Emmett P. Fiske, Ph.D.*
Department of Rural Sociology
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-4006
Reconceptualizing Environmental Conflict Resolution:
The Developmental Facilitation Approach
Abstract
As the current debate over oil drilling in the coastal plain
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge so vividly illustrates:
environmental conflicts can be incredibly complex and polarizing,
given the high level emotional intensity through which diverse
parties defend positions and push distinct (often opposing) outcomes.
Several of the early casualties in such verbal (and non-verbal)
skirmishes are tolerance and communication - people stop listening
to those espousing contrary views and begin associating exclusively
with like-minded supporters. This inward-turning, circle-the-wagons
mentality makes it very difficult for those seeking improvement
to intervene with appropriate actions through which to diffuse
tensions and initiate dialogue. And yet if nothing is done, the
conflict will probably become more heated - with inflammatory
rhetoric spreading the conflict beyond its initial borders to
consume the passions of ever-increasing numbers of people.
This article examines the various roles played, perspectives held,
and conceptual frameworks utilized by individuals involved in
environmental conflict resolution (ECR) processes. Such processes
normally pass through three distinct phases: initiation and preparation,
actual multi-party negotiation to reach agreement, and implementation
of agreements via public decision making procedures. Our discussion
will focus particularly on intervention practices that can be
employed by third parties (especially developmental facilitators)
to stimulate dialogue among the various perspectives and roles
involved in contentious natural resource issues.
Introduction:
Environmental conflict resolution (hereafter referred to as ECR)
is a recent entrant to the field of dispute resolution. Whereas
most other dispute resolution approaches determine outcomes through
processes in which one party gains at the expense of another,
ECR is characterized by all parties (the negotiators) affected
by a conflict being able to sit down voluntarily and resolve their
differences in ways everyone can support. Negotiators often call
upon third parties to assist them with process design and management.
Normally, ECR processes are initiated by someone with sufficient
authority and/or stature to capture the attention of the various
stakeholder groups involved in or affected by the conflict. This
person (the convener) may contract for the services of a third
party to conduct a preliminary review of the conflict. Such a
review involves the compiling of relevant background information
on the conflict as well as identifying each group, organization
or agency having a stake in its outcome (Carpenter and Kennedy,
1988, p. 75; Cormick et al., 1996, p. 30).
Should preliminary review indicate that negotiation holds potential
promise for improving the situation, the third party will conduct
a conflict analysis (Moore, 1986, pp. 78-102; Carpenter and Kennedy,
1988, pp. 67-91) or diagnosis (Schwarz, 1994, pp. 67-99). This
activity will utilize a combination of data gathering techniques
involving direct observation, the review of secondary source materials
(such as meeting minutes, research reports, newspapers and magazine
articles), and personal interviews to obtain much more detailed
and in-depth information on the conflict. Based upon a careful
assessment of information thus obtained, the third party will
then design an appropriate intervention strategy for bringing
the various parties to the negotiation table. Seasoned third party
interveners recognize that just as with truth and beauty: reality
lies in the eye of the beholder. Conflict exists because multiple
(often contradictory) realities are being perceived and acted
upon simultaneously by the various affected publics. Stated more
precisely: conflict exists because there is an expressed difference
between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible
goals, scarce (tangible) resources, threats to or frustration
over (intangible) existential needs and values, or interference
from another party in achieving their goals or realizing their
identities (Coser, 1967; Moore, 1986; Bauer and Watt, 1990; Rothman,
1997).
Environmental conflicts are further characterized by:
[Table 1 about here]
Perspectives on Environmental Conflict:
People react to environmental conflicts from a variety of perspectives
and circumstances (adapted from Bolman and Deal, 1984). People
within local government tend to focus on rules, roles and responsibilities.
They deal with conflict by shifting personnel, drafting new legislation,
and revising agency procedures. Others may be more concerned over
the impact of proposed changes in land use patterns on their continued
enjoyment of community facilities, services and natural resources
(such as open space, wetlands and watersheds). They place a high
value on participating in environmental conflict resolution processes
in order to articulate their concerns and help educate others.
Other residents are highly attuned to environmental politics,
and to the shifts in the distribution of power. They are skilled
at building coalitions and changing them as often as necessary
to maintain the upper hand in conflict situations. And yet others
look for the deeper meaning in the various environmental conflicts
impacting upon everyday life. They attend to environmental symbols
and rituals as important ways of connecting one's culture and
traditions with an uncertain future.
When environmental conflicts or controversies arise, people interpret
them through the "lens" which they find most comfortable.
They bring their various interpretations - all of which are relevant
- to complex situations, in the hope of reaching satisfactory
solutions. Though most have a common desire to resolve the situation,
too often they are unable to untangle the conflicting points of
view without skilled intervention.
Bolman and Deal (1997) have identified four distinct lenses (or
frames) through which individuals interpret and respond to the
world around them. Individuals employing the structural lens concentrate
on developing the necessary frameworks (complete with clearly
delineated lines of authority, stated goals, designated roles
and responsibilities) for task completion. If all the "pieces"
mesh together precisely (much like gears in a machine) the task
will get done within the designated time period. Negotiation processes
serve to coordinate task completion.
Human resource framers focus on people and their needs, and are
concerned about developing processes through which such needs
get articulated, discussed and satisfied. Such interactions build
strong relationships, and can convert caring strangers into members
of the family. Negotiation processes provide the forum through
which values get expressed and needs are met.
People possessing the political frame look at life in terms of
conflicts and power struggles, and attempt to influence the allocation
of scarce resources. With the right strategies and tactics, people
can build coalitions of sufficient strength to control the process
and determine its outcome.
