conflict resolution concepts (here, I wore my trainer hat)
Confidential interviews with all staff to further understand their perspectives (mediator hat) and explore how they might more positively influence the group dynamic (coach hat)
Daily updates and coaching of Pierre so that, as the most senior leader, he could positively influence the situation (coach and organizational consultant hat)
A midpoint whole group conversation to help everyone track developments (facilitator and mediator hats)
Coaching sessions of individual parties as needed, especially Fatou (coaching hat)
“Mediation” sessions between parties as needed (mediator hat)
A closing whole-group session in which all parties made public commitments about actions they will take to continue to improve the situation (mediator, facilitator hats)
The mix essentially included negotiation training, mediation of the whole group, mediation of especially conflicted pairs, group facilitation, and consulting to and coaching of the system leadership.
As the work on the ground came to a close, the group expressed deep gratitude for the experience. Awareness had been heightened, important apologies made, misunderstandings rectified, and the air cleared. After leaving West Africa, I continued to coach Fatou long distance for a time and stayed connected with Pierre. Four months later, I conducted a check-in with the whole group, with positive results.
The training described in this chapter is a powerful tool to build good grounding for all sorts of more complex, live interventions. It is probably not, in and of itself, enough to work effectively in the way I did in West Africa, but it is a great place to start.
Note
1. A person with a polychronic orientation will prioritize relationships over tasks; a person with a monochronic orientation will get tasks done and then focus on the relationship. A monochronic orientation is characterized by
tightly controlling time. A polychromic orientation is more loose with time. See Hall (1976) for further discussion of these cultural dimensions.
References
Coleman, P. T., and Lim, Y.Y.J. “A Systematic Approach to Evaluating the Effects of Collaborative Negotiation Training on Individuals and Groups.” Negotiation Journal 17 (2001): 363–392.
Coleman, S., and Raider, E. AEIOU: An Assessment of Negotiation and Conflict Communication Behaviors [Professional Development 360 Degree Feedback Tool], 2010. http://cglobal.com/products/aeiou.
Griggs Productions. “Going International, Part Two.” San Francisco: Griggs-Productions, 1983.
Hall, E.T. Beyond Culture. New York: Random House, 1976.
Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related-Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1980.
Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Movius, H. The Effectiveness of Negotiation Training. Negotiation Journal 24 (2008): 509–531.
Rackham, N. “The Behavior of Successful Negotiators: Huthwaite Research Group, 1980.” In R. J. Lewicki, J. A. Litterer, D. M. Saunders, and J. W. Minton (eds.), Negotiation Readings, Exercises, and Cases. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin, 1993.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 126
