The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  In terms of conflict resolution, the three methods just described use many of the principles of creating common ground, acknowledging but not dwelling on conflicts, rationalizing conflict, and creating new conditions for resolution.

  World Café (Brown and Issacs, 2005) creates several rounds of discussion on a theme among diverse stakeholder groups. This method is useful in settings with potential conflict because it does not allow people to cluster in their interest groups, but continually exposes them to different viewpoints in a very personal and relational setting.

  Open Space Technology (Owen, 1992, 1995) is unique among these methods. Instead of using designed activities in preplanned groupings, it places the responsibility for creating and managing the agenda on the participants. Its founder, Harrison Owen, describes it as effective in highly conflicted situations.

  Open Space creates a simple structure in which people create and manage their own discussions for one, two, or three days—for example:

  The Presbyterian Church USA invited five hundred people to an Open Space to discuss some difficult and contentious issues before the church just prior to its annual national meeting.

  A series of Open Space meetings held in Canada considered the Québecois sovereignty movement issue.

  A hospital system in California faced with the need to cut costs held an Open Space in each hospital community to hear from the community about their concerns and priorities.

  This method has been used in hundreds of different venues to create good conversations about a wide range of issues.

  The simplest way to describe Open Space is that it is a self-managed meeting in which those attending create their own agenda in the first hour of the event. Everyone sits in a large circle with open space in the middle. The facilitator introduces the theme of the meeting and describes the norms for participation. Then people are invited to come forward and declare a topic that they have strong feelings about so that they can convene a group to talk about it. They write their topic and name on a piece of newsprint, announce their topic to the total group, and post it on a wall called the “Community Bulletin Board.” As they post their topic, they select a time and place from the choices written on sticky notes. They place these stickies on their topic sheet and hang it on the wall. The posted topics create the visual agenda for a meeting of several days. People can add new topics whenever they want by tacking a notice on the bulletin board. Each person who proposes a topic agrees to show up and start the discussion; after it is over, they type a summary of what was said using a simple computer template. These meeting reports are printed out and immediately posted on another long wall so that everyone can keep up with what is being said in other groups.

  After the initial agenda-setting meeting, the only meetings of the total group are brief circle gatherings in the morning and evening for comments and new topic announcements. The group discussion periods are usually about ninety minutes long, so there can be four or five sessions (with multiple groups convening at each session) during a day and more if the evening is also used.

  A unique feature of Open Space is its rules and norms. Rather than being an event where everyone is supposed to attend everything and people feel mildly guilty if they do not, it encourages self-management and freedom to do what is needed to maintain individual focus and energy. The “law of two feet” suggests that if you are not engaged in the group you are attending, you get your two feet under you and go somewhere that is more productive. There is a lot of floating around and in and out, which is quite freeing and energizing. Other norms suggest that things begin to happen when people have energy to make them happen, so, “Whenever it starts is the right time,” and, “Whoever comes is the right people.” “Whatever happens is the only thing that could have,” and, “When it’s over, it’s over.”

  Open Space removes the oughts, shoulds, and musts from meeting participation. What happens is usually quite interesting, even remarkable. An example may be helpful in getting a better sense of this unusual methodology and how conflict is dealt with. In this example of a business school in a public college, an intact organization uses Open Space three times a year to deal with long-term conflicts in the system.

  The dean, then in her third year, believed that the school had fallen behind in its ability to produce “job-ready” BA graduates because faculty were using old methods, texts, and technology. Shrinking government funding had intensified the competition for resources and exacerbated interdepartmental rivalries. The faculty was unionized, as was the staff. This was a faculty that was angry at each other, at the dean, and at the administration.

  Harrison Owen has said that Open Space should be used (1) for issues that affect the whole organization or system, (2) in situations of high conflict, and (3) when there seems nothing else to do. It is possible that all three reasons were part of the dean’s decision to try Open Space. The theme to be explored was “Issues and Opportunities for the Future of the Faculty of Business.” The event was held during working hours at the college over two and a half days. Fifty of eighty faculty attended, plus staff and administration. The first two days were Open Space as described above. The final half-day was a convergence process often added to the Open Space experience in order to plan for action.

  In the opening agenda-setting circle, the facilitator was struck by the fact that no one looked at anyone else, often a symptom of deep conflict in a system. Although the topics posted were about the expected number, they were superficial given the theme (e.g., “the cleanliness of the college” and “academic excellence”). There was a general air of anger toward the administration. The evening news at the end of the first day was bland.

