Midterm Reflection

Conflict_Resolution_for_the_Helping_Professions_Ne..._----_9._Group_Facilitation.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Midterm Reflection

437

C h a p t e r n i n e

group facilitation

G roup facilitation refers to helping a collection of people communi-cate more effectively. Facilitating groups may be viewed as a form of multiparty negotiation, with facilitators needing to pay attention to the complex roles, needs, and interactions of various members. The root of facilitator, “facile,” means to make easy, sug- gesting that the role of a facilitator is to render communication easier (Fleischer & Zumeta, 1999). Essentially, a facilitator uses listening, questioning, and focusing skills (described in Chapter 1) to pre- empt barriers to effective communication and help the group work toward its goals.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Upon successful completion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Assess potential challenges to effective group processes. • Develop and implement strategies to manage challenges to effective group

processes. • Use group facilitation skills to engage group members in constructive conflict reso-

lution (CR) interactions. • Determine whether debate, dialogue, problem- solving, or identity- based CR would

be appropriate to help groups deal with particular conflicts.

A facilitator plays an impartial role regarding the content of the dialogue, guiding the process in a manner that balances participation and results (International Association of Facilitators, 2004). Facilitators use a range of techniques to help groups think together, discuss difficult issues, make critical decisions, assign tasks, and ensure that decisions are properly implemented and evaluated.

Helping professionals use facilitation skills in various roles, for instance, as adminis- trators, committee chairs, group counselors, community organizers, and educators. Some professionals view facilitation as “a way of life” as opposed to a specific role, because facilitation can be used in so many different roles (Eller, 2004). As noted in Module III,

Barsky, Allan. <i>Conflict Resolution for the Helping Professions : Negotiation, Mediation, Advocacy, Facilitation, and Restorative Justice</i>, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=4792771. Created from liberty on 2019-11-16 11:58:24.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

438 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

438

mediators often refer to themselves as facilitators, though mediators comprise just one type of facilita- tor. Mediators help people manage or resolve a specific conflict. Although facilitators may help people deal with conflict, they may also help people communicate, whether or not resolving a particular conflict is the primary focus of the discussion.1 The goals of facilita- tion vary depending on the context and the wishes of the participants. Group goals may include enhanced

communication, heightened insight, greater understanding of one another, reduced ste- reotypes, solving particular problems, developing policies, improved relationships, or whatever goals the group wishes to pursue (Fleischer, 2007; Maemura, 2013).

This chapter begins with an overview of the types of groups and typical stages of group process. The manner in which a facilitator responds to conflict depends on the nature of the group as well as its stage of development (Oetzel & Ting- Toomey, 2013). The following section identifies common challenges to group communication and provides suggestions for dealing with each. The middle sections of this chapter identify various approaches to facilitation, showing how each approach deals with conflict in a different manner. The latter sections provide an inventory of facilitation skills and a series of exercises you can use to practice these skills. As you work through this chapter, reflect on a group in which you partic- ipated: What type of group was it, what were its goals, what group process issues arose, and what approaches and skills did the facilitator use to pre- empt or deal with group conflict?

T YPES OF GROUPS

Groups can be categorized as task, psychoeducational, counseling, or therapeutic groups. Task groups are designed to plan and implement specific jobs or undertakings; for instance, a committee is struck to assess an organizations needs, a community group decides to build a recreational facility for elders, or a coalition of child welfare agencies develops in order to coordinate their services. Psychoeducational groups are designed to foster cognitive, affec- tive, or behavioral skills through the use of structured activities; for instance, a substance abuse group might include education about the causes of substance abuse and offer role- plays to help clients develop healthier methods of coping. Counseling groups help people deal with common living problems through the use of support, problem solving, and skill building; for instance, a self- esteem group might help participants compare the perceptions they have of themselves with the perceptions others have of them, and use mutual support to help each other build stronger senses of themselves. Psychotherapy groups help clients remediate psychosocial problems through the use of therapeutic techniques such as explor- ing unconscious psychological processes, dysfunctional relationships, and deep- rooted fears; for instance, a group for people with anxiety disorders might include dream analysis, behavior modification, hypnosis, or relaxation training (M. Corey, Corey, & Corey, 2013; Toseland, & Rivas, 2012).

1 In other words, mediation is a specific type of facilitation, designed to help parties resolve conflict through a process of consensus building. Typically, mediation is confidential; depending on the group, confidentiality may or may not be required in a group facilitation process. In fact, some groups are mandated to be open to the public (e.g., under open government laws). Whereas mediation generally uses consensus for decision making, other forms of facilitation may use consensus, majority votes, selected decision makers, or other devices for decision making (Fleischer, 2007).

Good communication is as

stimulating as black coffee and

just as hard to sleep after.

—Anne Morrow Lindbergh

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 439

439

Although conflict can emerge in each type of group, a facilitator’s response should take the type of group into account. It would be inappropriate, for instance, for the facilitator of a task group to respond to conflict by using therapy with group members. To help the group accomplish its tasks, however, the facilitator should attend to emotional and rela- tional issues. The facilitator could use team- building activities to restore collaboration or allow group members to vent feelings, before refocusing on the tasks to be accomplished. Delving into childhood memories to see how they might affect current behaviors, however, crosses the boundary into therapy.

Although conflict can transpire in any group, some groups are specifically designed to deal with conflict. An agency with high levels of staff conflict, for instance, might create a task group to explore ways of fostering more effective CR . A psychoeducational group could be designed for perpetrators of violence, teaching them the impact of their behav- ior and providing alternate ways of dealing with anger or stress. A counseling group could be developed for children with poor impulse control, offering them support and fostering problem- solving skills. A therapeutic group for survivors of intimate partner abuse could help them resolve feelings of embarrassment, self- loathing, or fear, as well as how to avoid abusive relationships in the future.

GROUP STAGES

Groups typically go through a series of stages, each marked by certain types of group dynam- ics and issues (M. Corey et al., 2013). By understanding these stages, facilitators can pre- empt destructive patterns of conflict and promote more positive approaches to dealing with it. The basic stages of group development include forming, norming, storming, performing, and adjourning ( Jensen, 1977 cited in Pugach, Johnson, Drame, & Williamson, 2012).

When groups are forming, facilitators must decide who to bring into the group and how to structure it. Inviting members with similar backgrounds and views may decrease con- flict, but diversity of backgrounds and perspectives may bring greater richness, expertise, and legitimacy to the group (Oetzel & Ting- Toomey, 2013). Leaving certain people out of the group can create resentment, rumors, and further conflict (Wilmot & Hocker, 2014). Seating people theater style tends to formalize discussion and make the audience passive, whereas a circle facilitates open dialogue and invites broad participation. Even decisions as simple as naming the group can affect how conflict is handled. Some facilitators avoid names such as “Task Force” because “force” implies violence. A “Complaints Committee” or even a “Town Hall” may invite people to complain and gripe, whereas a “Think Tank” or “Creative Response Team” promotes imaginative problem solving.

During the forming stage, facilitators may meet with individuals or small groups to help them prepare for a constructive interaction. For instance, facilitators can help members identify what issues are at stake (for themselves and others), what they can do to promote constructive dialogue around these issues, and how they might prepare themselves emo- tionally for the meeting (e.g., using the mindfulness strategies described in Chapter 1). Facilitators can help members surface fears about what may happen during the meeting, as well as ways to address such fears. For instance, if a person fears that others may ignore his concerns, the facilitator could practice assertiveness skills with him. Facilitators can also promote positive dialogue by presenting positive expectations for the meeting (Stains, 2012). “Imagine the dialogue going as well as can possibly be expected. How would the dialogue look and sound?”

In the norming stage, members may have unclear expectations about the goals of the group and expectations of them as group members. Facilitators can pre- empt conflict by clarifying the group’s goals and guidelines (sometimes called ground rules or procedures).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

4 40 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

440

This does not mean imposing goals or guidelines but rather inviting the group to develop them. In terms of boundaries, for instance, facilitators may encourage members to negoti- ate their expectations about personal sharing, or whether group members will be allowed to extend their relationships outside the group. For large groups, it may be useful to have a subcommittee meet in advance to help establish goals, guidelines, and an agenda for the first meeting. At the first meeting, the facilitator could present this information and ask the larger group whether they agree to these goals, guidelines, and agenda items.

The beginning stages of a group are often marked by a honeymoon period. Members may be nervous and self- conscious, avoiding conflict in order to give the facilitator and group a good impression. Facilitators can encourage surfacing of conflict through ground rules and modeling. It may be tempting for a facilitator to establish norms such as “people will keep their emotions in check” or “members must not argue with one another.” Such rules quell not only destructive conflict but also constructive conflict. Facilitators should foster an environment where members are free to raise differences and express emotions (Cloke, 2001). If a group member criticizes the facilitator, for instance, the facilitator could thank the member for raising this issue and validate the concern. Validation could include paraphrasing and showing understanding. The facilitator can disagree, and also show respect. Successful resolution of the norming stage is marked by higher levels of trust, as well as shared understanding of the group’s norms and expectations of members (M. Corey et al., 2013).

During the storming phase, members have moved past the hyper- polite honeymoon period and are more willing to express conflict directly. Some may question the goal of the group, the lack of resources required to achieve the goal, the motivations or abilities of other group members, or even whether they want to be a part of this group. People with different views may express anger or frustration toward those with whom they disagree (M. Corey et al., 2013). Facilitators may allow for venting emotions and working through these issues. Although the facilitator may need to establish parameters on venting (e.g., no physical violence), the facilitator should help the group work through the problems rather than stifle discussion. Working through conflict strengthens the group, helping it estab- lish group boundaries, clarify objectives, build trust, and deal with underlying tensions (Druckman & Diehl, 2006). Although the storming phase may present challenges to the facilitator, this stage is essential in preparing members for the performing stage.

The performing stage is a work- oriented phase where the group is able to focus on its goals or tasks (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). Facilitators must be careful not to do the work of the group. If a facilitator is working too hard, this could be a sign that group members are not working hard enough. The facilitator should surface this issue with the group. Ideally, the facilitator has provided the group with special time, space, skills, and structure to allow them to take the lead in doing their work. When conflict emerges, the group is better pre- pared to deal with it. The facilitator helps the group build on its successes and helps it work through problem areas.

In the adjourning stage, members prepare for the end of the group as it was originally constructed. Some groups terminate because they have completed their task; other groups terminate because they are time limited, they have run out of money or other resources, or the group is not able to achieve its goals (M. Corey et al., 2013). Conflict at this stage could include disagreement about whether to continue the group, frustrations about unfin- ished work, or emotional reactions to the termination of a group that has provided positive experiences (e.g., anger, sadness, or anxiety about the future). Again, the facilitator should balance task and process, helping the group decide how to proceed with unfinished goals and helping them work through their feelings about the disbanding of the group. Some groups do not merely disband; they morph into another form. For instance, a formal group

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 4 4 1

441

with a leader may end, but group members may continue to meet informally on their own. Alternatively, the facilitator could help the group terminate “Phase 1” of the group, and then invite those who are interested to participate in “Phase 2.” As part of the adjourning stage, facilitators help groups review their process, evaluate what they have accomplished, and determine what further steps need to be taken to establish closure for group members (whether or not they have accomplished their primary goals).

