Re: "I would love to hear other ideas on how to facilitate conflict in this type of environment."

As a recent entrant to the world of discussion groups, I find that Michael's insightful request as the silver lining to this whole discussion. As facilitators, can we innovate an on-line conflict resolution methodology?

Some of the givens (I think) are:

1. Large global group with spontaneous participation

2. Pseudo-anonymity of participants

3. Power of moderator to intervene

4. General common motivation of the advancement of Facilitation and/or personal professional enhancement of knowledge and skill in the craft

Suggested process:

A. A conflict, or apparent conflict, occurs in open forum between one or more participants;

B. Any member may post to the list moderator that in his/her opinion, this conversation/discussion/topic has escalated to a point that requires on-line mediation;

C. Moderator posts to conflicting parties that an on-line mediation has been requested, and asks them to participate. They may reject the mediation, but in that event they must agree to cease the particular discussion in both open and private forum. If they refuse to mediate or fail to cease that particular discussion, then their membership of the forum is terminated;

D. If both/all parties agree to mediation, they are given the option of on-line or private mediation;

E. The mediator may be the list moderator or someone else suitable but impartial (ie hasn't participated in the discussion/issue);

F. The mediator asks each party to the conflict to list in point form the "headings" that summarises the conflict (in their opinion) and the order that he/she/they would like the matters resolved. There is an understanding that the resolution of all topics/headings will see a resolution to the entire matter in question.

G. The mediator works to secure agreement of the parties to an agenda of topics/headings that will deal with the matters in hand;

H. The mediator circulates to the list the headings that will be covered in the mediation and requests input as to the comprehensiveness of the topics as viewed by those who have been involved in the "conflict". This circulation is irrespective of whether the mediation itself is on-line or private.

I. Once the final agenda is set by the mediator, he/she then commences the mediation taking each heading/topic in turn until an outcome is resolved. The mediation would follow traditional mediation principles (state issue; surface feelings; acknowledge feelings; suggest solution; etc...)

J. Where the mediation is on-line, then the mediator may ask for input from the list, however the purpose of the on-line medium is to keep list members informed of progress and issues of the conflict (since they were involved in its cultivation and the discussion may also be a technical learning experience), but not to necessarily get them involved in the mediation;

K. It is OK for conflicting parties to acknowledge other parties' opinion and agree to a "difference of opinion", rather than to agree to a common view. The intention of the mediation is to resolve the conflict (i.e. remove the heat, personalisation, dysfunction) and not necessary to create unanimous views. Differences are important in order to grow our understanding and skills.

L. Once the mediation is complete in the mediator's opinion, then he/she advises the list that an outcome on the topics in question has been agreed by the parties (but not the detail if the mediation was in private unless the parties agree).

M. The mediated issues/topics may be revisited by anyone on a professional level in the future, but due to the mediation, should not generate a similar conflict (at least from those parties involved first-time around).

The key attributes of this process are:

1. It identifies when a conflict exists but before it escalates to a destructive level;

2. It identifies a resolution process;

3. It identifies a resolution agent;

4. It surfaces the issues;

5. It enables parties to table their opinions and feelings;

6. It enables all parties to acknowledge other parties' positions;

7. It involves the list where that is appropriate;

8. It has a formal process;

9. It has a conclusion;

10. It proposes and is able to enforce a "netiquette" on list members.

Alyson asked: I would love to tap the collective wisdom of the list and the sooner the better as the planning is percolating and needs to become concrete fairly soon.

Alyson,

The term "planning" often means different things to different people. One interpretation relates to convergent thinking and is used to mean "implementing" an existing vision or set of objectives. This is essentially a left-brain activity. Such a "planning" session would involve a session to determine tasks, timelines, responsibilities.

The other view relates to divergent thinking which attempts to developing the vision or objectives. This involves brainstorming and other right-brain activities. Each interpretation involves VERY different activities and outcomes.

I sense from your request that you are, at least initially, embarking on the divergent/visioning activity. As such, the following may prove useful. I help organisations to do just this and follow a few guidelines that have worked well for me over the years:

1. I ask participants in the group to state what they believe are the outcomes/deliverables that their group/department/division/organisation or themselves are expected to deliver at the "end of the day". Ideally this is done on a one-to-one basis before a workshop/seminar so that the time at the group session is spent "working the knowledge" rather than gathering it.

2. Having already defined the sponsor's/owner's expected deliverables/outcomes, I use the group to match the "imperatives" with their "perceptions". Mismatches are discussed and resolved (this is easily said but may take considerable time to do).

