Phillip Glenn
Emerson College, Boston, MA, USA
Explaining, reformulating, forwarding, rejecting:
Managing group consensus
Summary: In management as well as the public arena there is a growing emphasis on participatory, consensus-based processes that promote better decisions and increased stakeholder commitment. Leading such processes requires balancing the need to empower group members with the need to maintain progress toward achievable outcomes. This study documents how a facilitator of a group meeting helps participants reach agreement on a mission statement. The research method employed is conversation analysis, an empirical, inductive qualitative approach whose central aim is to describe the sequential organization of jointly-created social actions. In the excerpts analyzed, the facilitator invites participant comments on a draft then responds to them by explaining, reformulating, forwarding, or rejecting. Through these actions he provides a crucial gatekeeping role, shaping what comments result in actual changes to the mission statement. Understanding how practices of talk work is central to helping leaders promote democratic process.
Key words: consensus, facilitation, communication, decision making, mission statement, conversation analysis, negotiation, democracy
Introduction: Consensus and empowerment
We live in an age of negotiation, when both the need for collaboration and consensus and the resources for helping promote them are greater than ever. While the 20th century featured the apex of great empires, world-wide destruction, bureaucracy, and top-down management, the 21st century so far reflects a decentering of power away from empires, nation-states, and large, stable corporations. Instead, there is more conflict in more places than ever, fueled by increased complexity in global political and economic structures, and more communication with more people through more modes. Institutional boundaries are more permeable and transitory, pushed by such forces as the global economy, virtual modes of organizing, and strategic alliances. In such circumstances, there are both moral and practical imperatives for power-sharing leadership approaches and for settling differences through negotiation rather than through force.
At the same time, across a range of social and human sciences there is increased emphasis on theories and practices that promote collaborative decision making and consensus. These appear under such terms as mutual gains negotiation (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991), mediation (Baruch Bush and Folger, 2005), facilitation, alternative dispute resolution, consensus building (Susskind, McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer, 1999; Susskind and Cruikshank, 2006), grass roots democracy, and nonviolent conflict resolution (Rosenberg, 2003). Within management studies, increasing calls for flat structures, workplace democracy (Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, and Ganesh, 2004, p. 231) and shared decision-making reflect realities of economic and technological change as well as the changing preferences of participants.
How do leaders actually go about facilitating consensus decision making practices? The present study examines interaction in a videotaped group meeting to address this question. It is part of a larger research agenda investigating how discursive practices can enable and facilitate productive conflict management.
Theory and method: Conversation analysis and a constitutive view of communication
More than simply the transmission of information, communication involves joint meaning making, through which people accomplish social actions as well as constitute their relationships and identities. This constitutive view of communication, resonant with a social constructionist perspective (Berger and Luckman, 1966; Gergen, 1991) treats meaning as emergent and contingent while acknowledging the constraining effects of context and power dynamics. It informs research examining the methods by which participants negotiate and by which dispute resolution experts such as mediators and facilitators promote effective decision-making. Conversation analysis (CA) is a research method particular well suited to such an enterprise. Rooted in ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) and the pioneering research of Harvey Sacks (1992), CA research (Psathas, 1995; ten Have, 1999) concerns social actors’ methods for jointly accomplishing actions. It involves the study of video or audio taped, naturalistic interaction. Detailed transcripts are created that show not only words but also paralinguistic details, features of timing and sequence, and selected visual features. CA is basic research characterizing how people organize everyday social actions, such as greetings, beginnings and endings, gossiping, arguing, storytelling, and negotiating. Conversation analysts describe what is going on rather than speculating about peoples’ motives, goals, feelings, or personalities. CA studies show how social actors produce and orient to each others’ displayed understandings, moment to moment. In this approach, talk is seen as fundamentally contextual: produced at a particular moment, by some speaker, to someone else, following some specific action, and setting up some specific next one. The meaning of any utterance--the action it is doing--can only be interpreted by coming to grips with its sequential placement. CA studies proceed based on collections of similar instances or on extended case studies.
In the analysis that follows, CA methods are used to document practices the facilitator in a public group meeting uses to manage participant concerns. Video tapes of a series of consensus-building meetings (described below) were transcribed. Through repeated viewings, key communicative practices were identified, described, and analyzed. Consistent with CA research, analytic claims are presented here with the transcribed materials so that readers may examine details and confirm or provide alternative interpretations.