The skills needed to facilitate a group change over its course (Pugach et al., 2012). In some groups, a facilitator may be more directive at the initial stages, giving the group greater control of the process as it works through conflicts and establishes positive norms. In the beginning stages, facilitators often use trust- building skills (e.g., demonstrating empathy). In later stages, when trust has been built, facilitators may be more likely to use constructive confrontation skills to help the group work through conflicts. “We have 15 minutes left in today’s meeting. In the time remaining, should we continue to debate our differences or start identifying common ground?” Throughout the group process, the facilitator should respond openly to conflict rather than deny it or respond defensively.

CHALLENGES TO GROUP PROCESS

Facilitators may face a range of challenges to effective group process: individuals have dif- ferent agendas; the discussion has no focus; the discussion is dominated by certain indi- viduals; some individuals keep interrupting; some individuals remain silent; individuals lose their attention; individuals have difficulty listening to other’s ideas; statements or ques- tions put some people on the defensive; individuals are not saying what they really think; individuals are confused about what decisions they have made (Eller, 2004; Kosmoski & Pollack, 2000; Lewicki et al., 2010). To illustrate facilitation strategies for each of these obstacles, I will use a conflict situation between various helping professionals with conflict- ing ideas about how to regulate their professions.

1. Different Agendas

In a room full of 50 people, you might have 51 different opinions about the purpose of the meeting. If people come into a meeting with different agendas, at least some will come away feeling disappointed. CR begins before people meet, particularly with large groups. Everyone should be prepared with the following types of information: goals for the meet- ing, who will be attending, who will be facilitating the process, roles of various participants2 (Lewicki et al., 2010), and what materials or information people need to bring to the meet- ing. Proper preparation means pre- empting surprises. Some surprises are entertaining. I remember one evening meeting in which I told everyone the coffee was decaffeinated but later found out my colleague accidentally used full- strength. We were hoping that decaf would help calm participants, but we kept noticing people becoming more stimulated as the night wore on. Note how this section is titled Agenda Setting, but I have gone off on a tangent with my own agenda, telling a cute anecdote. Let’s refocus.

To prepare for a meeting, the facilitator should decide whether to meet with individu- als or subgroups that will be participating at the larger meeting. Meeting with individu- als or small subgroups is particularly desirable when the level of conflict is high and many

2 Possible roles for group members include facilitating communication, initiating ideas, seeking information, coordinating, motivating, encouraging, setting standards, enforcing guidelines, making decisions, provid- ing expertise, implementing decisions, and taking notes (Lewicki et al., 2010; Moore, 2014).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

4 42 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

442

different points of view emerge. In some cases, the facilitator can meet with representatives of each group to develop an agenda. The representatives for each group are responsible for ensuring that their members are prepared and agree with the agenda prior to the larger meeting.

Where the relevant parties do not agree on the agenda, the facilitator could use media- tion skills to help them develop a mutually acceptable agenda. The facilitator may need to shuttle back and forth between the parties until an agreement is reached. Often, the tough- est negotiations take place before the parties ever agree to an agenda and sit down together. Each party may be positioning for certain advantages— for example, a time and place that is favorable to their own group, a wording of the issues for discussion that limits the pos- sible solutions in their favor, or a CR process that is biased in their favor. The facilitator should recognize these tactics and promote more constructive negotiation strategies (see Chapter 4 for examples).

2. No Focus

Once an agenda is set, the facilitator needs to keep parties focused on the agenda. If neces- sary, the parties can renegotiate parts of the agenda. However, this should be a deliberate process. Too often, the facilitator and the parties wander from one issue to another without any clear focus.

Punctuation refers to the skill of clearly separating each issue from other issues. The facil- itator lets participants know which issue is up for discussion, guiding participants through different phases of the discussion (Kraybill, 2005).

We are now moving on to the issue of standards for accreditation. We have 45 minutes to dis- cuss the proposal put forward by the Accreditation Committee. We will then take a 5- minute break. After the break, let’s move on to the issue of professional discipline.

Punctuation emphasizes the transitions from one topic to another. Topic separation can be enhanced by making conscious changes in time and environment: taking a break between topics, moving to a different room, moving people from large groups to small groups, changing the lighting in the room, and so on.

When people stray from the topics on the table, the facilitator uses refocusing skills. The facilitator can remind the parties that they have agreed to a specific agenda, that they have limited time, and that they have made time for all issues to be discussed.

I understand you’re concerned about professional discipline. We’ll get to that after the break. I’ll make a note that you want to speak to this issue. Did you want to add anything to our discussion on accreditation?

When people sense they have ownership of the agenda, they are more likely to maintain focus. If the facilitator notes a certain pattern to the interruptions, the facilitator should assess the reasons for the interruptions— for example, individual difficulties maintaining focus or attention, a tactic to prevent constructive problem solving, or underlying emo- tional needs that require attention.

In the current example, one participant, Paul, keeps talking about how he was brought up on charges of professional misconduct. Other participants are getting frustrated because the issue is not about Paul, but professional issues more generally. The facilitator assesses that for Paul, the issue is about Paul. He has unresolved resentment about how he was treated. For Paul to participate more constructively as a group member, he needs help with

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 4 43

443

this issue. The facilitator needs to decide whether to allow Paul time within the structure of the group or to meet with him outside the group in order to help him work through his resentment. In this case, the facilitator finds a way to mesh Paul’s needs with the needs of the group. With the group’s approval, the facilitator sets aside a specific time for profession- als to share horror stories; the group will use the stories to identify common themes about problems in the current regulatory system.

3. Domination

In any group interaction, certain people might dominate discussion. Domination may arise because of individual or cultural differences: Some people speak more loudly than others, some require less time to think before they speak, some demonstrate more passion, and some are more articulate. To ensure that everyone is able to participate fairly in the pro- cess, the facilitator can use the empowerment and power- balancing strategies described in Module III: giving everyone in the room a turn to speak; giving less empowered people the opportunity to speak first; teaching people effective communication skills during prepara- tion for the meeting; slowing down the pace of the discussion; reminding participants of ground rules, such as “demonstrating respect for others”; or using a combination of online and in- person presentations so that everyone can communicate in his or her preferred mode.

In the regulation illustration, a group of vocational counselors has not prepared for the meeting. A group of family therapists has prepared thoroughly and tends to dominate the discussion. The facilitator recognizes the imbalance and asks the parties to consider adjourning the meeting so everyone can contribute. The family therapists may perceive a bias against them: Everyone had the same chance to prepare, so why should they have to come back for another meeting just because another group was negligent? The facilitator acknowledges their frustration and gives the other groups an opportunity to do the same. The facilitator then encourages the parties to consider the purpose of the meeting, which is to craft the best decisions possible. In order to fulfill this purpose, each group must be prepared.

Competitive groups or individuals may use domination as a strategy— to win. Facilitators can recognize this tactic when people are arguing positions rather than needs or interests. As with mediation, the facilitator should encourage the parties to look at inter- ests and needs rather than positions. In addition, the facilitator can encourage coopera- tion by helping the parties understand the costs of adversarial relations and nonagreement. Dominating may also arise when a particular member tries to block consensus through the use of extraneous information, aggressive behaviors, or extreme emotional displays (Pugach et al., 2012). In some instances, one or two people on the extremes of particular issues may derail the process. In such instances, facilitators could try working with moder- ates within the groups to help the process get back on track.

When a facilitator tries to prevent or remedy domination by a few individuals, the facili- tator should be careful not to shut people down. An essential aspect of group interaction is to promote a full discussion of the issues, with everyone’s input. Rather than confronting someone about the problem within the group, the facilitator may also choose to engage the person privately, helping the person save face, gain insight, and moderate behaviors for future group sessions.

Facilitators should avoid labeling particular group members as domineering or diffi- cult. Viewing people in a negative light fosters additional negative thoughts, feelings, and behavior, creating a downward spiral (Lightman, 2004). “Olga is overbearing and manipu- lative. She makes me feel so frustrated. I need to do something to silence her.” Rather than viewing Olga as overbearing and manipulative, the facilitator could incorporate positive

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

4 4 4 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

444

interpretations and responses. “Olga is motivated and powerful. How can I help her use her energy to assist the group with its goals?” This strengths- based approach helps the entire group by modeling positive responses even when challenging situations arise.

4. Interruptions

Group participants may interrupt discussion by switching topics, speaking over another person, making rude noises or jokes, or behaving in a distracting manner. With occasional interruptions, the facilitator can simply use focusing skills.

Excuse me, Sharon. If we can finish hearing what Paul has to say, I’ll put your name down to speak next.

The challenge is how to deal effectively with an interruption without putting the per- son who interrupted on the defensive. Some facilitators use a process called stacking, list- ing people who want to speak and then recognizing them in the order that they asked to speak (Kaner, 1996). If one person is talking and another wants to respond, the second person raises a hand, and the facilitator adds that person to the list. This prevents inter- ruptions. On the downside, this strategy formalizes the process and stunts the natural flow of discussion. By the time a person gets a chance to speak, the topics may have changed. Linear discussion, in which one person speaks at a time and the focus is on one issue at a time, works better for some cultures than for others. The facilitator needs to determine how flexible to be about interruptions and the flow of communication. Some groups can tolerate interruptions and still work constructively. Further, sidetracking sometimes leads to creative solutions.

When certain people constantly interrupt the process, this behavior may indicate that they have a different agenda or they are using interruptions as a competitive tactic. They may also have emotional needs that require addressing (as discussed earlier). Some facilita- tors use a talking piece to discourage interruptions and to promote more equal participa- tion. A talking piece, originally used in Native American healing circles, is a feather, stone, stick, or other object that participants pass between them. Whoever has the talking piece is allowed to speak without interruptions. When finished, the speaker passes the talking piece to the next person.

5. Silence

Silence among certain participants is difficult to assess. Often, people assume that if some- one is silent, the person is agreeing with what is being said. However, silence could also mean the person is not comfortable speaking in front of a group, the person disagrees but does not know how to respond, the person does not feel safe presenting a contrary point of view, the person is not paying attention, or the person does not understand what is being said. Sometimes, people remain silent because they feel different or do not want to engage in conflict (C. Barnes, 2015). Because sharing information is vital to group process and decision making (Hassenforder, Smajgl, & Ward, 2015), facilitators should address issues related to silence.

Facilitators can establish several communication guidelines at the beginning of the pro- cess to pre- empt problems related to silence:

• All participants will be given an opportunity to speak. • Everyone’s needs and interests are important to the group and its decisions.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 4 45

445

• Diverse opinions will be valued and respected (i.e., it is OK for members to voice disagreements).

• If anyone has difficulty speaking in front of the group, he or she can discuss alternatives with the facilitator (e.g., practicing communication skills in order to prepare, using an advocate, or submitting a written brief ).

• Although participation in discussion may be encouraged, nobody will be forced to speak. • The group will not assume that silence means agreement.

Some people do not bother to speak up at meetings because they do not believe their input will have any bearing on decisions to be made. To pre- empt this problem, the group needs to know how decisions will be made from the outset. In some cases, the group will operate on a consensus model. That is, decisions will require general agreement of the group.3 For some decisions, the group may require unanimity. For others, it may require majority or supermajority votes (e.g., more than two- thirds of the people present). Voting procedures ensure that everyone has a say in the outcome; consensus approaches are more likely to encourage win- win solutions and collaborative problem solving. Voting proce- dures could include either open voting or secret ballot. Secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience without fear of recriminations from others. The disadvantage of secret bal- lot is that no one knows why people voted a particular way. This allows individuals to vote a particular way without ever letting others know their true concerns.

