Communication training

Transcription

TRAINING
MODULE
The material for training module 8 “Communication training” was developed by Ursula Caser
and Lia Vasconcelos for Occam, Ltd. in 2012.
Úrsula Caser
MEDIATEDOMAIN, Lda.
Rua Nery Delgado 9-1º
P-2775-253 Parede (Portugal)
Telephone: 00351-214561100
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.uc-mediation.eu
Lia Vasconcelos
New University of Lisbon
DCEA-FCT
Campus Caparica
P-2829-516 Caparica (Portugal)
Telephone: 00351-212948500, ext 10157
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.fct.unl.pt
The overall coordination of the material developed for training module 8 “Communication
training” was made by Lara Moura and Sofia Taborda in 2012.
Lara Moura/Sofia Taborda
Occam, Ltd.
Av. Defensores de Chaves, 15 - 7A
1000-109 Lisboa (Portugal)
Telephone: 00351-918815991/5559
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Website: www.occam.pt
This training material can also be downloaded from the project website.
www.transportlearning.net
Sources cover photos:
FGM-AMOR, iStockphoto
Legal disclaimer:
The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the
opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that
may be made of the information contained therein.
Transport Learning is co-funded by the European Union under the Intelligent Energy Europe programme.
Page 2 of 55
About the project TRANSPORT LEARNING
TRANSPORT LEARNING – Empowerment of practitioners to achieve energy savings in
urban transport – started in May 2011 and is a 32 month project supported by the European
Commission within the Intelligent Energy Europe programme.
TRANSPORT LEARNING aims to create knowledge and capacity on sustainable transport
policies and measures in municipalities and energy/management agencies of Europe’s
convergence regions. It further aims to strengthen market activities on sustainable transport
by integrating them into the business portfolio of energy/management agencies, thereby
supporting regions which are catching up economically.
The project aims to reach a wide audience, creating a large-scale impact and, in the longterm, safeguarding ongoing training and education on sustainable transport. In order to
achieve this, TRANSPORT LEARNING creates and implements its training and site visits
and exploits its output for a long-term impact. It will realise:
• 64 2-day training modules on topics mirroring the needs of trainees in Bulgaria, Spain,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania; to a minimum 650 participants;
• Mini-projects (practical training projects) resulting in a minimum of 170 projects
successfully carried out;
• Site visits for politicians and decision makers in order to support trainees’ actions and
sustainable transport generally in convergence regions;
• Integration of training materials into academic and training courses to ensure long-term
impact on students and working professionals;
• Website providing information, news, e-Learning platform, Online Training Resource
Centre and all outputs of the project in 9 European languages.
Through all these measures TRANSPORT LEARNING will substantially contribute to energysavings in transport by creating the required knowledge and capacity to work effectively in
the field of sustainable transport.
The TRANSPORT LEARNING consortium
Coordinator:
Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
Partners:
Ecoinstitute Alto Adige (IT)
Municipality of Krakow (PL)
Eco-union (ES)
ANEA (IT)
Edinburgh Napier University (UK)
OCCAM Ltd. (PT)
Energiaklub (HU)
ATU (RO)
Energy Agency of Plovdiv (BG)
University of Maribor (SI)
FGM – AMOR (AT)
University of Piraeus, Research Center (EL)
GEA 21 (ES)
University of Žilina (SK)
Page 3 of 55
Table of contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................7 1.1. Context ..........................................................................................................................7
1.2. Objectives ......................................................................................................................8
2. Communication Facilitation Mediation ............................................................................9 2.1. The Dynamics of Communication..................................................................................9
2.1.1 Successful Transmission of Messages ..................................................................10
2.1.2 Worlds, Realities, Languages and Mutual Understanding .....................................11
2.1.3 The “Four Sides Model” – A Framework for Effective Communication ..................14
2.2. Stakeholder Dialogue and Consensus Building...........................................................16
2.2.1 Facilitation and Mediation Basics...........................................................................16 2.2.2 Conflict Analysis – the Circle of Conflict.................................................................17 2.2.3 Basic Strategies for Resolving Disputes ................................................................18 2.2.4 The Phases of the Mediation Process: Circle of Fiutak .........................................25 2.2.5 Communication with Stakeholders.........................................................................30 2.2.6 Definition of Target Groups – Stakeholder Analysis ..............................................31 2.2.7 Design and Implementation of Stakeholder Plurilogue ..........................................32 3. Implementation of Participative Processes ...................................................................33 3.1. General Framework for Project Feasibility...................................................................34
3.1.1 Levels of Interactivity in Different Process Phases ................................................34
3.1.2 Feasibility-Check....................................................................................................35
3.2. General Framework for Project Design .......................................................................36
3.2.1 General Criteria......................................................................................................36 3.2.2 Process Design: Methodological Elements............................................................37 3.2.3 Event Design: General Methodological Considerations.........................................38 4. Transversal Communication Challenges.......................................................................41 4.1. TCC 1 – The Language/Knowledge Dilemma .............................................................41
4.2. TCC 2 – Strong Hierarchies and Power Imbalance.....................................................42 4.3. TCC 3 – External versus Internal Mediation ................................................................43
4.4. TCC 4 – Large Amounts of Complex Data ..................................................................45
4.5. TCC 5 – Wicked Problems ..........................................................................................47
4.6. TCC 6 – Bribery and Corruption ..................................................................................49
Page 4 of 55
5. Final Considerations........................................................................................................51 6. Bibliography .....................................................................................................................52 www.transportlearning.net
Page 5 of 55
Table of figures
Figure 1: Transmission of Messages (source: Vasconcelos & Caser (2011): PPA II) ...........10 Figure 2: Congruent and Incongruent Messages (source: Vasconcelos & Caser (2011): PPA
II) ............................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: Obstacles to Communication ..................................................................................12 Figure 4: The Four-Side Model of Friedemann Schulz von Thun ..........................................14 Figure 5: The Circle of Conflict (source: Moore, 1996; edition: Vasconcelos & Caser (2011):
PPA III) ...................................................................................................................................17 Figure 6: Change of Dynamics and Strategies for Negotiation (according to Moore, 1996) ..20 Figure 7: Conflict Management Style (source: Thomas & Kilman (1974-2009)) ....................21 Figure 8: Circle of Fiutak for the Mediation Process Phases (adapted from Fiutak et al., 2009)
...............................................................................................................................................26 Figure 9: Context of Conflicts in the Field of Transportation Systems (adapted from
Christensen (1995) and Balducci (2001))...............................................................................33 Table 1: The five “Axioms of Communication” (Source: Watzlavick, P. et al., 1967) ...............9 Table 2: Checklist for a Project – Centred Feasibility Check (adapted from other TL material)
...............................................................................................................................................36 Table 3: Check-List for Project Design (adapted from other TL material) ..............................37 Table 4: Comparison between external and internal mediation/Facilitation regarding essential
process characteristics (adapted from Moore (1996))............................................................45 Table 5: Strategies to tackle wicked problems (source: Roberts (2000))...............................49 www.transportlearning.net
Page 6 of 55
1. Introduction
1.1. Context
Eco-efficient planning in all fields has two main currents. On the one hand there is the
traditional formal top-down approach, focusing on the adaptation of responsibilities and
competences of formal institutions (municipalities, governments etc) to improve the response
from these institutions to civil societies’ needs. The other perspective defends a more
informal bottom-up approach including collaborative decision making processes involving
institutions, enterprises and sometimes even direct users. Both strategies are important and
complementary, and they have to converge in order to permit effective and adequate
planning (VASCONCELOS, et al. 2012a).
Within our democratic constitutional states, decisions are usually taken by central, regional or
local governments (municipalities at a local level). In a small number of specific cases, a
decision is provided directly by the citizens (e.g. in a referendum). Citizens’ decisions might
be able to bridge the gap between civil societies’ interests or needs and the increasingly
authoritarian-perceived municipal decisions but, nevertheless, the majority principle applies
equally to the citizens’ decisions. This means that a taken decision has to be supported not
only by the prevailing majority, but also by the losing minority. There is no consensus
construction process intended or implemented.
If an administration, e. g. a municipality, tries to address this problem by cooperative decision
making, focusing on the inclusion of the interests and needs of all stakeholders, group
decision making processes are implemented in order to seek consent. The communication
focus shifts from top-down processes (presentation of technically developed plans,
explanation of administrative strategies) to the bottom-up orientated negotiation of interests
and needs of all involved stakeholders (including the administration). Communication,
negotiation and decision making will from then on rely on voluntary, dialogical and
collaborative procedures for solution finding. Citizens and organizations will thus participate
in policy formulation, and in policy implementation, at a local level. In this sense local
stakeholders will increasingly assume a key role in municipal decision making, and there are
strong advantages in bringing them to the process.
Thus, good communication is obviously essential for success and issues related to the
transport sector are no exception. Transport experts need to find new approaches in order to
come up with new methodologies that can better integrate new forms of operation, while
seeking solutions for complex problems. Transport planning cannot be carried out any more
by any player, at any organisational level, using an isolated approach; it is necessary to
compromise through facilitation and mediation using the expertise of all the players involved.
This manual will focus on issues concerning communication dynamics and typical pitfalls in
stakeholder dialogue. Topics will tackle challenges like: “How to communicate effectively?
Page 7 of 55
How to involve and empower civil society? How to promote, so public services, organisations
and citizens assume their share of responsibility in the participative process?”
1.2. Objectives
This manual pursues three main objectives:
1. Provide insights and knowledge as well as personal experience and joint reflection on
communication skills and techniques. As a result participants...
a. … understand how communications work.
b. ... recognise and master their own strengths and personal challenges.
c. … expand their personal and professional communication skills and “tool-box”.
2. Present and explore the principles and concepts of stakeholder involvement, facilitation,
conflict management, mediation and the design and conduction of participative processes.
Consequently participants...
a. ... get acquainted with the principles and concepts of stakeholder participation.
b. … comprehend the role of different knowledge(s); as well as the drivers for
participation.
c. ... gain competences in designing stakeholder collaborative processes.
3. Enable participants to proceed to concrete action. Thus participants of the Transport
Learning Project are encouraged to...
a. ...develop and design a Practical Training Project (PTP).
b. ...reflect jointly on communication challenges that affect their PTPs.
c. ...implement their PTP in the following weeks/months.1
1
The Development of PTPs is a major objective of the Transport Learning project, but design and implementation were not
included in this manual.
Page 8 of 55
2. Communication Facilitation Mediation
Any successful facilitation, mediation or participation process depends largely on effective
communication. However the role of communication in relationships is often taken for
granted, not planned and as a result… neglected. Those who work at the interface between
national, regional and local governments, public services, organisations, enterprises, and
civil society need to approach communication as an area worthy of thorough analysis and
practice. It is crucial to understand the dynamics of communication in order to design and
implement new projects, change paradigms and conduct successful stakeholder dialogue.
This chapter will provide these skills, responding directly to objectives 1 and 2 defined for
Module 8 – Communication Training. Communication dynamics are presented and exercised
in a perspective of increasing complexity (Chapter 2.1), followed by theoretical and
procedural insights in collaborative development of plans and projects. (Chapter 2.2)
2.1. The Dynamics of Communication
Any communication is made up of a sender, a message and a receiver. And there is no way
