A Publication of the Association for Conflict Resolution

                                 A Professional Organization Dedicated to Enhancing

                                                   The Practice and Public Understanding

                                                                       Of Conflict Resolution

                                 Fall 2007

Greetings!

Welcome to a special edition of the Workplace Section Newsletter! This feature is designed to highlight the works of dedicated ACR Workplace Section members who contributed their time and energy to delivering and attending conference programs at the ACR 2006 Annual Conference in Philadelphia.

Out of the ingenuity of a creative Workplace Section member, the Section inaugurated the Roving Reporter Program in 2006. Because none of us can be in more than one place at one time, the concept behind the Roving Reporter Program is to ask Section members to transform their workshop experiences into articles for the purpose of sharing their learning experiences with the broader membership. The Roving Reporters featured within this special edition graciously agreed to cover conference events of their choosing with pen in hand and laptop at the ready to allow all of us to enjoy the benefits of their experiences. Their written works in turn feature Conference Presenters who provided the soul and inspiration for these articles.

We are most grateful for their time and effort and are happy to offer the following articles for your reading pleasure:

All About Assessment: Organizational Conflict Intervention as Opportunity for Systemic Change

Presented by: David Brubaker

Written by: Jill Sarah Moscowitz

Measuring Workplace Fairness

Presented by: Blain Donais, LL.B, LL.M

Written by: Debra Dupree

Developing An ADR Conflict Coaching Process

Presented by: Susan W. Brecher, Cornell University

Written by: Anonymous Author

Exploring and Identifying Issues of Conflict in the Workplace: Gaining Insight and Making Changes

Presented by: Candice Gottlieb, MS

Written by: Shari Swoish

Facilitation vs. Mediation – Similarities and Differences: Should I Facilitate Because I Mediate?

Presented by: Ruth Britt, Rita Callahan & Janice Fleischer

Written by: Shari Swoish and Louise Wildee

Using Mediation in the Workplace: How to Mediate Disputes between Colleagues - The Milan Systemic Approach

Presented by: Dr. Larry Fong

Written by: Anonymous Author

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We look forward to receiving your feedback about the concept of Roving Reporters. Is it an idea worth keeping and nurturing for future conferences? Our next conference is just around the corner and filled with exciting topics and events. Would YOU be willing to cover a session for later publication?

See you in Phoenix at the 7^th Annual ACR Conference, October 24-27, 2007!

Pamela Martin and Nicole DiPentima

Workplace Section Newsletter Editors

Debra Dupree, Michael McDowell and Vicki Knudsen

All About Assessment: Organizational Conflict Intervention as Opportunity for Systemic Change

By Jill Sarah Moscowitz                                                                                       Printable Version

Presented by: David Brubaker

Even on the morning of the final day of our five day conference, the small room holding David Brubaker's workshop "All About Assessment: Organizational Conflict Intervention as Opportunity for Systemic Change" was packed to the door with eager ACR participants. This workshop focused on assessment of organizational conflict. To set the stage, David opened with his view that “Conflict is not the main problem: it is a symptom – an opportunity for transformation.”

"An assessment that focuses only on the presenting problems, and does not attempt to uncover deeper systemic patterns will treat symptoms rather than causes." David suggests that for analysis of organizational conflict, a simplistic Three P (Problem, People, and Process) approach is not adequate. David built upon the Three Ps to create a broader conflict analysis process for organizations, which is presented below.

1) People. Who are the most invested individuals or groups? Who is the silent majority? David suggests that the most invested individuals represent only ten to twenty percent of the organization. Like a bell curve, there exists a "silent majority" in the middle, representing the other eighty to ninety percent of the staff. All stakeholders need to have a voice in the resolution - each opposing side and those in the middle.

2) Problems. What are the critical issues? Try to limit to three to five issues. (Keeping in mind underlying issues, see number 5)

3) Conflict Intensity. David described Lea's Conflict Intensity scale from the lowest intensity level to the highest: 1-problem, 2-disagreement, 3-contest, 4-fight/flight and 5-intractable situation. Ninety percent of the cases David handles are at level 4. "The resolution process will vary significantly, depending on accurate assessment of conflict intensity.

4) Identify Strengths. David uses techniques from Appreciative Inquiry in his assessment. When interviewing stakeholders, he asks questions like, “What are the key areas of the organization’s life that are affirming?” “What are the areas of agreement?” And, “What are existing strengths that can be built upon?”

5) Organizational System. An organization is an organic system consisting of a decision-making and physical structure combined with a unique culture (rituals, artifacts, what is visible, values and beliefs), which is nested in a specific environment.  An interconnected emotional system with observable patterns, such as triangling, is also present.