The Delphi technique is particularly useful when the anonymity of participants is desired. According to this technique, the facilitator distributes a questionnaire (electronically or on paper) to group members. The members provide opinions or other requested feedback. The moderator may distribute one or two more questionnaires to solicit additional feed- back, to narrow options, or to clarify answers. Upon completion of gathering information, the facilitator develops a report summarizing the decisions of the group. This technique is relatively inexpensive and easy to facilitate, although it does not address relationship issues (Lewicki et al., 2010). Delphi has been used to develop health and social policy. It has also been used by health and mental health practitioners to improve clinical decision making ( James & Warren- Forward, 2015).

In some instances, people are asked to participate in a discussion in which they have no decision- making power. For example, at the end of the discussion, a small group will be responsible for actually making the decisions. In such a case, the facilitator should ensure that the decision makers will actually take everyone’s input into account. The facilitator could ask the decision makers directly, “Why are we having this discussion with 50 people when only five of you will actually decide what happens?” The decision makers can explain that they value the knowledge and opinions of all group members. They can also note that the decisions will need to be implemented by the membership; therefore, a decision that does not reflect their needs and interests cannot be implemented effectively.

One of the best ways to determine why a person is remaining silent is to ask, either in the group or in a private caucus. The facilitator should allow the person to speak, without feeling pressure or embarrassment.

3 Susskind (2005) suggests that if there is overwhelming agreement but not unanimity, each person must be asked, in person and out loud, about whether he or she can live with the agreement. If each person can live with the agreement, then consensus may be declared. Otherwise, the group needs to hear and try to accom- modate the concerns of those who say they cannot live with the agreement. If the group cannot satisfy these concerns, then there is consensus that no agreement is possible.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

4 46 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

446

Veronica, we haven’t heard from you for a while. I’m not sure whether this is because you’re agreeing , disagreeing , or just need more time to think this through.

Asking people a direct question and looking at them as though you expect an answer gen- erally provokes a response. However, you may also want to respect a person’s right not to speak. For some individuals, observing and listening is a sufficient form of group participa- tion. Their body language may indicate whether they are agreeing or disagreeing with the direction of the meeting.

Silence may signal that a topic is viewed as embarrassing or taboo. For instance, some families teach their children not to talk about issues such as sex, politics, or religion. When members indicate that a certain topic is “undiscussable” or “nonnegotiable,” the facilitator could engage them in a discussion of why these issues are undiscussable or nonnegotiable (Lewicki et al., 2010)

People who are silent may have difficulty expressing themselves. To draw them out, the facilitator can use reflective listening and exploration skills.

Earlier you seemed to agree that higher standards are needed. Please tell us more about that.

In spending time to draw out particular individuals, the facilitator must be careful about losing impartiality. Often, facilitators are tempted to draw out people whose opinions fit with their own or whose ideas might lead to a speedy solution. The facilitator should ensure that all people have an opportunity to speak, regardless of whether the person’s ideas are interesting or realistic (Kaner, 1996).

6. Lost Attention

Group participants may lose their attention for a number of reasons: The content is not interesting to them, the process is long or dull, there are outside distractions, or they have a relatively short attention span.

If the parties have agreed to the agenda and the facilitator keeps the discussion focused on the agenda, then the content should be of interest to the participants. If some participants seem disinterested in the topics being discussed, the facilitator could ask directly whether this is so. The agenda may require renegotiating in order to focus on what really matters.

To ensure that participants do not feel the process is dragging, keep meetings to less than 90 minutes or have breaks at specified intervals. Use a variety of formats for com- munication: small- group discussion, panel discussion, brainstorming session, keynote pre- sentation, written submissions, experiential exercises, and so on. Make use of audiovisual equipment, such as flipcharts, LCD projectors, online videos, or digital feedback using smart phone apps. Allow for humor to lighten the discussion.

External distractions could be physical or emotional. Physical distractions include noise, hunger, fatigue, or discomfort (e.g., too hot, uncomfortable chairs). Simply assuring that par- ticipants are well fed and comfortable goes a long way to ensuring that they can participate con- structively. Dealing with emotional distractions may not be so easy. People may have a number of things on their mind that distract them from the process, many of which have nothing to do with the group’s objectives. Ideally, set a time for meetings when people are less likely to have emotional distractions (e.g., not when a key participant is dealing with a family emergency or not just before a major holiday). If a person seems distracted, this may be occasion for the facili- tator to approach the person privately, during a break, to see whether there is a problem.

Another method to ensure that people remain attentive is to provide everyone with a specific role: meeting chair, timekeeper, recorder, comic relief, and so on. Some people

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 4 47

447

could be designated in advance to present on particular topics within their realm of exper- tise (e.g., suicide, crime prevention, or alternative cancer treatments). This gives people something to do and shows that their participation will be valued.

Avoid assigning people to represent particular positions or interests. This tends to push people into polarized positions. For example, a person trying to represent the interests of vocational counselors might push their agenda to the exclusion of the interests of human service workers. Instead, encourage people to draw from their own area of expertise, while also exploring issues from a global perspective.

Each one of us comes from a different professional background, with different views and areas of interest. The issue of professional regulation, however, cuts across all professions. Perhaps we can focus on our common concerns.

The facilitator tries to foster joint problem solving. This approach encourages participants to listen to one another because the discussion affects all of them, regardless of whether the speaker is a psychologist, family therapist, probation officer, or pastoral counselor.

7. Difficulty Listening to Others

One of the most common causes of conflict is miscommunication. Often, this means that group members have had difficulty listening to one another. People involved in destructive conflict tend to focus on their own needs and agenda. As with mediation, a facilitator can foster mutual recognition by helping group members listen to one another. This can be done through modeling or teaching people active listening skills.

Frank, you’re scheduled to speak next. Before you share your ideas, would you mind providing a brief summary of what you understood Sharon to say?

The facilitator encourages participants to hear what others have to say, from their point of view. This does not mean that they have to agree with one another. However, mutual under- standing can go a long way to fostering effective teamwork and managing conflicts.

Facilitators can explain the value of listening. Listening may be viewed as a gift— demonstrating respect, concern, and appreciation for the other. When people genuinely listen to each other, they foster connections and a sense of spirituality. Active listening also helps parties correct misunderstandings.

Facilitators should accept that misunderstandings— and even chaos— are virtually inevitable. They can acknowledge that misunderstandings are stressful for everyone, but each group member has potential to gain a better understanding of one another (M. Corey et al., 2013). Rather than rescue a group from chaos, facilitators help groups work through it, thereby developing a stronger sense of team or community (Eller, 2004).

8. Others Put on Defensive

Insults, insinuations, and direct attacks can put participants on the defensive. To prevent problems of this kind, the facilitator may establish ground rules:

• Everyone will speak to one another with respect. • If individuals feel slighted or harassed by another person, they may state how they feel

and ask what the other person intended. • Participants will act in good faith and take responsibility for what they say.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

4 48 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

448

Facilitators can help group members react positively even when insults, insinuations, or other problematic behaviors arise. For instance, the facilitator can provide time- out peri- ods to help people de- escalate their emotions. The facilitator can encourage members to learn from one another, even if they do not initially appreciate the tone or substance of what another person is saying. “I understand a lot of people feel insulted. What positive messages can we learn from this conflict?” Sometimes, people take offense when no offense was intended. Reminding the group about its mission and good intentions may also help members move beyond the problematic behaviors.

If participants breach their ground rules, the facilitator can remind them of their previ- ous agreement and explore whether the ground rules need to be renegotiated. This encour- ages positive interaction without embarrassing specific individuals. Another strategy is to involve the group in a discussion of the costs of noncooperative relations. Encouraging people to show respect, however, does not mean that people have to stifle their different views or suggestions, as the following section explains.

9. Not Saying What They Think

One of the most difficult issues for a facilitator to assess is whether participants are saying what they think (Stone et al., 2010). People may self- censor themselves in order to avert conflict, fit in, or look good (C. Barnes, 2015). Some people self- sensor because they are conflict avoiders, conflict accommodators, or naturally shy. The facilitator’s role is to ensure that the environment for discussion is safe for all members. Facilitators can foster such an environment by developing explicit ground rules with the parties:

• The group encourages all individuals to express their opinions, even if they may sound contrary or unpopular to others.

• All participants will try to understand diverse opinions expressed by others, before mak- ing any comments about them.

• People may disagree on various issues, while still maintaining respect for those they disagree with.

The facilitator can also encourage participants to use active listening skills with one another in order to build a sense of trust.

Veronica, Sharon … the two of you seem to have different opinions about disciplinary proce- dures, but I’m not sure I understand what the difference really is … Veronica, could you try to restate what Sharon is saying? After, I’ll ask Sharon about Veronica’s statement.

Because each person knows that the other will be paraphrasing his or her statements, each is incented to restate what the other has said in a respectful and accurate manner.

10. Confusion about Decisions

Groups can make decisions by general consensus, vote, or determination of the group’s leader(s). When the group makes decisions, it needs to know exactly what decisions have been reached. When many individuals are involved in decision making, there is enormous oppor- tunity for confusion. Record keeping or note- taking serves the vital purpose of maintaining the group’s memory (Fleischer & Zumeta, 1999). The facilitator, or someone else who has been designated, should take notes throughout the process and periodically ask for feedback to ensure that the notes accurately reflect what the group has decided.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 4 49

449

Records or notes can take various forms. A video or audio recording of a meeting can be used to prepare a verbatim (or word- for- word) transcript of the meeting. Minutes include the topics discussed, key issues, votes taken, decisions made, and who is responsible for which tasks in order to implement decisions. A summary of decisions only lists the decisions reached by the group. Transcripts are the most detailed and accurate, because the recorder does not have to make any interpretations of what has been said. Unfortunately, they are lengthy and costly to produce. In addition, few people have time to spend reviewing transcripts. Minutes require the recorder to make interpretations. Tentative minutes can be passed around the group for feedback to ensure their accuracy. A summary of decisions is less detailed than minutes. The group can work through the wording of the decisions or agreements as they are being reached. The recorder can use a flipchart or digital whiteboard to record decisions in a manner that the group can respond to immediately. Decisions are typically the most important parts of the meeting to record. Transcripts or minutes of the process often gener- ate further conflict between the parties (e.g., “I didn’t say that,” “That’s not what I meant,” or “Why didn’t you include my suggestions?”). To avoid future misunderstandings, the facilita- tor could suggest that notes from a meeting include at minimum what the group decided, who is responsible for doing what, what the expected time frame is for completing particular tasks, and how the group will monitor and follow up on its decisions.

GROUP FACILITATION SKILL S AND ACTIVITIES

The inventory in Box 9.1 identifies key skills activities for group facilitation. As with previous inventories, this one can be used as a checklist to help you prepare for a specific intervention or to help you identify skills that you want to work on.

