With so much discussion of “dispute resolution”, it’s a good idea to reflect on what “disputes” really are and where they come from.  They are the controversies that arise from apparently irreconcilable differences on the positions the disputants take on the presenting issues:  Was there a breach of contract?  Should an employer be held legally liable for a certain action regarding an employee?  Is the settlement value of this claim $100,000?  These specific controversies must be resolved – by capitulation, negotiated compromise or by the decision of a third party.  Mediation, arbitration and other ADR processes have proved to be time- and cost-effective ways of achieving this “closing of the book”.

But in these situations, before there was a “dispute”, there was some kind of “conflicted interaction”. Before the “issues” became framed for “resolution” in factual, legal or technical terms, somebody was dissatisfied with what someone else had done or said.  Almost always this conflict comes from the difference between what one or both parties expected from their interaction and what that interaction has produced.  These incongruent expectations are themselves often a function of at least the following relationship dysfunctions:

·            Assumptions by one party about another’s motivations, goals or reasons for their actions;

·            Fears of an outcome with seriously negative consequences;

·            Asymmetry in the information possessed by the respective parties;

·            Unproductive patterns of communication;

·              Personal or professional “fireworks” – personality types or personal styles of interaction that sidetrack the parties from effectively pursuing a substantive solution.

At the heart of each of these barriers is the substitution of “serial refutation” for dialogue.  Short of the exercise of overwhelming power – sometimes defined as “the ability to get someone to do what you want without their cooperation – dialogue is the first step in managing conflict – and the avoidance or prevention of disputes so that their formal resolution becomes moot.

One dictionary defines “dialogue” as:

Interchange and discussion of ideas, especially when open and frank, as in seeking mutual understanding or harmony.

It’s obviously difficult for the essential concepts in this definition to become manifest in the presence of the classic dysfunctions listed above.  We need a “tool” to help dismantle these barricades to solutions erected by the parties themselves.  One such tool is facilitated dialogue. The dictionary defines “facilitate” as:

To free from difficulties or obstacles, make easier; aid; assist.

Accordingly, facilitated dialogue is a conversation using a neutral third person, not invested in either the relationships or the substance of the conflict, to assist the parties in overcoming their barriers to effective communication. 

An experienced, skillful facilitator accomplishes this goal through application of a number of techniques, for example:

·         Eliciting the participants’ “buy in” to some simple but effective ground rules, such as:

o       Confirming the time set aside for the discussion

o       Talking one at a time;

o        Treating each other with dignity and respect;

o       Who will be consistent participants; others who may appear when and in what role

o        Establishing a schedule for future meetings;

o        Developing an initial list of topics for discussion and an order in which they will be discussed;

·         Summarizing and recording on a flip chart key comments by the participants;

·         Assisting in reframing adversarial closed-end propositions to designed to “win” (e.g., “It’s X who has reneged on his commitment!”) as open ended inquiries designed to discover solutions (e.g. “What’s the best way to achieve the outcome you both expected when you decided to do this together?”)

·         Summarizing progress the conversation has achieved;

·         Being sensitive to when interactions cease to be productive and intervening to promote a return to effective dialogue or moving to another, more easily manageable topic;

·         Structuring the discussion of issues in terms of underlying interests;

·         Organizing topics to achieve early consensus on less-difficult ones, thus giving the participants a sense of accomplishment and progress;

·         Preparing written summaries of each session;

·        Assuring the separation of dialogue and decision-making.