  The overnight soak time clearly had an effect. The next morning, new issues were posted that were quite different from the first day, such as “conflict and conflict resolution” and “the strategic direction to get out of this mess.” The dean posted a topic, “The human face of management,” which everyone present attended. In that discussion, she talked personally about her role and views and became known to those who were present. As the day progressed, a number of individuals approached the facilitator saying things like, “You wouldn’t believe what is happening in our group!” There was excitement and energy on the second day as compared with flat affect and withdrawal on the first day.

  The Open Space exploration was closed at the end of day 2 with a talking stick circle, a version of a Native American custom. The stick is passed around the circle. The person who holds it may speak if he or she chooses to, and others are expected to listen respectfully. These are not group reports but just what people are thinking and feeling at the end of the day. From the comments, it was clear that the faculty had begun to move from being frozen in conflict to another posture. Examples were, “I haven’t spoken to [another faculty member] for fifteen years because of a disagreement we had, but that is going to change.” A number reported the first meaningful conversations in years. Others talked about the need to sort out relationships and move on.

  Open Space is a divergent process for allowing ideas to emerge and develop and creates really good conversations. Many people, particularly Westerners with our need for visible results and actions, add a half-day convergent structure to it in order to plan and take action. In this case, everyone voted on the issues as they emerged in the group reports, and then it was possible to name the top vote getters and form voluntary task forces around them. The group decided to hold another Open Space in four months to hear reports from the task forces and continue the conversation.

  Four months later, forty-five members reassembled for another two-and-a-half-day Open Space event. This time, it opened with a ninety-minute session of reports from the task forces. Then the facilitator opened the space for new agenda items, and the meeting continued in the form described above. This time there was much more willingness to address the complex and difficult issues that they faced as a faculty trying to create a better future. Many more academic issues were addre
ssed, as were the difficulties of dealing with departments where everyone is both tenured and out of date. Again, the last half-day was used to prioritize and organize new task forces with a four-month reporting date.

  The final Open Space was run completely by the faculty, who had learned to use the methodology and made it a way of working together. Many changes have since occurred, and the faculty is continuing to work with the dean to create a secure future. One marker event that happened between the second and third Open Space is diagnostic. A dismissed faculty member tried to rally support for ousting the dean. When he went to his former anti-administration supporters, he was rebuffed and told, “This dean is the best one we have ever had.”

  What principles might explain this shift in energy from being dug into conflict, blaming and attacking, to being able to problem-solve and work together? One major dynamic is the removal of the hierarchical authority structure in Open Space. There is no “they.” It is all “we.” Facilitators wait for people to create their own agenda. They believe that what is on the wall is what that group needs to talk about. Nothing is imposed. Although there is a theme, participants decide what issues they will address. The dean was there, but as an equal member of the group.

  When hierarchy is absent, the well-worn patterns of manipulation and control are disrupted. There is no decision structure or way of getting power. The normal way of doing business is suspended, and people are asked to follow their own energy and commitments so that they both get and give. In Open Space, the law of two feet and the four principles replace hierarchy with guidance that creates huge freedom to act in ways that are both delightful and anxiety provoking. But everyone is in the same situation, and people enjoy exploring their freedom and work it out. It leaves the participants with one critical question: What is it that we have energy for and the will to do?

  Embedding New Patterns of Collaboration

  What is the impact of participatory meetings of the whole system after the event is over? What happens back at work? There is anecdotal evidence that one meeting of this type can create new plans and get action going that has a strong impact on the system. Another big effect of all of these methods is to create useful new networks and relationships. In the case of the business school, faculty began to use Open Space as a way of working together. When this happens, hierarchy and the bureaucratic processes in the organization are modified.

  We want to strongly point out that senior management’s understanding of the collaborative nature of these meetings is crucial. They need to understand and agree to this method of working and provide strong sustained leadership of the process from the beginning.

  What we see in the business school case just described is the transfer of or embedding of new patterns of working together and relationship management from the large group event into the workplace. This truly is a culture change. The movement in the business school was from hostility and suspicion to collaboration and a more productive and satisfying workplace. With strong, persistent leadership over time, there is growing evidence that it is possible to shift the culture of organizations from polarized and conflicted to much more collaborative and productive.

  NEW FRONTIERS: APPLICATIONS TO PEACE BUILDING AND LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES

  We now focus on two emerging areas of large group application: peace building and legislation. Peace-building applications are quite numerous, while legislative applications are just emerging. The term peace building, increasingly in evidence in recent years, describes outside interventions that are designed to prevent the start or resumption of violent conflict within a nation by creating a sustainable peace. The practice is a close cousin to the more narrow concepts of rack II or multitrack diplomacy that have evolved since the 1980s and refer to informal negotiation processes between stakeholder groups of a conflict. Legislation, or rule making of rights and responsibilities, is one way we resolve differences, manage conflict, and keep the peace. Like peace building, it is proactive prevention because the rule of law reduces volatility and is a critical step forward for countries that have relied on power and force to resolve their differences.