BOX 9.1 INVENTORY OF GROUP FACILITATION SKILLS AND ACTIVITIES

PREPARING FOR MEETING 1. Assesses presenting problem(s) or conflict situation with people affected in order to

determine the best time, place, and process for bringing people together

2. Invites and encourages essential people to attend the meeting

3. obtains agreement on the agenda and goals for the meeting

4. establishes guidelines to promote safe environment and effective communication

5. Clarifies roles of the people participating

6. helps members prepare (reflecting on their thoughts, feelings, and expectations;

identifying issues that may arise; preparing for how to manage those issues)

FACILITATING MEETINGS 1. Keeps participants focused on the agenda

2. punctuates topics and transitions between topics

3. Allows for flexibility in the agenda to meet specific needs of the group

4. provides all participants with an opportunity to contribute to the process

5. Assists individuals needing support to communicate (without losing impartiality)

6. Constructively confronts people who dominate, disrupt, or interrupt (without put-

ting them on the defensive)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

450 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

450

APPROACHES TO FACILITATION

Different facilitators use the skills listed in Box 9.1 in different ways, depending on their approach to facilitation. The following discussion focuses on four of the many approaches to group facilitation: debate, dialogue, problem solving, and identity- based facilitation. I selected these approaches because they represent very distinctive frameworks for interaction.

To illustrate each approach, consider the following conflict scenario:

Amanda is a Black woman living in an area of Conflictia where most of the residents are White.4 On her way to and from work, she passes the high school. Often, she is con- fronted by a group of teenagers who taunt her with racial slurs. One day, she hears about

4 For the purposes of this example, assume that the groups refer to themselves as Black and White, rather than other identities such as African American or European American. Identifying the two groups in this manner simplifies the analysis; unfortunately, it ignores the possibility of people of mixed ethnicities and people of other ethnic backgrounds.

7. establishes clear understanding about how decisions will be made (e.g., by group,

by certain individuals, by consensus, or by majority vote)

8. shares facilitation tasks, where appropriate (e.g., clarifies who is responsible for

note taking, time keeping, sharing expertise, enforcing ground rules)

9. uses reflective listening skills or exploratory questions to draw out nonverbal

participants

10. Makes use of audiovisual aids and various formats for discussion to ensure that

the process is interesting, participatory, and productive

11. paces the meeting, balancing time constraints with the needs of various partici-

pants to express themselves

12. pre- empts or attends to external distractions (e.g., noise, uncomfortable environ-

ment, hunger, emotional distractions)

13. encourages participants to use active listening with one another to foster mutual

understanding and recognition

14. Clarifies misunderstandings between participants

15. encourages participants to demonstrate respect to one another, regardless of

expressed differences of opinion (reinforces positive behaviors)

16. fosters collaboration (e.g., a team approach)

17. provides participants with constructive responses for dealing with potential

insults, insinuations, or attacks

18. Boomerangs (or reflects) questions posed to the facilitator back to the group (if

members ask questions that the group is responsible to answer)

19. facilitates problem solving (e.g., gathering, analyzing, and making sense of infor-

mation; generating creative options)

20. ensures that decisions or agreements are accurately recorded (e.g., flipcharts, notes)

21. helps the group plan for implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and follow- up

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 45 1

451

a new Center for Community Facilitation. She decides to call the Center to see what it can offer. The Center says it could offer to facilitate discussion between Amanda and the specific group of teenagers. However, it has received similar complaints from others and believes that the issue should be dealt with on a community basis.

1. Debate

A debate is a forum for discussion where conflicting parties advocate for particular positions. In a formal debate, the facilitator (often called a moderator) guides the participants through a particular sequence of presentations:

1. The moderator introduces the question for debate, often in the form of a statement that requires the participants to take a stand, pro or con. In the present example, the state- ment to be debated could be “Students who commit racial slurs should be suspended from school.”

2. People who agree with the statement (the pro side) present a brief introduction to their argument (i.e., give reasons to back their point of view).

3. People who oppose the statement (the con side) present an introduction to their argument.

4. The pro side presents its full argument. 5. The con side provides a response to the pro side’s argument. 6. The con side presents its full argument. 7. The pro side provides a response to the con side’s argument. 8. The moderator facilitates taking questions from the audience or a panel of people des-

ignated to ask questions. 9. The con side summarizes its case.

10. The pro side summarizes its case. 11. A decision is made by a panel of judges or a vote by the stakeholders.

Variations to this standard debate format include providing each side with a specific list of questions to research and answer, or having the debaters field questions from the audience rather than deliver prepared speeches (Tessier, 2009). For an example of a forum for online debates on a broad range of issues, see http:// www.debate.org/ about/ company.

In some ways, the role of a moderator is similar to that of a mediator. A moderator helps parties communicate with one another and guides them through a CR process. The mod- erator establishes ground rules and ensures that parties adhere to them. The moderator has no decision- making power. The decision is generally left to a panel of judges or a vote of the stakeholders. The structure of the debate is designed to inform participants about a range of issues and arguments, with each side trying to convince the decision makers of a particular view. In contrast to the role of a mediator, a moderator does not help the parties work toward a mutually satisfactory agreement, does not try to foster amicable relations, and does not promote transformation. The debate format tends to be adversarial, similar to court proceedings or positional negotiations.

Public discussions often take on the qualities of a debate, even if the forum is not inten- tionally designed to be a formal debate. For example, the Center for Community Facilitation decides to organize a town hall meeting to discuss the issue of racial taunting among stu- dents. Various stakeholders are invited: Amanda and other targets of harassment, students, parents, directors from the school board, teachers, guidance counselors, community work- ers, police, and equal rights advocates. During the meeting, the town hall facilitator invites everyone to respond to this issue. Some suggest that the students should be suspended.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

http://www.debate.org/about/company

452 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

452

Others reject this idea. The two groups become polarized, each arguing its own point of view without considering the other’s perspective or their mutual interests. The facilitator acts as a referee or peacekeeper, encouraging the parties to demonstrate respect, speak in turn, and focus on the key issues. However, the facilitator does not help them negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.

One of the primary advantages of a debate is that a decision is guaranteed at the end of the process. The judges or other participants make a decision by majority vote. Consensus is not needed. Debates also tend to simplify the issues. The options for solution are narrowed into a clear choice, which in this case is to suspend or not to suspend. Debates highlight the issues and the areas of disagreement. They also allow for a broad range of participation. All stakeholders can have an opportunity to express their point of view— having one’s day in court, so to speak. At their best, debates include thoughtful examination of an issue, provid- ing decision makers with the information and analysis they need to make highly informed decisions. Debates can be educational, fostering critical thinking and inspiring participants to become more engaged in the issues (Tessier, 2009).

The downside of debating is that debaters tend to become entrenched in their posi- tions. Debates encourage participants to use rhetoric to support their views, standing their ground rather than exploring underlying interests and ways of working toward cre- ative, win- win solutions (Chasin et al., 1996). Often, debates become provocative rather than thought provoking (Tannen, 1998). The question for debate is posed as pro or con, meaning the debaters typically ignore other options for solution. Although participants are encouraged to look at issues from the other group’s perspective, this is only for looking for flaws and being able to counter their arguments (Nagda, Gurin, Rodriguez, & Maxwell, 2008). Debates lead to final decisions, but these are not necessarily decisions that all parties can embrace. If follow- through on the decision requires cooperation of the participants, this may not be forthcoming from a group that is not happy with the decision.

Debates certainly have a place in determining intergroup and community conflicts. A helping professional’s choice of approaches will depend on the type of issue in dispute, the nature of the conflict, the willingness of the parties to engage in a particular type of pro- cess, and the type of outcomes that are desired. Sometimes a combination of approaches can be used.

Consider: In the racial taunting case, is a debate really appropriate? If so, what is the most germane question for the debate? If not, what are the problems with this process for Amanda and the other interested parties?

2. Dialogue

Whereas debates tend to place people on opposite sides of issues and foster adversarial relations, dialogues5 are designed to build understanding , cooperation, and positive relationships (Nagda et al., 2008). Dialogues also have the capacity to break down barriers of mistrust and misunderstanding (Hallward & Berg, 2014). The dialogue approach draws a number of elements from family therapy:

• The facilitator works in a nonhierarchical manner with the participants, establishing a collaborative relationship with each of them as they endeavor to realize their conflicting desires.

5 Some people use the word multilogue rather than dialogue to connote that many different parties and per- spectives are involved rather than just a communication between two.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 453

453

• The facilitator conducts much of the work prior to bringing the participants together: assessing their skills, hopes, and fears; preparing them with constructive com- munication skills; obtaining commitment to the dialogue process; and identifying old, destructive patterns of relating that they need to discontinue for the dialogue to be effective.

• During the dialogue, the facilitator promotes an atmosphere of safety, where people can express divergent points of view and still demonstrate respect for one another (Chasin et al., 1996; Schirch, 2004).

• Facilitators may ask participants to suspend their beliefs to hear the views of others. They may also ask participants to reflect deeply and reconsider their beliefs (Nagda et al., 2008).

• Through the respectful exchange of open and authentic dialogue, participants may use dialogue to reflect on their conflict and create a shared meaning for events that have transpired or goals to be pursued (Lewicki et al., 2010).

Whereas participants in a debate represent a position, side, or stereotype, participants in a dialogue are encouraged to speak as individuals, from their own personal experience. In debates, advocates or representatives are often selected as spokespeople for each group. The dialogue approach supports broad participation, as individuals speak on their own behalves rather than through designated leaders. Dialogue encourages participants to exchange per- ceptions and listen to one another in a way that builds insight and mutual understanding. In this sense, dialogue is similar to transformative mediation (Bush & Folger, 2005). Whereas debate fosters adversarial relations, dialogue fosters trust and connection. Facilitators may remind participants to be kind or compassionate with each other, noting that everyone has strong feelings and legitimate concerns (Wilmot & Hocker, 2014). Sometimes, facilitators bring a playful attitude toward the dialogue, encouraging participants to have fun, use their imaginations, and be creative. They may also help participants transcend conflict by using fresh questions, encouraging new ways of thinking, and facilitating common understand- ings (Littlejohn & Cole, 2013).

Civility is a vital, but often misunderstood guideline for dialogue. Civility means treating others with respect. Although it may entail the use of polite or temperate language, civility does not mean withholding passion, avoiding tough issues, or making points in a weak or vanilla manner (Thorne, 2015). Group participants may engage in difficult conversations, marked by profound differences, and still remain civil toward one another. In civil conversa- tions, participants do not try to coerce or exploit one another. Civility may lead to agree- ments, but it may also help groups achieve a positive disagreement. As Blankenhorn (2013) suggests, doubt and civility are friends. In other words, when we are certain about a particu- lar issue, we do not need the other person. “I’m right. You’re wrong. I don’t care about you or what you say.” When we have some level of uncertainty, we need the other person and we are more likely to treat that person with respect. “I might not be right. I might be able to learn from you. Let’s talk.” Thus, facilitators might encourage participants to share their doubts or uncertainty with each other.

If the Center for Community Facilitation decides to orchestrate its town hall meeting as a dialogue, the first step is to meet with the various stakeholders. The facilitator encourages victims of harassment to speak on their own behalves rather than through lawyers or human rights advocates. The facilitator helps Amanda and others like her so they can articulate their personal experiences of how the harassment affected them. Likewise, the facilitator works with students to speak on their own behalves rather than through their parents or teachers. Initially, the students are reluctant to engage in the dialogue, believing they are being set up in a process bent against them. The facilitator needs to ensure that the process

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

454 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

454

is fair and students feel safe participating. The participants agree to the following guide- lines: Participants will speak to one another in respectful terms; participants will listen to each other as allies; the focus of the discussion is not to establish fault or blame but to promote understanding; the dialogue will not result in any decisions about the students’ status at the school.

