There is also the possibility of creating a temporary system—such as World Café—that provides an opportunity for collaborative communication. World Café is usually engaged with a rather large team or a cluster of people who are interested in (often stakeholders associated with) a specific issue. Specifically, World Café is a collaborative multi-round process involving the open sharing of ideas and perspectives. It is a collaborative communication tool rather than serving as a tool specifically designed for solution of the convening issue. Four to eight participants sit at tables that come with a “host”, a flip chart and an ample supply of markers. Each table is also assigned a specific question related to the overall issue being addressed at the café.
The process begins with the first of three or more rounds for those seated around each table. At the end of each round, all members of each group move to a different table. Sometimes they all move to the same table; at other times they go to different tables. Only the table hosts stay at a specific table for all rounds. The table host welcomes new guests at the start of each round, summarizes briefly the previous conversation(s) and motivates the further discourse.
After all rounds are completed, participants at each table work with the host in producing a summary of their table’s contributions. Each host then shares this summary with all café participants. The facilitator seeks to bring together the diverse findings by offering their own integration as well as inviting café participants to contribute their own integrative insights. As in the case of a “real” café, collaborative communication is intended to be free flowing and non-competitive. The verbal conversation is sometimes supplemented with drawings on flip chart paper and/or the telling of stories and offering of analogies and metaphors (Bergquist, 2021).
Collaborative Conflict-Management
The real challenge of staying connected in the midst of differences is posed when these differences result in conflict between the two parties involved in the differences. The nature of this challenge (and one specific solution) is portrayed in an animated short documentary that we introduced in our fourth essay in this series. “Is it Always Right to Be Right?” (Schmidt, 1970) was a cartoon in which it took only one person on one side of the chasm to ask if it is possible that those on the other side of the chasm might be offering a valid perspective.
As the narrator, Orson Welles declared: “They might be right!” This didn’t mean that those on the other side were right about everything; however, they might be right about at least one thing. With this declaration, the chasm collapsed and the two sides shared perspectives and solved problems. Perhaps it doesn’t take Spectrum Analysis, a World Care or even a talking stick to close the chasm. Maybe the only thing needed to bring about resolution of a conflict is a moment of appreciative inquiry. An appreciative culture might be based on nothing more than one person’s inquiry regarding the validity of an alternative perspective or practice.
At other times, a more elaborate conflict-process might be needed—especially if the conflict involves groups rather than individuals. Modified from a process first described by two noted organizational consultants, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, the Intergroup Mediation Process is founded on an appreciative perspective and exemplifies the creation of a temporary system that encourages collaboration.
Two groups in conflict are brough together in a safe and supportive setting where three skilled facilitators are asks to manage this process. One of the facilitators is assigned to each group and the third facilitator manages the other all process. The three facilitators approach this meeting from an appreciative perspective by focusing on the moments when each group “is doing it right” and by leaning into the future in encouraging the constructive work to be done by each group after this meeting. [Note: just the creation of this setting is a step toward resolution of a conflict).