Negotiation processes serve as one of the arenas in which battles
are won or lost.
Symbolic framers attempt to find meaning in the midst of chaotic
processes, confusing tasks and ambiguous outcomes. Unlike other
framers, these individuals do not assume that people act rationally
- that by doing all the right things at the right times in precisely
the right order the desired outcome will be realized. Thus, when
negotiators are unable to reach agreement we should not be surprised.
Negotiation processes serve as theaters in which the actors -
through myths, rituals, and ceremonies - enact scripts helping
us make sense of circumstances beyond our control.
As Bolman and Deal repeatedly emphasize, events can be simultaneously
interpreted in a number of ways - each of which is valid, and
yet taken by itself is usually incomplete. These multiple realities
make communication very difficult, because the same event is being
understood as serving distinct purposes. In the midst of such
complex environmental realities, the most pressing challenge facing
negotiators and third parties alike is selecting the frame that
can best make meaning of the situation, and then effectively conveying
that meaning to others.
It is quite likely that all of the above frames come into play
as diverse groups and interests start coming to grips with the
conflict and determining respective actions. In order to intervene
effectively, third parties need to possess the ability to perceive
and understand situations from each of these distinct vantage
points. This ability to re-frame the situation is particularly
useful when the frame with which third parties are the most comfortable
no longer seems able to grasp the meaning of what is unfolding
before their eyes.
The following table attempts to capture each frame's salience
in helping third parties understand others' behaviors throughout
the environmental conflict resolution process.
[Table 2 about here]
What this table suggests is that in low-level conflict situations
where resource scarcity is not really an issue, the structural
frame will likely be most salient: very little ambiguity and uncertainty
are present; rules, roles and responsibilities (as well as tasks
and goals) are clearly defined and articulated; and decisions
get made on the basis of technically-sound information.
With increased conflict comes greater ambiguity and uncertainty,
and greater pressure on the existing order (since the current
approach is not working) to try something different. People begin
losing faith in the existing order's ability to remedy the situation.
The existing order responds by proposing an alternative, inclusive
approach that realigns roles and responsibilities to coordinate
the additional people (particularly third parties) being brought
into the mix. The existing order proposes the goals for this alternative
approach as well as specifying tasks and time lines (usually via
a work plan).
The participants in the negotiation process, however, have differing
opinions about what has transpired, what information is needed,
how decisions should be reached, and what (if anything) should
be done. When we reach this point, the human resource and political
frames appear to be particularly salient. People's needs and values
get expressed in meetings where group norms keep hostilities in
check, and consensus-based decision making means that task completion
falls further and further behind specific target dates. As frustration
sets in, some negotiators press for realigning the process with
the work plan (structural); others want to gain clarity via greater
deliberation around the negotiation table (human resource); and
yet others may propose "time outs" so that their respective
caucuses can decide appropriate next steps (political).
About now the negotiation process can really use someone with
a symbolic frame to make sense of what is happening. Through formal
presentations as well as spontaneous events, the symbolic framer
will recast the experience (perhaps through humor, and/or story
telling) in terms that give new and special meaning to all negotiators.
The symbolic frame is especially salient at the conclusion of
negotiation processes, when either celebrations or wakes are in
order. One can count on the symbolic framer recasting whatever
has occurred in words and props that uplift and inspire. The symbolic
framer heals people's spirits so they can work together another
day...
Once the negotiation process has run its course, attention returns
to the political frame for implementation (if the outcome is positive)
or coalition formation to redistribute power (if the outcome is
negative, with the existing order emerging wounded and weaker
- fair game for attack).
Conceptual Frameworks for Third-Party Intervention:
The various approaches available to third parties when intervening
in environmental / natural resource conflicts have evolved from
quite distinct academic traditions. The mediation school traces
its origins to labor and industrial relations (for example, the
U.S. National Labor Relations Board) and the role of the legal
profession in helping disputants identify their mutual interests
in resolving particular conflicts (Bush and Folger, 1994), while
the facilitation school draws heavily upon the experience of human
relations practitioners (for example, Kurt Lewin's pioneering
work in the late 1940's with t-groups) in getting disputants to
engage in a dialogue through which perspectives can be exchanged
so that a fuller picture can emerge of the conflict (Rothman,
1997; Schwarz, 1994). Not surprisingly, the mediation field today
tends to be populated by lawyers and political scientists, while
facilitation seems particularly attractive to social scientists
from the disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology and
education. (For a more extensive treatment of the history and
evolution of the two approaches please refer to Carbonneau, 1989
and Bolman and Deal, 1997).
The first (and still currently the most widely utilized) model
for ECR was initially developed at Harvard University in the early
1980's (Fisher and Ury, 1981) and later elaborated by people associated
with the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program (Susskind and Cruikshank,
1987; Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988; Ury, 1991; Hall, 1993; Susskind
and Field, 1996). Originally called "principled bargaining,"
"principled negotiation," or "negotiating on the
merits," the approach has come to be known as interest-based
problem solving (hereinafter referred to IBPS) within the ECR
community.
A real strength of IBPS is its phased approach to conflict resolution
- beginning with pre-negotiation, proceeding through negotiation,
and ending with implementation. The model has evolved to now include
thirteen distinct steps through which third parties lead negotiators
toward resolution. The IBPS model is both prescriptive (that is,
it lays out how conflict resolution ought to be done, as evidenced
in the writings of Fisher and Ury) and descriptive (it tells how
to do it by describing how highly effective negotiators and third
parties function, as detailed in Carpenter and Kennedy). Not only
does the model provide potential practitioners with guiding principles
and sequenced activities for resolving conflicts, it also details
how such principles and activities can be realized.