to NOT communicate as Paul Watzlawick stated, developing his theory of the 5 Axioms of
communication (WATZLAWICK et al., 1967).
1
One cannot not communicate
2
Communication has a content and a relationship aspect
⇒ Content: What is said
⇒ Relationship: How it is said (Meta-Communication)
3
The nature of a relationship depends on how both parties punctuate the
communication sequence
4
Human beings communicate both digitally and analogically
⇒ Digital codes represent by naming (I am angry)
⇒ Analogical codes represent by similarity (loud voice, red face, etc.)
5
All communication is either symmetrical or complementary
⇒ Symmetrical = equal relationship
⇒ Complementary = unequal relationship
Table 1: The five “Axioms of Communication” (source: Watzlavick, P. et al., 1967)2
Paul Watzlawick’s theory was based of the work of Gregory Bateson (RUESCH &
BATESON, 1951; BATESON, 1972) and had great impact on the creation of the four sides
model by Friedemann Schultz von Thun (see Chapter 2.1.3)
2
See also: http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Theory/watzlawick/.
Page 9 of 55
2.1.1 Successful Transmission of Messages
Generally, participants in communication pursue two basic interests:
• achieve a favourable understanding, or - in case of planning and negotiation - a
convenient outcome and;
• promote their own desired or advantageous future relations with the negotiating partner.
Due to the simultaneous pursuit of both interests at the same time, communication can get
complicated and misunderstandings arise.
Communication is complex and always depends on message transmission between a sender
and a receiver. Transmitting a message implies that content and context are sent (and will be
received).
The sender emits the message (information, idea or emotion) and encodes the message
according to his own personal context, understanding and values. Hereby the sender
transforms his intentions and thoughts into words (content) or nonverbal signs (context).
The receiver gets the message and translates the encoded message into a concept or
information (words and symbols) that he or she can understand.
The message is composed by content (the spoken and written words combined into phrases
that make grammatical and semantic sense) and context (the way the message is delivered,
the nonverbal elements in speech such as the tone of voice, the look in the sender's eyes,
body language, hand gestures, and state of emotions (anger, fear, uncertainty, confidence,
etc.) that can be detected. The message is encoded by the speaker and decoded by the
receiver. The sender and receiver codes might be very different; differences in encoding and
decoding “codes” cause misunderstandings and conflict.
Effective Communication happens if the receiver understands the exact information or idea
that the sender intended to transmit.
Messag
e
Sender
encodes
Receiver
decodes
Figure 1: Transmission of Messages (source: Vasconcelos & Caser (2011): PPA II)
Page 10 of 55
Main challenges to communication:
1.
The codes of sender and receiver are different (result: the sender “says” something and
the receiver “hears” something different ⇒ misunderstanding);
2.
Nonverbal “language” (mimics, gestures, etc.) and verbal “language” are different (result:
the receiver does not know which message (the non-verbal or the verbal message) he
should react to ⇒ insecurity and misunderstanding).
I feel well!
I feel bad!
Congruent Messages
I feel well!
I feel bad!
Incongruent Messages
Figure 2: Congruent and Incongruent Messages (source: Vasconcelos & Caser (2011): PPA II)
2.1.2 Worlds, Realities, Languages and Mutual Understanding
Communicating individuals speak different “languages” originated by the own personal living
context (e.g. think of how jurists, mobility planners or citizens would describe the
development of traffic in their city in the last 10 years). So creating a common language and
promoting the mutual education on perceived realities is paramount to create understanding
between stakeholders. Working with data and information is crucial to empower all
stakeholders in participated processes of consensus building/conflict resolution to assume
collectively their share of responsibility for the solutions to be developed.
Misunderstandings can occur through different interpretations of information and data, for
example ambiguity (more than one interpretation is possible3 and all possible interpretations
are not intuitive for everybody). Context or additional information may help to promote
acceptance regarding different “realities” and create mutual understanding. In general:
3
Attention: not to be confused with vagueness (vagueness does not allow interpretation at an aspired level of specificity).
Page 11 of 55
Figure 3: Obstacles to Communication
• Ambiguity
Being confronted with ambiguous information, the stakeholders “look” to the same
information (data, plans, maps) but “see” different pictures. One of the above introduced
examples is very well known (picture 1 of Fehler! Unbekanntes Schalterargument., the old
lady / young lady), but not everyone is able to see both at first glance. Participants in
stakeholder dialogues come with their own interpretation and the challenge is to make them
understand that more than one interpretation is possible in order to make them curious to
explore different possibilities of interpretation. What can be seen in picture 2 of Fehler!
Unbekanntes Schalterargument.?4
• Context
The personal and professional background of stakeholders creates a reference system to
evaluate and judge all presented information. Depending on which line you see first in picture
4, the middle figure will be understood as a letter (A-B-C) or a number (I2-I3-I4). Other
comparable effects are created for example by the understanding of the concept of “friend”.
4
An Indian face versus an Inuit looking into a cavern (only the Inuit’s back can be seen)
Page 12 of 55
Based on an intimate understanding, a person may have 3-5 friends whereas a “facebookconcept” leads so some 200-300 friends (or even more). Of course the different interpretation
is legitimate, but contexts have to be mutually explained to create joint understanding of a
problem.
• Additional Information
The challenge linked to additional data and information comes from the fact, that (confronted
with fragmented information) stakeholders construct a picture that might not correspond to
“reality” (if there was any absolute reality for all involved persons, groups or organisations).
This picture might change significantly when information increases. Look to picture 5 before
reading further. Picture 5 shows the well-known phenomenon of a giraffe (neck) passing a
window. Now look to picture 6; what do you see? Perhaps you spot two pairs of vertical
orientated sunglasses or two black bikini tops? You might even understand that the picture
shows a koala bear climbing the back of a tree? There is no absolutely right answer but
additional information fosters participants’ mutual understanding of all possible
interpretations.
Ambiguity of data and information, different contexts of participating stakeholders and
insufficient information allow stakeholders to develop different interpretations. Even after
more and better information becomes available (e.g. interpretation of ambiguity and contexts,
additional data) the new data is assimilated slowly into the previous image. The initial
interpretation tends to be maintained as there seems to be a very strong resistance to (quick)
cognitive change. Obviously an initially constructed hypothesis may only be changed by a
considerable amount of explanation and information, as an early impression tends to endure.
The challenge in collaborative processes is not to promote the acquisition of new perceptions
or new ideas, but to help participants change their already established judgments. In this
sense, a sound inventory of perceived and factual information, its equilibrated provision to all
stakeholders, as well as a thorough exploration of interpretations, helps to empower
stakeholders towards informed discussion and decision making.
As transport and mobility planning often deals with ambiguous situations, different contexts
and a huge amount of information and data, communication processes should adopt a
strategy of suspending solution finding for as long as possible in order to foster the mutual
education and understanding of all involved stakeholders.
Page 13 of 55
2.1.3 The “Four Sides Model” – A Framework for Effective
Communication
Most aspects of human communication can lead to misapprehension simply because there is
no single way of interpreting a communication. The “Four Sides Model”5, which will be
presented in this section6, was developed by Friedemann Schulz von Thun (SCHULZ v.
THUN, 2010). This is a comprehensive theoretical model, which helps to understand interpersonal communication dynamics. The model defines four aspects of a statement depicted
as a square. As each side of the square is one aspect of the message, the model attributes
four “mouths” to the sender and four “ears” to the receiver. The effectiveness of any
communication depends therefore on the double-fourfold interaction between sender and
receiver.
Figure 4: The Four-Side Model of Friedemann Schulz von Thun7
Any statement or message contains four simultaneously transmitted sub-messages (whether
consciously intended or not), namely:
• The factual information (blue)
Sender’s factual “mouth” announces data or facts that the sender wants to inform about.
Receiver’s factual “ear” checks whether the matter is true or untrue, relevant or not, and
sufficiently complete to be satisfying.
• The self-revealing statement (green)
Sender’s self-revealing “mouth” discloses verbally or non-verbally in the wide sense of the
expression (e.g. physical appearance, spoken language, etc.) information about the sender
him/herself. Revelation might be consciously intended or not.
Receiver’s self-revealing “ear” perceives the hidden information about the sender.
5
This model was developed by Friedemann Schultz von Thun, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Hamburg
(Germany).
For
editions
in
Italian,
Polish,
Hungarian,
and
Portuguese
see
http://www.schulz-vonthun.de/index.php?article_id=173&clang=0.
6
Own translation from: http://www.schulz-von-thun.de/index.php?article_id=71.
7
Figure adapted from: http://www.schulz-von-thun.de/index.php?article_id=71.
Page 14 of 55
• The relationship indicator (yellow)
Sender’s relationship “mouth” expresses what the sender thinks about the receiver (Youstatement) and how he or she feels and evaluates the relationship with the receiver (Westatement). Relationship indicators might be verbal (type of formulation, single words) or nonverbal (body language, intonation, etc).
Receiver’s relationship “ear” might be driven by own personal interpretations and focus on
specific details. This leads to a feeling between acceptance and rejection. For an effective
communication a mutual feeling of acceptance and esteem is paramount.
• The appeal (red)
Sender’s appeal “mouth” aims at influencing the receiver to do or think something or to leave
something undone or unthought. The range is between (open) advice and (hidden)
manipulation.
Receiver’s appeal “ear” leads to a conscious or unconscious reflection what to do or think
now and possibly to action or inactivity8.
As we have seen, the sender “speaks” with four mouths. On the receiver side this model
requires, in turn, four listening ears. Unfortunately, the message often does not reach
automatically the “right” ear (“right” means in this context: the ear that was mainly addressed
by the sender in the sense of effective communication as defined above) Instead,
misunderstanding arises (see example in the footnote, where a factually meant information
was “heard” with the relational “ear”.
As people show behavioral patterns to react in communication dynamics, SCHULTZ v.
THUN (2010) defines four different types of listeners:
• Factual Listeners focus mainly on facts and retain the verbal message. The other levels
are not available in their perception.
• Empathic Listeners hear especially the words and signs of self-revelation and react to the
(perceived) emotional or physical state of the sender.
• Sensitive Listeners strongly respond to the relationship level. They feel attacked quickly,
get defensive and react spontaneously if offended.
8
Example adapted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model
“A man (first sender of the news) and a woman (first receiver of the message) are eating a home cooked meal together. The
man says: "There is something green in the soup."
Sender: factual information:
There is something green in the soup
self-revealing statement:
I don't know what it is.
relationship indicator:
You should know what it is.
appeal:
Tell me what it is!
Receiver:
factual information:
There is something green in the soup
self-revealing statement:
I do not like it!
relationship indicator:
You are a bad cook!
appeal:
Next time do not put anything green in my soup
The woman answers very angrily: "You don't like the taste? OK! Tomorrow you can cook yourself!"
Page 15 of 55
• Action-Orientated Listeners react primarily to the appeal. They want help immediately, and
will actively tackle.
Obviously it is important to consider these differences in any conversation: the sender has to
formulate the message at the level that the receiver understands best. Therefore, before
“starting the transmission of a message” the sender should assess, as attentively and
carefully as possible, the receiver’s presumed method of decoding the message. However
the sender is always well advised to emphasise clearly the main aspect of the matter of
concern. If the sender is not familiar with the characteristics of his conversation partner he or
she should avoid irony, ambiguous phrases or allusions. On the other hand the receiver – if
doubtful or feeling uneasy about the received message - should communicate his own
perception and interpretation to the sender in order to avoid misunderstandings.
2.2. Stakeholder Dialogue and Consensus Building
In a changing environment, with increasing pressure on mobility and transport systems,
public participation and conflict management are becoming more and more important.
Furthermore - with regard to the current crisis - active public participation, collaborative
planning and consensus orientated conflict management are increasingly appealing
concepts. In this chapter we will provide an overview on facilitation and mediation basics and
in the following explain how to start with planning and designing collaborative interventions
(Chapter 3). We will tackle the six communication challenges that are universal to all
participatory and conflict management processes in Chapter 4.
2.2.1 Facilitation and Mediation Basics
Communicating plans and projects effectively to stakeholders is always a challenge. There
might be direct communication from planners, project developers or politicians to civilsociety-stakeholders or assisted communication between all parts in facilitative (non
conflictive) or mediative (conflict management driven) environments. Assisted
communication permits a separation between stakeholders (people) and content to be
discussed (problem)9 in a structured negotiation process.
