fa-sil ́ê-tā shūn an

 ́ê-li ́tiks

FACILITATION ANALYTICSTM

Tools To Help You Unpack, Analyze, and Navigate Conflict 

Sarah J. Read, The Communications Center, Inc.

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com © 2017 The Communications Center, Inc.
Overview

• Defining The Process

• Frameworks for Unpacking

• Frameworks for Navigating

• Systemic Metrics

© 2017 The Communications Center, Inc. © 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Why? 

• Static

• Noise

• Dropped Messages

© 2017, The Communications Center, Inc. www.buildingdialogue.com
Definitions

• Facilitate: To make easier or more convenient.

• Analyze: to separate into constituent parts or 

elements.

© 2017 The Communications Center, Inc. www.buildingdialogue.com
Reflective Exercise

© 2008, The Communications Center, Inc. www.buildingdialogue.com
1. Process
Process Flowchart/Options

Education Facilitation Mediation Litigation

Negotiation Collaborative Law Arbitration

© 2008, The Communications Center, Inc. www.buildingdialogue.com
Practice Options

Education Negotiation Facilitation Mediation

Training – Conflict 

Skills and Options

Product 

Development

Convening

Supporting

Coaching 

(process and skills)

Summarizing

Dialogue Based Models

Conflict Audits

Conflict Evaluation

Conflict Coaching

Bounded Service

© 2016, The Communications Center, Inc.

www.buildingdialogue.com
Mediation Options

People Focus On Problem

Transformative Facilitative Evaluative

Higher Party Self Determination Lower

Transformative Facilitative Evaluative

Lower Mediator Direction Higher

Transformative Facilitative Evaluative
© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc. www.buildingdialogue.com
2. Unpacking and Mapping 
Why Use Diagnostic Tools?

• Diagnostic tools help you “unpack.”

• Unpacking helps identify components and inter-relationships.

• Using the tools helps you “translate” and “change the narrative”.

• Sharing tools helps to build skills.

• Tools can be used to keep you on track.

www.buildingdialogue.com

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc.
Sources of Conflict or Trust

Relationship

Values Information

Structure Interests

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Levels of Discussion

Emotions

Trust

Info

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Complex Conflicts

• Multiple Stakeholders

• Different interests and positions

• Individual and organizational factors

• Historical experience

• Complicated data and conflicting 

information

• Value differences, emotional factors

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc © 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Five Levels of Resolution

•(not all require same 

level of understanding)

Reconcile

Forgive

Resolve

Settle

Stop

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Responses to Conflict

Aggressive Passive Assertive

Threats

Anger

Force

Withdrawal

Ignoring

Denying

Understanding

Respecting

Problem 

Solving

Accepting

FIGHT FLIGHT UNITE

© 2008, The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Suggested Further Reading

• Stone,Patton, Heen, Difficult Conversations, Penguin 

Books, 2000

• Fisher and Ertel, Getting Ready To Negotiate, The 

‘Getting To Yes’ Workbook, Penguin Books, 1995

• Covey, The Speed of Trust, Free Press, 2007
3. Navigating
Whole BrainTM Model

Upper Mode Thinking Processes

Left Mode

Thinking Processes

Upper Left A

LOGICAL

ANALYTICAL

FACT-BASED

QUANTITATIVE

Lower Left B

ORGANIZED

SEQUENTIAL

PLANNED

DETAILED

Lower Mode Thinking Processes

C Lower Right

INTERPERSONAL

FEELING-BASED

KINESTHETIC

EMOTIONAL

Right Mode

Thinking Processes

D Upper Right

HOLISTIC

INTUITIVE

INTEGRATING

SYNTHESIZING

Copyright 2002 The Ned Herrmann Group
Key Questions 

A

•What

B

•How

C

•Who

D

•Why

© 2017 Herrmann Global /www.herrmannsolutions.com/
Key Focus

A

Asks

Why and What?

•Facts

B

Asks

How and When?

•Process

C

Asks Who?

•Values

D

Asks

Why and What if?

•Ideals

© 2017 Herrmann Global /www.herrmannsolutions.com/
Use of Data

A

•Analyze

Asks

Why and What?

B

•Harvest

Asks

How and When?

C

•Communicate

Asks Who?

D

•Integrate

Asks

Why and What if?

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc © 2017 Herrmann Global /www.herrmannsolutions.com/
Outcomes

A

•Results

Asks

Why and What?

B

•Efficiency

Asks

How and When?

C

•Support

Asks Who?

D

•Benefits (vision 

and values)

Asks

Why and What if?

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc © 2017 Herrmann Global /www.herrmannsolutions.com/
HBDITM Question Summary

What: data, principles, people, other 

Who: people, roles, other

Why: importance, interests, focus, sequence, other

How: can we go forward?

© 2016, The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Other Tools

• Principle Framework from “Dealing with Disruptors”: 

Respect/Protect/Sustain

• Source Spreadsheets

• “Disruption Matrix”

© 2017 The Communications Center, Inc.

www.buildingdialogue.com
4. Metrics
Conflict Score

•Number of conflicts: (I + N + V + S + 

R)/5 *# = CNS

•Intensity of Conflicts: (I + N + V + S + 

R)/5 = IF

•Conflict Score:

(CNS x IF)/125 x 100 = CS

© 2017, The Communications Center, Inc.

b ildi di l
Asset Score

•(Asset Average ___/5) * 100

© 2017, The Communications Center, Inc.

www.buildingdialogue.com
10 “Assets” 

• Information

• Resources

• Process Skills

• Relationships

• Vision

• Sense of Community

• Past Experience

• Leadership

• Governance Systems

• Participation and Engagement

© 2017, The Communications Center, Inc.

www.buildingdialogue.com
Diagnostic/Tracking Score

•(AS – CS)/10 =CHDS

© 2017, The Communications Center, Inc.

www.buildingdialogue.com
Check - In

• Questions?