6) Process Recommendations. Only after looking at all systems can the presenting problems and underlying problems be addressed. David referred to Dugan’s Nested Model to describe the organizational assessment and interventions; beginning with understanding that Issues are nested inside Relationship (which is usually where mediation is effective), which is nested inside Sub-systems, which nested inside a larger System.  David works with a "Reference Group" which is appointed by the organization's leadership to engage in discussing and evaluating changes in structure and strategy, as well as changes at the Systems level.

The workshop began with a PowerPoint presentation, followed by discussion. The discussion raised questions that allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the materials that were presented. And, the crowded room was still abuzz at the end of the workshop!

Measuring Workplace Fairness

by Debra Dupree                                                                                                 Printable Version

Presented by: Blain Donais, LL.B, LL.M

What is workplace fairness? What does conflict cost? And, why do we care?

Author and ACR Conference Presenter Blaine Donais started asking those questions nearly 15 years ago in the course of his labor law practice as he explored due process systems for non-union employees. What he found was a lack of research or literature to match his real life experience in both union and non-union dispute issues. Recognizing that conflict “costs” organizations in visible and invisible ways, he embarked on a course to develop a survey to measure costs and evaluate existing conflict management systems. This resulted in his recent publication Workplaces That Work: A Guide to Conflict Management in Union and Non-Union Work Environments, filled with instruments that provide quantitative solutions to managing workplace conflict (available through www.canadalawbook.ca).

Let’s go back to the initial question of “What is workplace fairness?” Blaine defines workplace fairness as the following: “all participants should be treated with equality of concern and respect in the management of workplace conflict.” Why does this matter to organizations? As repeatedly demonstrated in the examples presented, the lack of concern and respect in the workplace can have devastating effects on employee satisfaction and productivity, ultimately costing organizations plenty. Workplace fairness is considered the key to motivate productivity and loyalty, both of which substantially deter from the bottom line.

So how do we measure it? Blaine’s instrument helps achieve three key factors:

1) A tool to analyze workplaces to define and assess current conflict management systems (CMS) and how to achieve sustainable improvements.
2) A model applicable in ANY workplace and translatable to almost any culture and/or country.
3) How even unionized environments can have effective CMS provided that the union facilitates buy-in and inclusion of its working members.

The Workplace Fairness Checklist (WFC) examines what and how an organization embodies the following options:

1) Interest-based
2) Rights-Based
3) Communications-Based
4) Power-Based

The checklist uses four key quotients to further assess the effectiveness of an existing CMS: Justice, Efficiency, Engagement, and Resources. The checklist is akin to an accountant measuring the financial health of an organization. However, in this case, the health of an organization is assessed using the “Testing Instrument for Fairness Systems” (TIFFS) to diagnose and modify an existing (but perhaps unknown) fairness system. To get at the bottom-line costs, the Fairness Cost analysis tool (FCAT) helps organizations reach decisions on how to improve the company’s bottom line.

Blaine has designed his series of checklists and instruments in a way that actively engages stakeholders in a way that positively impacts trust between employees and organizational leaders. For more information on “Workplace Fairness” and the assessment devices to measure it, contact Blaine Donais at (416) 531-9384 or donais@workplacefairness.ca.

Developing An ADR Conflict Coaching Process

By Anonymous Author                                                                                       Printable Version

Presented by: Susan W. Brecher, Cornell University

This session covered what the presenter, Susan Brecher, referred to as a “new, emerging process.” It is a specific model she has developed for peer coaching in the workplace. The process provides employees with tools they can use to help fellow employees deal with an interpersonal conflict. It is appropriate when employees and/or managers with a conflict wish to resolve the situation using a consensual process.

The goal of the conflict coaching process is to resolve the concern at the lowest level in a non-confrontational manner, using one-on-one discussions. The conflict coach helps the employee in conflict develop and present options, problem solve collaboratively, and communicate respectfully. The ultimate goal of the process is to provide employees with skills and tools they can use to address future concerns through one-on-one discussion, without the assistance of a coach.

The key to this process is developing options for resolving or improving the situation. The coach supports the employee being coached in developing and then prioritizing at least three different options. The coach may also provide suggestions on how to describe the issue to the other party in a non-judgmental way. Ideally, both parties to a conflict are coached, each by a different peer coach. This practice, however, is not always practical.

Once options have been developed with the help of the coach, the employee in conflict initiates a one-on-one discussion with the second party. They express thanks for the willingness to meet; explain the process to be used; describe the issue at hand; and describe the impact of the behavior or concern. They then ask how the other party sees the situation, listening actively without other interruption. The initiator of the discussion presents at least two options for resolution, explains the rationale behind the options, makes sure they are clearly understood, and invites the other party to present additional options.