Crucial to all facilitative/mediative interventions is a previous conflict analysis and knowledge
about dispute resolution strategies as well as insight into the steps and phases of a
consensus building process. In the following section we provide a concise overview and
three conceptual tools: the Circle of Conflict for conflict analysis (MOORE 1996), a
systematisation of basic strategies for resolving disputes, based on the work of THOMAS &
KILMAN (1974-2009) and the Circle of Fiutak for the mediation process phases (FIUTAK et
al., 2009).
9
This refers to the „Method of Principled Negotiation“, developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project
http://www.pon.harvard.edu/hnp; Recommended further reading: FISHER, R et al. (2011): Getting to Yes (translated into
over thirty languages) and/or SUSSKIND, L. et al. (1999): The Consensus Building Handbook.
Page 16 of 55
2.2.2 Conflict Analysis – the Circle of Conflict
The first step for a successful stakeholder dialogue is the analysis of the initial situation as to
its conflict potential. Is there a common history of the participants? Is there any latent or open
conflict? How far has the conflict escalated?
For the handling of conflicts, it is helpful to be aware of the diversity and complexity of the
potential origins of the adversarial situation. The knowledge of different types of conflict and
conflict causes can facilitate the structuring of design and planning of interventions and how
to deal with conflicts.
In the following we present a simple but very efficient tool for conflict assessment, based on
MOORE (2003). This model tries to categorise the drivers of the conflictive situation that
anybody faces who is intervening in multi stakeholder environments, and helps to understand
the factors that are creating or boosting the conflict.
Personal Relationships
Values
Information
Data
Structural
Conditions
Interests/Needs
The five central causes of
conflict, regardless of level
(interpersonal, intra-or interorganisational, communal or
societal) or setting are:
• Dysfunctional personal
relationships
• Disequilibrium of access and
interpretation of data
• Differing values
• Impact of structural conditions
• (Perceived) incompatible
interests or needs
Figure 5: The Circle of Conflict (source: Moore, 1996; edition: Vasconcelos & Caser (2011): PPA III)
According to MOORE (2003) the five central causes of conflict, regardless of setting or type
(interpersonal, intra-or inter-organisational, communal or societal) are the following:
• Relationship Conflicts occur in the interpersonal sphere even when objective conditions
for a conflict, such as limited resources or mutually exclusive goals, are not present. They
appear normally as a consequence of deceptive communication (concealment, half-truths,
exaggeration, equivocation, misdirection, pretence or irony) or in the presence of strong
negative emotions, misperceptions, stereotypes or repetitive negative behaviours.
Relationship problems in general arise from the fact that a group or an individual feels
Page 17 of 55
ignored, humiliated or injured and often fuel disputes and lead to an escalating10 spiral of
destructive conflict.
• Data Conflicts occur when people lack the necessary information to make wise
decisions, are misinformed, disagree over what data is relevant, interpret information
differently, or have competing assessment procedures.11 Data and information are key
drivers to conflict. Data conflicts may be genuine because the information and/or
procedures used by the people to collect data are not compatible.
• Value Conflicts are caused by perceived or actual incompatible belief systems. With the
choice and internalisation of values, people give meaning to their lives and explain what is
– for them - good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust. Differing values might cause but
not necessarily lead to conflict. People can tolerantly live together for a long time with
quite diverse values. Conflicts arise when people try to force their own system of values
onto the others or defend value systems which categorically exclude divergent beliefs
(e.g. religious or political values).
• Structural Conflicts are caused by forces that are external to stakeholders and cannot
be changed by the affected stakeholders. (GALTUNG, 1996). Restricted resources
(physical, financial, personal), authority, hierarchy or organisational structures, geographic
conditions (distance or proximity), time constraints (too little / too much) are structural
factors that – under certain circumstances - might fuel conflict escalation.
• Interest Conflicts are based on competition over perceived or actual incompatible needs.
Conflicts of interests occur when stakeholders defend their positions12 very strongly and
are convinced that the only possible outcome of their dispute will be “win-lose”. The
opponent must lose, of course. On the agenda of interest conflicts we might find
substantive issues, like limited resources, procedural disagreement (how to decide) or
psychological reasons (trust, fairness, respect, etc).
2.2.3 Basic Strategies for Resolving Disputes
Strategies for conflict resolution range from positional negotiation to interest based
negotiation (see figure 6).
Positional negotiation means a negotiation strategy that defends an idea of what the
stakeholder wants (the position). Using this strategy the negotiator argues for his standpoint.
Example: A dispute over the price of an item. The potential buyer has an idea of a
maximum price he is prepared to pay, whereas the potential seller wants to get a
minimum amount. Each negotiator starts with an extreme position (in this case an
10
Recommended further reading regarding conflict escalation: GLASL (1999); a good summary of the escalation model can be
found here: http://www.perspectus.se/tjordan/Escalationmodel.html.
11
http://www.rantcollective.net/article.php?id=15.
12
For the difference between “position” and “interest” see chapter 2.2.3.
Page 18 of 55
amount of money) and then they make alternate concessions. Eventually the
negotiators agree on a compromise.
Interest based negotiation follows a philosophy that negotiators should not get “locked” into
specific issues and bargaining positions. Interest based processes start with defining the
problem from each stakeholder’s perspective and continues with mutual education on how
each stakeholder sees the problem, and what are the interests and needs that underlie the
positions that each side defends.
Example13: “From position to interest and needs:
I don’t want paddlers on my favourite trout stream!
Why don’t you want the paddlers?
Because they ruin my experience!
Why do they ruin your experience?
Because they scream and yell on the water!
Why does that ruin your experience?
Because I prefer quiet while I am fishing!
If they were quieter you wouldn’t mind their presence?
I guess not.”
The advantage of interest based bargaining is that stakeholders are much more likely to be
able to work out mutually satisfactory solutions when their respective interests are met than
they are when one "position" wins over the other.14
In cases where a negotiation is assisted by a third party, the mediator will promote, on the
one hand, a change of negotiation dynamics (from stakeholder “against” stakeholder
towards both stakeholders working through a joint conflict resolution process in order to
solve a common problem) and a shift of strategies for conflict resolution from positional
bargaining to interest based negotiation (see figure 6).
13
Example taken from: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship: negotiations.
14
http://www.adr.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7363.
Page 19 of 55
Change of Dynamics and Strategies for Negotiation
From
Towards
Stakeholder 1
Stakeholder 1 + Stakeholder 2
Versus
Versus
Stakeholder 2
S1
a common Problem
S2
S1
Objectives of S1
Objectives of S1
S1 wins
S2 loses
Consensus
S1 loses
S2 wins
Objectives of S2
Positional Bargaining
S1 wins
S2 wins
C
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
Compromise
S1 loses
S2 loses
Common
Problem
S2
Objectives of S2
Interest Based Bargaining
Figure 6: Change of Dynamics and Strategies for Negotiation (according to Moore, 1996)
Interest based bargaining implies an exploration of the presented position. The difference
between “position” and “interest” might be explained by “The Orange Case”: Imagine a
situation where there is only one orange and your two children tell you: “I want the orange”. If
you now proposed solutions like: cut the orange in half and each gets half an orange,
nobody gets the orange. By offering an additional apple for negotiation, or buying another
orange – you can develop solutions to the problem (what the children said they wanted).
What if one child actually wants the orange to eat, but the other wanted just the peel to make
a cake? All above developed solutions turn out to be unnecessary, as there is suddenly the
option of a 100% mutual satisfaction of both interests. Obviously there should have been an
opportunity to explain the underlying reason (that is ”the interest”) for sending the (positional)
message, ”I want the orange”. The problem is: normally we do not ask the others to explain
their needs (“For which purpose do you need the orange?”) as we assume that we already
know the answer. In the above explained “Orange Case” we – as the “orange owner” – tend
to believe that each of the children wants to eat the orange and do not question this
assumption.
Page 20 of 55
Interest based bargaining allows the detection and differentiation of common, compatible
and exclusive interests and needs, which changes the dynamics of negotiation. If
stakeholders learned that there are common and compatible interests that can be fully
satisfied, they tend to approach the remaining exclusive interests as “common problems”.
This leads to the development of an additional set of interest-based possible alternatives for
solution and opens the way to overall or partial consensus.
In addition to the general dynamics, each stakeholder applies in any adversarial situation the
conflict management style, which seems to be more promising in a given moment. Conflict
management styles might be personal characteristics, but might also change according to a
given situation. Of course, there is no “right” or “wrong” style.
Mediators will have to work adequately with any conflict management styles used by the
stakeholders. According to THOMAS & KILMAN (1974-2009) the five basic strategies
stakeholders could use are: accommodation, avoidance, competition, compromise and
collaboration. The relational scheme is shown in figure 7.
Interest in Relationship
Personal or Situational Conflict Management Styles
Accommodation
“Whatever you want…”
Collaboration
“My preference is …
but what do you want?”
Compromise
“I refrain if you refraintoo…
Let us try to find the middle-way!”
Avoidance
“Conflict?
There is no conflict…”
Competition
“Either I get what I want, or…”
Factual / Material Interests
Figure 7: Conflict Management Style (source: Thomas & Kilman (1974-2009))
• Accommodation is applied in situations where it is more important to satisfy
the concerns of other stakeholders than one’s own needs, and/or when the
relationship is more important than the own factual or material interests. To
use this style shows good will, selflessness and the desire to keep peace.
Too much accommodation may be based on a strong desire to avoid change and keep
everything the same. Victim statements as well as overly helpful actions are a threat.
Accommodation normally includes giving up personal space. However, this not very
assertive but highly cooperative style is indicated when…
Page 21 of 55
- …one of the stakeholders clearly has the better solution (e. g. you propose to your
partner to go downtown by bus, your partner explains that taking the bicycle is much
quicker; besides the weather is so nice. This argument is convincing);
- …the issues under discussion are considerably less important than the relationship
with the other stakeholder(s). (e. g. it is raining cats and dogs and your radically eco–
friendly daughter wants to go to town by public transport, you yourself feel more like
taking the car, but you do not want to provoke a conflict);
- …continuous competition might infringe the relationship with the other stakeholder and
either promotes an escalation of the conflict or a destruction of the relationship. (e. g.
your colleague strongly criticises your work on a specific project, you have already tried
to explain your ideas, without success. You are due to collaborate with this colleague in
three other - much more important – projects, so it is better to avoid conflict).
• Avoidance is used when involvement or commitment seems to be useless
and a waste of energy, to reduce tensions or to “buy time”. Conflict resolution
is delayed, or avoided by sidestepping sensitive topics, withdrawing to
discussions or “diplomatic” communication in order to leave the problem
unsolved.
Avoidance in exaggeration produces a decline or even failure of communication, which –
in a commercial perspective – may provoke a break in productivity. Avoidance might
appear as a result of former negative experiences with the other stakeholder(s) or with
conflict management in general. This can lead to shyness or timidity, but also to passive
aggression, cynicism and sarcasm, which in turn affects negatively any successful and
effective communication.
On the other hand, avoidance might be the most adequate style when…
- …the issue under discussion is trivial in relation to other and more important interests
(e. g. perpetuation versus change of position of a bus stop - the old bus-stop is easier
for the bus to reach, but the change will improve significantly the security for school
children that take this bus);
- …there is neither a possibility of agreement nor for any kind of conflict resolution; the
potential damage caused by confrontation is greater than the benefits of a solution (e.
g. severe conflicts with colleagues may trigger the change of workplace);
- …one of the stakeholders has little power in relation to the other(s) (e. g. a bus driver
has an idea for improvement of service, but his superior(s) does not agree);
- … the problem is symptomatic of a larger issue to be worked on or there is a necessity
that others deal (first) with the situation (e. g. there is not enough data available;
obviously before confronting ideas some additional (scientific) investigation is needed).
Page 22 of 55
• Competition is characterised by insisting on one’s own position without
considering other stakeholders’ sentiments or opinions. The objective is to
win at any cost, the needs of the other(s) are (perceived as being) of minor
importance and the relationship with the opponent(s) is secondary.
Competing communication is based on debate and arguing. Stakeholders feel that they
must stand “their ground”. Intense competition may bring about “inner emigration” of
opponents and lead to a lack of honest feedback given by collaborators or even friends or
family members. This might create errors, as required information is understood as a
“power-factor” and withheld. Competitiveness can lead to betrayal and “back-stabbing”
and result in tension, anger and occasional outbursts of temper.