The issue for the dialogue is not, “Should the school suspend the students accused of harassing?” but “How have each of the participants experienced this conflict?” This ques- tion opens the discourse and allows participants to explore the conflict from a broader perspective. Those who have experienced harassment will learn about the views and motives of the students. The students, in turn, will learn how their actions have affected the people they have taunted. As a result of this exchange, the students may apolo- gize for their actions, or the group may come to an agreement about what to do from now on. However, success of the dialogue does not depend on reaching an agreement. Success may occur through fostering better communication, understanding, or healing of relationships.

Often, the most basic goals of dialogue are to provide everyone with an opportunity to speak and to gain a better understanding of one another. Questions to facilitate understand- ing between groups might include the following:

• What do you think that X [the other person or group] does not fully understand about your situation?

• What do you now understand about X’s situation that you did not appreciate before? • Is there anything that you would like to ask X in order to gain a better understanding of

X’s situation? • What questions do you have about past conduct or future plans by X? (Corry, 2012)

Although a dialogue might help parties work toward resolution of conflicts, it might also make differences between parties more pronounced.

The dialogue approach may be particularly appropriate when reaching agreement is not a realistic goal. When people have conflicting values, for instance, these are difficult to rec- oncile. Consider the controversy over euthanasia. Those who support the use of euthanasia value individual autonomy over the sanctity of life. Those who oppose euthanasia value sanctity of life over individual autonomy. Because these values are deeply held, a short- term CR process designed to reconcile these values is likely to fail. Dialogue, however, allows the parties to learn more about one another’s perspectives, without expecting them to compro- mise their values. By establishing mutual understanding, the participants learn to respect one another, including their differences. Over the long term, dialogue can affect the values of each group as well as the common values that they develop.

In some instances, dialogue can be used as a prelude to an agreement- oriented CR process. W hen the level of conflict between participants is high and level of understand- ing is low, dialogue provides the participants with an opportunity to engage with one another in a nonthreatening process. They know coming into the dialogue that they are not being asked to “compromise with the enemy.” Dialogues ask people to sit down and talk, without requiring any further commitment. Mistrust builds over time; thus, rebuild- ing trust also takes time. Dialogue can be structured as a process that occurs over time rather than as a one- time event. The helping professional develops a sequence of oppor- tunities for conflicting groups to engage in dialogue. During initial stages, the structures for dialogue tend to be more formal. As trust builds, the structures become less formal. Decision making may emerge from the process, but the facilitator does not try to force it on the parties.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 455

455

3. Problem Solving

According to the problem- solving approach, a facilitator guides group members through a series of phases designed to help members analyze and resolve the issues confronting them (Kirst- Ashman & Hull, 2015). This approach could use the same steps as the interest- based approach to mediation described in Module III: preparation, orientation, issue definition, exploring interests and needs, negotiation and problem solving, finalizing an agreement, and follow- up.

Whereas the interest- based approach in Module III focused on problem solving between individuals, this section focuses on a problem- solving process between groups. Consider the harassment scenario again. At the beginning of the preparation phase, the Center for Community Facilitation needs to consider who are the parties and how will they participate. If this were mediation between individuals, the primary parties would be Amanda and the students that she claims harassed her. However, the Center has decided to approach this as an intergroup conflict. The primary groups are the students and the various complainants against the students. Teachers, parents, and counselors could also be brought into the process. Some facilitators prefer to limit the number of participants in order to streamline the process. Others prefer larger groups because of the advantages of pooling information and expertise from a broad range of participants (Stewart & Stasser, 1998). In this case, the Center decides that the conflict pervades the community and requires broad participation. Participants will act as individuals rather than as representatives of particular groups. Any decisions will be made by consensus of the participants. By involving all stake- holders in the problem- solving process, the facilitator builds the capacity of the stakehold- ers to implement their solutions (Hassenforder et al., 2015).

Given the large number of participants, the Center opts for two people to cofacilitate. They select one Black facilitator and one White facilitator, hoping to pre- empt fears that the process is biased against either group. The facilitators meet with each group separately, in order to hear their concerns, explain the group process, obtain their commitment, and help them prepare. Preparation is particularly important for intergroup conflict given the large number of people and potential for the process to get out of control. Smaller meetings also provide the parties with a chance to vent feelings, so they may be able to focus more on problem solving during the joint meetings.

Of all the groups involved in the process, the students are the most reluctant partici- pants. On meeting with them, the facilitators offer suggestions about how to articulate their needs and interests. This empowers the students and helps the facilitators establish trust with them.

The group complaining of harassment expresses concern about how to deal with racist comments that may arise during the joint meetings. The facilitators offer ground rules to try to pre- empt this type of conflict from escalating. They also describe techniques such as I- statements and constructive confrontation that can be used to respond to hurtful remarks.

During meetings with the teachers, the facilitators discuss how the teachers can con- tribute to the process without taking a dominant role. Some teachers are used to resolv- ing conflict on their own, so the facilitators acknowledge the teachers’ expertise in CR . Following some negotiations, the teachers agree to act as constructive participants— looking for mutual interests, focusing on the future, brainstorming options for solution, and so on. However, they will leave control of the process to the facilitators.

The preparatory meeting with the parents is marked by a high level of conflict. Various parents accuse one another’s children of being racist, rude, or degenerate. CR between indi- viduals within a group is often more important than CR between groups. The facilitators do not try to get the parents to agree on who was or was not responsible for the problem.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

456 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

456

Instead, the facilitators focus the parents on their mutual interests. All parents agree that they do not want past incidents to interfere with their children’s ability to complete their education. They also agree that they do not want their children or community to be known as racist.

By the time the first joint meeting takes place, the parties are oriented and committed to the process. The facilitators review the problem- solving process and comment on the posi- tive level of participation from all groups during the preparatory meetings. The facilitators review an agenda that has previously been distributed to the participants. Today’s meeting will last 3 hours. The first 90 minutes is designated for an open dialogue about the concerns that brought people to this meeting. The facilitators have prepared the parties with ways of expressing concerns from personal perspectives, without inflaming conflict. After a break, the discussion will turn to identifying issues and exploring underlying interests. A follow- up meeting is scheduled a week later to work through the latter stages of the problem- solving process. The facilitators keep the parties to a relatively fixed time schedule. They also tend to be more directive about the agenda than for mediation between individuals, in order to maintain control over the process. Still, they need to ensure that they have consensus on the agenda before moving forward.

The storytelling portion of the process goes ahead as planned. Various individuals describe what has been happening. Others start to focus on the future. The group is too large for everyone to have as much say as they would like, so the facilitators decide to place limits and keep the parties focused. They consider dividing participants so they can engage in small- group discussions but decide that today’s meeting should focus on discussion between all members. Some students seem intimidated, so the facilitators try to draw them out with exploration questions.

After the break, the parties begin to identify issues. Some participants offer solutions, such as suspending the students, having the students do community service, or having the complainants avoid passing by the school. The facilitators explain that it is too early to focus on solutions, because the issues have not even been clearly identified. Some teachers take the lead, helping others understand the difference between issues and solutions: how to hold students accountable for their behavior, how to make amends to those who have suf- fered from harassment, and what the school can do if similar incidents arise in the future. The big issue that emerges is what to do about racism in the school and in the general com- munity. To the facilitators’ surprise, everyone seems to coalesce around this one issue. The students are not singled out as the problem. Rather, the community seems prepared to look at racism as a broad community issue. The people who originally complained of harassment are encouraged that people are accepting responsibility for what has happened.

The facilitators move the participants into discussion of their interests. Initially, individ- uals focus on their own interests. The facilitators remind them of their primary issue: racism in the school and the community. This helps them focus on mutual interests. Once the par- ticipants get going, they start to flood the facilitators with issues to discuss. The facilitators list each point on a flipchart. Once an exhaustive list is completed, the facilitators help them draw out themes and common interests. The participants achieve consensus on three key interests: respect for all individuals and groups, regardless of race or ethnic background; racist- free education; and the ability to walk down the streets without being harassed. The facilitators congratulate the participants on their progress in this first meeting. To prepare for the next meeting, the facilitators ask them to brainstorm ideas for how to satisfy these interests. The facilitators advise participants to keep their ideas tentative: During the next meeting they will explore a broad range of options before deciding how to proceed.

To begin the second meeting, the facilitators review the process to date, remind every- one about the ground rules, and confirm everyone’s commitment to the agenda. Notes on

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 457

457

flipcharts list the issues and interests identified at the last meeting. The facilitators engage the parties in brainstorming by going around the room and asking each person to identify one possible solution, not necessarily their favorite one. The facilitators write each idea on the flipchart, as it is suggested.

At one point in the brainstorming, a parent6 uses the term “colored people.” Some par- ticipants jump all over him for using such an offensive term. Others come to his defense, saying they do not believe in political correctness. The facilitators suggest that they suspend brainstorming for 15 minutes in order to discuss this issue. One facilitator takes the parent through a series of questions: What did you mean when you said “colored people?” Where did you learn this term? Did you mean it to be offensive? Do you understand how others might find it offensive? The facilitator asks for a volunteer who is offended by the term. The facilitator asks the volunteer the following questions: When you heard someone say “colored people,” how did it make you feel? Why do you think you felt this way? Do you think that it was intended to be a racist remark? What words could you suggest other than “colored people?” The facilitator uses this exchange to promote mutual understanding. The facilitator models how to confront racist comments in a constructive manner. Not everyone is satisfied that the issue has been resolved. The facilitators validate their concerns and sug- gest that this may be one of the issues for the group to deal with over the longer term. The facilitators do not try to put closure to this issue.

The facilitators make a transition back to brainstorming. Once an exhaustive list has been ascertained, the facilitators divide the participants into three groups. Students, teachers, complainants, and others are randomly dispersed through the groups. Each group is assigned responsibility for one of the key underlying interests. They are allot- ted 30 minutes to review the list of options and to develop a general plan to deal with this issue. Each facilitator works with one group. They have also prepared one teacher to facilitate the third group. One advantage of smaller groups is that individuals have greater opportunity to participate. Another advantage is that they can tackle more than one issue at a time.

Each group reports back to the full forum. Following each presentation, individuals are invited to provide comments. The facilitators encourage them to build on the ideas of subgroups rather than offer completely different options. Eventually, the group comes to consensus on the following plans:

• A joint teacher- parent- student committee will be established to review the curriculum at the school to ensure that racism, discrimination, and other forms of bigotry are covered sufficiently in all grades.

• The school will develop a Harassment Committee to deal with complaints about student harassment or racism.

• The community will develop a public campaign to raise awareness about the effects of racism and to promote greater respect for people from different backgrounds.

The facilitators ask questions to ensure that these plans are feasible. They explore who will be responsible for what, how they will secure sufficient resources to do what they want, and how they will ensure that people follow through on the tasks they accept. They also encourage broad participation in these tasks so the whole community takes ownership of the solutions. Certain people accept leadership roles. The facilitators offer to provide these

6 Consider how you, as a facilitator, might respond if this parent came to the meeting wearing a shirt with the Confederate flag or another symbol that many people associate with bigotry.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

458 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

458

leaders with further information and support about how to facilitate the implementation of their decisions. The work has just begun.