The case examined comes from a community consensus-building process carried out in 1993. A publicly-announced plan to move a hospital from the central city to a new facility outside of town drew substantial opposition and controversy. The plan was halted and in its place a consensus building process was initiated. Initially the choice was presented as being between two incompatible and impossible alternatives: move the hospital to a site out of town, far from its client base, against overwhelming community opposition; or keep it in an old, too large, physically inadequate building with irresolvable structural problems. Mediation professionals brought in to lead the process conducted a conflict assessment, identified stakeholder groups, interviewed them to discern their interests, and helped them select representatives. The representatives, alternates, and members of the public attended a series of nine meetings held to determine what to do about the hospital. These meetings were broadcast on local public-access television.
Analysis: Explaining, reformulating, forwarding, rejecting
During a discussion of the group’s mission statement, the facilitator invites participants to comment, criticize, or suggest changes to the document. As participants comment, the facilitator employs responses that perform a gate keeping function, either treating them as requiring no further action or making them relevant for subsequent discussion and possible action. These actions powerfully shape the process and the outcome, and examining them brings to light some of the challenges and opportunities evident in consensus-building discourse.
One strategy third party dispute resolution specialists can pursue is creating a draft agreement (also called the “one-text procedure”: see Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991, p. 112). This is useful when parties are stuck in oppositional stances or when there are so many parties to a dispute that basic negotiations are difficult to accomplish. The neutral works with each disputing party separately to learn of their interests and create a text that represents them all. Each party is invited to criticize the text, recursively, until eventually there is something close to agreement as well as buy-in to the process. In this particular case, with passions running high and widely disparate views about what options were even under consideration, the mediators sought consensus on the group’s central purpose.
At the beginning of the discussion, the facilitator (Larry) reads aloud a draft of the group’s mission statement, which is also printed in the notebooks participants have in front of them:
# 1 (See Appendix for a list of transcription symbols)
Larry: Given the shared desire (0.7) for a full service (0.7) ↑high quality hospital in Meriden (0.8) what
is necessary (0.4) to make such a facility viable (.) both now and in the future,
Over the next minute and a half, Larry rereads some portions of the mission statement verbatim and reformulates others, while providing some framing of its intent and scope. Where the transcript resumes, he opens the floor for participants to propose changes or express concerns:
Larry: Anyone want to (.) reshape that (.) recast it (.) anyone have a problem with that.
(1.0)
Larry: As a statement of our purpose.
With this solicitation from the facilitator, responses are now relevant. In the ensuing discussion, a number of participants ask questions, complain, and criticize portions of the mission statement. Each time, the facilitator responds in ways that crucially shape which comments end up in changes to the mission statement. Specifically, he employs four kinds of responses:
Explaining - respond with explanation but no further action
Reformulating - provide the gist of what is being said (but no forwarding)
Forwarding – invite and lead group action, with the possibility of changes to the statement
Rejecting - rule participant actions out of order or inappropriate
Each is presented below, with examples.
Explaining
Sometimes the facilitator responds to participant concerns or questions by clarifying what the mission statement means but doing nothing more (that is, not treating the concern or question as occasioning a change to the mission statement). The first participant comment occurs following Larry’s solicitation. He turns to his right and selects Ron as next speaker.
# 2
Ronald: The statement ignores cost (0.7) and uh I don’t think that uh (0.6) if we are going to address this
issue intelligently we can ignore cost.
(1.0)
Larry: The: the ↑notion of viability is- m:aybe we ought to say economically viable (0.7) uh but that the
notion of viability was (.) meant to encompass (1.6) co:st in the sense that there’s no point
talking about a high quality (.) service uh uh high quality full service facility that can’t make it
financially because it will not in the future then (.) meet those needs.
Ron criticizes the statement in strong language. He employs a pejorative term “ignore,” without any hedging or disclaimer that might mark it as a tentative delicate activity. After a pause he offers an opinion; the word “intelligently” frames this as something no reasonable person would disagree with. Thus he assertively voices a concern that could conceivably lead to a change in the statement.