Through open-minded discussion, the two parties agree on either (a) a mutually agreeable option; (b) a need for more time; or (c) their inability to come to a resolution. The discussion is closed with a positive statement, the suggestion of using the method in the future (if this experience has been non-confrontational), and an expression of thanks for participating in the meeting.

If the two parties are unable to reach a solution on their own, the conflict coach may take on the role of a “resolution facilitator” who conducts shuttle diplomacy between the two parties in conflict. No more than two rounds of shuttle diplomacy are used. If agreement is reached in this manner, the two parties are then brought together to “seal” the agreement.

Ms. Brecher described her overall philosophy by saying, “I try to take the complex and make it simple.” She is passionate about the transfer of learning, and excited about the opportunity to share her model with the ACR community.

Questions about this peer coaching model can be directed to Ms. Brecher at swb6@cornell.edu. Please include “ACR Session” in the subject field.

Exploring and Identifying Issues of Conflict in the Workplace: Gaining Insight and Making Changes

By Shari Swoish                                                                                                       Printable Version

Presented by: Candice Gottlieb, MS

This fast-paced session explored the causes of workplace conflict, focusing on the emotional and interpersonal relations aspects. Candice asked: Why do people stay on the job?  Because they like the people with whom they work. When you dread working with someone, this leads to depressed and anxious feelings—and when there is an imbalance in personal and professional relationships, the cycle of conflict escalation begins.

According to Candice, the major sources of conflict include balancing personal and professional relationships, acknowledging the effects of change and recognizing organizational issues. She emphasized that changes at work affect the balance between our personal and professional relationships with our co-workers. Common causes include the effects of:

- Promotions and/or new responsibilities

- New hires and/or issues of trust

- Change in someone’s actions

- Changes in our opinions

Candice introduced four characters to effectively illustrate how an individual’s style of handling conflict will be different, based on diversity, gender, education level and other variables. Another consideration is that a person’s upbringing is critical to understanding how conflicts are approached. For example, if a person was brought up in a household where screaming at each other was the norm, then yelling and talking over each other is the way this individual learned to handle conflict. On the other hand, if a person grew up in a silent home and was sent to his/her room to think about a dispute, this person may need to retreat and quietly come to grips while approaching conflict situations. Imagine how difficult it would be for these two individuals to resolve a conflict together!

As Candice noted, “emotional health affects business health,” and this brings finances into the discussion. The cost of workplace conflict is astonishingly high: it is estimated that 30% - 42% of a manager’s time is spent resolving conflict matters. In addition, the cost of replacing an employee ranges from 30% to 75% of that employee’s annual earnings, and could go as high as 150%, depending on the job level of the employee.

Candice believes that, “Mediation is an essential tool for any business that values employee retention.” Please refer to her website, www.mediatingsolutions.com for further information, including a template for calculating workplace conflict.  Candice is the President of Mediating Solutions and can be reached at 818-400-5670.

The following resources were listed:

K. Crowley & K. Elster (2006). Working With You is Killing Me. New York, NY, Warner Business Books.

R.M. Bramson (1981). Coping with Difficult People. New York, NY, Bantam Doubleday.

K. Cloke & J. Goldsmith (2005). Resolving Conflicts at Work—Eight Strategies for Everyone on the Job. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Facilitation vs. Mediation – Similarities and Differences: Should I Facilitate Because I Mediate?

By Shari Swoish and Louise Wildee                                                                  Printable Version

Presented by: Ruth Britt, Rita Callahan & Janice Fleischer

The presenters told us that they were here to get our input and share their experience instead of simply providing details on how to facilitate. This lively and interactive session was cleverly presented by demonstrating facilitation techniques as if the attendees were members of a facilitation group. The three presenters offered a variety of approaches to highlight the differences between facilitation and mediation. The goal was to educate mediators about how to expand their practice to include facilitation and to do so effectively.

Introduction:

The discussion was captured using graphic recording—Ruth used a long piece of paper to draw the process as it unfolded, adding dialogue and pictures to graphically record the participants’ comments and create a group memory of the event.

Rita asked participants to introduce themselves in order to reveal something fun about group members; sharing something personal with the group can be an effective way to break down barriers.