While the IBPS approach certainly has much to recommend its use
as a model through which to resolve environmental conflicts, it
does have several limitations. First, its directed obsession in
generating a product (be it a two-party settlement or a multi-party
agreement) tends to limit negotiator opportunities for full discussion
and sufficient exploration of alternative values and perspectives;
mediators can have an undue influence on what does, and does not,
get discussed (Kolb, 1993; Kritek, 1994; Schwarz, 1994; Maser,
1996; Rothman, 1997). Secondly, negotiations are not always about
solving problems or finding good solutions; often, they involve
intangible issues whose full disclosure and discussion can lead
to personal growth and "transformation" (Bush and Folger,
1994; Rothman, 1997).
What happens when one or more negotiators views an environmental
conflict in terms of values and identity rather than interests
and resources? For example, neighborhood parks can be perceived
as resources (to be utilized and protected), as indicators of
improved "quality-of-life" (that provide us with a picture
of community "health") or as symbols in themselves (that
provide deeper meaning and/or spiritual significance). For certain
negotiators, the conflict may have nothing to do with resources
and territory, and everything to do with dignity and meaning in
our lives. What might be done within the negotiation process to
surface and discuss differing values?
This critical question was recently addressed by Jay Rothman in
the book Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations,
and Communities (Rothman, 1997) summarizing his experience in
facilitating conflict resolution processes between Israelis and
Palestinians in Jerusalem as well as through training negotiators
from such diverse yet potentially explosive places as Cyprus,
South Africa, North Ireland, Sri Lanka and the former Soviet Union.
His book offers an alternative framework that forces negotiators
to delve into unpleasant pasts, vocally express their frustrations
and bitterness, and come to understand the needs and values as
well as cultures and traditions shaping their identities and underlying
their desires for dignity and recognition, meaning and purpose.
Once individual negotiators are able to recognize the forces influencing
their own behavior, they are better able to modify such behavior
to accomplish desired outcomes (Fiske, 2000).
By expanding the conflict discussion to emphasize the intangible
topics normally excluded from IBPS processes, Rothman has effectively
rectified one of that model's serious shortcomings. This is an
important contribution, since environmental conflicts tend to
be defined by the various affected parties in both identity and
interests terms. His values-based problem solving model is both
prescriptive (Rothman, 1997, pp. 1-84) and descriptive (Rothman,
1997, pp. 85-166), utilizing an "ARIA" sequence (comprised
of the initial letters from his antagonism, resonance, invention,
and action phases) to guide negotiators. Each phase is briefly
described below.
The first phase (antagonism) is clearly key to unlocking what
really is at stake for negotiators. Rothman's initial questions
are aimed at eliciting raw-edged reactions whereby negotiators
can lash out, project blame onto others and abdicate any personal
responsibility in fanning the flames of conflict. Once the venting
has passed (hopefully, with negotiators still at the table), Rothman
shifts to more reconciliatory questions (resonance) that encourage
negotiators to look at the conflict from a different vantage point
and move toward collective resolution. With negotiators now working
together (invention) on how to collectively resolve the problem,
the last set of questions focus on implementation (action).
The major limitations of the values-based problem solving approach
are two-fold: exclusive application thus far to two-party conflict
situations, and (by definition) lack of experience in addressing
multi-party environmental conflicts. These criticisms are tempered
through realization that the model has been in circulation very
briefly, and is only now likely to be gaining converts among facilitators
and mediators.
The integrative model presents a way in which the strengths of
the interest-based and values-based approaches can be combined
to stimulate personal growth and improve interpersonal relationships
while also solving problems and generating favorable outcomes
(Schwarz, 1994; Fiske, 1991). This approach draws upon the work
team effectiveness literature (particularly Hackman, 1987; and
Hackman, 1990) to suggest a new way for conceptualizing the ECR
process.
This approach has evolved from initial conceptualization by Argyris
and Schön (Argyris, 1970; Argyris and Schön, 1974) to
its application to group (Hackman, 1987; Hackman, 1990) and third
party effectiveness (Schwarz, 1994). The approach builds upon
organizational psychology's passion for uncovering what make groups
"tick," and is beginning to have a profound impact on
group facilitation and its application to conflict resolution
processes.
The "group effectiveness" model first appeared as J.
Richard Hackman's contribution to the Handbook of Organizational
Behavior (Hackman, 1987). Hackman begins by characterizing his
area of focus (the work group) before proceeding to discuss factors
influencing its effectiveness. In brief, work groups are open
social systems (with boundaries containing specific, yet interactive,
roles that distinguish members from non-members) that operate
in an organizational context (which requires it to manage its
interactions with other individuals and groups) with a collective
responsibility to perform one or more tasks, the outcome of which
can be assessed (such as a product, service, or decision (Hackman,
1987, pp. 322-323).
Hackman's group effectiveness model is a useful template for ECR
processes, because it focuses equal attention on three distinct
elements: personal needs and values (the degree to which the negotiation
experience contributes to the growth and personal well-being of
each negotiator); interpersonal relationships (the degree to which
the process of conducting and completing various negotiation tasks
enhances member willingness to work together on subsequent tasks);
and timely and meaningful products (the degree to which the negotiated
agreement meets or exceeds the performance standards of those
who must ultimately ratify, and later live with it).
