The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)
Page 124
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND PEDAGOGY
Like other educators, we find it useful to identify for ourselves specific knowledge, skills, and attitude objectives for the training.
Knowledge Objectives
A glance at the Contents of this Handbook indicates the many areas of academic inquiry that affect the study of conflict and its resolution. How much of this body of knowledge can be included in an introductory experiential workshop?
We have decided to emphasize the distinction between competitive and collaborative approaches to conflict resolution (see chapter 1). Thus, we want participants to understand conceptually and experientially why and under what conditions cooperative conflict resolution processes such as collaborative negotiation and mediation are a better choice for individuals and society than are the commonly used strategies of competition and avoidance. Although we make it clear that we value cooperation, we also believe that we must not impose it on others. Our pedagogy encourages participants to try on this new paradigm to see if it is useful. Ultimately each participant must be self-motivated to make meaningful changes in his or her conflict-resolving behavior. We hope to provide information and experiences during our training that foster this exploration.
Through short essays in the training manual and minilectures, the trainers highlight and summarize in nontechnical language key insights from the field. In graduate courses at Columbia University and other institutions, we have supplemented these essays and lectures with additional assigned readings. Although specific knowledge objectives are associated with each module, there are some global knowledge objectives for the course:
To develop an understanding that conflict is a natural and necessary part of life and that how one responds to conflict determines if the outcomes are constructive or destructive
To develop awareness that competition and collaboration are the two main strategies for resolving conflict and for negotiation
To develop awareness of one’s own tendencies in thinking about and responding to conflict
To become a better conflict manager—in other words, to know which conflict resolution method is best suited for a particular conflict problem (e.g., avoidance, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, litigation, or force)
To become aware of how critical it is to the process of constructive conflict resolution to share information about one’s own perspective without attacking the other and to listen and work to understand the perspective of the other side
Skills Objectives
The most fundamental skills objectives of our training are the following:
To effectively distinguish positions from needs or interests
To reframe a conflict so that it can be seen as a mutual problem to be resolved collaboratively
To distinguish threats, justifications, positions, needs, and feelings and to be able to communicate one’s perspective using these distinctions
To ask open-ended questions in a manner that elicits the needs, rather than the defenses, of the other and, by so doing, communicate a desire to engage in a process of mutual need satisfaction
When under attack, to be able to listen to the other and reflect back the other’s needs or interests behind the attack
To create a collaborative climate through the use of informing, opening, and uniting behaviors
Attitude Objectives
The shifts in attitude and awareness that we intend to support are a little harder to enumerate succinctly. We hope that each participant leaves the program believing that collaborative conflict resolution skills are useful in their own lives. We hope that they commit to the larger goal of increasing the use of cooperative conflict resolution skills at all levels to create a more caring and just society. We want people to leave with a greater sense of humility or “conscious incompetence”—an awareness that there is always room to improve their conflict negotiation skills and that improvement will not only make their lives better but will enhance the lives of those around them. We want participants to be aware of the pervasiveness of identity-based conflict and to increase their own sense of humility to counter the self-righteousness and dangerous fundamentalism that has grown so exponentially in our time. In short, we want them to leave owning their part.
In a similar vein, we want participants to leave with an appreciation of difference as a source of richness rather than a liability. We want them to be intrigued by the multiple perspectives that human beings from around the globe can have about the same event and the multiple possibilities there are for misunderstanding. While we want to excite and motivate, we also want to avoid the Pollyanna effect with participants underestimating just how difficult it can be to use these skills. In most of our programs, participants are returning to systems that are not predominantly collaborative. They will likely encounter managers and colleagues who may very well not support them in their use of collaborative conflict management skills. We want them to leave ready and wanting to do the hard work and be realistic about how difficult it might be.
Our process permits exploring this continuum through whole-group and small-group discussions and reflection through personal journaling. This investigation varies in depth and breadth depending on the specific audience and the time available for the training.
SEVEN WORKSHOP MODULES
With this overall learning perspective in mind, we present a description of the seven modules of the Coleman Raider workshop training with pedagogical commentary. Focus on each of the seven modules in the training sequence is adjusted according to the learning objectives of the audience.
Module 1: Overview of Conflict
The first module presents an overview of conflict. The focus is on exploring the participants’ attitudes. The exercises chosen are intended to create internal conflict within each participant, so that each examines his or her own attitudes toward conflict, competition, and collaboration. The main activities are a diagnostic case, a physical game, and an interactive video-based minilecture illustrating various methods of conflict resolution.