Larry responds by addressing the notion of “viability.” He stops this utterance mid-stream, inserting a hypothetical proposal for some language change to the mission statement.1 Returning to explaining, he asserts that “viability” should include “cost” concerns, while rewording “cost” into the phrase “make it financially.” He does not gaze again at Ron or wait for a next response; rather, he looks up to his left and calls on another participant. In brief, this participant criticism gets met with explanation but no action toward changing the mission statement.
Immediately following, the facilitator calls on another participant, and her comment too gets explanation but no further action. Marg connects her turn to the discussion of viability, yet shifts focus to what’s meant by “in the future”:
# 3
Marg: Well I think we c’n say that it’ll be viable in the ↑future (.) now that’s just a s- a supposition
because the way medicine keeps changing we don’t know what’s gonna be viable in the future
(.) as you have seen (.) with renovations we have done (.) at the present site. (1.1) It keeps
changing we ↑hope to do that. Try.
Larry: Right. But I do think we want to take a future orientation even if we are hoping rather than (.)
ensuring (.) ahh-for the future and to not just solve a problem in the short term.
(1.0)
Marg: ̊I understand̊
Marg critiques the phrase “viable in the future” as “just a supposition” (implying a contrast to something truthful or real) that, given the changing nature of medicine, “we” don’t know. She supports her position by referring to “renovations” that were done. Her point seems to be that being “financially viable” depends upon circumstances they cannot foresee, although it remains an aspiration. She does not explicitly call for change in the mission statement but expresses a caution to the group. Larry treats her comment that way (as raising a concern, not proposing a change). By saying “right” he not only agrees with the concern but marks that this is not news to him—that he has already arrived at the same conclusion. With the conjunction “but,” he marks disagreement with a possible implication that they cannot therefore talk about thie future. His point seems to be that they must try to anticipate future changes, limited as their capabilities may be. Thus his response explains and stands in defense of the draft mission statement. After a silence, she accepts this with a quiet “I understand.”
A third example of the facilitator explaining (but not forwarding) comes a few minutes later. The group is discussing what is meant by “hospital”:
# 4
Louis: Would ah ((clears throat)) would that be like ah- (0.8) a giant leasing operation? You know
where (0.3) you lease out all these facilities (0.2) and have little (0.3) cells all around (1.2) and
then (.) the cash would roll in (0.6) would it be something like that?
(0.3) ̊You think̊ (1.5) [Is that possible.]
Larry: [Our sense is ] (0.5) based on the things that were said at the caucuses
(0.7) That (.) ↑merely providing services (0.8) without creating an institutional commitment
(0.5) to the people being served and the communities being served (.) would be insufficient.
(1.7) To meet the interests that we’ve heard represented at the caucuses. (1.9) So that leasing out
a privatized system of (.) just guaranteeing someone some services (.) in a geographic vicinity (.)
wouldn’t make it.
(2.2)
Louis: (So) that’s nice now (.) thank you.
Louis poses a question that pushes the definitional boundaries of “hospital” toward an extreme, decentered model of medical care. Larry’s response begins with a preface that frames his understanding as having come from the stakeholders in caucus meetings. He explains that this hypothetical model would not fit within the realm of possible outcomes. After a pause, Louis accepts that answer and thanks.
In these three examples, the facilitator responds by explaining what portions of the mission statement mean but does not forward participant comments for any additional action.
Reformulating
The next example is like the prior ones in that a participant raises a concern and the facilitator answers without doing anything to move toward group action on the concern. This time, however, the facilitator’s answer does not explain the mission statement but instead reformulates the group discourse:
# 5
Phil: There is a: mention of competitive rates in this thing (.) o- o- again within a broad definition (.)
certainly it’s got to be cost effective and I think competitive rates cover that (.) What is ↑not
covered in this (.) is it’s a specific (.) uh (.) reference to ↓Meriden where I think the geographic
reference could- ‘s got to be expanded to include the Meriden (0.7) Wallingford and surrounding
areas because that’s ↑wherever our (1.0) customer base if you will is drawn from.
(1.7) ((mumbling, throat clearing))
Larry: So we’re- what we’re really asking is (.) >what do we mean by hospital< (0.5) what do we mean
by full service (0.7) what do we mean by financially viable. (0.8) What do we mean by (0.3)
guaranteeing something to the future.