However, this highly assertive style is adequate in case …
- ...there is no time for negotiation and quick action is decisive and vital (e. g. first aid
provision after a car accident);
- …no further contact between stakeholders is expected (e. g. customer dissatisfaction
with a purchase in a specific store);
- …consensus construction is obviously impossible and there is a lack of social consent
(e.g. austerity packages in an economic crisis imply important but unpopular decisions
that have to be implemented by unpopular actions).
• Compromise is all about finding a middle way between positions and is
recommended for temporary solutions and in situations where time is
limited.
Intensive searching for compromise might lead to a lack of trust (especially concerning the
ethical and moral values of the opponent) or to concessions that do not solve the conflict
effectively. To reach a compromise parties must be willing and able to communicate, and
they have to be ready to give up part of their aspirations.
This semi assertive and semi cooperative style is especially useful when…
- …the resolution of the conflict is not worth the time and energy necessary to
collaborate and a quick and timely agreement is acceptable (e. g. distribution of
resources in a context of general consensus regarding the allocation);
- …collaboration is not possible and the conflict cannot be resolved in another way. (e.
g. unbridgeable structural characteristic of the conflict like, spatial distance between
stakeholders, time constraints, etc.).
• Collaboration Style is recommended when the main concern is to create
dialogue, a common language and a merger of stakeholders’ perspectives in
order to satisfy the interests and needs of all stakeholders as far as possible.
Collaborative decision making is based on the idea of co-responsibility of
stakeholders and aims at “win/win” solutions.
Page 23 of 55
Collaboration does not have a lot of disadvantages; however overuse may result for
instance in a waste of time and the discussion of trivial matters.
Using this style supports open dialogue, frank discussion, and creative problem solving
especially in situations where...
- …the interests of stakeholders are very important or paramount for an agreement (e. g.
the involvement of stakeholders in mobility planning);
- …neither of the stakeholders has a good solution and an exhaustive analysis is
preferred. (e. g. concerning the implementation of larger infrastructures like highways,
train stations or airports. Technical knowledge may develop solutions that are not
easily accepted by parts of civil society. Shared understanding and mutual commitment
has to be promoted in order to guarantee “peaceful” implementation);
- …wicked problems15 are to be solved, and there is neither a common definition for the
problem nor a feeling that the conflict can be solved. (e. g. regional planning projects,
where all affected stakeholders are engaged actively in order to find the best possible
solution).
Day by day the world becomes more complex, insecure and vulnerable. For many public
decisions there is no obvious, linear, technical solution that will satisfy the wide variety of
interests and needs of all or most of the affected stakeholders. Traditional top-down
decisions bear a great danger of escalating conflicts between politicians, planners,
entrepreneurs and citizens. Large parts of civil society claim their right to see their needs and
interests assured and included in planning processes and public decision making. Here
active participation is required, as trust in elected decision makers and their administrative
organisations decreased significantly during recent decades.
As to the terminology of participative processes, generally the process is called “facilitation”
and the intervener “facilitator” if there is no conflict and in conflictive situations we speak of
“mediation” and the “mediator”. In both cases external professionals, without any stake in the
outcome, conduct the reflection, decision-making and – eventually - conflict management
process. The authors of this manual think that this discussion is obsolete as in public
planning there might be no escalated conflict, but latent adversarial dynamics are the rule.
Regardless of how you describe it, directly and indirectly affected stakeholders have to have
their say, as well as adversarial groups and the interested public. The process – facilitation or
mediation – has to permit that all stakeholders can make full use of their different knowledge
and expertise. Even if there is manifest conflict and the mediation did not result in overall
consensus, the dialogue and mutual understanding between stakeholders will surely
generate innovative and sustainable solutions which everybody can – at least – live with.
Disagreement can be converted to sustainable consensus. (CASER 2009).
15
For an explanation of “Wicked Problems” see Chapter 4.5.
Page 24 of 55
As mediation is a promising method of conflict solving, consensus construction and
collaborative decision making we present – in the following chapter - an outline of the
process.
2.2.4 The Phases of the Mediation Process: Circle of Fiutak
There are hundreds of slightly different definitions for mediation. Here is one... 16
”Mediation is a process in which a third-party neutral, whether one mediator or more, acts as
a facilitator to assist in resolving a dispute between two or more parties. It is a nonadversarial approach to conflict resolution, where the parties generally communicate directly;
the role of the mediator is to facilitate communication between the parties, assist them in
focusing on the real issues of the dispute, and help generate options for settlement”.
Sound preparation and design of the process, reflecting the given situation, is a basic
condition for successful mediation. Detailed process design, conduction and dynamics
development depend on the specific case characteristics. No detailed procedural description
by theoretical means is possible without referring to a concrete case. That is why we provide
here only an overview of stages of mediation.
Any collaborative process is forward orientated and works, as such, from the present (how
the situation is now) to the near future (how the situation should be). As to the elaboration of
a solution the process starts in the present reality (how the current situation, and how its
history is perceived by the stakeholders) and works through perception of the interests,
needs, values and emotions towards a conception of a possible near future. The choice of a
consensual solution brings participants ”back to reality” designing their common future by
celebrating an agreement or developing an action plan. The detailed phases of the
mediation process are shown in Fehler! Unbekanntes Schalterargument.17.
16
Definition taken from: http://www.co.harris.tx.us/drc/meddefinition.htm.
17
Summarised and adapted from: FIUTAK, et al. 1999 and CASER, U. (2008).
Page 25 of 55
The Mediation Process
(The Circle of Fiutak)
PERCEPTION
CONCEPTION
Phase II
Phase III
HOW IT IS…
HOW IT
SHOULD BE …
WHY?
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
Phase I
Phase IV
THE
SITUATION
HOW IT
WILL BE…
REALITY
N
E
A
R
F
U
T
U
R
E
REALITY
Figure 8: Circle of Fiutak for the Mediation Process Phases (adapted from Fiutak et al., 2009)
A. Mediator’s preparation before kick-off
•
stakeholder analysis + initial contacts with the disputing parties
•
selection of a strategy to guide mediation + design of a preliminary agenda
•
collection and analysis of background information
•
logistical preparation for first session
B. Start of the mediation process (first session)
• preparation of the location
• presentation of mediator(team) and participating stakeholders
• explanation of the process + establishment of ground rules and behavioural
guidelines
• building of trust and commitment
Page 26 of 55
C. Definition of the issues to discuss and collaborative development of an agenda
• identification of the perceptions of the parties
• choice of appropriate conflict management procedures
• delimitation of topic areas and definition of issues for discussion
• setting of an agenda
In the first meetings working rules and crucial process settings will be discussed and become
consensual among all the participants. From the beginning mediators and facilitators
demonstrate impartiality and process-guiding authority in order to create confidence and
achieve participants’ commitment. Each participant provides information on the case and
describes his narrative of the situation. Mediators help participants to educate each other on
their perspective and promote mutual acceptance of different visions and “truths”. A common
range of issues to be discussed is established and the agenda is set to the convenience of
all involved stakeholders.
D. Transition from the attitude of leadership to the attitude of attendance
E. Interests and needs
• Mediator assists the parties in identifying and exploring their open and hidden
substantive, procedural and psychological interests
• Stakeholders educate each other about their interests and needs
Participants at first hand come to the table presenting the perceived conflict based on their
positions, whereas it is the satisfaction of the parties’ interests that determine a sustainable
solution. Normally all parties have several interests with different degrees of commonality
(common, compatible, exclusive). The mediator’s task is to have parties find common and
compatible interests and change discussion dynamics from adversarial discussion to joint
reflection. With growing mutual understanding, exclusive interests will be perceived as
common problems, and discussion can concentrate on possible solutions.
F. Feelings and emotions
• Mediator assists the parties to identify and explore their feelings and stimulates
stakeholders into venting emotions, commitments, salience and influence.
• Mediator accompanies and handles emotional reactions and dynamics
• Stakeholders mutually educate each other about their emotions and experienced
emotional dynamics
Page 27 of 55
The expression of emotions by parties permits the mediator to gather information about the
interests and needs of each party, to help parties build trust and to establish guidelines for
behaviour, whereas the expression of emotions permits the parties to understand each
other’s emotions. This provokes a decompression of tensions, permits a more rational
treatment of certain questions and enhances the capacity of objective analysis. Working with
participants’ emotions, mediators must be aware of their own capacity and personal limits in
guiding the process. The mediator’s challenge lies in adequate verbalising of emotions,
legitimising their expression by active listening, reframing and assertive feedback and not
losing control of the process at any time.
G. Values and believes
• Mediator assists the parties in identifying and exploring their values and beliefs, and
stops persuading mechanisms with respect to exclusive sets of values or value
systems.
• Mediator sets the ground for divergent beliefs.
Stakeholders mutually educate each other about their value systems and beliefs. Each
stakeholder has their own personal core value system from which he or she operates or
reacts. Ethical, aesthetical or doctrinal values must be openly addressed and mutually
accepted as legitimate. Mediators stop persuading mechanisms of either party and help
parties to educate each other about their values without any expectation of agreement. They
should have stakeholders explicitly acknowledge their mutually exclusive value system;
search for values all (or many) parties can agree on and translate values into interests.
H. Start of the consensus dynamics
• Mediator states and assists approval of mutual comprehension, initiates consensus
dynamics and develops an awareness among the parties of the need for options
I.
Alternatives for settlement
• Mediator assists the parties in creative generation of many alternatives using either
positional or interest bargaining
J. Assessment of the alternatives – selection of practicable options for settlement
• Mediator reviews the interests of the parties in alternative assessment procedures
• Stakeholders assess the alternatives and how interests can be met
• Stakeholders elaborate practicable options, including costs and benefits
Consensus dynamics and search for solutions begins after interests are explored, emotions
clarified and defended values known. Starting the consensus dynamics, mediators again
Page 28 of 55
promote an explicit expression of mutual comprehension and commitment to the process.
An appropriate decision making methodology has to be agreed by all stakeholders; a
readjustment of the agenda might be necessary. Participants propose alternatives for
solutions. Mediators do not appear satisfied with few or obvious alternatives, they encourage
creativity and innovation. As participants in this phase often tend to hurry, mediators will slow
down the process and give time to an exhaustive generation of alternatives.
K. Final Bargaining
• Stakeholders reach agreement through either incremental convergence, final steps to
package settlements, development of consensual formulae, or establishment of
procedural means to reach substantive agreement.
L. Formal Settlement
• Stakeholders elaborate their final agreement, identify procedural steps to implement
the agreement, establish an evaluation and monitoring procedure, formalise the
settlement and create enforcement and commitment mechanisms.
In order to select the most practicable solutions, mediators revise the stated interests and
needs of all parties, have the stakeholders eliminate unacceptable alternatives and help
parties to modify alternatives for better satisfaction. Parties are now ready to select mutually
acceptable options. The chosen options are tested for commitment and transformed in an
agreement which might be recorded. The elaboration of terms of implementation, monitoring
and evaluation might be followed by the criteria for success or failure of the settlement.
Mediation ends with the formal signing of the agreement.
M. Mediator’s detaching
• Mediator detaches from mediation process, reflects and analyses his/her intervention
and process guidance and seeks peer-evaluation and/or supervision.
A well-structured multiparty-mediation combines in an adequate way formal and informal
models of decision making, separating clearly the process from the content. Efficient
articulations between intervening stakeholders as well as continuously used, clear rules of
interaction meet the necessity of open ground and transparency. The basic condition for
success, however, is a good process design and sufficient flexibility to change the process
design if necessary or convenient.
Mediation intensifies the personal relationship between stakeholders that interact according
to commonly defined rules of participation and therefore profit from structured interaction and
constructive debate. As mediation promotes the exchange of information and ideas, it results
in a better understanding of the problems or opportunities offered by given situations and in
growing relations of mutual trust. Besides the undoubtedly useful tangible results like formal
Page 29 of 55
settlements, action plans or management models, there are a number of intangible societal