• Your Experience?

• Other Thoughts?

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
5. Application
Scenario

• Corporation (Buyer) has a strongly collaborative and 

customer centric culture.

• Vendor has a very hierarchal internal focused culture 

driven by regulatory and financial metrics.

• Litigation over multiple years and in multiple forums has 

strained relationships and left both angry and frustrated 

at the cost and lack of progress.

© 2017, The Communications Center, Inc.

www.buildingdialogue.com
WHERE WE ARE

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Interests

• All recognize the interdependence 

• Both want to survive and thrive. 

• Corp necessarily focuses more on product market.

• Vendor must think about regulatory structure and restraints.

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Common Interests

•Operational Funds*

•Long-term Sustainability*

•Staying in Business*

•Cutting Litigation Costs

•*stresses of recession have obscured common interests and introduced tension; 

communication issues have eroded trust and led to conflict.

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Values – in common

•Excellence (not all agree is being met)

•Integrity of data

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Values – in tension

• Safe-keeping – (control)

• Collaboration – (transparency and respect)

• Accountability

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Information - Concerns

• Corp not receiving answers to questions.

• Corp not receiving notice of priorities or delays.

• Corp not sure concerns are being heard or addressed.

• Vendor regulator not informed on Corp needs, business factors 

• Vendor not informed on Corp strategic options

• Unclear channels of communication (structure).

• NOTE: Lack of information creates conflict and erodes trust. 

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Relationships

• Corp – Vendor: what relationship does the Corp want and need with Vendor?

• Vendor – Regulator: What flexibility does Vendor have? 

• Corp – Regulator: standing, opportunity to be heard. 

• Vendor – General Public: What are responsibilities?

• Corp - Customers: how meet needs? 

• Corp – Vendor –Regulator-Political Leaders: where are leverage/pressure points?

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Structure

• Unclear roles and authority – both between and within organizations.

• Inadequate communication structures – both for ongoing collaboration and for 

navigating conflict.

• Different conflict approaches – differences in values and information flow 

exacerbate.

• Lack of clear goals and accountability for Vendor in interaction with Corp.

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
WHERE WE MIGHT GO

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Interests

Common interest IN:

• Operations

• Sustainability

• Financials

Options

• Dialogue between 

organizational leadership on 

needs opportunities and 

constraints

• Confirm importance of 

customer relationship to long- term financial health of vendor

• Schedule joint meeting with 

regulator and discuss needs 

and intersection with public 

interest

• Set clear, measurable, realistic 

goals for monitoring progress

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Values

AdDress TENSIONS

• Excellence

• Respect

• Accountability

OPTIONS

• Better define

• Tie to goals

• Use to evaluate both 

options and actions

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Information

OBTAINING

• Questions not answered

• Info not provided

• Info not trusted

Options

• Clarify expectations, 

monitor and evaluate

• Policy and procedure 

audit

• Joint engineering team

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Information

COORDINATION

• Fear of other’s motives

• Unintended consequences

• Unresolved conflict

OPTIONS

• Regular contact between 

identified managers

• Quarterly meetings 

between identified 

executives

• Shared goals on 

overlapping interests and 

conflict “protocol”

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Relationships

Organizational

• Information flow

• Conflict

OPTIONS

•See “Information” above

•See value goals on 

collaboration and 

accountability above

•Need better definition and 

engagement

•Change personnel where 

relationship has become 

unworkable

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Relationships

PERSONAL

• Declining Trust

• Withdrawal

• Resentment

• “Lobbying”

OPTIONS

• Listen, and listen to 

understand

• Invitation 

• Focus Forward

• Set and observe 

“boundaries”

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Structure

Unclear Roles

•Expectations

•Conflicts

•Assumed authority

•Actions 

•Representations

OPTIONS

• Better definition, joint 

development of policies 

• Clearer direction on when to flag 

conflict 

• Define conflict protocol

© 2016 The Communications Center, Inc
Structure

Communication

• “Bottlenecks”

• “Feedback loops”

• Problem-solving

• Conflict resolution

OPTIONS

• See information and 

relationships above

• Early surfacing of issues 

and concerns

• Conflict “protocol”
Structure

ACCOUNTABILITY

• Results

• Interaction

• Implementation

OPTIONS

• Define what is wanted 

and needed

• Determine consequences

• Develop process for 

monitoring and evaluating
Additional Check - In

• Questions?

• Your Experience?

• Other Thoughts?

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Final Thought

• “Good ideas are not adopted automatically. 

They must be driven into practice with 

courageous patience.”

~Admiral Hyman Rickover

© 2010 The Communications Center, Inc www.buildingdialogue.com
Contact Info

• Sarah Read

• sjr@readadr.com

http://readadr.com/

• sjread@buildingdialogue.com

http://buildingdialogue.com