During a facilitated discussion, attendees offered the following ways that this session mirrored an actual facilitation session:

­ Setting the agenda

­ Checking in with the group

­ Acknowledging the time

­ Writing legibly

­ Blending the speakers’ styles

­ Laying out expectations—what would and would not be addressed

­ Creating environment / setting tone

­ Establishing credibility; demonstrating what they want to convey

­ Keying in on the group’s language

­ Self-monitoring in a public way

Ruth summarized the goal of the opening activities using the Drixler/Sibbet Team Performance^TM model which she often uses as a framework for process design. The facilitation opens with the first three elements of the model:

1. Why are we here? (Orientation)

2. Who are you? (Building Trust)

3. What are we going to do? (Goal Clarification)

Guidelines:

Janice asked/told the group:

­ Have you ever been facilitated before?

­ We’ll develop meeting guidelines for this meeting (ground rules)

­ Janice asked for two rules: (1) Phones/beepers on vibrate and leave the room to accept phone calls and (2) no side conversations.

­ Other guidelines that the group might develop or would be suggested by the facilitator for acceptance by the group (i.e., no personalizing; no making assumptions; agree on the meaning of important words, etc.)

­ Ruth used the term ‘norms’ and let the group decide the norms

Mediation vs. Facilitation

The following are elements that attendees offered as being unique to mediation, though this may not be the case.

­ Confidential

­ Take as long as needed

­ Number of parties

­ Language (party v. participant)

­ There is always a conflict as a catalyst

­ Parties are involved in the conflict

­ Discusses the past

­ Fluid agenda

­ Emotions dealt with differently; spends longer time in mediation

­ Is more personal and focused on individual goals

­ No exercises or activities

­ Mediation is more closed-ended

What Makes a Facilitation a Facilitation?

­ Participants may be representatives of a group or entity (government, citizen group, environment, development, etc.)

­ Facilitation is interested in ensuring that the right participants are at the table (no empty seat that could ultimately spoil the results of the process)

­ Participants are often designated to attend by their entity, making participation potentially non-voluntary

Janice:

­ If the conflict is crystallized, she is mediating.

­ If the conflict does not exist or is to be prevented, she is facilitating.

Rita:

­ When a legal element is involved, it may be mediation.

­ When it is a confidential matter, it may be mediation.

­ When the neutral provides the process and the participants own the content, it is mediation. When the facilitator designs the process, in collaboration with stakeholders, and executes the process to meet the goals of the stakeholders, it is facilitation.

Janice:

­ The definition has nothing to do with the number of participants; it is the process used.

­ Mediation involves a general knowledge of the process; in facilitation, the process has not yet been defined.

­ In mediations, the mediator may first hear about the parties when everyone sits down at the table; in facilitations, you never go in without first doing homework on the topic and participants (stakeholders).

­ In facilitations, there hasn’t always been a conflict. The question may be asked: “How do you want me to handle the conflict when it happens?”

In a facilitated discussion led by Ruth, participants offered the skills or knowledge needed to be a facilitator:

• Ability to deal with large groups; using microphones
• Convening
• Investigation
• Handling layered dynamic of communications
• Skills around the process
• Surface and understand to have others hear
• More energy
• How to manage the energy of the group
• Is not always a highly dynamic process
• Do not assume consensus is needed
• Conversations before the facilitation (i.e., how invested are they in the design process, is everyone necessary included?)

In a facilitated discussion, participants offered the different types of roles when facilitating:

1. More flexible (what do you need me to be?)

• Mirror, or what might be referred to as ‘naming the elephant.’ The facilitator notes what they are observing and asks the group to comment and consider…helpful when group dynamics need to be addressed or if there is a conflict that isn’t being dealt with.
• Designing the process
• Controlling the process (monitoring time, providing directions, keeping the group on target)
• Recording the process
• Using techniques and models – e.g. graphic facilitation, Drixler/Sibbet Team Performance^TM Model, etc.

2. Examples of Application:

· Mentoring

· Visioning

· Strategic planning

· Retreat

· Public policy

· Team building

· Program work

· Environmental

· Conflict Resolution

· Decision Making

Janice notes: do not confuse the verb “facilitating” as in “facilitating a dialogue” with the noun “facilitation.”

Tips and Tools:

Knowledge and use of facilitation tools and techniques will help you to design interactive processes that fully engage participants in the event. For instance, graphic recording can be done by the participants, using a ‘sticky wall’ to brainstorm, sort, and group ideas; use icebreakers and energizers to build rapport and change the group dynamics or try some of the following ideas:

­ Ask: who will provide the fun?

­ Ask: who will be the consultant? (brings in bizarre ideas, especially when group knows each other).

­ Walk the room: review what the group has done by walking around the room and summarizing.

Question from an attendee: “How do you keep track of power balances?”

Answer: Facilitators can deliberately design who is in each group and encourage people to disagree. This is only one answer among many techniques that can be used.