3. In light of #2, I get the group to agree the outcomes that are common outcomes that all will strive to deliver.

4. I then ask people to look forward 10 years and ask them to "see" the organisation/department etc delivering these outcomes. I then ask them to tell me what they see. This vision should not be a glib "mother-hood" statement, but should be in some detail: What will we be doing? How will we be delivering our products/services? How will we be communicating? What will our competitors be doing? What will our customers/clients want? What will regulators be doing? What will our IT look like? What will our culture and people be like? etc...

5. I capture their "visions" on a white board.

6. We then develop a Vision/Outcome Matrix by listing the desired outcomes against the top axis and the vision elements along the vertical axis.

7. We then "tick", "cross" or quality the boxes in the Matrix for the ability of each Vision element to contribute to the desired outcomes.

8. Within the Matrix, we identify all desired outcomes that have no vision element appended and discuss what would be required to deliver the outcome since nothing yet envisioned will do it.

9. Once we have vision elements that will deliver the desired outcomes, we then prioritise them in terms of "biggest bang for bucks ($, resource and effort) and weight them for complexity.

10. These vision elements are then ranked by their score.

11. For each element, we then develop a set of "action/resource/timeline" to identify the impact on the organisation/division of each element.

12. We then allocate identify "Next Steps" for each item and allocate responsibilities and timelines for each element.

Warning: I have found over many years that allowing a group to develop a vision divorced from expected outcomes will ultimately be a waste of time since sponsors/owners will inevitably force them to adopt their agenda.

Marcos wrote: How can I change it? Is it useful to contract consultants?

Marcos,

It sounds that you really are at the beginning of the process-change process and that you recognise the potential but others in the company may not. May I suggest the following steps:

1. Clearly identify and quantify the outcomes (products, costs, volumes, quality, other corporate objectives, etc) that your existing processes are meant to provide.

2. Identify all the ways that your existing processes fall-short of these desired outcomes. This may be difficult so it might be valuable for you to benchmark your process performance against other energy companies (I assume you are in Energy) around the world who are doing similar activity (processes) to you.

3. Calculate a theoretical dollar value of the short-fall between what "could be" and "what is".

4. If the short-fall is substantial (more than say 5-10% of production through the process) then it probably indicates the need to re-engineer your processes (among other possible remedies). If the variation is relatively small, you might want to consider some quality circles from within the plant to deal with small performance improvement issues.

5. If the value of the short-fall is high, then the benefit you may achieve by solving your problem will, in all probability, exceed your cost of undertaking the change. This little calculation is termed your "value proposition for change".

6. There are now two issues you need to address: do you have the authority to affect change by yourself, and how do you make the process changes indicated.

7. If you are the CEO, then you need to develop a Value Proposition concept document that you must get your Board to approve in order for you to move to the next step. If you are not the CEO, then you need to sell the Value Proposition to the Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Manufacturing or similar, or the CEO.

8. It appears from what you have said that your organisation has not undertaken this process-change before. Therefore, I would recommend that you contemplate hiring consultants.

9. First step is to write a "Terms of Reference" document that captures what you want to achieve.

10. Next send the Terms of Reference and an invitation to tender to 5-10 experienced (in process change in the Energy industry) consulting companies.

11. Assess their responses in terms of experience, methodology, cost and similar successful projects. Talk to their references and don't take their work for anything. These companies are very "slick" and you must convince yourself that what they say is accurate and not just sales talk. (I say this with some authority as I'm a change consultant). If they provide a methodology which will enable you to undertake the change yourself then you can consider doing so, but you MUST appoint an external, experienced project manager with authority to "make it happen". If for any reason you can't appoint a external "facilitator", then appoint consultant with the best response to tender.

12. If you appoint a consulting company, make sure that "Knowledge Transfer" from the consultant to your staff is provided for. This will ensure that when you want to make the next process change, you will be in a better position (but no guarantee) to do it your self. Also make sure that they are kept to a strict time-frame and that part of their payment (say 10%-35%) is made only after the new process is operational, for say one month. Check VERY carefully the person they nominate as their Project Manager as this person is critical. Make sure that the Partners who will be involved in the sales presentation are actually involved in the project to manage the Quality Assurance aspects of the job - the Partner/s must commit to at least a once per week review of the Quality Plan and progress with you, the client, and the Project Manager. Partners tend to help "sell" the job, then they delegate the work to more junior staff - be warned.