Phil’s turn does two actions. First, it responds to a prior concern that is part of the extended discussion of cost. Second, it raises a new concern about how the mission statement names the geographic area the hospital would serve. He suggests that a larger geographic area would be justified based on his claim about the scope of the customer base.
In response, the facilitator summarizes and reformulates not only this speaker’s turn but the preceding ones concerning the mission statement. Through parallel wording structure he projects equivalency of concerns about four terms: hospital, full service, financially viable, and future. He does not attempt to answer Phil’s question but instead calls on another speaker (not shown). He does not provide an opportunity for this participant concern to lead to a change in the mission statement.
If the facilitator’s response does not treat this participant concern as warranting a change to the mission statement, what does it do? It reformulates (i.e., it metacommunicatively reframes) the prior turn as but one instance in a series of turns that are all concerned with clarifying what each word in the mission statement really means. For the facilitator to treat the prior turn this way, rather than as possibly implicating a change to the mission statement, may invite the participants to see that the mission statement cannot resolve all these issues now—in other words, that complete, unambiguous clarity is not possible.
Forwarding
Sometimes participant comments do lead to further group action. The facilitator may forward a participant comment and invite others to respond to it:
# 6
Dom: Yeah. I’m (.) concerned on-on- on jus- (.) the (.) term of hospital (.) and- and- an- an- exactly
what- (0.6) what are we talking about are we talking about (.) just in terms of a- the uh
healthcare (1.0) facility or institutional with some kind of uh (0.8) recognition of (.) the
institutional values of- of a (0.3) of a hospital and things on that line. So- the s- the term
hospital (.) are-are-are we narrowing ourselves down to you know the general
thought of (0.9) uh healthcare.
(2.2)
Larry: Other people (.) have an observation on this you want to share others: at the table?
(0.5)
Phil: If I can (.) I’d like to make a couple of comments . . . .
Dom expresses concern over what is meant by “hospital,” parsing the concept into the “facility” itself and the “institutional values” it could embody. After a silence, Larry invites others to speak to this rather than answering it himself.2 Phil bids for and gets the floor. In his turn that follows (not shown) he addresses issues of hospital, full service, and the geographic range of service.
In this instance, the facilitator neither closes down the comment (as his earlier explanations did) nor forwards it immediately as a proposed change to the mission statement. Rather, he responds to it by opening discursive space for others to address the concern.
Forwarding explaining
The next example follows the last one in which Dom spoke to the meaning of “hospital.” After Phil makes his “couple of comments”, Tom also questions what “hospital” means (not shown). In response, the facilitator solicits an alternative term from Tom—possibly one that might be substituted in the mission statement. Tom declines to provide one, instead restating his concern as a question for the group. After a silence (during which no one else can be heard attempting to speak), Larry explains what the group means by “hospital” as more than just “some services in a building”. Tom accepts this answer and the sequence closes down.
# 7
Larry: I’m wondering whether (.) in light of what you said and what- u- what Dom has said
whether (.) you’d want to offer (1.0) some other term.
(1.2)
Tom: No I’m just saying are we comfortable with hospital right now (1.0) um (1.4)
((clears throat)) (1.1) vis a vis (.) uh medical center.
(3.0)
Larry: Well again I think this gets to the same issue that- that Dominic is raising. (0.8)
Um When we say- >we don’t just talk about a building< (1.2) we’re not just
talking about some services in a building (0.5) >we’re talking about< ↑something
more than that.
(1.6)
Dom: That- that satisfies me.
What begins as further action and a possible change to the mission statement ends up being an explanation with no additional action.
Forwarding Changing the mission statement
One participant concern results in a change to the mission statement. This occurs a few moments later when another speaker (L) continues discussing the topic of geographic area to be served by the hospital. He offers different wording (marked as recalled from earlier hospital board efforts) and explains it. Larry formulates this into a proposed change to the mission statement. Louis raises an objection to this wording. Larry asks for draft language. Someone (off camera) suggests “Meriden and surrounding communities.” and this draws some expressions of support. Larry asks for acceptance of this change and, the silence being taken as assent, closes down this sequence.