4. Identity

Identity refers to how we label and understand ourselves (Sandole, Byrne, Staroste- Sandole, & Senehi, 2009). Identity affects how we are oriented toward thinking, feeling, and behaving. Identities are socially constructed, meaning that we are defined by the groups to which we are affiliated, as well as by the other groups to which we are not affiliated. Group affiliations may be based on memberships of particular religions, ethnicities, nationalities, political groups, or other alliances, as well as common histories, languages, traditions, values, and beliefs. My identity as a man is defined by the way that both men and women define gender, as well as their expectations of what it means to be a man. We tend to simplify our interpre- tations of the world by dividing people into discrete we/ they categories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), ascribing negative attributions to others, and viewing the world through an ethno- centric lens. We tend to stress commonalities within our own groups and exaggerate dif- ferences with others (Oetzel & Ting- Toomey, 2013). Conflict situations may threaten our egos particularly when they raise aspects of ourselves that run contrary to our social identi- ties. Typically, we do not like being blamed, admitting our faults, or having to acknowledge that the other group is better in some respect (Hamilton, 2013)

Identity- based approaches to facilitating intergroup discussion are designed to help groups deal with protracted conflict over issues that relate to their social identities. In contrast to conflict based on miscommunication or division of limited resources, identity- based conflict is rooted in the ways that conflicting groups view themselves and the other group (Rothman & Alberstein, 2013). Archetypal examples of identity- based conflicts include the conflicts between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, and Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Identity- based conflicts may originate as disputes over land, money, values, or power, but they develop into identity issues as the conflict becomes protracted. Each group tends to view itself as innocent victims or holders of truth. In addition, as attribution theory suggests, each group imputes blame to the other group as the oppressors, transgressors, or evil adversaries (Shnabel, Halabi, & Noor, 2013). Stereotypes and discrimination can also develop through lack of contact and intergroup ignorance (Reimers, 2016). In some cases, groups promote certain identities in order to further their political causes. Terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State actively promote certain identities for Americans (aggressors and infidels) and Muslims (righteous victims, martyrs, and hold- ers of truth) in order to mobilize Muslims to fight against Americans. Note that the use of the term “terrorist organization” is one that Al Qaeda and Islamic State are likely to reject.

Identity- based CR (Desivilya, 2004; Halabi, 1998; Nadler & Malloy, 2008) is based on Kurt Lewin’s (1997) identity theory. Lewin studied the issues of majority– minority rela- tions in democratic, pluralistic societies. He posited that intergroup hostilities are often grounded in identity issues. A significant portion of individual identity and behavior is determined by group membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Therefore, the manner in which people from a majority group perceive and respond to a minority group depends on how the majority group views itself and the minority. The same applies to the way that a minor- ity group perceives and responds to the majority group (Nadler & Malloy, 2008).

When conflicts are rooted in identity issues, they are difficult to redress unless the CR process helps individuals change within the context of their social groups (Rothman & Alberstein, 2013). Groups may have deeply held convictions about issues such as abortion, same- gender marriage, gun control, or the appropriate roles of government. Group- based

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 459

459

convictions make it particularly hard for individuals within these groups to modify their positions. When values and deeply held beliefs are at stake, people tend to argue based on morality and eloquent rhetoric rather than science or hard evidence. They also tend to take a win- lose (zero- sum) approach, investing a lot of emo- tional energy and other resources into proving they are right (Oetzel & Ting- Toomey, 2013). Frustration with the other side may lead to diatribes or violence, even if the groups have significant common ground (Littlejohn & Cole, 2013). Although facilitators may not be able to helping groups reconcile differences based on deeply held convictions, they can focus on helping the groups change behaviors and patterns of interacting (Moore, 2014).

According to role theory, each individual in a social group has a particular position, sim- ilar to an office or job. People come to expect certain behaviors of the individual associated with that job. If a person self- identifies as Tea Party, for instance, that person is expected to behave in a Tea Party manner (as defined by the group). If the individual does not behave as expected, then stress occurs in the system: Others in the system punish or alienate the per- son; alternatively, they reward the person for taking steps back toward the expected behav- iors for the role. In order for the intergroup process to be effective, the facilitator must help each group alter its role expectations.

Protracted conflict often leads to segregation of conflicting groups, leading to greater risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding. As contact theory (Allport, 1954) suggests, bring- ing groups together in a strategic manner (encouraging positive contact) provides an oppor- tunity to explore identities and re- evaluate misunderstandings (Garner, 2013).7 Changes in self- perception and role expectations require experiential workshops and sustained contact rather than educational lectures, abstract discussions, or brief interventions. Accordingly, the facilitator needs to design interactions that enable participants to see themselves in new roles. The facilitator helps them re- evaluate perceptions of themselves as powerless victims or innocent bystanders. Each group challenges the other’s stereotypes, generalizations, and self- perceptions. In a sense, each group acts as a mirror for the other group, allowing group mem- bers to see themselves in a different light (Halabi, 1998). How people from one group look inside themselves affects how they see the others. Structured intergroup contact challenges assumptions, reduces fear, and fosters empathy (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013).

Facilitators need to be careful that intergroup interactions are constructed in a positive fashion. If one group is ignored, silenced, or disrespected, the group process could sim- ply be replicating stereotypes and oppression from the broader community (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013). To ensure constructive interactions, facilitators should promote equal status and treatment. They should provide sustained opportunities for participants to get to know each other in a personal manner (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013; Allport, 1954)

Groups tend to define themselves by similarity of background, experiences, or val- ues. Accordingly, groups with different backgrounds, experiences, or values often find themselves at odds with one another. One method of altering identity- based conflict is to encourage different groups to see themselves as one group, bound together by an interdependence of fate (Lewin, 1997). Conflicting groups must come to the realiza- tion that “whether we like it or not, we are in this together.” Rather than focus on past

7 Traditionally, bringing people together meant in- person meetings. With the advent of teleconferenc- ing, email, online social networks, and other communication technologies, CR professionals have a range of alternatives to bring people together and establish contact (Amichai- Hamburger, Hasler, & Shani- Sherman, 2015).

We don’t see things as they are. We see

them as we are. —Anaïs Nin

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

460 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

460

differences or present crises, focus on developing an inclusive identity and the oppor- tunity to build better relations in the future. As former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Perez suggested, the Israelis and Palestinians would be much safer if they built a series of jointly owned factories along their borders, rather than security fences and patrols of armed forces.

If members of the minority group have low self- esteem or lack of confidence, facili- tators may help them develop ethnic pride and a stronger sense of self- efficacy. Raising collective consciousness is another method of boosting confidence (Freshman, 2005). A single woman may feel she is not worthy enough to confront a male supervisor and ask for higher salary; by raising the woman’s awareness of other women in her situation, a facilitator empowers her to be more assertive. Some facilitators use confidence- building and mindfulness- raising measures by meeting separately with the minority group. Other facilitators refer the minority group to community developers or advocates for this type of support.

Members of majority groups may have difficulty embracing pro- diversity or plural- istic values, as these values represent a challenge to their privileged social identities and status (van Veelan et al., 2013). The concept of self- stereotyping suggests that people have a tendency to ascribe positive qualities to themselves based on the groups to which they affiliate (“Protestants have a strong work ethic, so I as a Protestant have a strong work ethic”). CR professionals can design interventions to guide group members away from self- stereotyping to self- anchoring. Whereas self- stereotyping means ascribing characteristics of the group to oneself, self- anchoring suggests that individuals can start with their own characteristics and them ascribe them to the group. For instance, “I am creative” and “I am generous” could be ascribed as “We are creative” and “We are generous.” Self- anchoring empowers members from majority and minority groups to work toward developing a positive common iden- tity. Positive identities may include constructive attributes or values, such as nonviolence, respect, and social justice.

When intergroup conflict is deeply entrenched, the goal for facilitation may not be to resolve conflict, but to alter its course. At the end of the facilitated meetings, for example, the two groups will likely retain their core values and convictions. However, they will have a greater appreciation of their respective roles in maintaining or alleviating their conflicts. They can focus their energies on resolving pragmatic problems rather than philosophi- cal ones. They can also establish ongoing interactions to help them build the sort of trust needed to handle larger issues over the long run.

Strategies for building trust between groups include:

• Opening discussion of each group’s views and perspectives for the purposes of listening, validating, and building empathy (not trying to persuade);

• Acknowledging differences rather than ignoring or minimizing them. • Framing issues in ways that allow both groups to engage openly in the discussion (Oetzel

& Ting- Toomey, 2013); and • Helping members move from individualistic questions (e.g., who am I, what is important

to me, what do I want to see happen) to mutualized questions (e.g., who are we, what do we care about, and what do we want to see happen) (Littlejohn & Cole, 2013).

Consider relations between the Black community and police following an incident where police have shot a Black youth. When Black groups frame the issue as “Black lives matter,” police and Whites may respond defensively. When police frame the issue as the need to protect themselves and the public (or “all lives matter”), African Americans may feel their concerns have been minimized. Facilitators can help each group understand each other’s

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 461

461

concerns and perspectives, regardless of whether they agree. They can also help the groups reframe their concerns so they can address all their interests without feeling defensive.

The focus of identity- based facilitation is an encounter between groups rather than between individuals. In sharp contrast to the dialogue and problem- solving frameworks, participants are encouraged to see themselves as group members (Halabi, 1998). They must take responsibility for themselves, as well as others in the group. For example, White par- ticipants might agree that Blacks have been mistreated but claim that they are not person- ally responsible for this. By focusing participants on group issues rather than personal ones, the White members are compelled to look at their role in discrimination against Blacks.

Identity- based approaches use either a “cultural island” or a “community- based” pro- cess. In a cultural island process (sometimes called an encounter group), the facilitator selects certain members from the conflicting groups to participate in a series of interactions. These may be structured as weekly meetings or as a concentrated retreat. The advantage of a concentrated retreat is that the parties live together in a controlled environment for a period of a few days. This helps them learn about one another’s cultures, including food, music, and religious rituals. The two groups are treated as a microcosm of the dynamics that occur in broader society, including oppression, anger, and other manifestations of the intergroup conflict. The facilitator helps participants relate their issues to external influ- ences, but the primary focus of the intervention is on the participants in the cultural island (Halabi, 1998). One of the main challenges for a cultural island approach is how to extend the learning and progress within the small group into the broader community. Sometimes, participants are trained to become ambassadors when they return to the community, learn- ing how to help friends and neighbors reduce stereotypes, build trust, and engage more respectfully (Reimers, 2016).

In a community- based process, the interventions take place in the community rather than in a controlled environment. The facilitator extends invitations to the whole commu- nity rather than to selected individuals. The participants may focus on current community conflicts and each group’s roles in these conflicts (R . Fisher, 1997). The facilitator uses structured dialogue and noncompetitive activities to promote understanding and trust between groups. In an approach akin to community development, the facilitator helps the groups work through community conflicts in a collaborative manner. Research shows that competition over resources tends to inflame stereotypical attitudes and discrimina- tory behavior; in contrast, when rival groups are assigned to work together on superor- dinate goals, they tend to move beyond prejudice and work collaboratively (Platow & Hunter, 2001).