  Over time, the history of conflict management and resolution has moved from the use of hierarchy and force by those in power to the use of rights, rules, and due process in courts and tribunals, to focusing on interests and needs in more informal negotiation and mediation processes. We see this trend reflected in organizational dispute resolution and also in all realms of governance—executive, judicial, and legislative. With it has also come a reduced dependence on an authority to resolve or manage the conflict and a greater responsibility of the constituency to take charge of the situation that affects them. Large group methods, with their high participation and inherent democracy, seem to be a logical extension of this trend.

  The traditional approach to diplomacy and the resolution of international deadly conflict is to address disputes hierarchically through military interventions, high-level negotiation or mediation, or UN resolution. The focus has been more on content than process, with many subject matter experts devising a solution. The conventional approach is to meet in small formal negotiating groups with a fixed agenda. The underlying tone is one of competition and power, not about building understanding and creating cooperation. Even if high-level negotiators are intent on bringing a collaborative strategy to the process, the fact that they are representatives will mean at best that they have to sell the agreement to their constituency or, at worst, look like traitors for talking to the other side. Similarly, the parties at the table can often be those who are most polarized and often entrenched in identity politics.

  Large group methods are designed to create a collaborative rather than a competitive climate. All of the stakeholders are in the room, reducing the need to sell outcomes. All views can be represented—the extremes, the moderates, the more silent ones. When a large group comes together to create a Common Future agenda, many of the short-term subgroup disputes disappear when a longer-term vision that is more compelling comes into view. Good facilitation of these methods enables the presenting polarities to give way to deeper affinities, and the passion surrounding the immediate impasse may fade or take new form. Large group methods allow more than just a negotiated settlement between polarized groups; they promote the creation of a common ground agenda for the whole system. And by making the facilitator less prominent and the participants more empowered, they engage each participant’s innate capacity for cooperation and responsibility to resolve the conflict.

  The benefits of large group methods for intergroup deadly conflict also apply to rule making. The American legal system is based on the benefits of the adversary process—the idea that out of polarization of the issues comes objective truth. Those who facilitate large group methods understand that looking for common ground rather than highlighting difference may be a far more efficient way of managing difference and moving forward. Legislative applications of these methods could provide a hopeful alternative to political processes that in many parts of the world are often highly adversarial and frequently lead to impasse.

  We now turn to a few case descriptions to show how these methods are being used in peace-building and legislative settings and suggest possible ways that their application might be extended.

  Applications to Peace Building

  One of the early applications of a large group method to violent intergroup conflict was in early 2000, when Coleman was asked to provide collaborative negotiation training and then mediation to about thirty political representatives from the PUK and KDP parties in Iraqi Kurdistan.1 These two groups had been in armed conflict with each other, resulting in losses on both sides. The US State Department was interested in building collaboration among them to unite against Saddam Hussein. For our part of the initiative, we were given five days. On the first three days, we delivered collaborative negotiation training, which did a lot in and of itself to create a collaborative climate in these two groups (for a detailed description see Holman, D
evane, and Cady, 2006). The last two days, in lieu of mediation or mediation training, Open Space was used with a focusing theme: “Building Collaboration among Us: Issues and Opportunities.”

  Open Space was a greater success than could have been imagined. Not only did the representatives of the two sides end up with their arms around each other singing Kurdish songs, the process resulted in the creation of a bilateral conflict resolution center that supported on-the-ground collaboration in many ways, including the use of Open Space as a process for high-conflict problem solving, much more collaboration between the two sides, and the rollout of many more Open Space and other large group processes around the world.

  Zachary Metz, then a graduate student at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University and part of the team in this initiative, took the Kurdish example and has replicated versions of it in Iraq, Thailand, Burma/Myanmar, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and East Timor. Metz, now in private practice and adjunct faculty at SIPA, was one of the first to identify his work as peace building. Generally the work is sponsored by governmental organizations or foundations with the intention of addressing violent intergroup conflict. Methods used have included Open Space, Appreciative Inquiry, and versions of the Public Conversations Project dialogue process. Typically in these situations, the people in the room are highly stratified and polarized along political, social, and national identities. There are also security challenges of bringing a large group of people together in war-torn areas as they become an easier target and often need to change venues on a moment’s notice. Metz regularly reports great success with these methods, in that they often effectively create new communication dynamics and transformative interactions amongst polarized groups.