# 8
L?: Back when we started (.) the board (.) an’ I-I’m pretty sure I remember this right said that we
wanted to have (.) a ↑full service high quality hospital in Meriden (0.7) serving a regional need.
(0.5) An maybe ↑that’s what should be reflected here then. We-we want to be located in
Meriden (1.2) but we wanna serve (.) the communities we have traditionally served. Which
is more than just Meriden.
Larry: So >we’re talking about<- in terms of wha- rewriting the statement Given the shared
desire for a full service high quality hospital in Meriden to serve the needs of
the (0.7) [residents of Meriden (.) the Meriden Wallingford area,
L?: [regi-
(0.8)
Louis: Well it goes even beyond Meriden and Wallingford (0.3) (M)anchester – is where
my family is- (.) uses this hospital
((throat clearing))
Larry: Uhh so what language (.) do you want to state in terms of Meriden area?
[Meriden ] and Wallingford region?
(?): [( )]
(?): Meriden and surrounding communi[ties.
(?): [Yeah.=
(?): =I think that’s [good ((other talk))
Larry: [Meriden and surrounding communities? Are people comfortable with that?
(2.0)
Larry: Okay.
The preceding two examples show contrasting methods for occasioning and processing possible wording changes. In instance # 7, the facilitator invites a participant to suggest wording and that person declines. In instance # 8, a participant volunteers a possible change, the facilitator forwards it, and over several turns by different speakers, it gets reformulated into a version that gains group acceptance.
Rejecting
All of the preceding examples involve comments from participants seated at the table, provided in response to the facilitator’s invitation, and processed by the facilitator in various ways. A final instance features talk from a person in the room who does not have a seat at the table—and thus no official status—who requests and is conditionally granted rights to speak. He criticizes and questions the legitimacy of the entire process. Larry moves away from the table to speak to him directly, in a series of turns devoted to rejecting his contributions as illegitimate:
# 9
Larry: Um sorry sir are you (.) one of the members of one of the
joint caucuses.=
Man: =Not one of the members but I’ve got (.) a voice in it=I’m trying to have a voice in it.
(0.7)
Man: ↑Get rid of Mister Horowitz and Company.
(0.7) ((Larry walks toward the man))
Man: That thing was ↑straightened out.
Larry: I’m sor- The ground rules that we have for this ↓evening
Man: Never mind your ground rules=
Larry: =No I do mind [the ground rules]
Man: [ This is ] an ↑illegal meeting. You couldn’t throw (0.3) C:linton (.)
out of being President (.) because (.) [Bush said somethin else.=
Larry: [we
Larry: =We- we have a [need to (community representatives ) we
Man: [and this is the same thing. And this was
[[defeated. [And this-
Larry: [[agreed to a set of [ground rules for how we’re gonna
operate [this evening
Man: [I know but this [ was defeated back on ) ]
Larry: [When you are- when you are ]
recognized (.) you can get to talk. Until then if you
wanna stay here (.) you need to follow the rules that all
the rest of us have agreed to abide by.
Man: Well the rules were at the hearing [(0.4) at the (Malone)
Larry: [̊Okay okay ̊
Man: school at the [me- the- at the ( ) school], (.) It was
Larry: [( )]
Man: defeated.
So why don’t you just (.) forget about it.
Larry: ̊You need to sit down.̊
Man: ↑You had it.
((Man turns away toward his chair; Larry turns back to table))
Man: (back wally) ( ) this is a (1.0)
The facilitator calls on this speaker with an apology and a question. This constrains the man to speak to the issue of his right to speak, not simply to say whatever he wants. The man acknowledges that he is not a member of one of the caucuses but asserts that he has a “voice” or is “trying” to have one. After a pause (during which Larry does not attempt to cut him off), the man continues, demanding that they “↑Get rid of Mister Horowitz and Company.” His turn-in-progress does not concern revising the mission statement; rather, it challenges the legitimacy of the consensus-building process in which the group is engaged.