results too, that – in the long run – help to establish peaceful actively participating societies.
2.2.5 Communication with Stakeholders
As previously stated, mutual understanding is crucial for effective communication in any
scenario. This is true for all communicative situations, no matter whether the concrete
communication situation is direct (stakeholder ⇔ stakeholder) or assisted (stakeholder ⇔
facilitator/mediator ⇔stakeholder).
Of course effective communication requires training, especially when intervening in
conflictive environments. There is a huge amount of literature and training for all aspects of
communication. The thematic range and the complexity of communication transcend the
possibilities of this module or manual18. However, in the following we present some basic
communication techniques to be used in order to promote mutual understanding, to foster
vice-versa-insight in the stakeholders’ different truths and perspectives and to create a
common language.
1. Reformulation
To make sure that mutual understanding is promoted the receiver of a message
systematically feeds-back to the sender what he understood. This is a means of controlling
the development of the communication process and to monitor whether it is satisfying for all
participants, effective and productive.
⇒ Repeat what your interlocutor said in your own words, starting with an introduction “If I
understood correctly, what you said is:……. Is this what you meant?”
2. Reframing
Create with that technique a “common truth”.
⇒ Do NOT repeat what you heard, but reformulate emotional statements in mutually
consensual and not offending words. "For you the focus lies on...” or “so, you feel….”
3. Questioning
Exploring by using questions permits all participants to mutually explain and clarify content
and avoid misunderstanding. The partners feel good because active listening is
demonstrated.
⇒ Use open direct, indirect and circular questions and combinations of these.
Effective communication with stakeholders will depend on whether the facilitator/mediator
helps participants to actively understand each other, checking constantly if he himself has
18
Further readings e. g.: ROSENBERG (2003) – non-violent communication NVC; URY (1993) – negotiation; O’CONNOR, J &
SEYMOUR, J. (2003) – neuro-linguistic programming - NLP.
Page 30 of 55
understood well what all communication partners wanted to say, and if the message was
understood by everybody in the same way. Even if there seems to be no doubt, feedback
should make sure that the communication process is effective.
Three “golden rules” for effective communication:
Rule 1: Enable stakeholders to accept responsibility
When the sender says something to the receiver and the receiver does not understand what
the sender meant (or understands only partially or wrongly), the responsibility lies with the
sender (but unfortunately the sender is often not aware of this failure of communication).
Rule 2: Be aware of communication dynamics
The receiver’s “truth” lies not in the sender’s message but in the receiver’s ear. Constructing
a response, the first receiver does not react to what the sender wanted to say, but what he
understood (what is “true” for the receiver).
Rule 3: Promote the creation of a common truth
In order to build a "common truth", the mediator or facilitator should give constant feedback
to any sender to provide an opportunity for the sender to clarfiy his intentions and make sure
that everybody realises what the sender meant. Feedback is not just about repeating the
statements. The challenge is to understand and verbalise what the sender really meant.
Successful feedback clarifies the meaning of statements and avoids misunderstanding and
escalation.
2.2.6 Definition of Target Groups – Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder involvement for collaborative planning and decision making focuses on the
exchange of ideas and experiences of users and promote articulation with the existing
technical or scientific knowledge, integrating all types of knowledge and good practice into
the collaboratively chosen solution. Obviously it is crucial to identify the individuals or groups
that might be affected by a proposed action as well as those who could possibly question or
even block decisions later on. The information gathered within this analysis will be used to
assess how to involve each stakeholder best and how to address the different stakes in a
project plan, participative event/process, mediation, policy-design or other action. An
exhaustive and sound stakeholder analysis as a crucial part of stakeholder management is
paramount in collaborative, consensus-construction processes, whether conflictive or not.19
19
Further reading Stakeholder Analysis e. g.: MITCHELL, R. K., et al. (1997), TURNER, J. R. et. Al. (2002), or CAMERON,
B.G., et. al (2010).
Page 31 of 55
2.2.7 Design and Implementation of Stakeholder Plurilogue
There is no recipe and each case is different! However there are some crucial challenges. As
an exhaustive exploration would go beyond the focus of this manual we will name and
explain concisely the four most important challenges and recommend further reading. These
four most important challenges are:
• Make active public participation / collaborative conflict management happen and get all
crucial stakeholders ”in the boat”! Main challenge (besides funding): enlighten and refute
myths and fears;20
• Compose a ”waterproof” team, design an adequate process, be ready to change it at any
time and get the process done!21
• Reflect how it worked, what went well and what went wrong (and why). Evaluate your
intervention and learn the lessons!22
• Do not get frustrated and try it again!23
There are quite a lot of specific and transversal challenges concerning the design,
implementation and adaptive management of participative and collaborative decision making:
processes. In the following chapters we present a first insight on crucial frameworks
regarding design, timing, logistics, structure and facilitation of workshops or other events
(Chapter 3) and Transversal Communication Challenges (Chapter 4).
20
Further Reading e. g.: CASER (2009) - VASCONCELOS (2007) - SUSSKIND, L et al. (1999) - FISHER, R et al. (2011) International Association of Facilitators: www.iaf-world.org/index.aspx.
21
Example of Mediation or Participative Process: Project MARGov: VASCONCELOS, L. et al (2012); http://margov.isegi.unl.pt –
Project: Frankfurt Airport Mediation: http://www.forum-flughafen-region.de - Project: Eisenbahntrasse Gasteinertal:
http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/7891/Issue-132-091211-Scottish-Planner-Dec-09-electronic-version-final.pdf.
22
Further Reading e. g.: MUNÉVAR, J. C. (2005), https://www.civilrights.dot.gov/page/memorandum-mediation-action;
SUSSKIND, L et al. (1999) – Explore: www.mediate.com.
23
No further reading ☺ Just gain courage! Public participation mechanisms are still in a very early stage and many of its
possibilities are still unexplored. However it can be a very useful tool for politicians, planners/technicians, entrepreneurs and
citizens.
Page 32 of 55
3. Implementation of Participative Processes
One of the core intentions of the Transport Learning Project is to provide insights and
information on communication and participative processes aimed at the sustainable
empowerment of interested organisations, groups or individuals that might consider setting
up these kinds of processes, be they stakeholders or not. This manual intends to present a
starting point to explore and investigate “How to communicate sustainable transport issues?”
to specific groups and the larger public. The following chapters will address typical
challenges that arise and provide the reader with ideas to improve his or her communication
during the project lifetime. In this sense the manual is meant to be a “teaser” aiming to
encourage the development of practical experience and/or concrete action plans.
The next figure shows a systematisation of the problem-solving approaches in general, in
order to promote coherent project design and implementation. Any project idea should be
first checked against these criteria.
Context of Conflicts in the Field of Transportation Systems
Goals
Consensus
known
• Equipment (service stations,
emergency points...)
PROGRAMMING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
• Promote political leadership
unknown
Solutions
• Infrastructure (streets,
bridges…)
• Increase transportation
system efficiencies
• Foster innovation
EXPERIMENTS
Disagreement
•
Multi-Modal-Planning
•
Facility locations (ports, highways,
bike…)
•
Project design and rights-of-way
PARTICIPATION AND
CONSENSUS CONSTRUCTION
• Project prioritisation across
transportation agencies
• Definition of political strategies (e. g.
integration of transportation / land
use )
REDEFINITION OF ISSUES
Figure 9: Context of Conflicts in the Field of Transportation Systems (adapted from Christensen
(1995) and Balducci (2001))
Once this evaluation proves that “Participation and Consensus Construction” provides an
adequate and promising approach, a feasibility study has to be undertaken. Here the
Page 33 of 55
intervention idea has to respond positively to the following four general key conditions. These
are crucial to the successful implementation of participatory projects:
1. A recognised and trusted promoter
2. A topic to discuss or a conflict to resolve that really affects stakeholders
3. The involvement of decision-makers
4. Financial and institutional support during project lifetime.
The next step will be a detailed feasibility study. A possible framework is presented in
Chapter 3.1.
3.1. General Framework for Project Feasibility
In order to design an effective project communication, promoters are encouraged to check
the project idea, the preliminary design and the foreseen implementation strategy regarding
the level of interactivity / participation in the different project phases and overall feasibility.
The following “checklists” propose a set of criteria and are meant as tools in that sense.
3.1.1 Levels of Interactivity in Different Process Phases
Any multiparty-mediation-project necessarily operates in certain phases with different
interaction levels, as they correspond to different project stages. The crucial point, however,
is that stakeholders must be informed as to their possibilities of effective participation and
decision making. Furthermore, full transparency is required regarding the future binding of
their working results for the sponsor’s decision making, to avoid false expectations.
The possible levels of interaction are:24
• Passive: The participants are informed about what happened and about what will happen
in the context of the project.
• Informative: The participants are first informed and then get the opportunity to question
this information; all questions are answered.
• Consultative: The informed participants are encouraged to provide their interests, needs,
values, perspectives and ideas as an input for the sponsor’s further decision making.
• Functional: The participants elaborate non-binding contributions for the sponsor’s further
decision making.
24
modified from: TRIGO, M. I, 2003
Page 34 of 55
• Interactive: The participants collaborate with the sponsor in joint analysis of the situation.
The objective is to design collaboratively various solutions for the problem (concrete
projects and/or activities). These solutions, however are not binding as the final decision
lies with the sponsor.
• Mobilizing: All stakeholders (including the sponsor) engage fully in participatory decision
making. Results are binding and must be implemented.
While designing a process, the adequate level of participation in each phase of the process
must be defined. Generally, the first phase is characterized by information activities, to
provide all participants with technical and daily life knowledge on the situation. As the
process develops, interaction gets more and more intense, developing from “Passive” and
“Informative” to “Interactive” and “Mobilizing”.
3.1.2 Feasibility-Check
As to the general feasibility, the following criteria are to be analysed:
Criterion
Focus of Feasibility - Check
Core Issue(s)
• Is the project idea clear and easily understandable to all stakeholders
(especially non-technical stakeholders and/or civil society)?
• Does the project aim at behavioural change of target groups?
Approach
• Is there a clear outline of what approach the project wants to follow?
Key-Stakeholders
and Target Group
• Is it clear who the key stakeholders are and why?
• Will critical stakeholders “buy in”?
• Is the target group well defined? (Opponents and supporters)
• Who needs to change behaviour by the project? (If applicable)
• How it is ensured that the target groups of the project are included
during the project and that eventual behavioural changes will persist?
Method /
Resources /
Logistics
• Is the methodical approach promising?
• What about financial resources? Are the cost estimates realistic?
Who pays for the project? Any profits?
• Which time frame is necessary / planned? Is the timing realistic?
• Is the necessary logistical framework adequate to the project /
realistic / implementable?
• How likely is the realisation, checked against personal and
Page 35 of 55
institutional realities?
Effects and
Results
• Are the aspired changes clearly defined?
• In which way should the changes (of behaviour) appear?
• Are the milestones and deliverables well defined?
Success
• How can success be measured and judged?
• Which indicators can be used?
• Are these success indicators clearly defined?
Dissemination /
Exploitation
• Is there a strategy on how to share the final results with others?
• Which documents are produced / provided (to whom?) / published?
• How the successes could be exploited (on a local / regional / national
/ international level, physically and virtually)
Table 2: Checklist for a Project – Centred Feasibility Check (adapted from other TL material)
3.2. General Framework for Project Design
Participation projects develop in time, work with persons and cultures (personal, national
organisational) and intervene often in vulnerable socio-economic contexts. It seems quite
obvious that the development of a detailed project management plan is paramount to steer
such a project effectively. However promoters constantly have to address unexpected
situations and risks on all levels (e. g. new scientific findings to be integrated, environmental
changes, technological innovation, societal movements or political decisions). Therefore
project management must be kept adaptive and flexible throughout the project lifetime.
3.2.1 General Criteria
As impacts are expected to be significant and pay tribute to the complexity of multi-actor
contexts, the overall strategy of communicating a participative project has to be structured in
an adaptive way to make sure that different contextual characteristics are accounted for and
synergies can be identified to design and implement socially and technically robust projects.
The general framework for project design which we propose in the following is a “matrix” that
offers reflection criteria (how projects might be developed, potential problems, who is doing
what, etc.), in order to detect communication challenges in time.