Collaborative negotiation and mediation are introduced by locating them along the spectrum of conflict resolution approaches that range from avoidance to war. Both negotiation and mediation are explained as consensual alternatives that focus on the parties’ underlying needs and interests and require their buy-in to try to reach an agreement. This is contrasted with quasi-judicial and power-based methods such as arbitration, litigation, or war. (See figure 35.1.) In the minilecture we connect these strategies to important theories, such as Deutsch’s Crude Law of Social Relations (see chapter 1) and the dual-concern model.
Figure 35.1 Coleman Raider Resolution Continuum
Source: Copyright © 1992, 1995 E. Raider and S. Coleman. Permission has been given for use in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Other use is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holder.
A diagnostic case is the first experiential learning exercise. Small groups of four to six people are divided in half to represent each side of the dispute. The groups negotiate for twenty-five minutes—competitively for ten minutes, then collaboratively for fifteen. A frequently used diagnostic situation, the Ossipila case, is a conflict between international developers who, with local government backing, want to strip-mine on the ancient farmland used by villagers (who have support from environmental groups).
The exercise is recorded on audio (or video) and played back to the small groups; it is also used in module 3 for an in-depth analysis of negotiation behavior. There is a short debriefing immediately after the exercise.
The diagnostic case serves six functions:
It immediately draws in both skeptics and believers to our process.
It generates a baseline assessment for participants to discern those specific skill areas they need to work on during the rest of the training.
3. It brings out the inherent discrepancy between what we propose and what participants are actually doing.
It demonstrates that the learning exer
cises in the workshop are highly participatory.
It allows learners to experience the difficulty of switching from one negotiation strategy to the other, as well as the possible consequences of each approach.
It initiates a positive atmosphere of shared learning.
The power of this experience comes from the direct challenge to the participants’ views of competition and collaboration. As they listen to themselves and hear the group’s feedback, the participants contrast their behavior with their own implicit theories and self-perceptions. This creates a discomfort that is the pivotal stimulus for change during the training. We have found that even if people cognitively grasp the principles of collaboration and want to use them, many will still act out a competitive or avoidant orientation without further practice and motivation to change.
Module 2: The Elements of Negotiation
In module 2, the goal is to introduce a framework called the elements of negotiation, that serves as the underlying grammatical structure of a negotiation. Just as parsing a sentence for verbs, nouns, and adjectives fosters understanding in any language, so too understanding the elements of negotiation fosters analysis of a conflict prior to and during a negotiation. We identify six structural elements: worldview, climate, positions, needs and interests, reframing, and bargaining “chips” and “chops”:
One’s deeply held beliefs, attitudes, and values comprise a worldview. They are derived from one’s culture, family, and other important groups with which one identifies. Worldview is a central component of identity. It is almost always nonnegotiable, although it can change over time.
Climate is the mood of the negotiation. It reflects the competitive or collaborative orientation of the parties in the negotiation.
Positions are the specific demands or requests made by each party as negotiation commences—the party’s preferred solution to the conflict. If someone is competitive in her orientation, she may inflate her position or state it as nonnegotiable. A collaborative approach requires positions that are specific, clear, and honest with respect to negotiability.
Needs and interests are what each negotiating party is looking to satisfy. If the position is “what you want,” the need is “why you want it.” Collaboration sometimes requires sorting through layers of positions and needs to arrive at a place where both sides’ salient needs can be adequately addressed and met.
Reframing is a way to refocus the conflict issue on needs, not positions. It is essentially the question, “How can we satisfy the priority needs of the parties to the conflict?”
“Chips” and “chops” are, respectively, bargaining offers or threats that each side can use to influence the negotiation. Chips are positive need satisfiers that one side proposes so as to meet the needs of the other. They are effective only if perceived as valuable by the other party while also not undermining one’s own interests. Chops are negative need thwarters, such as threats or insults. They may be useful to counter threats or level a power imbalance between the disputants. However, they can encourage competition and undermine the trust needed for collaboration, so we discourage their use.
This shared frame of reference, with its common language, becomes a tool to make clear what the students often know intuitively. They learn to analyze the elements of each conflict presented and use this analysis to prepare for negotiation. A key learning goal is to be able to distinguish needs from positions and reframe conflict from a competitive clash of positions to collaboration based on understanding and acknowledgment of underlying needs and worldviews. The theoretical discussion underlying reframing in chapter 1 of this Handbook constitutes the intellectual context of our emphasis here. The main learning activities are analysis of simple or complex cases to practice recognition of needs, positions, and reframing (see figure 35.2) and use of the elements as a prenegotiation planning tool. We describe an example shortly.