Schwarz (1994:8) addresses the effectiveness question from the
standpoint of the third party facilitator. He notes that effective
facilitators faithfully adhere to a set of core values that encourage
members of the group to take personal responsibility for generating
the necessary information on which informed decisions can be based
and later implemented:
This book's approach to facilitation is based on three values:
valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment
to those choices...Valid information means that people share all
information relevant to an issue, using specific examples so that
other people can determine independently whether the information
is true. Valid information also means that people understand the
information that is being shared with them...Free and informed
choice means that people can define their own objectives and the
methods for achieving them and that their choices are based on
valid information. When people make free choices, they are not
coerced or manipulated...Internal commitment to the choice means
that people feel personally responsible for the decisions they
make. Each person is committed to the decision because it is intrinsically
compelling or satisfying, not because the person will be rewarded
or penalized for making that decision...The core values create
a reinforcing cycle. People require valid information to make
an informed choice. When people make free and informed choices,
they become internally committed to the choices. When people are
internally committed to the decisions, they take responsibility
for seeing that the decisions are implemented effectively. Finally,
people who value valid information continually seek new information
to determine whether their decisions remain sound or should be
changed.
When facilitators apply these core values in their third party
involvement with likely negotiators, they become conduits for
the sharing of valid information through which negotiators can
make free and informed choices; not (as occurs within the typical
approach to conflict analysis) the sole repositories in which
such information is stored for later access. Information must
be shared, not hoarded if people are expected to make informed
decisions.
For facilitators who incorporate core values into their ECR activities,
data gathering is not done in order to determine what form the
ensuing intervention is to take; data gathering becomes the initial
intervention in a carefully-designed process through which people's
responses to interview questions begin propelling the negotiation
process clear through implementation (Fiske, 1991).
A Typical Approach to Conflict Analysis:
One of the major responsibilities of third parties in ECR processes
is getting as complete an understanding of the current situation
as possible - which involves identifying the various factors contributing
to the conflict, as well as those potentially influencing its
satisfactory outcome. This is no small feat given the multiplicity
of parties, diversity of issues, intensity of emotions, and uncertainty
of outcomes by which environmental conflicts are characterized.
Third parties accomplish the task by gathering data from primary
and secondary sources of information. The data is then assessed
to design the most appropriate strategy for working with involved
parties within the proposed negotiation process.
Third parties do not collect needed information haphazardly. They
utilize a variety of techniques (particularly direct observation,
review of secondary source materials, and personal interviews)
to get as comprehensive an understanding as possible of the various
factors that are seemingly conspiring to drive wedges between
the parties. Secondary source materials allow third parties to
obtain information unobtrusively, and help them identify and locate
many of the potential skirmishes on the negotiation battlefield,
while direct observation enables them to gain first-hand impressions
of the people and the physical terrain's resources and/or values
currently being contested (Moore, 1986, pp. 79-80; Carpenter and
Kennedy, 1988, pp. 75-76).
It requires the personal interviewing of likely negotiators, however,
to provide third parties with the detailed understanding of the
various perspectives, issues and desired outcomes that must be
grasped in order to prepare an appropriate intervention strategy
in the event negotiations are to be pursued. When conducted skillfully,
personal interviews afford participants the opportunity to educate
the third party about the conflict as perceived from their unique
vantage points. Given an appropriate mix of questions, respondents
can provide as much detail as desired regarding the conflict and
its potential resolution by relating what is most important to
them. If interviewers can communicate a genuine interest in learning
about each respondent's perspective via listening carefully to
what is being said, then information thus derived should contain
most (if not all) of the necessary ingredients for a satisfactory
outcome (Moore, 1986, pp. 90-91; Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988,
pp. 76, 212); the specific recipe, however, awaits the collective
determination by negotiators.
Of equal importance to information obtained are relationships
built between the third party and likely negotiators. By heeding
the sage advice contained in the saying "you don't get a
second chance to form a first impression," third parties
begin building via the interview process personal relationships
with others that are based on mutual respect and trust (Moore,
1986, pp. 86-87; Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988, p. 76).
Interviewers have several options available for eliciting information
from respondents. Their questions can be either structured or
unstructured, and can require either open-ended or closed responses.
Structured interviews utilize a list of standardized questions
that are asked of each respondent, while unstructured interviews
follow no particular pattern and can differ greatly in focus from
one respondent to another. The decision to use either closed or
open-ended questions is mainly a matter of control: third parties
limit the range of response by asking closed questions requiring
specific information about specific items (for example: "Do
you agree that negotiation holds the most promise for successfully
resolving this environmental conflict?"); while open-ended
questions (for example: "Do you have any suggestions on how
this environmental conflict might be resolved?") allow the
respondent to determine both the amount and level of detail of
information to be shared (Moore, 1986, pp. 88-94; Carpenter and
Kennedy, 1988, p. 82).
Another issue facing third parties concerns how interviews are
to be conducted: in-person or via telephone? Most third parties
prefer gathering information via in-person interviews, since they
are then able to meet face-to-face with respondents and observe
the "home turf" while simultaneously capturing the non-verbal
(body language) cues that invariably accompany verbal responses
(Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988, p. 84). Telephone interviews, however,
do have their advantages - particularly for information gathering
on regional conflicts where likely negotiators are spread over
a broad geographical expanse (for example, the Pacific Northwest
region). In these situations, telephone interviews can provide
a cost-effective way for obtaining the necessary information.
Interviewers also need to decide how interview responses are to
be recorded. Will responses be captured via written notes or through
electronic means (such as tape recorders or data entry via computer)?
Each alternative has its advocates. Those favoring the use of
tape recorders state they are able to maintain eye contact and
take note of non-verbal cues; those opposed say that such use
inhibits response, since participants are unsure how their responses
will be used and whether their responses may come back to haunt
them via release of information that supposedly was to be held
in confidence (Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988, p. 83). Skilled telephone
interviewers can enter participant responses verbatim and almost
simultaneously into the computer for immediate restating to the
interviewee - for verification of completeness and accuracy.