Consider relations between the rich and poor. Whenever a theft or other crime occurs, rich people blame poor people. Because of this, the rich people may support socioeconomic profiling by police (if certain people look like they do not belong in the rich neighborhood, police will stop and question them). People from the poor community perceive this treat- ment as prejudiced and unjust. A facilitator might bring these two communities together, not to work on the crime issue but to work on a mutual, uncontentious goal. Perhaps the goal is to clean up the community park and install a playground for all children from the area. By working collaboratively on an issue that is not a hot- button topic, the two groups experience each other and themselves in a different light. Essentially, the facilitator uses work on a common goal as an opportunity to build a bridge between the two groups. At some point, the facilitator may also encourage the groups to surface and work through the identity- based roots of past conflicts (Rothman, 1997). However, they may benefit from simply working together without expressly discussing identity issues. Although the groups may not be ready to change their values or identities, the facilitator could also help them agree upon new norms for interacting (Illes, Ellemers, & Harinck, 2014).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

462 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

462

Identity- based approaches tend to be less structured than problem- based approaches. Although the facilitator leads participants through a series of stages, the facilitator does not provide participants with an explicit agenda or structure. Instead, the facilitator lets the par- ticipants know the purpose of the interaction in general terms. The facilitator guides the par- ticipants through a series of stages, without making the transitions between stages explicit.

In Halabi’s (1998) cultural island model, the facilitator guides the participants through group formation, storytelling, confrontation, and resolution:

• Group formation: When the groups are brought together, the facilitator and participants introduce themselves. Initially, no direct reference is made to the conflict. The partici- pants tend to be courteous and pleasant toward one another. The group is permitted to set the agenda, at which point the dominant group tends to take control of the process and dynamics.

• Storytelling: The oppressed group begins to tell stories of the oppression and discrim- ination they have experienced in society. The polite relations between groups start to become tense. The oppressed group starts to feel a moral advantage in the discussion. The dominant group starts to lose its tolerance and respond more defensively, offering rationalizations for the suffering endured by the oppressed group. The two groups begin to challenge one another’s versions of events.

• Confrontation: The dominant group raises concerns about the oppressed group’s role in the conflict, trying to assert its control. Anger and frustration among both groups start to emerge. The oppressed group maintains greater strength and does not back down. When the smoke begins to clear, there is a possibility for a more equal relationship between the groups.

• Resolution: The dialogue becomes more equal. Rather than rationalize oppression, the dominant group becomes more willing to recognize the legitimate rights of the oppressed group. Better understandings emerge and each group has developed a different sense of its role in the broader conflict. (pp. 4– 5)

According to this approach, success is measured by a change in each party’s self- perceptions. Participants need not make decisions or take specific actions, although these may occur as incidental results. Other variations of identity- based approaches, however, add components of the problem- solving approach to the end of the process (Rothman, 1997). Following the resolution stage, the parties go on to action planning: Given their new understandings of themselves and the others, what actions can they take in order to deal with community issues or other problems?

Consider the conflict between Amanda and the students. Assume the Center for Community Facilitation views this as an identity- based conflict. The roots of the con- flict extend beyond the parties directly involved in the harassment. The Center decides to use the cultural island model, bringing a selected group of Black and W hite students together for a 2- day retreat. It opts to invite students who teachers have identified as troublemakers and antagonists. Even though these may be the most difficult people to work with, they represent the greatest need.8 Cofacilitators are used— one Black and one

8 Other writers suggest inviting the people most amenable to the CR process, because they are easier to engage and the process is more likely to be successful. This may sound like “preaching to the converted,” but the hope is that participants will go back to their communities with greater skills and abilities to influ- ence others. Some models are specifically designed for educators and helping professionals from the two conflicting groups (Desivilya, 2004).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 463

463

W hite— to demonstrate balance and to model positive relations between people from the two groups.

The facilitators explain the purpose of this retreat is to explore issues between the Black and White communities in Conflictia. Neither group really knows what to expect. Participants are nervous and look to the facilitators for guidance. The facilitators encourage the participants to set the agenda, giving them ownership over the process. At first, every- one is reluctant to suggest agenda items. Eventually, informal leaders emerge. Whites tend to take control with well- intentioned suggestions: to improve Black– White relations, to deal with complaints of racial harassment, and to deal with discrimination in the community.

Some White participants rebel. They think this is turning into an exercise in White bashing. They make claims about drug use, race riots, and unemployment in the Black com- munity. They lay blame squarely with the Blacks. The facilitators do not take sides on the issues but try to balance the dialogue by encouraging Black participants to respond. The facilitators ask the Black group to share their experiences of Black– White relations. Various participants begin to tell personal stories of discrimination: being pestered by police, being thrown out of stores, and being scolded by teachers, for no reason other than being Black. Initially, the Whites are hesitant to contradict these stories. They become uncomfortable and eventually start to challenge the credibility of the stories they are hearing.

The facilitators allow the conflict to escalate. Members from each group become defen- sive and make verbal attacks on the other side. The facilitators maintain certain ground rules to ensure that the conflict does not escalate into violence, but they provide partici- pants with significant leeway for arguing. During breaks, the facilitators notice that each group sticks together. The facilitators encourage participants to continue their dialogue and interactions with each other during breaks in the formal discussions.

The facilitators provide a summary of the concerns raised by both groups. They surface and label the anger and frustration that each side has expressed indirectly. This encourages both sides to discuss their feelings. The level of conflict begins to de- escalate as both groups come to realize they have much in common. By allowing both sides to vent their prejudices, anger, and frustration, catharsis occurs. They are ready to start dealing with issues in a more constructive fashion.

The facilitators place more structure on the dialogue, guiding the participants through various issues they have raised. One of the stereotypes, for example, is that Blacks are lazy. The facilitators explore where the White members learned this stereotype. The facilitators ask the Black members questions that allow them to speak to the stereotype, from their per- spectives. The facilitators explore confirming and disconfirming evidence of the stereotype (Maemura, 2013). “Are all Blacks lazy? Can you think of some examples where you experi- enced a Black person who was not lazy?” The facilitators also use role- switching to facilitate empathy (Maemura, 2013). “How do you think you would respond if you were Black and someone said that all Blacks are lazy?” Other intergroup stereotypes are discussed in a simi- lar fashion. The facilitators encourage each group to reassess its own role in perpetuating myths and prejudices.

Throughout the process, the facilitators strive to maintain objectivity and impartiality. They check with one another to ensure that neither is demonstrating sympathy, anger, or other biases toward either group. The facilitators also ensure that each facilitator contrib- utes equally, rather than one facilitator dominating control over the process.

The dialogue tends to become more constructive and balanced between the parties. They begin to appreciate one another’s perspectives and question their own biases. The facilitators ask how the confrontations during this process relate to dynamics in the broader community. Although the groups have gained a new sense of their roles in the intergroup conflict, they realize that the old conflicts will still exist when they return to the community.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

464 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

464

The facilitators in this situation did not intend to take the groups to the next level— action planning. Their primary goal was to have members of each group redefine their iden- tities in relation to the other group. Some participants decide on their own to carry the process forward. They plan an ongoing committee at the school to work on intergroup rela- tions. The committee will develop educational materials to promote better understanding. In addition, it will develop forums for further dialogue between the groups. The facilitators offer consultation and support, but they allow the participants to take the lead.

Identity- based interventions have had varying success. They tend to be most successful in dealing with specific disputes and developing better relationships between people from antagonistic groups (Rabie, 1994). They have been shown to facilitate intergroup forgive- ness by helping conflicting groups recognize their common victimhood (Shnabel et al., 2013). Eradicating racism and prejudice on a larger scale is difficult (Platow & Hunter, 2001). There is no quick fix. Identity- based CR may be part of a solution, but expectations for relatively brief interventions should be realistic. Social change at a grassroots level is more likely to be successful when accompanied by support from political powers and other structures in society. Accordingly, facilitators should work with community leaders in order to secure ongoing political, financial, and moral support.

* * * * * Facilitation encompasses a broad range of processes and strategies. That said, facilitators need to assess group dynamics and the nature of their conflict in order to design the most appropriate and effective processes for bringing participants together.

KEY POINTS

• A primary role of group facilitators is to improve the flow of communication between par- ticipants, pre- empting or responding to barriers to effective interaction as they may arise.

• Facilitators use a range of techniques to help groups think together, discuss difficult issues, make critical decisions, assign tasks, and ensure that decisions are properly imple- mented and evaluated.

• Facilitators can anticipate different types of conflict at different stages of group develop- ment: forming, norming, storming, performing, and adjourning.

• Intergroup conflicts may be caused by differences in values, beliefs, interests, or identi- ties; such conflicts are often complicated by stereotyping, prejudice, miscommunication, and other forms of misunderstanding.

• In the debate approach, each party takes a stance and presents arguments to support its position. The moderator facilitates discussion but does not guide the parties toward consensus. A panel of judges or stakeholders makes decisions based on majority votes.

• The dialogue approach to facilitation encourages people from conflicting groups to communicate with one another as individuals. Facilitators coach participants on how to speak and listen to one another. The basic goals of dialogue are to promote open and respectful communication, listening, and understanding, rather than to reach agreement regarding a particular conflict.

• The problem- solving approach is specifically designed to help conflicting parties come to agreement on the identified problems. Facilitators guide the groups through a problem- solving process (similar to interest- based mediation) and encourage the groups to work toward mutually satisfactory solutions.

• Identity- based approaches to facilitation are designed to change the way that members of each group view their roles in relation to members of the other group. Facilitators help participants confront stereotypes, myths, and prejudices that exist between the groups.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 465

465

• To determine which facilitation approach to employ, facilitators should consider the type of conflict, the goal for facilitation, and the readiness of each party to participate in a particular type of process. In some situations, different approaches can be used in combination.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

1. ASSESSING CONFLICT: Identify an intergroup conflict that has persisted in your community for several years. Who are the key players in the conflict? What is the nature of the conflict? How could each group be persuaded to participate in an intergroup facilitation process? How could the parties select a facilitator? Would it be better to have a facilitator or cofacilitators who come from within the community or from outside? Provide reasons for each of your suggested answers.

As an alternative to assessing an actual conflict in your community, you could assess a conflict portrayed in a movie. For this alternative, select and watch a movie that depicts a conflict between two groups in society (e.g., one of the racial or ethnic conflicts depicted in Crash [Haggis, 2005] or the conflict between Jews, Arabs, and Christians in Israel as depicted in Ajami [Copti & Shani, 2009]).

2. STAGED CONFLICT: Consider the following scenario:

A group of students is working on a term project— a class presentation on diversity issues. They agree that Fran will act as their group facilitator, helping them arrange meetings and keeping everyone task focused. Initially, everyone seems to be getting along, agreeing on how to divide the work and the timelines for completing vari- ous parts of the assignment. In the second meeting, Ronald suggests they focus on race, because race is the most important aspect of diversity. Fran notices the other group members, Hailey and Henry, look uncomfortable with this proposal, but they remain hushed, seemingly going along with Ronald’s suggestion. Fran notes that Ronald is the only one of them from a racial minority group.

Identify the group’s current stage of development, and suggest which skills or approaches the facilitator (Fran) should use in order to help group members work through their conflict.

3. ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONS: Select one of the following terms: community development, participatory decision making , consensus building , nominal group, Samoan circle, or fishbowl. Conduct a literature search of your chosen term using library data- bases such as PsycArticle, SocINDEX, or ERIC. How does the literature define your chosen term? Compare and contrast your chosen term to a group facilitation method described earlier in this chapter. Identify similarities and differences in assumptions, values, goals, and skills.

