Technology Creates Opportunities - And Risks
|
This article originally appeared in the January 1999 issue of Consensus, a newspaper published jointly by the Consensus Building Institute and the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program. August 1999 |
When it comes to traditional, in-person meetings, facilitators, and mediators are very strategic in thinking about process design. But the use of Internet technologies in dispute resolution - from e-mail exchanges between meetings to mediations taking place entirely on the World Wide Web - requires a new kind of thinking and planning.
In my experience, dispute resolution practitioners do not always think strategically about who is "talking" to whom electronically or how these communications can affect a consensus building effort.
For example, when I ask a group of mediators during a presentation whether they use e-mail to communicate with participants in a dispute resolution process, usually about 80 percent raise their hands. But when asked if they know whether those participants are communicating with each other by e-mail between meetings, far fewer hands go up.
Proactive process design
The fact is, whether mediators build it into their processes or not, participants are likely to use e-mail and other Internet-based technologies to communicate between meetings. Indeed, Internet dialogue now almost seems inevitable in groups, even if it is not a formally acknowledged and facilitated as part of the process. The challenge is to proactively design processes that use the full range of Internet-based tools effectively.
It is difficult to image a complex dispute handled completely through the Internet, but e-mail, Web sites, listserves and other on-line communication tools offer feasible and effective means to disseminate information and continue dialogue between face-to-face meetings. Some of the tools that can be used in dispute resolution - in addition, to e-mail, which we can assume requires no explanation - include the following.
Web sites are an excellent means of "distributing" documents to parties. A mediator can post agendas, meeting minutes, draft reports and news briefings of group activities on a Web site. Participants can either read the documents on-screen or download them and print them out. If privacy or confidentiality are important concerns, access to a Web site can be limited to participants through the use of a password. On the other hand, if broad public distribution is desirable, Web sites can be widely announced on-line and accessible to anyone.
An example of creative use of the Web was a 1996 regulator negotiation sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) called RuleNet. In one instance, the NRC simultaneously posted a transcript of a 14-way video conference call to the RuleNet site. Those who weren't part of the video conference could log on to the site and follow the discussion verbatim.
Web forums are on-line "discussions" in which people post messages on a Web site for all to read. Web forums allow for separate topic branches to be created for each agenda item. Replies to each topic are associated to "threaded together" and replies can be made to replies, thus creating a tree structure of responses.
Advanced forum software eliminates the need to check into a Web forum to see what has been posted - it sends an e-mail message to all participants when a new entry is made in the forum.
Chat rooms are places on a Web site or other Internet space in which people can talk to each other in "real time." Chat often involves a fast-paced, spontaneous dialogue with short messages. Slow typists and thinkers may find it difficult to get a word in edgewise. While chat rooms are very popular, they require parties to coordinate calendars to all be available at the same time. In many cases, a phone call is more effective.
Listservers are subscription-based e-mail distribution systems. Members of a listserve receive messages via e-mail and can choose to respond at any time to the entire list or to individual list of members. Postings and replies are kept threaded together by subject line. A consensus building group could have its own listserver, enabling the facilitator or any participant to send a message to all group members simultaneously.
Web forums have advantages over e-mail and listservers in that information is maintained in a central repository, available at any time, thus eliminating problems such as mail being missed, wrongly addressed, or accidentally deleted.
On-line advantages
The benefits of these Internet-based tools for a dispute resolution process are numerous.
The beauty of Web forums, for example, is the ability to engage the dialogue at any time. Participants can stay away from a forum for a while and, upon returning, can catch up quite easily. They can read a posting and link a reply directly to the wording that stimulated the response. There's no need, as in face-to-face meetings, to wait for a turn to speak and then say, "I'd like to comment on an idea that was raised several minutes ago." On-line, participants can add replies to a topic that came up several days, months, or years ago.
For the facilitator, these characteristics eliminate the challenge of working around the busy and often conflicting schedules of stakeholders. On-line discussions can take place when it best firs each individual's schedule.
Internet tools also provide a comfortable communication venue for those who prefer writing to speaking. Some people find speaking in a meeting to be a horrible experience. They'd rather compose their thoughts slowly, and they often welcome the opportunity to express themselves without needing to vie for air time, without feeling "stared at" as they speak, and without discomfort at hearing their own voices. The on-line environment can thus be quite liberating to some people's ideas and feelings.
Another self-evident benefit of Internet communication is that it enables people to engage in a meaningful dialogue and even build consensus without traveling to a meeting. Indeed, forums and e-mail are especially invaluable in dialogue groups that cross time zones.
The downsides
These tools come with disadvantages too, of course.
One common complaint is the on-line medium's lack of nonverbal cues and its emotional flatness. It's impossible to gauge the writer's mood, for instance - and sometimes it's even difficult to determine if someone is joking or not.
Also, the impact of an e-mail can sometimes be underestimated. Senders may dash off quick e-mail messages without thinking too carefully about what they are saying or how it's said. But the recipient may take the message very seriously, as if a good deal of time went onto it and every sentence were carefully crafted. This can create misunderstandings, or even full-blown arguments. So for all the convenience of on-line interactions, sometimes the best approach is to pick up the phone and sort things out.
There are also basic issues of identity to consider. If a dialogue takes place entirely on-line, for example, with no face-to-face meetings, how can participants be assured that everyone is who they say they are? It's often impossible to be sure.
For mediators, a key question is how to effectively manage a flow of e-mail and other on-line interactions among participants. Even more daunting, how do you balance the needs and concerns of stakeholders who are not comfortable on-line even as you also have some, who for reasons of geography or schedule, can participate only on-line? We are just learning how to handle such challenges.
Face-to-face first
One lesson we have learned is that initial face-to-face meetings are desirable for building a solid foundation for on-line communication that occurs among participants in a consensus-based process.
If the intention is to work on-line between face-to-face meetings - whether through e-mail, Web pages, or other tools - the first face-to-face meeting should focus on getting to know each other and building rapport. Interactions on-line are much easier if parties know something about the each others' style and have met them in person.
Face-to-face meetings are also a good time to familiarize everyone with on-line technology, protocols and ground rules. Understanding which medium is best suited for a particular type of interaction is key. Working with participants to increase their ability to effectively use the various media will improve the overall quality of the interaction.
We also know that if Web forums or listservers are to be used in a dispute resolution process between meetings, they should be "facilitated" just like any other group interaction.
The facilitator should monitor the "discussion," ask questions, suggest topics to consider, and make interventions when conversations get too heated or are unproductive, just as in face-to-face meetings.
Technology provides us the promising new tools. For practitioners, the challenge is to use the full range of communication media effectively.
Comments
| Free subscription to comments on this article | Add Brief Comment |