Once the necessary information has been gathered via direct observation,
review of secondary source materials and through personal interviews,
the third party then needs to verify, integrate and synthesize
the data in order to interpret and understand what it all means.
The way this is done varies considerably among third parties -
from simple summaries to complex charts and matrices. Based upon
interpretation of the data, the third party then designs an appropriate
intervention strategy for use within the negotiation process (Moore,
1986, pp. 96-101; Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988, pp. 85-91).
The Developmental Approach to Diagnosis and Intervention:
This section builds upon the work of Schwarz (1994) and Fiske
(1991, 1994) to demonstrate how third party adherence to core
values can positively influence ECR processes and outcomes. Before
pursuing this topic, however, let us briefly pause and reflect
on the range of data that might be gathered:
1. Public participation.
What is the public interest, and how does the proposed negotiation
process serve it? How can negotiators inform and involve the general
public (build broader participation) in the proposed negotiation
process?
2. Individual perceptions.
People tend to make sense of life's many complexities through
one of four frames. These patterns greatly influence subsequent
behavior. Each of the frames seems particularly salient at certain
points within an ECR process.
Environmental conflict resolution processes invariably get initiated
through structural frameworks proposed by one or more levels of
government. Conflict occurs when governmental efforts are no longer
able to keep pace with public demands and/or satisfy public needs.
Government then through its own initiative, or in response to
public outcry suggests an alternative framework to address the
conflict. Government will set the parameters for the alternative
process, determine who needs to be involved, specify the task,
indicate what process will be used to carry out the task, and
then coordinate its completion.
From a human resource perspective, the resolution of an environmental
conflict depends primarily on the extent to which negotiator needs
get satisfied. Their needs are best understood and discussed within
processes marked by negotiator openness in the sharing and discussion
of individual concerns and suggestions. Such discussion is aided
by the establishment of informal norms that create respectful
and caring settings in which negotiators can surface concerns,
explore alternative solutions, and collectively begin shaping
satisfactory outcomes. The process clearly "drives"
task attainment, because only when individual needs get sufficiently
factored into proposed solutions will negotiators be committed
enough to carry through on implementation.
For political framers, the resolution of environmental conflicts
via negotiated processes is not the only game in town. While they
would certainly be pleased should their views prevail and their
desired outcomes get realized via such a process, there are always
other arenas available through which to demonstrate their political
prowess. Through such strategies and tactics as coalition building,
the selective sharing of information, controlling the agenda and
coercion, people holding this perspective build power bases from
which to challenge the existing order and put others on the defensive.
The political perspective sees conflict as the core catalyst of
change: it unleashes people's creativity as they grapple with
the inertia of the status quo, and it stimulates them to develop
innovative approaches for situations in flux.
Unlike other lenses, the symbolic frame anticipates negotiation
processes being filled with confusion, contradictions, chaos and
ambiguity due to questions that cannot be answered and problems
that cannot be solved. The symbolic frame suggests that the most
effective negotiators and facilitators are those who can convey
meaning to others. Whether it be through stories, myths or metaphors,
their message offers explanations for the past, comprehension
of the present, and hope for the future.
3. Conceptual frameworks
The interest-based problem solving orientation is interested in
learning about the history of the conflict, why negotiators are
concerned about the conflict, how negotiators might work together
to address the conflict, what actions need to be taken by negotiators
(and their constituents) to resolve the conflict, and by when
such actions should be completed.
The values-based problem solving orientation strives to surface
"what really is at stake" in the conflict by asking
a series of questions that move negotiators from initially blaming
others to ultimately taking personal responsibility for outcomes.
The integrative approach addresses specific factors influencing
group effectiveness - including the personal needs and values
of group members, the development and maintenance of interpersonal
relationships, and the generation of timely and meaningful products.
Its questions, accordingly, relate to each of these aspects.
Our examination of data gathering and analysis concludes with
a discussion on how third parties' adherence to core values throughout
intervention can positively influence negotiator interaction and
stimulate greater commitment to implement any decision reached.
This discussion encompasses the initial phase of an ECR process
- from the moment the third party is contacted by the convener
to the time actual negotiation begins.
Intervening to Broaden Negotiator Understanding:
In stark contrast to the typical approach used in conflict analysis
whereby third parties are solely responsible for verifying information
and interpreting data (Moore, 1986, pp. 100-101; Carpenter and
Kennedy, 1988, p. 90), the developmental approach conscientiously
seeks to foster joint responsibility between third parties and
negotiators for the generation of valid information on which free
and informed choices can be based (Schwarz, 1994, p. 8; Rothman,
1997, pp. 150-151).
Developmental facilitators do this by framing the data collection
process as an educational opportunity for participants to clearly
communicate their perspectives regarding the conflict and its
potential resolution. Implicit in this approach is the facilitators'
belief that each individual possesses a "piece of the truth;"
the challenge of negotiation is in piecing together a vision of
a "collective truth" that negotiators and their respective
groups can embrace and work together to realize.
Collaboration remains merely a concept, however, if no trust exists
among individuals. During their initial and subsequent interaction
with likely negotiators, developmental facilitators embody two
guiding principles in planting the seeds through which trust can
germinate and flourish during the upcoming negotiation process:
building redundancy into communication linkages so people are
informed instead of surprised; and honoring all commitments made
by following through on what facilitators say they will do. Developmental
facilitators inherently realize that to gain the trust of others
they need to take the first steps themselves.