4. CIVIL CONVERSATIONS: Select a podcast from Krista Tippett’s Civil Conversations Project (http:// www.civilconversationsproject.org/ centeringconversations). As you listen to the podcast, identify skills that Tippett uses to engage people in civil dialogue. How are her conversations different from debates or problem- solving discussions?

5. OPPRESSED WITCHES: Witches comprise one of the most oppressed groups in Conflictia. Their religion is not even recognized by the state. They have no elected rep- resentation. Most Conflictians are ignorant about Wicca— some fear that Witches cast evil spells, use children for witchcraft experiments, and bring Satan into the commu- nity. Develop a proposal for an intergroup CR process to deal with the conflict between

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

http://www.civilconversationsproject.org/centeringconversations

466 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

466

Witches and the rest of the community. Your proposal should include answers to the following questions: What is the nature of the conflict? What is the purpose of the intervention? Which approach best suits this purpose? What are the main barriers to communication between these groups? How can a facilitator deal with these?

6. LOBBY GROUP CONFLICT: A group of mental health counselors is lobbying Conflictia’s government for more funding for mental health services. A group of proba- tion officers is asking the same government to invest more money in the criminal justice system. Each group believes that more money to one cause means less money for the other cause. What is the nature of the conflict between the groups? Which approach to group facilitation would be most appropriate for dealing with this conflict? Why?

7. CRITIQUING FACILITATION: Review the problem- solving example described ear- lier in this chapter. Identify each facilitation skill used by the facilitators. Which other skills from Box 9.1 would have been useful, and for what purposes?

8. CONFIDENTIALITY: Module III discusses the issue of confidentiality in mediation between individuals. Does confidentiality apply in a facilitated process that involves large community groups? If it does apply, how would you explain confidentiality and obtain agreement from all participants? How would you enforce confidentiality? What laws, if any, does your jurisdiction have concerning whether government- related dia- logues need to be open to the public? How would a law requiring openness to the public affect the way you would facilitate a public policy discussion?

9. DYING WISHES: Assume you are facilitating dialogue between two groups, “Death with Dignity” and “All Lives Matter.” Death with Dignity supports laws that allow peo- ple to choose the manner and timing of their deaths. All Lives Matter opposes such legislation. The Death with Dignity group views All Lives Matter as religious fanatics who are hypocritical. “They say they value life, but then they say everyone has a right to use guns to kill people.” Members of All Lives Matters think Death with Dignity is promoting the murder of elderly people, as well as people with disabilities. They believe Death with Dignity is antireligious and evil. What type of conflict is represented by this conflict? How would you structure and prepare for interaction between these groups? [If you live in a jurisdiction that allows people to choose the manner and timing of their death, you could change the facts of this case so that All Lives Matters is trying to over- turn this law.]

ROLE- PL AY 9.1: “PROFESSIONAL S AND PARAPROFESSIONAL S”— SKILL DEVEL OPMENT

This role- play involves the entire class. Two people will play the conflict resolution profes- sionals (CRPs).9 The rest of the class will be divided into two groups of equal size. One group comprises the professionals who work for Conflictia Behavioral Health Center (CBHC). The other group comprises paraprofessionals who work for the same agency. Identify the type of helping professionals and paraprofessionals based on who is in your class (e.g., edu- cators, mental health counselors, social workers, nurses, or human service workers). The purpose of this exercise is to practice facilitation skills in an intergroup conflict situation.

A severe rift has developed between the employees at CBHC. The paraprofessionals believe they are being mistreated: their wages are lower, they carry higher caseloads, and they have no room for advancement in the agency. The professionals believe that the status quo is necessary and desirable. The agency cannot afford to pay everyone the same rate of pay, so

9 Pronounced “carps,” as in the fish, not “craps.”

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 467

467

salaries are based on educational background and level of experience. The professionals have at least a graduate degree, whereas the paraprofessionals have college diplomas or baccalau- reate degrees. The professionals justify their smaller caseloads because they deal with more difficult cases. They suggest that the paraprofessionals can go back to school if they want to advance their careers. Doing graduate work is not feasible for most of the paraprofessionals; some cannot afford to go back to school, and others do not have sufficient grades.

The two CRPs for this role- play are actually two of the senior supervisors of the agency. Prior to the role- play, the CRPs will ask certain members of the class to introduce one of the following obstacles into the dynamics: Individuals have different agendas, the discus- sion has no focus, the discussion is dominated by certain individuals, some individuals keep interrupting, some individuals remain silent, individuals lose their attention, individuals have difficulty listening to others’ ideas, statements or questions put some people on the defensive, individuals are not saying what they really think, or people are confused about the agreements. This will enable the CRPs to identify and practice facilitation skills that can be used to deal with each type of challenge.

Conduct this role- play in 10- minute segments. Switch CRPs for each segment and try to deal with a different obstacle.

Debriefing : How did the CRPs attempt to deal with each prescribed obstacle? What worked? What other skills or strategies could be used to deal with each of these problems? What were the underlying causes of the problem behaviors? What strategies could be used to deal with these underlying causes?

ROLE- PL AY 9.2: “WEIGHT Y PROBLEM”— DEBATE AND DIAL OGUE

Conflictia Police Services have a policy that all employees must be within 15 pounds of their ideal weight for their height, according to guidelines established by the Health Department of Conflictia. This applies to all employees, regardless of their age, sex, or position in the Police Services. Proponents of this policy claim it is necessary to protect the image of the Police Services in the community. The guidelines also promote good health, reducing costs for sick leave, early retirement, and accidents related to obesity.

A group within the police force opposes this policy. They find it discriminatory and unduly restrictive. Many positions within the organization do not require peak physical condition. Different people have different metabolisms, making it impossible for some people to fit within the policies. Also, as police officers age, they should not be fired simply because they are gaining weight.

For this role- play, divide the class into two groups. One group will role- play this exer- cise as a debate. The other will role- play it as a dialogue. Within each group, assign one facilitator, and divide the group into proponents and opponents of the policy.

Each group can prepare for this exercise by reviewing suggestions from Chapters 4 and 5 on power- and rights- based negotiations. Start off as positional negotiators. The facilitator may or may not move you from this style, depending on the approach that the facilitator is using.

The facilitators can prepare for this exercise by reviewing the description of their respective approaches, debate or dialogue. Also, identify two or three skills from the group facilitation skills presented in Box 9.1 that you plan to practice. Each of the two role- plays requires approximately 30 minutes. Ideally, the two groups will have separate rooms and video the role- play to show to the other group.

Debriefing : How were the two role- plays similar? How were they different? What impressed you the most about how each facilitator carried out the facilitation role? In this type of conflict, which approach to facilitation seems most appropriate? Why?

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

468 C o N f l I C t R e s o l u t I o N f o R t h e h e l p I N g p R o f e s s I o N s

468

ROLE- PL AY 9.3: “CLIENTS AND STAFF ”— PROBLEM SOLVING AND IDENTIT Y

This role- play takes place in the Conflictia Group Home, a residential treatment facility for teenagers with emotional and behavioral problems. Select two people from the class to act as group- home supervisors (in the role of facilitators). Divide the rest of the class into two equal groups: One group will play teenaged clients; the other group will play residential staff.

In recent weeks, turmoil has erupted at the Group Home. The residential staff is union- ized. The union is currently negotiating a new collective agreement with the Group Home. Staff members are unhappy with the way negotiations are proceeding, so they have begun a work- to- rule campaign: They are performing all of their required duties, but they are not tak- ing on the additional jobs that they normally would assume. For the clients, this has meant fewer recreational activities, more house chores, skimpy meals, and earlier curfews (because staff will not perform any overtime activities, such as escorting clients to movies, concerts, or even school dances). The clients have responded by acting out in various ways: refusing to do chores, sleeping late, messing up the house, and making verbal threats toward staff.

Staff members feel like double victims. First, the Group Home pays little, expects lots, and provides little support for them to do a tough job. Now, clients are attacking them when they are just doing their jobs. The clients also feel like victims. They do not want to be in the Group Home to begin with. With the work- to- rule campaign, they feel like they are caught in the middle of someone else’s fight.

In response to this conflict, the supervisors call a house meeting. One supervisor will begin the process using the problem- solving approach. At 20 minutes into the role- play, the other supervisor will take over using strategies from the identity- based approach. This seg- ment will also take 20 minutes. During the role- play, both clients and staff will begin with positional styles.

Both supervisors can prepare by reviewing the materials on their respective approaches to facilitation. Two or three clients and staff can be designated to introduce special chal- lenges into the process (e.g., silence, disturbances, demonstrating anger).

Debriefing : Which skills did the problem- solving supervisor successfully employ? Which skills did the identity- based supervisor successfully employ? What changes did the staff and clients notice when the facilitators switched from one approach to the other? Which approach was more appropriate for this situation? Why?

MAJOR ASSIGNMENT

The following assignment (9A) is based on observation of an actual group process. For role- play assignments involving facilitation skills, see the major assignments at the end of Chapter 10. In each of these assignments, there is a facilitator designated to guide a CR process among a group of advocates. The advocates will prepare by using the material in Chapter 10. The facilitators will prepare by using material from this chapter.

Assignment 9A: Process Analysis of a Real Conflict

For this assignment, you will need to use a recording of a public process involving a facilita- tor and two or more parties discussing a controversial issue.10 This could include a debate

10 Alternatively, you could attend an actual group process and take detailed notes. You may need to ask per- mission to attend and take notes, although most public meetings are open to anyone who wants to attend.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Group Facilitation 469

469

or roundtable discussion of current events, or coverage of a decision- making body’s actual meeting. Check television listings or online sources to help you identify an interesting pro- cess to analyze (e.g., congressional debates or hearings, local school board meetings, or dis- cussions among professionals who are expressing conflicting opinions). As you review the video of this process, take notes on the process issues that arise, as well as the ways in which the facilitator uses certain skills and strategies to deal with these issues.

Your written process analysis should include the following information:

1. INTRODUCTION: What was the stated purpose of the process? Who was present at the meeting (describe their roles or positions, rather than just their individual names)? What term was used to describe the facilitator’s role (e.g., moderator, chair, speaker, mayor)? What type of group was this? What was the group’s current stage of develop- ment? Which approach to group facilitation did the facilitator use? Provide brief expla- nations for each of your answers (e.g., how did you decide that the group was using an interest- based, problem- solving, or other approach?). [1 to 2 pages]

2. CONFLICTS: Describe the types of conflicts that were raised in this process (e.g., dif- ferences over beliefs, values, limited resources, miscommunication, identities). Which skills and strategies did the facilitator attempt to use in order to deal with these differ- ences? [2 to 3 pages]

3. CHALLENGES: What specific challenges did the facilitator have to pre- empt or deal with? Which skills and strategies did the facilitator use to deal with each of these? [2 to 3 pages]

4. ALTERNATIVE: Identify another approach the facilitator could have used to help the participants manage their conflict more effectively. Explain why you think this approach would be more appropriate or effective. Provide examples of how the facilitator could use specific skills and strategies to implement this approach, given the same conflicts and challenges that you describe in Points 2 and 3. What are the risks or potential down- sides of using this type of approach? [2 to 3 pages]

5. REFERENCES: List the books, articles, and other scholarly CR resources cited in your analysis. [5 to 8 references]

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .