Persons who undertake to help those in conflict, but who are
themselves
not trained as mediators, will typically jump to good faith efforts at
problem solving. But if you have pursued the rigor of developing your
understanding
of the preceding sequence of topics, you will know that certain
conditions
must first be achieved before serious problem solving of major conflict
can hope to succeed. The techniques which follow are especially useful
for managing group conflict in organizations, communities and larger
social
systems.
ANTECEDENT
STEPS PRIOR TO USING PROBLEM
SOLVING TECHNIQUES Build
trust and rapport by identifying feelings and affirming their
legitimacy
for all parties to the dispute Identify
and legitimize the underlying needs which may be threatened or
frustrated Link
feelings to values, clarify and legitimize these as valid means for
advancing
or protecting the fulfillment of the needs of all parties to the
dispute. Identify
and make visible the value conflicts, which may be internal conflicts
within
one or more of the disputants Link
competing value goals among the parties to the dispute and show the
relationship
of these to how the issues have been built as symbols and means for
fulfilling
the competing values of each disputant.
These achievements become especially important where the
conflict is being
energized by active power coalitions of highly vested interests among
the
stakeholders to the issues in conflict. In the context of the network
of
feelings, needs and values, made visible by the rapport and trust
building
techniques, evaluate the following problem solving options as which are
most appropriate to the needs of the disputants as these relate to the
conflict issues.
PROBLEM
SOLVING OPTIONS
There are numerous problem solving techniques which are the purview of
university courses and professional workshops and seminars in
management
and administration. Not are there undergraduate and graduate levels,
but
also there are corporate providers of such training. Therefore, this
section
will only provide a brief outline of some well established techniques
and
point to more detailed WWW information when such is available.
In undertaking to implement any techniques a mediator may
become aware
of, the antecedent conditions noted above must not only have been
achieved
at a satisfactory level, but the mediator should continue to illuminate
all such feelings, needs and values of the disputants as these may
surface
during any rational problem solving protocol.
Following are outlines of problem solving protocols and
approaches that
can be considered by a mediator of group or organization conflict once
sufficient trust and rapport have been built among the disputants. A
common
understanding of the nature of the generative factors energizing their
issues ought to have been resolved first. The greatest enemy to the
success
of any rational problem solving process in the continuing presence of
un-addressed
distrust of any disputant toward any other disputant. The is why the
prerequisite
conditions reviewed above must first be managed before this stage is
entered.
PROBLEM SOLVING PROTOCOLS
AND PROCEDURES
All of the following techniques have in common that they
propose to incorporate
objectivity and insure fairness as a result of the nature of the
protocol.
But this goal can only be achieved in an atmosphere of reasonable
trust.
Premature efforts to hammer through any agreement by any "rational"
process
may at first appear to succeed . This is because of the social
pressures
created by these processes. But you may be certain that any apparent
agreements
will quickly succumb to the disputant's real fears, distrust and
resentment
that created the original conflict and its symptomatic issues. These
must
be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties to the dispute. That
initial
success and insight becomes an incentive to make the following rational
processes work.
Brainstorming Nominal
Group Process Cause
and Effect Lewin's
Force Field Analysis Root
Cause ("Battle of the Pacific") Matrix Select
Solution Matrix
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BRAINSTORMING Technique:
1. The mediator will facilitate the process
and serve as
record keeper and list the contributions
2. Agree on a tentative statement of the problem and/or goal for the
outcome
of the session, and write it in a visible place in the room
3. Tell each person to take five minutes and write down for themselves
what are the priority contributions they will want to be sure to make
to
the session
4. Establish the following rules:
(1) each person will take turns advancing any factor, goal or topic
they
feel is relevant in any way to the goal of the session;
(2) any idea is acceptable
(3) there will be no interruption of a speaker to debate or criticize
their
offering,
(4) a person may ask solely for a clarification of a person's
offering
5. the process will continue until the list of contributions appears to
have been exhaustive of any further ideas. NOTE: an extended initial
silence
of all or some members should be recognized and explored for the
evidence
of distrust or intimidation it may represent. Stopping the goal
directed
activity of a group to conduct a process inquiry as the "feeling
health"
of the group is sometimes called "group maintenance."
6. When the list is complete, ask the parties to examine the complete
list,
identify and write down those offerings that appear to be conceptually
related to the problem statement or goal
7. During the time of step seven, the mediator should clarify how the
offerings
may be examined in a problem-symptom relationship.
8. Make a tentative list of generic headings offered by the group for
clustering
the specific offerings under generic headings
9. Move to the Nominal Group Technique, or begin to explore how the
topics
and listings should be weighted to relate to the issues and be managed
in a fair and logical way.
Advantages: Prevents
political coalitions from limiting or frustrating the introduction of
unwanted
topics permits all persons to hear all views quickly (relatively
speaking) creates
the greatest array of ideas, concepts and possibilities for relating to
the conflict and its resolution begins
to develop an atmosphere of cooperative problem solving empowers
members
who may otherwise be intimidated or powerless in the presence of some
members permits
the mediator to grasp a range of related issues and possible solutions
in the context of what has been learned in the earlier rapport building
phases of the mediation process.
Cautions
and Disadvantages: Irrelevant
or distracting information can be introduced irrelevant
ideas can be used tactically by certain parties to frustrate the group
reaching its goal the
mediator must be skilled at separating the issues being argued from
their
assessment of underlying needs and values
Other
Problem Solving Protocols
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NOMINAL
GROUP TECHNIQUE Technique:
Should be initiated as a follow-up to the
initial investment
of a brainstorming session involves ranking and weighting the topical
ideas
and concepts created by the brainstorming session As ideas are listed,
make certain that the justification is explained and translated into
the
implication of them on the needs and values of the participants
encourage
contributors to integrate or vacate their ideas when it becomes evident
that other ideas are essentially similar, better or more relevant to
the
problem solving goals. conduct a cost benefit analysis in terms of
needs
and values of the affected participants and allow for adjustments to
protect
or advance such needs and values.
Advantages: introduces
some objectivity into the ranking and weighting permits
the criteria for ranking and weighting to be presented in the context
of
the needs and values of both proponents and opponents creates
a clear record of the process and its results to be made available for
briefing those stakeholders who were not able or willing to participate
in the process.
Cautions
and Disadvantages: The
rating and ranking protocol is vulnerable to the dominance of power
coalitions. Group
maintenance should be conducted during the process as the ranking and
weighting
progresses to ensure all parties understand the reasons behind the
votes
(as related to needs and values of the voters) The
tendency of proponents to railroad agreement, and of opponents to
obstruct
the agreement should be headed off when they first emerge. The
mediator should be ready to process the underlying needs and values
that
lead to the parties respective positions.
Other
Problem Solving Protocols
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CAUSE
AND EFFECT NETWORK Technique:
Can be incorporated as part of the Nominal
Group Process
after weighting and ranking, or in lieu of weighting and ranking The
relationship
should reflect the links between or among all underlying symptoms that
are often confused with the problem by disputants (one person's symptom
may be another person's problem.) Linkages between (among) hierarchical
cause and effect relationships should also be shown.
Advantages: visibility
of the diagrammed cause and effects relationships (sometimes called a
"fish
bone" ) help
promote conceptual clarity and facilitate discovering how needs and
values
are clustered around the symptom-problem array. relationships
can be manipulated to represent alternative perspectives held by
disputants
Note: this manipulation can be facilitated by using 3 x 5 cards pinned
to a cork board or taped to a suitable background.
Cautions
and Disadvantages: the
process tends to emphasize a depersonalized view of the emotional
relationships
among the actors to the conflict and the issues by which it has been
defined
by them the
feeling-values matrix of all the disputants must not be lost sight of
by
the mediator during group focusing on the intellectual representations
of the problem symptom array.
Other
Problem Solving Protocols
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LEWIN'S
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS This technique can be traced to mid
century proponents
of the German psychologist Kurt Lewin. He defined relationships among
concepts
and individuals in psychology sociology as valence fields. Valence was
defined by the same principles as the electronic valences of energy
forces
in atoms between the nucleus and orbiting electrons of the basic
elements.
Force fields of attraction and rejection were presumed to exist within
the consciousness of persons. These forces manifested as attitudes
toward
each other and abstract and presumed rationale ideas and values they
held.
The figure on the left is based on an a prior figure showing
DSE relationships
found above under the "Systems" section of this page. In this
representation,
the Figure illustrates approach-avoidance value relationships. Notice
that
the underlying values that have been found by the mediator having
nothing
to do with any "rational" assessment of the issue. A rational
assessment
might conclude that: "The nurse is paid for her/his time and she should
be at work. The patient comes first and if patient care requires he/she
stay late, then that's what should happen."
But the valences reveal that there are major value conflicts,
both within
the "Problem" nurse, within the Director of the Department, and
therefore
in the sub-system of the medical center called "Department of Nursing."
An adequate resolution of this conflict will require that the nurse's
inner
conflict (good mother vs good professional) and the other values
clustering
around them demand attention. The reluctance of the Director to
confront
suggests that this has led to an inflammation of the problem in the
Nursing
Department--resentment of others, decreased morale by those affected,
etc.
In the context of this page, the representation is of course greatly
simplified,
and little imagination is required to realize that in the real world
version
of this conflict, there will be numerous interacting value conflicts.
Nevertheless, two major points can be made with this [above]
example:
(1) Issues must first be resolved at the level of the value conflicts
within
and among the disputants, and
(2) The Forced Field analysis approach can help illuminate the complex
interacting causal forces energizing the conflict and point the way to
potential solutions.
In this example, one can already create a solution as a
theory to check
out its viability. Means must be found to resolve the nurse's inner
parent
vs professional conflict. Also, the reluctance of the Director to
openly
confront problems when they first appear suggests that this particular
Nursing Department may have other festering unresolved issues among its
members.
Technique: Build
on the product of a Nominal Group Technique before final ranking and
weighting
the solution elements Take
each element of a solution to a problem array and place it at the top
of
a sheet of paper. On
the top left side write the word "Incentive (Approach) and on the
right,
write the word "Barrier" (Avoidance.) Using
brainstorming technique, list the valences of relevant conditions and
list
them without debate as Incentive
or Barrier. Interpret
the incentives and barriers in terms of the disputants needs and
values. Recall
from NLP the intervention for a nominalization in which the mediator
will
ask "What stops you?" or "What will happen if you do?" While
continuing feeling responses when they are appropriate to maintain
rapport
and continue trust building, facilitate a discussion among the
disputants
as to how each identified barrier relates to their needs and values
using
NLP techniques. The
product of the above step can then be used to facilitate an
intervention
plan to eliminate or transform the barriers so as to permit the
incentives
to operate in resolving the problem-symptom arrays defined by the
conflict.
Advantages The
process, once rapport and trust are established among the disputants,
facilitates
an in depth exploration of the needs and values that underlie both the
incentives and the factors bend any barriers to implementing the
incentives. Untapped
and possibly more sensitive needs and values that may not have been
identified
in the initial stages of CR are encouraged to be brought to the surface.
Cautions
and Disadvantages: The
mediator must be sure that the prior processes have produced valid and
complete identification of the problem symptom arrays and a variety of
potential means by which they can be resolved May
require extra time to properly execute the protocol if the problem
array
is complex and/or has been seriously conflicted
Other
Problem Solving Protocols
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ROOT CAUSE
"BATTLE OF THE PACIFIC" MATRIX
Technique: This technique is
involves assessing the linkages
among symptom-problem relationships and identifying by priority, the
causal
contributes to them. It is similar in principle to the strategic
approach
taken by the United States to prevail in the "Battle of the Pacific"
during
World War II. The analogy applies because at the out set of the way,
the
Japanese occupied literally hundreds of islands across the pacific. The
potential cost to America in human lives and resources was daunting.
But
General MacArthur conceived a plan based on the principle that if only
those dozen or so islands that were used as the key suppliers to the
all
other islands could be taken, then the all of the dependent islands
could
be starved into submission and surrender.
In this approach,
the task of the mediator
is to guide the disputants to identify a problem- symptom array, and
the
causal factors that energize them. Then, only the major contributors to
the conflict can be addressed in a more cost effective and efficient
manner
that includes all relevant problems. The basic steps are: Use
prior techniques (e.g., brainstorming) to identify the criteria by
which
problems and symptoms (issues) will be defined and identified and made
visible Make
visible to all the needs and value conflicts that may surface during
this
process to identify the problem symptom array. A symptom is "caused" by
a contributing set of conditions called the "problem." Place
the central "symptom" (often improperly called a problem) at the center
of a sheet of paper, and cluster about it those contributing conditions
(problems) that are causal, or which energize the presenting of issues. Do
this for every major symptom (issue) that combine to define the overall
conflict Use
a technique such as the Force Field analysis to arrange the core
"symptom/problems"
such that they link with each other. This will allow weighting of the
contributing
causes to the core problem(s) Identify
potential interventions (the ones that address needs and values) in
order
of priority for addressing the key causal factors ("islands")
identified
by the disputants.
Advantages: permits
concurrent needs and value clarification by continuing the "Trust and
Rapport"
phase during the problem solving NLP techniques can
be used as focusing techniques during problem analysis to evaluate
causal
relationships
Cautions
and Disadvantages: Mediator
must risk having the disputants bog down in minor value conflicts and
mini
turf wars if there is much complexity in the causal array. While
revising the problems causal linkages is always in order, the initial
part
of the process should focus on only those major factors (the bigger
"islands") The
complexity of the process in the presence of a complex dispute may
require
greater time in exchange for a more thorough analysis and opportunity
to
concurrently resolve needs and value conflicts
Other
Problem Solving Protocols
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SELECT
SOLUTION PROBLEM MATRIX
Technique:
This
technique is based on a similar
protocol that is often called the "Problem Solving Approach" or "Select
Problem Matrix" to resolve organizational conflict. But the significant
difference lies in the nature of the process which avoids focusing on
the
"problems" about which the disputants are naturally defensive and
anxious.
Instead, this approach focuses on needs and values serving solutions to
the presenting issues. The steps are as follows: have
the disputants come to the CR meeting with their own personal lists of
issues and problems they are in conflict over, but have them hold it
and
only use their lists as a reference during the trust and rapport
building
phase allow
for ventilation by the disputants as to the adverse impact of the
presenting
issues on their needs and values when sufficient trust and rapport have
been built brainstorm
a list of what positive factors or conditions they want in their
workplace
(organization) and want more of, or miss and want to include when
the list is complete, cluster or group the positive goals according to
common or generic similarity as in nominal group processes revisit
each generic goal and ask the group to list the blocking factors that
prevent
these desirable conditions for existing use
the NLP technique of asking "What stops you, or "What would happen if
you
tried to implement this goal. note
these and give feedback to the group as to their revelation of needs
and
values conflicts that energize their attempts at logical and rational
debate use
the ensuing discussion to make explicit for the group or disputants the
underlying needs and value conflicts that energize the positions being
taken in the debate organize
the resulting relationships and conditions into an implementation
plan
Advantages: this
approach avoids the emersion in negativity that often accompanies CR
especially
in the early stages as
the negativity is allowed to be presented during the rapport and
trusting
building phase, the entire group becomes oriented toward a positive and
upbeat outcome disputants
can be given roles in the process that allow them to become involved as
advocates of their needs and values. In this positive manner, they can
have their solutions put forward and incorporated into the evolving
master
plan and developed.
Cautions
and Disadvantages long term
stability of any resolution requires
that sufficient veneration and needs and values of all disputants be
stated,
heard and acknowledged by all parities to the dispute. Given the
solution
oriented approach, the human tendency in American culture to dismiss,
deny
or avoid feelings can be aggravated unless the resulting solutions are
cast in the context of how they serve each parties most important
needs,
the original distrust and hidden agendas can take root in the new order
and begin to flourish again to the destruction of the agreement. Unless
needs are met, values served, no "solution" can be expected to remain
stable
over an extended period of time.
Build
trust and rapport by identifying feelings and affirming their
legitimacy
for all parties to the dispute 