Summary:

­ Importance of contracting the facilitation engagement

­ Homework is done prior to the facilitation

­ Outcomes and goals vary by needs of the group

­ Use or can use a variety of processes

­ The process is not yet defined

­ You can just “trust the group”

For additional information, please contact the presenters:

RUTH BRITT

I C Me in the Solution

Building TSA’s Model Workplace & Integrated Conflict Management System

571-227-3607

Ruth.Britt@dhs.gov 

RITA CALLAHAN

Working It Out

Mediator/Trainer/Conflict Coach/Facilitator/Consultant/Speaker

404-808-9339

rcallahan@mindspring.com

www.mediate.com/rcallahan

JANICE M. FLEISCHER, J.D.

Flash Resolutions

Miami office: 786-268-2596

Tallahassee office: 850-877-8939

Janice@flashresolutions.com

www.flashresolutions.com

Using Mediation in the Workplace: How to Mediate Disputes between Colleagues - The Milan Systemic Approach

By Anonymous Author                                                                                        Printable Version

Presented by: Dr. Larry Fong

This session was about the Milan Systematic Model of mediation (the Model)—an approach developed in Milan, Italy by a group of four psychologists—two researchers and two practitioners. It is a model that is based on the premise that a mediation can be conducted using only questions and no statements. This model is about pattern and form, as described by Dr. Fong. The Model has four basic pillars: hypothesizing, circular questions, neutrality, and strategizing. Dr. Fong presented on the first three pillars.

The Model posits that hypotheses drive good questions; thus, developing hypotheses about what might be going on between the two parties is a key component of the process. The mediator should have multiple hypotheses in their mind so that they can “flirt with a hypothesis, not marry it.” The hypotheses are tested by asking a series of questions. The “right” questions will encourage the parties to open up and talk more. A rule of the model is to not resolve the problem right away. In fact, asking each party to define the problem would move the process into positional bargaining.

The Model encourages the acknowledgement of feelings, but looks more at thinking. The theory is people are less able to make decisions when they are caught up in their feelings. The authors of this approach believe that emotions shouldn’t get in the way of a good solution.

Potential questions fall into several different categories:

• Linear questions—straight-line, anecdotal
• Relational, or circular, questions—questions of a difference that make a difference
• Strategic questions—designed to get one answer, such as “yes,” “no,” “false” or “true”
• Reflective questions—asking parties to ponder or reflect; hypothetical; about the future
• Temporal questions—relating to past, future or present

This Model emphasizes circular questions that encourage clients to bring their attention to the future—where they can be, as opposed to where they have been.

A key to using the Model effectively, according to Dr. Fong, is to know how to be curious and respectful with the questions you ask. This will encourage clients to be more thoughtful, and lead to behavioral change.

This session was engaging and thought-provoking. Dr. Fong presented a video of an entire session using the model, which exposed session participants to a real-life example of the Model in action. Session attendees actively participated by posing hypotheses and possible questions at key points along the way, as Dr. Fong paused the video to discuss what was happening and what might work well as a next step. Dr. Fong presented a very informative and engaging session to the ACR community. If you would like more information about the Milan Systematic Approach contact Dr. Fong at lsfong@web.net or visit www.fongmediate.com.

So YOU want to be a Roving Reporter for the ACR 2007 Annual Conference in Phoenix? It’s easy! Read on…

Guidelines for Roving Reporters   

Your contribution as a Roving Reporter is invaluable to both Workplace Section and ACR. Not only do our section members benefit from your efforts to bring more of the conference to them, our goal is to attract prospective members with the advantages of joining ACR and WPS and encourage them to join the ranks of presenters and reporters at future conferences.

As a Roving Reporter, your mission is to create an article of 250-500 words describing the session you attended. As outlined in this Special Newsletter Edition, the articles are then featured for all the Workplace Section membership to read.

Here are a few tips to make reporting easy and fun.

• Introduce yourself as a Roving Reporter and explain your assignment to the presenter(s)

• Ask for a follow up meeting after the session for a short quote
• Take notes during the session about observations, lessons, resources (i.e. books, websites, reports) to include in your article
• Be specific about the ‘what and why’ in your notes so it will be easier to write later
• Review any quote(s) with the Presenter(s) to ensure accuracy
• Turn in the assignment promptly to expedite publication

Contact information for submission of your completed articles will be posted at the ACR Workplace Section Conference Exhibit Table. Please note that articles are due no later than NOVEMBER 15, 2007.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact Nicole DiPentima at (617) 439-4700 x 200 or via email at ndipentima@BostonLawCollaborative.com.

We look forward to your contributions!

—The Workplace Section Tri-Chairs & Newsletter Editors—