Each group is given the task of preparing six flip chart documents:
(1) our own group’s perspectives on the contentious issue (or one of several contentious issues) that is keeping our two groups apart,
(2) a list of the strengths and competencies that make our group invaluable in their organization or community,
(3) what we anticipate will be the other group’s perspective regarding the contentious issue that is keeping us apart,
(4) what our group predicts regarding the other group’s list of the strengths and competencies that makes them invaluable in their organization or community,
(5) what our group thinks the other group will predict regarding the perspective our group will take concerning the contentious issue that is keeping our two groups apart, and
(6) what our group thinks the other group will predict regarding what is on our group’s list of strengths and competencies that we bring to our organization or community,
These six lists require complex thought and analysis on the part of both groups. Thinking must slow down when both groups are given the task of identifying their own perspective on the differences that exist between the two groups and the resources they bring to their organization or community. Both assumptions and biases surface when asked to make predictions about the other group’s perspectives regarding the convening disagreements and their own contributions to the organization or community. Perhaps of greatest importance are the two lists to be prepared that ask each group to consider what the other group is seeking when they look across the table at “our” group.
It takes a while for each group to prepare all six lists. Disagreements are often found among members of each group regarding what to put on one or more of the lists. In some cases, a list will contain multiple responses and several alternative perspectives. Important insights and rich learning often emerge from this first phase of the exercise especially if the group facilitators are skillful and engage an appreciative perspective when helping their group identify their “best” and “most insightful” perspectives.
The next phase of this collaborative conflict management process involves taping the six lists prepared by each group on the wall and inviting all members of both groups to view and seek to fully appreciate what is on the six lists prepared by members of the other group. It is as if those viewing the lists were connoisseurs at an art museum, pausing at each painting to determine what this work of art is seeking to convey. Informal conversations among members of both groups might take place, though any debate regarding the merits of a specific list is discouraged at this point in lieu of the third phase.
This third phase consists of a convening of all members of both groups. The facilitator of each group spends a few minutes reporting (from a neutral, external perspective) on the deliberations that took place in their group regarding the preparation of each list. Typically, the two group facilitators each report on the same list prepared by each group—with the two perspectives (list one) on the primary point of contention being presented consecutively. The general facilitator often takes notes on a flip chart regarding themes that seem to overarch the two groups. The two facilitators then move on to the second list and so on.
A fourth phase consists of the general facilitator reporting on what they see to be the overarching themes. Of particular importance are:
(1) the areas of agreement and disagreement regarding the contentious issues,
(2) assumptions and biases that might be questioned, and
(3) the potential for self-fulfilling prophecy (where actions taken by own group on the basis of a false assumption produces the assumed reaction by the other group).
An open conversation then occurs. The general facilitator poses such questions as:
(1) what is surprising on one or more of these lists,
(2) where do you see points of leverage where conflict might best be addressed,
(3) where do we go from here?
Group members are encouraged to ask questions of the general facilitator, the two group facilitators, or members of the other group.