That first step is actually a series of sequential steps beginning
when the facilitator is initially contacted by the convener about
intervening in the conflict. Normally, the request comes via telephone
or written solicitation, with the two parties then sharing sufficient
information for determining if the facilitator's qualifications,
skills, familiarity with the subject matter, proposed intervention
strategy, cost effectiveness and availability adequately address
the convener's need for obtaining the services of a third party
who can likely get the job done.
Assuming the facilitator is selected for the task, that individual
will probably hold additional meetings with the convener to determine
what actually needs to occur and by when. Based upon what has
thus far been done by the convener (for example, the convener
may have already identified and contacted the various stakeholder
groups about participating in the proposed negotiations, and obtained
their commitment via designation of the individuals who will represent
them), the facilitator will prepare a draft contract that clearly
states how the proposed intervention will be done and what the
specific responsibilities will be for both convener and facilitator.
Once the convener and facilitator have agreed on the contract,
the facilitator then prepares a draft letter of introduction for
distribution by the convener. This letter formally introduces
the facilitator to all stakeholder groups and their representatives
while also placing the convener's "stamp of approval"
clearly on the facilitator for upcoming tasks. The letter will
include a statement to the effect that representatives will soon
be contacted by the facilitator in order to determine a convenient
time during which interviews will occur.
While the letter of introduction is being prepared on the convener's
letterhead paper, signed by the convener and distributed to each
stakeholder group, the facilitator is preparing a draft set of
interview questions for testing on the convener. By being interviewed,
the convener gains a first-hand impression of the facilitator's
intervention approach while also assessing the extent to which
proposed questions elicit the range and depth of response sought
for issues of primary concern. Once the interview is completed,
the facilitator and convener evaluate both the process and the
substance in order to determine the final set of questions to
be asked of all stakeholder representatives.
The facilitator will then prepare a letter for distribution to
the address of each stakeholder representative listed on the roster
previously provided by the convener. This "facilitator's
letter of introduction" provides recipients with an overview
of the process to be followed, and emphasizes the facilitator's
desire to provide stakeholder representatives with the opportunity
to educate others (via participation in the proposed interview
process) about the current situation and its potential resolution.
The letter will also indicate that the facilitator or one of the
facilitator's colleagues will soon be contacting the stakeholder
representative to set up a convenient time and location for the
interview. The letter will contain several attachments: a list
of all questions to be asked during the interview, and a copy
of the contract agreed to by the facilitator and convener.
The facilitator will then schedule the interviews. Telephone interviews
should not be scheduled any closer than 90 minutes apart, in order
to provide the facilitator with sufficient time to conduct each
interview and then enter responses onto the computer. The scheduling
of in-person interviews is much more difficult, given the distances
that facilitators must travel to get from one interview to the
next.
Once the interviews are scheduled, actual interviewing can begin.
This is the point where things start getting frustrating, since
it is not at all uncommon for facilitators to have to reschedule
up to one-third of their interviews with stakeholder representatives.
Rescheduling can result from representative oversight (being unavailable
at the agreed-upon time) or request (when unforeseen matters demand
immediate attention during the agreed-upon interview time).
At the beginning of the interview, the facilitator provides a
brief overview of the interview process and how the respondent's
information will be treated (which was previously provided via
the facilitator's letter and attachments). Each question is then
covered, with the facilitator restating the answer provided by
the stakeholder representative to be certain what was written
is accurate. Once the interview is completed, the facilitator
will indicate each of the subsequent steps and safeguards through
which the respondent's information will be protected and remain
confidential until such time as the respondent provides a written
statement that such information can be shared with others.
What clearly distinguishes the developmental approach from other
ECR approaches is the way in which interview responses are handled.
Data collection from individual stakeholder representatives does
not cease upon interview completion; rather, respondents are provided
with as many opportunities as they choose for adding to (or deleting
from) the information provided during that initial session. Such
flexibility by the facilitator is absolutely essential if respondents
are to fully control the contents of their stories through which
others can be educated.
Developmental facilitators view their roles as conduits for education
and understanding rather than as gate-keepers to previously-collected
information. No matter how many exchanges are necessary to assure
that what was heard and written down by the facilitator is exactly
what the stakeholder representative wishes to have disseminated,
the facilitator's charge remains the same: to assure each stakeholder
representative that what ultimately gets conveyed to others depends
solely upon that individual and not the facilitator. For some
individuals, the multiple exchange of their information with facilitators
offers the chance to reflect on how others might react to their
responses. For certain individuals, the process may allow them
to go beyond the initial "venting" and blaming of others
to actually consider their own roles and responsibilities in bringing
on, and perhaps resolving, the environmental conflict. Each person,
however, benefits from being able to verify and modify the information
that is to be shared with others. And when each person benefits,
the negotiation process as a whole benefits.
Once the facilitator has obtained written permission from all
the stakeholder representatives who elect to have their information
shared with others, the information is then compiled in a single
document. That document is organized so that responses to each
question are unattributable (e.g., no names or affiliations are
associated either directly or indirectly with any response) and
randomly entered (e.g., to further protect respondent anonymity).
The only place stakeholder representative names appear is on the
cover sheet, where the names and affiliations of each person whose
comments are included within the document are listed alphabetically
so each recipient can better assess the extent to which those
interviewed represent the full spectrum of affected interests
and values. It should be noted that stakeholder representative
responses are not summarized or edited by the facilitator. The
individual respondent determines what will be shared with others.
Prior to information distribution, the facilitator will prepare
a cover letter summarizing the just-completed process. The facilitator
will refer each recipient to earlier correspondence stating what
was to be done, and ask the reader to assess whether the facilitator
has indeed followed through on earlier promises made. Accompanying
the letter will be the document containing interview responses.
