Facilitation, Mediation, and Consensus-Building in Negotiation

The Value of a Neutral Facilitator in Consensus-Based Negotiation

In Breaking Robert's Rules, Susskind emphasizes the value that a good facilitator can add in helping a group reach the best possible outcomes using a consensus-based approach. A neutral facilitator would have been better able to ascertain the desires of both sides of the argument in a negotiation such as Harborco. The consensus-based approach is most effective when both sides can discuss their grievances without a biased methodology from the facilitator. Using a consensus-based approach, the facilitator must encourage careful thought and collaboration among all parties involved.

Bias could negatively impact the consensus-based approach, as one party may feel alienated or defensive, while the other party may believe it has a negotiation advantage and attempt to extract additional benefits. These dynamics would ultimately hinder the negotiation, preventing both sides from arriving at a legitimate consensus regarding their issues. A neutral facilitator in the Harborco negotiation would have added value by ensuring that neither side felt disadvantaged or manipulated throughout the process.

Facilitator Neutrality: Content, Process, and Group Consent

The facilitator is neutral with respect to the content and task of the group. This is not to say that the facilitator cannot or should not have content expertise or any stake in the outcome, but rather that the group must be confident the facilitator will not allow these factors to influence the group's work and decisions. Neutrality is essential for the group to arrive at a genuine consensus that rewards cooperation. By contrast, a consultant provides expert advice, and a trainer imparts knowledge or skills — both contributing content expertise. A chair is generally a member of the group and therefore has a stake in the outcome, bearing ultimate responsibility for it.

What the facilitator contributes is a diagnosis of, and intervention in, how the group works — in other words, process expertise rather than content expertise. The process is critically important with respect to neutrality. Allowing the process to generate an optimal consensus is integral to producing the best possible solution for both parties. The facilitator is not neutral to process; indeed, the group grants the facilitator responsibility for managing that process. Importantly, a leader cannot impose a facilitator on a group without its consent.

In the Harborco negotiation, a facilitator would have added value by emphasizing process over formal positional information. By centering the overall process, both parties would have been guided toward reaching a decision collectively, without the facilitator exerting direct influence over the substance of the outcome. Furthermore, both parties would likely have felt, psychologically, that they benefited from the final solution on equal terms.

Effective Facilitation Tactics in Practice

One tactic I found particularly effective in a well-facilitated group experience was the strategic use of expertise. The facilitator was proactive in bringing in subject-matter experts from the technology field to validate the value proposition being presented during the negotiation. Trusted, authoritative figures within the industry lend significant credibility to potential partners. The facilitator also arranged for the participation of prior customers, providing an additional perspective on the merit and track record behind the business negotiations. Using both field experts and previous customers gave the potential partner reassurance that the negotiations were genuine and substantive. It also reinforced the credibility of what the facilitator could offer relative to competing parties vying for the same partner.

Another tactic I found highly effective was ordering potential grievances according to how easily they could be resolved. Throughout any negotiation, questions and concerns inevitably arise. The facilitator addressed these concerns in order of ease of resolution — tackling the simplest issues first and leaving the more difficult and contentious matters for the later stages of the negotiation. This strategy of resolving minor issues first built a foundation of agreement and was used to secure commitment from the other party as the negotiation progressed (Graham, 2010).

The interpersonal style of an effective facilitator also plays an important role. Remaining calm, listening actively, and projecting confidence without appearing partial are all qualities that contribute to a facilitator's effectiveness. These traits help create an environment in which all parties feel heard and respected, which is a prerequisite for productive negotiation. More information on these interpersonal dimensions can be found in academic discussions of organizational facilitation.

Applying Moore's Circle of Conflict to the Keystone XL Pipeline Dispute

The Keystone XL pipeline project is highly contentious, particularly with respect to environmental concerns. Environmentalists — especially those concerned about global warming — may oppose the project entirely. One long-term cost of the KXL pipeline is its contribution to raising the Earth's temperature. Burning the fossil fuels carried in the pipeline produces carbon dioxide. Dr. James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calculated that the pipeline would raise CO2 levels on Earth by 200 parts per million (ppm). Eighteen American scientific organizations support the consensus view that excess CO2 — currently at its highest level in 800,000 years (392 ppm) — is warming the planet. An increase in the Earth's temperature causes climate change, which carries many negative consequences. Environmentalists would draw on these concerns to oppose the expansion of the pipeline, and any mediator entering this negotiation must be fully aware of these grievances from the outset.

For example, climate change has enlarged the range of disease-bearing insects that once thrived only in warmer climates. In Africa, malaria kills a child every 30 seconds. Climate change is expected to expand the habitat of the tropical mosquitoes that carry malaria, potentially adding 80 million cases annually. In 1933, malaria infected 30% of the Tennessee Valley Authority's inhabitants. The spraying of DDT — no longer considered safe — eradicated malaria in the United States by 1951. However, if climate change produces the warming conditions and torrential rains that foster stagnant water pools, malaria could return, posing a significant public health threat.

Proponents of the pipeline, meanwhile, point to its potential for economic development. Using conservative economic estimates from Cornell University's Global Labor Institute, the KXL pipeline would produce between 5,060 and 9,250 full-time equivalent, temporary, non-local jobs during its two-year construction phase, generating between $253 million and $555 million in wages (at $50,000 to $60,000 per job). However, these figures must be weighed against health-related costs: treating 6,000 additional U.S. cases of Lyme disease every three years costs over $534 million (at $89,000 per case). Within three years or less, the health costs associated with global warming could begin to outweigh the wage benefits of the project.

In this dispute, both parties are likely to remain entrenched in their positions — particularly given the sluggish state of the American economy, which causes economic growth advocates to place high value on any job-creating project. To help both parties negotiate effectively, a mediator following Moore's Circle of Conflict framework would first attempt to resolve the smaller, more tractable grievances on each side. The mediator would then introduce expert opinions to provide contrary evidence to each party's core arguments, thereby opening space for dialogue. Finally, the mediator would work toward a mutually beneficial solution that meaningfully addresses the interests of both sides.