Larry walks over to him, physically bracketing this as a time-out from the proceedings. The man complains that the hospital issue has already been settled. Larry begins to invoke the ground rules; the man interrupts him to dismiss their validity. Larry argues back. In overlap, the man claims that this is an illegal meeting. The “Clinton/ Bush” comment (this is 1993, so the “Bush” reference would be to the first President George Bush) furthers the claim that this meeting is illegal by arguing that something already decided on shouldn’t be re-opened. Larry attempts multiple times to stop the man. He invokes the ground rules and instructs the man in how to behave. With a final demand (“So why don’t you just (.) forget about it.”), the man turns away from Larry and walks toward his seat, on the outer wall of the room. Larry turns away from him and walks back to his place as facilitator.
By moving over to the man, instructing him, then ultimately ignoring his demands, the facilitator treats this talk as interruptive and illegitimate.3 He rejects these participant comments, reinscribing group norms about what are and are not acceptable contributions.
Discussion
These micro-moments reveal consensus building talk at work. Prior to the meeting, through soliciting input from stakeholders, the mediation team drafts a mission statement for the group. The facilitator presents it as a proposal and invites commentary. The participants criticize, complain, express concerns, ask questions, and even make demands. The facilitator must decide in-the moment--like a traffic cop, like a switchboard operator, like a teacher leading a discussion—how to respond to each participant comment. Sometimes he explains some portion of the draft but does nothing more. Sometimes he provides a meta-level formulation that contextualizes a participant response with the others. Sometimes he forwards a concern for further discussion by the group or even possible change to the mission statement. Sometimes he rejects a participant action as illegitimate. Throughout this process, the facilitator must attend to each person’s input while keeping the group progressing toward agreement.
Over many turns at talk, group members put the draft mission statement to repeated tests. Almost all of its key words and phrases get challenged. In the version shown below, challenged parts are bracketed and the changed portion appears in all caps:
Given the shared desire for a [full service] [high quality] [hospital] in [Meriden AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES] what is necessary to make such a facility [viable] both now and in [the future].
After more than twenty minutes, Larry ended group discussion of the mission statement, announced that the mediators would revise and distribute it at the next meeting, and moved them on to discussing ground rules.
In the consensus building process, there is no final vote of approval. Instead, there are multiple opportunities for participants to criticize, object, or propose changes. By the end of the iterative process of drafting and discussion, participants should be sufficiently satisfied with the document to accept it and go on to next matters. Although agreeing on the mission is preliminary to dealing with core issues (i.e., what to do about the hospital), this phase of the consensus-building process can generate conflict and protracted discussion. Ghais (2005) describes a case in which
A colleague and I facilitated a dialogue about how to clean up a severely contaminated industrial facility, in the wake of protests against a federal-government-approved plan to allow some contamination to remain in place coupled with restrictions on future use of the property. . . . .We drafted a set of “operating protocols” that included a purpose statement, a schedule of meetings, ground rules . . . ., and a description of the many different roles. Despite the thorough preparation that preceded it, this document became the subject of an entire day of negotiation. . . . .No doubt, the participants were using the protocols as an opportunity to test the process and their ability to influence it. It was important for us to be patient with what looked like petty wrangling, in order to gain the participants’ trust that they truly had influence in the dialogue and decision making. (pp. 116-117)
As this passage suggests, early discussions of mission and ground rules provide fertile ground for controversy, both because of their substantive issues and because of the first opportunities they present for participants to negotiate identities and relationships within the group. If the process is managed appropriately, through it the group members learn to work together while dealing with an issue (such as mission) on which they are less likely to hold fixed, opposing positions. Through dealing with this preliminary task, they develop norms that will help them tackle more challenging matters.
This case involves a public dispute, and some managers in private corporations might question the need for such a process among employees. Why not simply present them with a mission statement or policy decision and instruct them to implement it? Although such an approach might work, it risks poor-quality decisions being made without the creative input of relevant stakeholders, lack of buy-in and only passive commitment to making the decisions work, or suppressed conflict that comes back in the form of alienation or active obstruction. Jaszcar (2001) among others argues that organizational mission statements should be built from the group up, involving all members. Consensus decision making does not apply equally well to all needs and contexts. It is particularly valuable for situations in which divergent viewpoints and goals exist and collective commitment is needed to make decisions work. In such situations, it is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do.