Figure 35.2 Coleman Raider Reframing Formula
Source: Copyright © 1992, 1995 E. Raider and S. Coleman. Permission has been given for use in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Other use is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holder.
After a minilecture explaining the elements, the trainers lead the group through analysis (using a form similar to figure 35.3, the negotiation planning form) of a conflict presented in two parts on video. Part 1 shows a heated conflict, and part 2 shows one possible resolution. Using a video to display the conflict grounds the discussion in a specific real-world context. The choice of which case to use is an important design decision and is made with understanding of its suitability for a particular client group. One case, A Community Dispute, has proved useful in many contexts, so we briefly describe it here to illustrate the definitions given earlier.
Figure 35.3 Coleman Raider Negotiation Planning Form: A Community Dialogue
Source: Copyright © 1992, 1995 E. Raider and S. Coleman. Permission has been given for use in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Other use is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holder.
The mayor of Centerville has called a meeting to address citizen complaints that a factory in the town is emitting powerful toxins that are causing respiratory illness. The owner of the chemical plant, the town’s main employer, is present, as are three members of Concerned Citizens of Centerville, made up of plant workers and community members. The mayor cautions that the cause of the illness is as yet undetermined but announces that the results of a preliminary environmental report require the factory to close for one week to see if it is the source of the problem.
As the video begins, it is not immediately clear whether this conflict is a clash of worldviews or an apparent conflict of interests. Assumptions abound, however, during class discussion. Is the factory owner a “greedy capitalist” unconcerned with the well-being of the town? Are the concerned citizens merely “environmental crazies” out to destroy the factory, as the owner implies? The workshop discussion generated by the ambiguity helps participants distinguish among position-, interest-, and identity-based conflict and to better understand the concept of worldview.
In part 1 of the video, the climate is hostile and competitive. The disputants interrupt, yell, contradict, and accuse one another, as well as make it clear that each side sees the other as unreasonable. The position of the community group is to close the factory immediately. The owner’s counterposition is to keep the factory open, and he asserts that his plant is not causing the infections.
Through analysis, the class members come to understand that the community needs health and jobs and that the owner needs to protect the economic viability of his factory and have healthy workers to run it. In addition, all have the need for accurate information about the source of the infections, as well as having their perspective acknowledged and understood. Much common ground is uncovered in what initially appears to some as a worldview clash. The rhetoric of the competitive climate simply makes it difficult to see what calm analysis reveals.
After part 1, the trainers lead the class in forming a reframing question. When they view part 2 of the video, they are able to compare their own reframe with the one used by the mayor: “How can we clear up the source of the symptoms and keep the factory and the economy of this town in good shape?”
In part 1, community members’ chops include the threat to take the environmental report to the local newspapers, thereby undermining the factory owner’s reputation and bottom line. Among the owner’s chops is the implied threat to move the factory to another town, taking jobs with him.
In part 2, after hearing the mayor’s reframing question, the group exchanges chips. At the psychological level, both sides listen to one another as they meet their mutual needs for respect and understanding. On the tangible level, the chips from the worker-and-community side are the workers’ willingness for them all to take paid vacation time during the same week in July and an agreement by the community to consider a tax break if the inspection finds that the factory is not the source of the pro
blem. The factory owner’s chips include his willingness to close the factory for the inspection and to be flexible concerning the workers’ vacation and work scheduling.
After analyzing the video, the participants divide into pairs to continue practicing the skills of identifying positions and needs and forming reframes using a series of small cases. Through repetition, these drills pose the opportunity to try, err, and retry applying cognitive learning until learners thoroughly understand the skill. Mastery may or may not occur during the workshop. We hope that sufficient value and understanding are experienced so that the learning can continue to be practiced and applied in the participants’ lives.
The participants then use a similar format (see figure 35.3) as a planning tool for further conflict simulation. The planning process helps each party not only clarify its own side of the conflict but also begin to understand the other side better. We caution participants that identifying the other’s positions, needs, and so on can only reveal party A’s assumptions about party B and vice versa and that these assumptions must be tested during the upcoming negotiation. We also ask parties to think of all their chops, and those of the other, in this planning process so they can prepare not to use or react to them negatively, which would nullify the attempt to be collaborative.