Categories of the matrix are based on those proposed in the Feasibility-Check (Chapter 3.1).
Page 36 of 55
Criterion
Focus of Project Design
Project
Identification
Project owner, project title, slogan, logo etc.
Focus and issue
Description of the project: topic, focus, main challenges
Approach
Planning project versus implementation project producing tangible
results (infrastructure, equipment, behavioural change, etc.)
Key Stakeholders
and Target Group
Stakeholder analysis (all stakeholders versus potential participating
stakeholders versus stakeholders that are willing to join in)
Target Group analysis (if different from stakeholders)
Method /
Resources /
Logistics
Inventory of adopted method(s) for stakeholder analysis and specific
project components (forums, workshops, focus groups, seminars,
panels, etc.)
Inventory and exploitation of potential synergies with other projects,
organisations or individuals
Design of work packages (type and intensity of intervention, frequency
of action, duration of project-phases), risk-and contingency plan
Fundraising and allocation of resources per activity (estimated cost,
responsibilities, cost-coverage management, winnings / profit / surplus)
Sub-contracting plans
Effects and
Results
Definition of milestones and deliverables
Success
Identification and definition of indicators for success and failure
(measurable versus implicit)
Expected performance; mid and long term effects
Dissemination /
Exploitation
Communication plan (publishing, dissemination and exploitation
strategy)
Table 3: Check-List for Project Design (adapted from other TL material)
3.2.2 Process Design: Methodological Elements
The strategy for a participative process requires a sequence of events to be conducted
during project lifetime. The overall goal is to achieve the expected results within the given
timeframe and deadlines. Hereby, specific attention must be paid to the process elements
that have to be chosen and their timing, as well as to the stakeholders that will be involved in
each phase of the project. Process designers have to be creative and adapt process
Page 37 of 55
elements to any foreseeable or spontaneously challenge. In the following we propose a
nonexclusive set of usable process elements.
• Public Forum: Everybody can join in – no restriction in number and type of participants;
the whole community is invited and has a right to participate (politicians, entrepreneurs,
scientists, public servants, citizens…).
• Sectorial Meeting: Meetings with representatives of a mix of specific stakeholder groups
(e.g. representatives of all public and private transportation companies that operate in the
project territory).
• Stakeholder Session: Meetings with members of one specific stakeholder group (e.g. all
taxi drivers that operate in the project territory, or all public transport bus drivers).
• Roundtable: Expert meeting on a certain topic - open to the public. Specialists answer
the questions of the participants. (e.g. logistic experts from different organizations clarify
political regulation, legislation prerequisites and/or market pressures).
• Panel: Closed thematic expert meeting (to create a confidential environment that allows
and promotes the exchange of sensitive information, the identification of preliminary
options or the discussion of further plans).
• e-Participation and other Online Activities: (e.g. data visualization, social simulation,
surveys, blogs, social networking, etc).
3.2.3 Event Design: General Methodological Considerations
As to event design, a variety of logistic reflections (timing, venue, etc.) and methodological
decisions (use of procedural elements) are required. A productive event will be based on the
alternation of group work phases and plenary sessions, where the groups’ results are
presented and discussed. Crucial for this process is the working group layout in different
phases of the process. Two general aspects, compositions of working groups and dimension
of working groups have to be considered, each of them provoking specific effects.25
Working Groups: Composition
• Homogeneous Actors’ Working Groups
Politicians, civil servants, entrepreneurs and citizens join in separate working groups.
Similar visions and perspectives of the participants towards the situation characterize
homogeneous working groups. Group members will speak a common language and have
more or less equal problems, interests and necessities. Dynamics of strong hierarchical
25
Translated from: CASER, U. (2008)
Page 38 of 55
attitudes and intense competition are possible. The outcome will be quite consensual with
specific solutions.
• Mixed Actors’ Working Groups
Members of different actor groups join in separate working groups. Perspectives and
visions will be as different, as problems, interests and necessities are. Open dialogue may
be conditioned by personal relationship problems, bad experiences or prejudices. If found,
solutions will be less specific but deeply discussed and therefore more balanced and
possible to implement, compared to those developed in homogenous working groups.
• Thematic Working Groups
In thematic working groups, the visions, perspectives, language, interests and necessities
can be similar, different, or even opposing. A lot of technical and daily-life-knowledge is
concentrated here and commitment is generally high as participants enroll by personal or
professional interest. Mediators/facilitators have to guarantee an equilibrated number of
participants in each parallel group (limiting for example the number of participants for
each topic) and foresee a rotation (to avoid frustration if participants cannot work on their
preferred topic in a “first round”). Outcomes are either no consensus at all, or solutions
that are specific, well discussed and quite feasible.
• Occasional Working Groups
Participants draw lots for being assigned to a group. Tossing is a neutral, transparent
method to compose working groups and especially indicated in openly adversarial
situations. An even number of participants per group is guaranteed, but there is no control
over equality or difference of visions, perspectives, language, and interests or needs that
meet in each group. However, solutions might be extremely creative.
Working Groups: Dimension
• Individual Reflection: 1 participant per group
All participants work without interaction. The individual presentation of results forces
participants to stand publicly for their thoughts or opinion, which might intimidate certain
participants.
• Pairs: 2 participants per group
Working in pairs allows an autonomous group-work where all participants think and
contribute. Dysfunctional groups are easily recognizable and allow quick intervention in
order to restore group effectiveness. Working in pairs “breaks the ice”, promotes a lively
dialogue, joint idea generation and often a quick development of consensual results.
• Group-Work: 3-5 participants per group
3-5 participants generally enroll in autonomous, effective and creative interaction. To ease
the start, mediators should provide simple worksheets to avoid discussions in the groups
on how to structure the results. Groups of 3 to 5 members develop their own identity and
Page 39 of 55
rhythm. The members feel secure, often have fun and happily share their results with the
other working groups (e.g. in a plenary session). Mediators are in charge for time
management and task clarification if necessary or required.
• Group-Work: 6-10 participants per group
An independent mediator must facilitate Brainstorming or discussions in groups of 6-10
participants, as free interaction leads to breaking up in sub-groups or confusion at the
table. The intervention of a rapporteur might be useful for taking publicly notes (on a flipchart) to create a common group memory.
• Group-Work: more than 10 participants per group)
Groups up to 25 participants require a structured facilitation (mediator + rapporteur).
Larger groups should either be split up in smaller groups or introduced to specific
methodologies like Open Space or similar. Traditional plenary formats do not allow any
effective debate.
From the above we understand that there is no “paradigmatic” model project in order to
implement participation and consensus construction, each case is different. However reconsidering the issue of effective communication as outlined in Chapter 2, a systematic
approach is possible as there are transversal communication challenges that have to be
overcome in order to promote projects successfully and develop sound implementation
strategies. In Chapter 4 we present the six most common transversal communication
challenges appearing in participative approaches.
Page 40 of 55
4. Transversal Communication Challenges
This part of the manual is dedicated to typical transversal communication challenges in
projects that follow participatory approaches. The central idea of this component is to raise
the awareness and creativity of the reader; therefore we provide some contextual examples
for illustration within each TCC. Of course all TCC are linked to each other, and quite often
more than one will have expression in a given project. Promoters should reflect on these
TCCs while designing their project plan to minimise expectable adverse communication
challenges and to avoid pitfalls.
4.1. TCC 1 – The Language/Knowledge Dilemma
The language / knowledge dilemma arises when targeted key actors (stakeholder-groups)
are characterised by a variety of professional, educational or cultural backgrounds (e. g.
immigrants / inhabitants; jurists / engineers; taxi drivers / cyclists; men / women, etc.) ergo
different “languages” and “knowledge” have to be addressed to get stakeholders efficiently
involved.
“Language” means here any system of signs (words, mimics, gestures, etc.) for encoding
and decoding information, either in a linguistic / philological sense or just as a system of rules
relating symbols to meanings.26
“Knowledge” is acquaintance with someone or something, and as such the sum of facts,
information, and skills which a stakeholder may have acquired through experience or
education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be
implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of
a subject); and it can be more or less formal or systematic.27
In participative processes language and knowledge are intrinsically linked, so process design
and chosen methodology must be aware of participants’ language(s) and knowledge(s). If
the methodology and working material are produced in a – for certain participants - not
understandable language they would have great difficulty or even be incapable of joining the
process, becoming knowledgeable and contributing their knowledge to solution finding or
conflict resolution.
Examples:
• Process interventions or working material in “hermetic technical language” which parts of
civil society do not understand
• Process design based on writing (e. g. work sheets) but certain participants are illiterate
26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language.
27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge.
Page 41 of 55
• Methodological components are based on map-reading or the interpretation of technical
documents. Certain participants (e.g. engineers, planners) are well trained. Other
participants have no experience with this type of document (e. g. citizens)
Project design and communication plans in this context must focus on the articulation of
different types of knowledge, in order to maximize an emerging common knowledge enriched
with all contributions.
4.2. TCC 2 – Strong Hierarchies and Power Imbalance
From a simplistic point of view, participation means that representatives of government /
municipalities, enterprise people and representatives of civil society (organisations) sit
together with a neutral facilitator/mediator to find a binding solution for a specific situation
which involves and affects all participants. Obviously this setting is always characterised by
the existing power dynamics between the disputing parties and as such by complex
relationships between the negotiating power of participants and the philosophy of a
mediation process.
Power imbalances in participative processes can assume a variety of expressions, e. g.
(CHRISTOPHERSON 2009):
• Belief systems, personality and self-esteem: participants think they are powerful; this
might range from “powerful stakeholders” in the hierarchic sense of competence for topdown decisions, or “powerful stakeholders” in a bottom up understanding. A walk out of a
few decisive people may paralyse a whole enterprise or a complete system.
• Gender, race/ethnicity or religion: In certain societies women are less powerful than men,
and ethnic white people more powerful than other ethnic groups. Certain ethnic groups
(eg Gypsies, Africans) or followers of specific spiritual groups can also have less social
status than others.
• Political or economical power, income and assets: The more assets a stakeholder holds
the more power he has. With increasing income comes increasing power.
• Knowledge and education: Power comes on the one hand with a higher level of scholarly
education and on the other hand with the amount of available information a stakeholder
has (and his ability or willingness to withhold or reveal it).
• Force, physical and/or emotional abuse: The intention and readiness of a stakeholder to
use violence, coercion or threats creates power imbalances as it engenders fear in others.
A collaborative dialogue might be impossible.
Not all existing power imbalances affect discussion negatively and hinder stakeholders from
developing collaboratively consensual settlements. Of course, the degree of power
somebody has, the awareness of it, and whether or not the existing power is exercised are
important aspects of communication and dialogue dynamics.
Page 42 of 55
One of the crucial tasks of mediators and facilitators is to calibrate the power imbalances
methodologically, targeting the “empowerment” of weaker stakeholders. However
empowerment does not mean protection or preference for one participant or another but to
enable individuals or groups to fully access authority and influence, and to employ that
strength when engaging with other people, institutions or society28. However, a truly
participative process is impossible when the power imbalances between the stakeholders
affect the ability to make decisions about personal or collective issues.
Examples:
• Strong stakeholders (e. g. governmental, municipal or commercial decision makers) insist
on top-down decisions, whereas other stakeholders would prefer interest based
bargaining in a collaborative process
• Stakeholder analysis (or target group analysis) reveals significant and threatening power
imbalance.
• Access to information is not equal for all stakeholders and/or target groups.
To deal with this TCC there is a need for explicit empowerment mechanisms in favour of
certain individual or institutionalised stakeholders without putting the more powerful ones in
procedural disadvantage. Throughout all project lifetimes, adequate communication settings
have to be implemented in order to involve all stakeholders equally.
4.3. TCC 3 – External versus Internal Mediation
As stated before, the mediator is by definition a neutral, impartial party who is independent
financially, psychologically and substantively from the issues under discussion. So ideally