By this stage of the process a date for the initial negotiation
session may have already been set. If such is the case, the facilitator
will attempt to get the interview information into the hands of
each stakeholder representative (and designated negotiator) at
least two weeks prior to that session in order to provide sufficient
time for review and assimilation of contents. If the initial negotiation
session has been set, the facilitator will also include a draft
agenda for that session. That agenda will be based upon the various
questions asked during interviews, and structured so each stakeholder
group (if not each individual negotiator) has the opportunity
to introduce themselves and share their perspectives. The facilitator
will also provide a draft of potential procedural norms for individual
and group behavior (e.g., "ground rules") drawn specifically
from respondent comments.
Through their sequenced activities, facilitators enable stakeholder
representatives to individually surface and share perspectives
for later discussion and assessment within the negotiation process
(Schwarz, 1994, p. 160). Depending upon the questions asked, the
wealth of information thus generated can enable negotiators to
more easily arrive at a collective definition of the problem as
well as unleash their creativity in the shaping of potential outcomes
acceptable to all. Through the data gathering and dissemination
process outlined above, developmental facilitators consciously
model behavior demonstrating how negotiators can generate valid
information on which to make free and informed choices. Only the
upcoming sessions, however, can determine whether choices ultimately
made in the give-and-take atmosphere of negotiation are sufficient
motivators for representatives and their groups taking responsibility
for actual implementation.
Assessment of the Developmental Approach to Environmental Conflict
Resolution: Panacea or Pipe Dream?
The previous section has attempted to paint a broad-brushed picture
of how the developmental approach can be applied to ECR processes.
As the reader may have already sensed, such an approach requires
ample time and careful attention to detail - requirements the
vast majority of third parties view as luxuries rather than basic
necessities when intervening in contentious situations. With respect
to time: it does indeed require a tremendous amount of time if
third parties are to gather the quality of information that stakeholder
representatives feel is needed for further discussion around the
negotiation table. As a general rule of thumb, the third party
has already invested approximately six hours per negotiator before
the initial negotiation session has even begun. That figure increases
by 1-2 hours per individual when data is gathered via face-to-face
interviews with stakeholder representatives. By multiplying the
average number of hours needed per individual by the average number
of people interviewed (20), one quickly realizes that such interventions
require the full-time attention of at least one facilitator or
mediator several months prior to initiation of formal negotiation
if each individual is to influence and be influenced by the information
in which resolution resides.
One must also be cognizant of the financial costs associated with
time. Whether provided by public sector employees located within
universities or governmental agencies, or by private sector consultants
specializing in multi-party facilitation or mediation: obtaining
the services of a third party costs money. The question then becomes:
who pays for such services, and in what form? Perhaps the convening
entity has funds set aside specifically for the contracting of
third parties; perhaps the university designates one of its employees
to provide facilitation or mediation as an in-kind contribution
to public policy education. When experienced private sector mediators
are contracted to serve as third parties within ECR processes,
it is not unusual for them to command upwards of $1,500 per day
for services rendered. That amount may seem exorbitant until one
realizes that a single negotiation session is a collective investment
by stakeholder groups of at least $10,000 in representative salaries
and missed opportunities associated with participating at the
negotiation table. If the third-party's involvement results in
such sessions being viewed by negotiators and their stakeholder
groups alike as an effective use of participants' time, the convening
entity (or whoever is footing the bill) will very likely view
its investment in third party services as money well spent.
There are additional benefits derived from the significant amount
of time needed by developmental facilitators prior to commencement
of actual negotiations. Through their "going slow to go fast"
approach with each stakeholder representative (Rothman, 1997,
p. 13), developmental facilitators are able to initiate and strengthen
interpersonal relationships on which mutual trust is based. They
also intervene in ways that enable negotiators to "take as
much responsibility and ownership as possible for diagnosing and
solving problems" (Schwarz, 1994, p. 254).
The second issue regards developmental facilitators' careful attention
to details. This is illustrated through their conscious practice
of redundant communication throughout the intervention process
- from contract development and clarification of tasks with the
convening entity; to the sharing of contract contents with stakeholder
group representatives; to providing people with the necessary
information on which to base upcoming activities (such as being
interviewed, sharing of interview responses with others, proposed
agendas, etc.) - in sum: doing what they say they will do. Through
such action, developmental facilitators are able to reduce some
of the ambiguity and uncertainty associated with environmental
conflicts by serving as willing conduits through which negotiators
can educate one another about the situation and its potential
resolution.
The written contract serves two very important functions: it conveys
to negotiators what they can expect from the developmental facilitator
(thus enhancing process accountability); and, it clarifies the
nature of ongoing relationships between the developmental facilitator
and the convener - particularly when unforeseen difficulties arise
(thus preventing the convener from unduly influencing the process).
This is particularly important for developmental facilitators
who intervene in contentious situations where the convener happens
to be the facilitator's superior (Schwarz, 1994, pp. 289-293;
Fiske, 1998, p. 1).
No matter how much time and careful attention, good faith and
best of intentions: developmental facilitators cannot guarantee
success or satisfactory outcomes for the ECR process in which
they intervene. Only negotiators and their stakeholder groups
can do that. However, through their conscious integration and
practice of the core values of valid information and free and
informed choice when interacting with negotiators, developmental
facilitators can help negotiators develop the necessary trust
through which difficult issues can be constructively discussed
- and build the necessary commitment among negotiators to collectively
work towards their resolution.