One can readily see the difficulties in trying to resolve this complex dispute without a facilitative process. Members of the hospital board need the buy-in of stakeholder groups in order to secure state permits to build, money for funding, medical staff willing to work there, patients willing to go there, and community support to help the hospital succeed in a competitive environment. Without a consensus process, however, there is no guarantee the necessary stakeholder groups would even get to talk face to face about it. There is no guarantee that if the proper stakeholder groups are identified that they would have appropriate representation. There is no guarantee that the “problem” would even be formulated in a way that gives them all a common starting point. There is no guarantee that suggestions and proposals would draw anything other than rejections and complaints. In this process, skilled facilitators change conflict dynamics in crucial ways. Participants argue against the facilitator, not each other. They argue against draft agreements presented by the third party neutrals rather than against each other’s proposals. Gradually, if the process works well, they reach agreement while developing deepened commitment to implementing the decisions.
The need for new and better forms of conflict resolution and decision making is urgent. Without understanding how talk works and how to make it work better, even well-meaning parties may find themselves locked in stalemates, making poor decisions, or resorting to power struggles to resolve differences. In talk lies the potential for failure, breakdown, and disenchantment. In talk also lies the potential for people to engage in collective decision making that results in agreements which they can at least accept, if not wholly endorse.
Transcription Symbols
Adapted from system developed by Gail Jefferson (in Atkinson & Heritage, 1984, ix-xvi)
[ ] Brackets indicate overlapping sounds.
= Equal marks indicate contiguous utterances, or continuation of
the same utterance to the next line.
(.) A period within parentheses indicates a micropause.
(2.0) Number within parentheses indicates a timed pause.
ye:s A colon indicates stretching of sound it follows.
yes. A period indicates falling intonation at possible utterance completion.
yes, A comma indicates relatively constant intonation at possible utterance completion.
yes? A question mark indicates upward intonation at possible utterance completion.
yes- A single dash indicates abrupt sound cutoff.
yes Underlining indicates sound emphasis.
°yes° Degree marks indicate decreased volume of materials between.
hhh Transcribed h's indicate audible breaths, possibly laughter.
•hhh A raised, preceding period indicates an audible inbreath,
possibly laughter.
ye(hh)s h's within parentheses indicate within-speech breaths,
possibly laughter.
((cough)) Items within double parentheses indicate some sound or feature of the
talk which is not easily transcribable.
(yes) Parentheses indicate transcriber doubt about what is inside.
↑yes Upward arrow indicates rising intonation of the sound it precedes.
↓yes Downward arrow indicates falling intonation of sound it precedes.
£yes£ Pound signs bracket a "smile voice" delivery of materials in between.
References
1. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds). (1984). Structures of social action; Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Berger, P., and Luckman, T. (1966). The Social construction of reality; a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
3. Baruch Bush, R. A., and Folger, J. (2005). The Promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E. Jr., & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
5. Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes; Negotiating agreements without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.
6. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7. Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
8. Ghais, S. (2005). Extreme facilitation: Guiding groups through controversy and complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Jaszcar, A. (2001). How to create a mission statement. The How-To Network (online resource):
[http://www.how-to.com/Operations/mission-statement.htm].
10. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 vols, G. Jefferson (ed.), with an introduction by E. A. Schegloff). Oxford: Blackwell.
12. Susskind, L. E., & Cruikshank, J. L. (2006). Breaking Robert’s Rules: The new way to run your meeting, build consensus, and get results. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (Eds.) (1999). The Consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (2nd ed.). Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press.
15. ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis; a practical guide. London: Sage.
Interestingly, neither he nor Ron treats this insertion as a “real” proposed change to the mission statement. While Larry glances at both Ronald and the notebook, Ronald keeps his gaze down, providing no opportunity for head nods or other confirmation markers. Larry returns to explaining and makes no further attempt to introduce this as a proposed change. Rather, it may work as a way for the facilitator (who also had responsibility for crafting the mission statement) to acknowledge the possible inadequacy of the language.↩
Note that he amends the formulation “Other people” to “others: at the table?”—thus restricting the set of potential next speakers from all in attendance to official delegates who have rights to speak.↩
Interestingly, other participants quickly resume discussing the mission statement, in a way that seems to support the facilitator and keep the process within defined bounds.↩