mediators/facilitators should be trustworthy and honest, and able to provide reassurance in
situations of mutual mistrust. (KYDD 2005).
But what if the mediator is not seen as neutral? This can happen especially when the
decision falls on an internal mediator. An internal facilitator is in neither of the three above
mentioned perspectives, independent (he is paid by the sponsor, often a member of the
hierarchy of the enterprise or public service and as such under pressure by higher levels,
and sometimes has a personal/professional interest in the topics for discussion.)
Internal mediators can be: in-house-managers at all levels, human resource professionals,
in-company lawyers, intra-organisational public servants, employees, employee
representatives and anyone belonging to one of the stakeholder groups but interested in
managing conflict more effectively in a given adversarial, or planning situation.
Mediators that find themselves acting as internal third “impartials” often have significant
difficulty in reassuring more suspicious stakeholders (those not linked to the organisation to
which the mediator belongs) that he or she is genuinely interested in collaborative consensus
28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empowerment.
Page 43 of 55
construction, and not trying to deceive them. Differences as to procedural characteristics of
mediation between external and internal mediators are compiled in the next table.
Perspective
External Mediator
Internal Mediator
General
Perception of
Disputes
• Disputes are normal and often an
opportunity for betterment.
• Conflict/dispute may or may not be
normal and may be dysfunctional for
the group / organisation, enterprise
Boundaries of
Disputes
Relationship
• Conflicts are the result of perceived
or actual competing interests
between stakeholders
• Dispute is isolated from other
activities of the stakeholders /
boundaries may be clearly defined or
nebulous.
• Mediator is completely independent
to the relationships between all
stakeholders
Stakeholders
• Stakeholders may or may not be
clearly identified.
• If not, a sound stakeholder-analysis
is necessary
Relationship
from mediator
to stakeholders
• Mediator is an unrelated third party
with limited interaction, restricted to
the discussion of issues
• Conflicts are potentially a threat.
• Boundaries are defined by the type
of organisation, roles and task
definitions.
• Dispute is embedded in ongoing
work and interpersonal relationship
of the internal mediator
• Stakeholders seem to be clearly
defined, as to the perspective of the
organisation the mediator belongs to.
• In any case a sound stakeholderanalysis is necessary
• Mediator has an ongoing relationship
and interaction with (parts of the)
stakeholders
• Mediator has only procedural
authority, which is delegated to the
mediator by the parties
Impartiality
Power /
authority of
stakeholders
towards
mediator
• Mediator has an impartial stance
toward parties and/or issues
• Mediator may or may not be impartial
toward parties and/or issues
• No investment in a particular
outcome
• Mediator may have a substantive
interest in a particular outcome
• Relative equality of power (within the
process).
• May or may not be equal in power /
authority. Mediator himself might
have decision making competence
• Authority relationship to the
stakeholders must be clarified
Page 44 of 55
Substantive
Involvement
Desired
Outcome
Confidentiality
Role in
implementation
• No or few claims to substantive
expertise;
• May be substantive expert on issue
in dispute;
• Minimal/no involvement in providing
substantive assistance to the parties.
• Substantive role of mediator must be
defined.
• Workable settlement that is
procedurally and substantively
acceptable to all stakeholders.
• Establishment of equilibrium,
avoidance or mitigation of conflict.
• Generally mediator maintains
confidentiality of information revealed
in mediation
• May or may not be guaranteed
• Mediator is rarely involved in
implementation or monitoring of
decisions and projects
• Mediator may be involved in
implementation or monitoring of
decisions and projects
• Legitimisation of already taken
decisions
• Limits of confidentiality must be
defined
• Role of mediator must be defined
Table 4: Comparison between external and internal mediation/Facilitation regarding essential process
characteristics (adapted from Moore (1996))
In order to reach satisfactory settlement for all stakeholders, good planning or consensual
implementation of projects, trust building is an important task for mediators.
Examples:
• Facilitation of meetings, workshops, seminars, project development sessions in a multistakeholder environment by an internal facilitator caused by a lack of financial resources
to contract an external mediator or absence of awareness for the potential effects).
• Regulation, development plan or project proposal is (nearly) ready to be implemented,
and a conflict with stakeholders is foreseeable.
• Doubts whether an internal mediator would be able to act neutrally and to create trust.
It is a highly strategic decision whether to opt for a “do-it-yourself” solution or to contract an
external mediator/facilitator to design and guide participatory projects or single events
(forums, workshops or meetings).
4.4. TCC 4 – Large Amounts of Complex Data
Working with large amounts of complex data requires time and specific preparation,
especially as data and information, as well as their use and interpretation, are often one of
the causes for discussion, dispute and conflict (see Chapters 4.1.2 and 4.2.2). On the other
Page 45 of 55
hand stakeholders have to be able to access data, as information gathering and evaluation is
crucially important before making any decisions.
One of the important questions in participative processes is: How to design and manage the
information and communication strategy, bearing in mind that29 deciding is not static or onedimensional, but a dynamic process that can go to and fro. Stakeholders constantly reevaluate their attitude in the light of new information and might change their mind at any
stage of a process. Furthermore there is probably no one right decision and indecision is a
decision not to decide. There are always risks involved in deciding and in not deciding (a
good decision can provoke a bad outcome and vice versa).
Basically there are two main communication strategies for handling large amounts of data:
“seek” or “show”30. Transferred to the context of communication and collaborative decision
making the paradigms mean that the design of a communication plan requires a decision on
how to display information to stakeholders and how to articulate both paradigms.
• The ”Seek Paradigm”: Have the Stakeholders ask for what they want
When this paradigm is chosen, data is provided in a form that lets users go directly to the
information they are looking for, rather than having to scan through all available data. This
is a quick information process, but it implies that stakeholders know what to look for.
Search can be simple (result: list of all available data containing a key-word, or related to
a specific topic), through categories (result: grouped data/information related to a key
word or chosen topic) or criteria based (result: data and information appears in a sort-able
grid or matrix related to a key-word or chosen topic). Of course the stakeholders’ search
behaviour is not always the same. It may vary with expertise and technical knowledge,
cognitive style, goal, and mode of seeking. Furthermore all of these factors interact in
complex ways and behaviours will vary depending on volatile criteria (e. g.: the
stakeholder is under pressure, in a bad mood, has read an article on the topic in a
newspaper, etc.). The potential communicator cannot select the behaviour that a
stakeholder will follow when conducting his search, therefore it is not possible to predict
whether specific information or data will be needed or not.
• The “Show Paradigm”: Make all information available, and let the stakeholder explore it
Here the focus of the information and dissemination strategy is to allow for viewing and
organisation of the full set of data. The problem with the show paradigm is that it is used
to present data and thereby creates opportunities for manipulation, as the “owner” of the
data decides what to show. On the other hand, by the large amount of data, the
stakeholder can get inspired, frustrated or lost when they feel they never will overlook the
sheer volume of data and its complexity.
29
Systematization taken from: http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/ced/pdf/informed-decision-making.pdf.
30
The idea of using here the “seek or show paradigms for handling large amounts of data” are taken from the IT contexts (the
Seek (Search) paradigm is typically used in web sites, and the Show (View Based Lists) paradigm exists mainly in desktop
applications. (NEIL, T. 2008).
Page 46 of 55
In any case a communication strategy for a large amount of complex data should establish
general objectives and specific milestones. Its design should be audience-specific and permit
the promotion of a clear and understandable message. These tools and activities have to be
defined, resources found and timescales designed. After the conduction of events or
campaigns, evaluation and amendment should be considered. (HOVLAND, 2005).
Examples31:
• Developing advice for policy makers on environmentally sustainable transport
• Campaigns to change present transport behaviour
• Interventions that change the mobility context physically (e. g. new technologies, services,
infrastructures, laws and incentives) that need to be communicated to users in order to
provide information about the pros and cons of possible action options
Projects which influence decision making processes by social marketing (e. g. using soft
transport policy measures) or intend to motivate stakeholders for behavioural change (e. g.
use different mobility options, test new alternative travel options, etc.) will have to decide
whether to adopt “seek” or “show” as they need specific and effective strategies of handling
large amounts of complex data.
4.5. TCC 5 – Wicked Problems
The term ”wicked problem” (RITTEL & WEBBER, 1973)32 " describes a problem in social
planning that is ”difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and
changing requirements that are often difficult to recognise. Moreover, because of complex
interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create
other problems.”33
The opposite of “wicked problems” are “tame problems”. Following CONKLIN (2001) tame
problems are characterised by:
• a relatively well-defined and stable problem statement
• a definite stopping point (we know when a solution is reached)
• a solution which can be objectively evaluated as being right or wrong
• belongs to a class of similar problems which can be solved in a similar manner
• solutions which can be tried and abandoned
According to RITCHEY (2007) characteristics of wicked problems are:
31
For a conceptual framework of behavioural based motivation changes: BAMBERG, S. et al. (2008).
32
Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber formally described the concept of wicked problems.
33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem#endnote_2.
Page 47 of 55
• There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is itself a
wicked problem).
• Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
• Wicked problems have no “final” solution – since there are no objective criteria for such.
The problem is continually evolving and mutating, and it is considered to be solved when
there is a feeling that nothing more can be done.
• Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no
opportunity to learn by trial and error as such and there is also no immediate or ultimate
test of a solution.
• Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of
potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be
incorporated into the plan.
• All wicked problems are essentially unique and most of them can be considered to be a
symptom of another problem.
• The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in many
ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
• The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the
actions they generate).
As wicked problems never have a clear definition, they are not workable by conventional
scientific approach (define the problem – analysis – solution of the problem in sequential
steps) The three strategies to work with wicked problems, identified by ROBERTS (2000),
are compiled in the next table.
Strategy
Effect
Consequence
Authoritative
Problem
Solving
The responsibility for
solving the problems is
given to a group of few
people
Reduces complexity
by elimination of
different views of
excluded stakeholders
Authorities and experts charged
with solving the problem may
not have an appreciation of all
the perspectives needed to
tackle the problem
Competitive
Problem
Solving
Direct confrontation of
opposing points of
view, requiring parties
that hold these views
to come up with their
preferred solutions.
Different solutions can
be weighed up against
each other and the
best one chosen
Adversarial approach,
knowledge sharing is
discouraged. So the parties
involved may not have an
incentive to come up with their
best possible solution.
Collaborative
Problem
Engages all affected
stakeholders actively
People who are being
affected by the
To promote shared
understanding and commitment
Page 48 of 55
Solving
in order to find the best
possible solution for all
stakeholders
decisions change into
participants of the
planning process
to solving a wicked problem is a
time-consuming process (new
technologies may help to reduce
time)
Table 5: Strategies to tackle wicked problems (source: Roberts (2000))
Wicked problems lead to conflicts and require consensus construction interventions.
Collaborative problem solving might tackle them most effectively. RITCHEY (2007)
recommends: “As many stakeholders as possible should be engaged in the work, in order to
create a common terminology, common problem concept and common modelling framework.
Principal stakeholders and subject specialists should be brought together in a series of
workshops to collectively (1) structure as much of the problem space as possible, (2)
synthesise solution spaces, (3) explore multiple solutions on the basis of different drivers and
interests and (4) analyse stakeholder structures. The different stakeholders do not have to
agree on a single, common solution, but must be encouraged to understand each other's
positions and contexts.”
Examples:
• How to solve congestion? (GRUSH, 2009) Every thinkable solution might resolve part of
the congestion problem, but creates new issues. E. g. A new lane invites more traffic. A
new transit service is underused. An increase in bicycle use creates a safety issue, etc.
• How to organise and steer the transportation planning process in the face of bounded
rationality, unbounded uncertainty.(KISHTY, 2010)
• How to solve the economic crisis?
As most projects have to deal with some tame and some wicked problems, it is important to
be aware of wicked components during design and implementation, in order to be able to
refine the communication strategy timely and adequately.