References
Argyris, Chris. 1970. Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral
Science View. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schön. 1974. Theory in Practice:
Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, Inc.
Bauer, Leonard and Peter K. Watt. 1990. Dispute Resolution: A
Handbook for Land Use Planners and Resource Managers. Eugene:
University of Oregon Bureau of Governmental Research and Service.
Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. 1984. Modern Approaches to
Understanding and Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. 1997. Reframing Organizations:
Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (Second Edition). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bush, Robert A. Baruch and Joseph P. Folger. 1994. The Promise
of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Carbonneau, T. 1989. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Melting the
Lances and Dismounting the Steeds. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Carpenter, Susan L. and W.J.D. Kennedy. 1988. Managing Public
Disputes: A Practical Guide to Handling Conflict and Reaching
Agreements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Cormick, Gerald, Norman Dale, Paul Emond, S. Glenn Sigurdson and
Barry D. Stuart. 1996. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future:
Putting Principles into Practice. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing Company
Limited.
Coser, L. 1967. Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict.
New York: Free Press.
Emrich, W.M. 1982. New Approaches to Managing Environmental Conflict:
How Can the Federal Government Use Them? Charlottesville: University
of Virginia Institute for Environmental Negotiation.
Fisher, Roger and William Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Fiske, Emmett P. 1991. Controversial issues as opportunities.
Extension's effectiveness in resolving environmental disputes.
Journal of Extension 29(Fall):26-28.
Fiske, Emmett P. 1994. Resolution of environmental conflicts.
Should rural sociologists get involved? The Rural Sociologist
14(1):26-45.
Fiske, Emmett P. 1998. Towards a "canons of practice"
for public policy research and extension within the land-grant
university system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Rural Sociological Society, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-8.
Fiske, Emmett P. 2000. Review essay: Values and interests in conflict
resolution. Rural Sociology 65(2): 331-337.
Hackman, J. Richard. 1987. The design of work teams. Pp. 315-342
in Jay W. Lorsch (ed)., Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hackman, J. Richard (ed). 1990. Groups That Work (and Those That
Don't): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hall, Lavinia (ed). 1993. Negotiation Strategies for Mutual Gain:
The Basic Seminar of the Harvard Program on Negotiation. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kolb, Deborah M. 1993. Her place at the table: gender and negotiation.
Pp. 138-150 in Lavinia Hall (ed)., Negotiation Strategies for
Mutual Gain: The Basic Seminar of the Harvard Program on Negotiation.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kritek, Phyllis Beck. 1994. Negotiating at an Uneven Table: A
Practical Approach to Working with Difference and Diversity. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Maser, Chris. 1996. Resolving Environmental Conflict: Towards
Sustainable Community Development. Delray Beach: St. Lucie Press.
Moore, Christopher W. 1986. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies
for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Rothman, Jay. 1997. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations,
Organizations, and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schwarz, Roger M. 1994. The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom
for Developing Effective Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the
Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New
York: Basic Books.
Susskind, Lawrence and Patrick Field. 1996. Dealing with an Angry
Public: The Mutual-Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes. New York:
The Free Press.
Ury, William. 1991. Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way From
Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.
Question Asked
Likely Response from People Utilizing Each of the Frames
Prior to Start of Actual Negotiation
Structural
Human Resource
Political
Symbolic
1. How much conflict is present?
low to moderate
moderate
moderate to high
moderate to high
2. How much ambiguity and uncertainty is present?
low to moderate
moderate
moderate to high
high
3. Are we working top down or bottom up?
top down
top down
bottom up
top down or bottom up
4. How important is the technical quality of the decision?
important
unimportant
unimportant
unimportant
5. How important are commitment and motivation?
unimportant
important
unimportant
important
6. How scarce are resources?
moderately scarce
moderately abundant to abundant
scarce (or getting scarcer)
scarce to abundant
During the Negotiation Process
7. How do you deal with conflict?
maintain organizational goals by having authorities resolve conflict
develop relationships by having individuals confront conflict
develop power by bargaining, forcing or manipulating others to
win
develop shared values and use conflict to negotiate meaning
8. What happens when your approach doesn't work?
realign roles and responsibilities to fit tasks and environment
maintain a balance between human needs and formal roles
redistribute power and form new coalitions
maintain an image of accountability and responsiveness; negotiate
new social order
9. When you realize that some type of intervention is needed
to address the changed environment: what do you envision?
strategies to set objectives and coordinate resources
gatherings to promote participation
arenas to air conflicts and realign power
rituals to signal responsibility, produce symbols, negotiate meaning
10. What do you hope the negotiation process will achieve?
keep organization headed in the right direction
keep people involved and communication open
provide opportunity for individuals and groups to make interests
known
develop symbols and shared values
11. What is the purpose of meetings?
formal occasions
informal occasions
competitive occasions
sacred occasions to celebrate and transform the culture
12. Why do you choose to participate in meetings?
transmit facts and information
exchange information, needs, and feelings
vehicle for influencing or manipulating others
tell stories
13. How do you view decision making?
rational sequence to produce the right decision
open process to produce commitment
opportunity to gain or exercise power
rituals to provide comfort and support until decision happens
14. How do you motivate others to implement any decision reached?
economic incentives
growth and self-actualization
coercion, manipulation, and seduction
symbols and celebrations
Inability to Resolve Conflict
15. When decisions don't get made, or don't go in your favor,
what is the result?
unpredictability, confusion, and chaos throughout the organization
feeling of incompetency, neediness and powerlessness among individuals
loss (defeat), and greater conflict
loss of meaning: transition ritual to provide symbolic healing
(Adapted from Bolman and Deal, 1997, pp. 267-268, 271 and 321)