4.6. TCC 6 – Bribery and Corruption
Corruption is a widespread phenomenon in many sectors of public life in most European
countries. Its expression is as difficult to systematise as its effects are. Sometimes a large
grey economy triggers corruption or smuggling networks and organised crime groups boost
the problem. But it has not necessarily to come to real criminality. Lack of political agreement
can open the way to political bargains at municipal level, non-transparent systems of the
distribution of financial resources and the absence of effective control. Corrupt dynamics
might exist, although there is rarely any direct and provable evidence. Traditional top-downdecision-making and ‘closed door policy’ make fighting corruption difficult.
To cope with corruption, transparency and broad participation of civil society is paramount.
In this sense effective communication is crucially important, not only between municipal
Page 49 of 55
administrations, but also between other bodies and institutions involved in providing public
services, the business world and civil society.34
As in lots of other fields in transport infrastructure and services, citizens’ participation is vital
to sustainable development; any project must be locally accepted and “owned” to be
sustainable on the long run. LANGSETH (1999) suggests: “The broader the ownership the
better. Therefore, anti-corruption strategies should work to greatly enhance participation in
the design, implementation and evaluation of programs to improve accountability.”
The main focus should lie in empowering local stakeholders to approach technical experts to
ask for the development of technically competent but locally adapted and ”owned” solutions
to satisfy users’ interests and needs. This project strategy ensures access to information and
helps to balance competing interests, avoiding opportunities for bribery and corruption.
Looking at the larger picture, the effects of active involvement of civil society and public
participation are quite promising in order to prevent corruption: constructing social consensus
permits reform of programmes in a transparent way on the one hand and universally
accepted development dynamics on the other.
Examples:
• Identification of bribery and corruption sources (e. g. in public contracting) and initiatives
for anti-corruption-capacity building within institutions, organisations, enterprises, NGOs
and CSOs.
• Implementation of information management systems to promote institutional disclosure
policy along with citizens’ oversight or civil society involvement.
• Implementation of action plans for better governance and accountability within sustainable
transport and mobility projects (e. g. set up mechanism for comments, suggestions,
recommendations and complaints)
Projects where bribery or corruption is a specific potential threat often deal with physical
infrastructure and equipment construction (here bribery and corruption challenges and
opportunities exist throughout the life cycle), or tackle transport services that operate within a
corrupt or weak institutional environment.35
34
Transparency International is currently developing a topic guide on: Transport, energy and infrastructure – coming soon on:
http://gateway.transparency.org/guides.
35
Taken from: WORLDBANK (2011): Where does corruption manifest itself in the transport sector?
Page 50 of 55
5. Final Considerations
Highly complex problems in fragmented arenas require new approaches and offer a wide
field of new opportunities for transport experts. Fragmented arenas are a challenge for these
professionals. The trend seems to be towards working with multi-stakeholders in these
contexts. Transport experts working in public policy arenas cannot ignore this and will have
to be able to work with these new methodologies to integrate new forms of operation while
seeking solutions for complex problems.
Our main argument supporting the implementation of participative processes is that
successful transport planning is not something that can be done any more in isolation by any
player at any organisational level. We believe that collaborative consensus construction via
professional facilitation and mediation, that are based on the intentional implementation of
multi-organisational (including Civil Society) expertise and multidisciplinary partnership, can
generate applicable knowledge for better and more sustainable transport. A better world
may be the result.
This manual is intended to offer expertise, techniques and inspiration.
Page 51 of 55
6. Bibliography
Books and Papers
BALDUCCI, J. (2001): Complex Problems.- Oral Presentation at the DCEA/FCT, Universidade Nova
de Lisboa (not published)
BAMBERG, S. et. al (2011): Evaluation of Soft Transport Policy Measures Based on Behavioural
Theory.- in: Transport Policy 18, pp 228–235; Elsevier
Available at: https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/amc/research/files/2011/07/Bamberg-Behaviour-theory.pdf
BATESON, G. (1972): Steps to an Ecology of Mind.- 533 p, University of Chicago Press ISBN-9780226039053
BLAKE, R. & MOUTON, J. (1964): The Managerial Grid.- 350 p.; Houston: Gulf Publishing Co (Paperback Edition 1994: ISBN-978-0884152521)
CAMERON, B.G., et. al (2010): Goals for Space Exploration Based on Stakeholder Network Value
Considerations.- in: Acta Astronautica; Available at: doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.11.003.
CASER, U. (2008): как дирижировать симфоническим диалогом? – медиация и координация в
сложных многосторонних процессах (How to Conduct a Sinfonic Dialogue? Mediation and
Facilitation of Complex Multiparty Processes).- in: Mediacia e Prava (медиация и право); Vol 4, p.
46-55; Moscow
CASER, U. (2009): Socio-Environmental Mediation: Myths and Fears.- in: Revista de Estudos
Universitários – Dossiê Ciência e Controvérsia; , v. 35, n. 2, p. 67-83; Sorocaba
CHRISTENSEN, K. (1995): Coping with Uncertainty in Planning.- in: APA Journal, p 63-73; Lisbon
CHRISTOPHERSON, J. (2009): Power Imbalances in Mediation.- 3p; Available at: http://www.ddclaw.com/news_events/articlesofinterest/pdfs/Power%20Imbalances%20In%20Mediation.pdf
CONKLIN, J. (2001): Wicked Problems and Social Complexity.- CogNexus Institute. Available at:
http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf.
FISHER, R et al. (2011): Getting to Yes - Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.- 240 p.; revised
Edition; Penguin; ISBN-978-0143118756
FIUTAK, T. et al. (2009): Le médiateur dans l'arène : Réflexion sur l'art de la médiation.- 214 p.; Erès
GALTUNG, J. (1996): Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization.292 p.; Sage Publications Ltd; ISBN-13: 978-0803975118
GLASL, F. (1999): Confronting Conflict: A First-Aid Kit for Handling Conflict.- 192 p.; Hawthorn Pr
(Hawthorn House); ISBN-13: 978-1869890711
GRUSH, B. (2009): Wicked Problems: Part I, TRAFFIC CONGESTION.- Blog: Grush Hour.- Available
at: http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2009/10/wicked-problems-part-i-traffic.html
HOVLAND, I. (2005): Planning Tools: How to write a communications strategy; 2p; Available at:
http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/6369.pdf
KHISTY, C. J. (2010): Possibilities of Steering the Transportation Planning Process in the Face of
Bounded Rationality and Unbounded Uncertainty.Available at: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.138.4770-2.pdf
Page 52 of 55
KYDD, A. (2005): The Honest Broker: Mediation and Mistrust.- 39 p;
Available at: http://www.yale.edu/irspeakers/Kydd.pdf
LANGSETH, P. (1999): Prevention: An Effective Tool to Reduce Corruption.- 45 p.; Paper presented
at the ISPAC conference on Responding to the Challenge of Corruption, 19 November 1999,
Milan; Available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/gpacpublications/cicp2.pdf
MITCHELL, R., et al. (1997): Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the
Principle of Who and What really Counts.- in: Academy of Management Review 22(4): p 853 - 888.
MOORE, C. (1996): Mediation and Environmental Dispute Management.- Trainingsworkshop –
Handouts.- [ed: GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit – Pilotvorhaben
Institutionenentwicklung im Umweltbereich - PVI & CDR Associates].- 25.-29.08.1997; Bonn
MOORE, C. (2003): The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict.- 500p (p. 6061); 3rd edition, Jossey-Bass; San Francisco CA; ISBN: 978-0787964467
MUNÉVAR, J. C. (2005): A New Framework for the Evaluation of Mediation Success.- in: BSIS
Journal of International Studies; Vol. 2, p 70.-93; Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/brussels/
journal/documents/2005/Munevar-A New Framework for the Evaluation of Mediation Success.pdf
NEIL, T. (2008): Seek or Show: Two Design Paradigms for Lots of Data.- Blog.- Available at:
http://theresaneil.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/seek-or-show-two-design-paradigms-for-lots-of-data/
O’CONNOR, J & SEYMOUR, J. (2003):Introducing NLP Neuro-Linguistic Programming.- 245 p.
Thorsons; (Reissue); ISBN-978-1855383449
RITCHEY, T. (last revised 2007): Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes with Morphological
Analysis.- in: Swedish Morphological Society, 7p
Available at: http://www.swemorph.com/pdf/wp.pdf
RITTEL, H. & WEBBER, M. (1973): Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.- in: Policy Sciences,
Vol. 4, pp 155-169, Elsevier, Inc., Amsterdam
Available at: www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf
Roberts, N.C. (2000): Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution.- in: The International
Public Management Review; Vol. 1 (1); p. 1-19; St. Gallen
ROSENBERG, M. B. (2003): Nonviolent communication: a language of life.- 222 p.; 2nd Edition;
PuddleDancer Press; ISBN-978-1892005038
RUESCH, J. & BATESON, G. (1951): Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry.- W.W. Norton
& Company (Paperback Edition 2006: ISBN-978-1412806145 )
SCHULZ v. THUN, F. (2010): Miteinander reden 1: Störungen und Klärungen. Allgemeine Psychologie
der Kommunikation.- 320 p; 48th Edition; rororo; Hamburg, ISBN-978-3499174896
SUSSKIND, L et al. (1999): The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching
agreement.- 1147 p.; SAGE, ISBN-978-0761908449
THOMAS, K. W. (2002): Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.-, 16 p.; Mountain View, CA
(Paperback Edition 2002: ASIN: B0006SA34O)
TRIGO, M. I. (2003): Participatory approaches to the resolution of conflicts within protected
landscapes: a case study in the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina,
Portugal; Master-Thesis FCT-UNL Lisbon; (mailto:[email protected])
Page 53 of 55
TURNER, J. R. et. al. (2002): The project manager as change agent: leadership, influence and
negotiation.- 264 p.; New York : McGraw-Hill; ISBN-0077077415
URY, W. (1993): Getting Past No.- 208 p.; Revised edition; Bantam; ISBN-978-0553371314
VASCONCELOS, L. (2007): Participatory governance in complex projects, pp. 114-124, in Reservoir
and River Basin Management; M. SOBRAL, M. & GUNKEL, G. (Eds.) Technical University of Berlin
VASCONCELOS, L. et al: (2012.a): MARGov - Setting the ground for the governance of marine
protected areas.- in: Ocean & Coastal Management; Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2011.07.006
VASCONCELOS, L. et al. (2012.b) MARGOV – building social sustainability. In: Journal of Coastal
Conservation (in press)
WATZLAVICK, P. et al (1967): Pragmatics of Human Communication - A Study of Interactional
Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes.- 296 p.; W. W. Norton & Company (Paperback Edition
2011: ISBN-978-0393707076)
WORLDBANK (2011): Where does corruption manifest itself in the transport sector?.- in: South Asia:
Governance and Transport: Developing Frameworks.- Available at:
web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/EXTSARREGTOPTRAN
SPORT/0,,contentMDK:21337820~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:579598,00.html
Interesting Sites to Explore…
Communication and Conflict-Management
Communication resources: www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcom.html
Communication - Optical Illusions: www.eyetricks.com/illusions.htm
Conflict Analysis: www.rantcollective.net/article.php?id=15
Glasl: www.perspectus.se/tjordan/Escalationmodel.html
Schulz v. Thun: www.schulz-von-thun.de/index.php?article_id=173&clang=0
Schulz v.Thun: http://laofutze.wordpress.com/tag/friedemann-schulz-von-thun-communication-model
Watzlawick: www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Theory/watzlawick/
Negotiation, Facilitation and Mediation
Case Study:
www.forum-flughafen-region.de/en/service/archive-mediation-rdf
Case Study:
www.rtpi.org.uk/download/7891/Issue-132-091211-Scottish-Planner-Dec-09electronic-version-final.pdf
Case Study:
http://margov.isegi.unl.pt
Conflict Management Style: http://web.mit.edu/collaboration/mainsite/modules/module1/1.11.5.html
Decision Making: www.fldoe.org/workforce/ced/pdf/informed-decision-making.pdf
International Association of Facilitators: www.iaf-world.org/index.aspx
Mediation – Evaluation: www.civilrights.dot.gov/page/memorandum-mediation-action
Page 54 of 55
Mediation Glossary: www.mediationdictionary.com/pdf/mediationdictionary.pdf
Mediation Glossary: www.co.harris.tx.us/drc/meddefinition.htm
Mediation Resources: www.mediate.com
Negotiation: www.adr.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7363
Negotiation: www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:negotiations
Stakeholder Analysis: http://wn.com/stakeholder_analysis
Professional Training Power Points
CASER, U. (2012): Conflict Management Styles – Mediation Training Course (Module: 4 hrs)
VASCONCELOS, L. & CASER, U. (2011): PPA I - Participação Pública Activa I: Introdução às
Técnicas e Metodologias / PPA I - Active Public Participation I: Introduction to Techniques and
Methodologies. Professional Training Course (CD) 16 hrs
VASCONCELOS, L. & CASER, U. (2011): PPA II - Participação Pública Activa II: Formação de
Facilitadores e Mediadores Multiparte / PPA II - Active Public Participation II: Training of Multiparty
Mediators. Professional Training Course (CD) 16 hrs
VASCONCELOS, L. & CASER, U. (2011): PPA III - Participação Pública Activa III: Gestão de
Conflitos. / PPA III - Active Public Participation III: Conflict Management. Professional Training Course
(CD) 16 hrs
VASCONCELOS, L. & CASER, U. (2011): PPA IV - Participação Pública Activa IV: Negociação e
Mediação / PPA IV - Active Public Participation IV: Negotiation and Mediation. Professional Training
Course (CD) 16 hrs
VASCONCELOS, L. & CASER, U. (2011): PPA V - Participação Pública Activa V Consultadoria
Participada e Marketing / PPA V - Active Public Participation V: Participative Consulting and
Marketing. Professional Training Course (CD) 16 hrs
Page 55 of 55

Communication training

Transcription

Similar documents

July 2014 - Central Susquehanna Valley Mediation Center, Inc.

The Baroness

View the FY2015 CDSC Annual Report

FROM COURTROOM TO CONFERENCE ROOM: Gregory J. Haleyl

Receiver`s Application for Order to Show Cause as to why Andris

Slayer Wicked

Annual Report - Dispute Resolution Center of Thurston County

UDAF Resources - Utah Farm Bureau

Receiver`s Application for Supplemental Relief Under Order Holding

Out Of Fire - wicked plan

SE Regional Offshore Wind Stakeholder Engagement