Image Credit: Arcady – Fotolia.com

In his keynote address at the 2009 conference of the Association for Conflict Resolution, Wallace Warfield discussed the difficulty of attempting to certify mediators when the role itself has become a moving target. Pinning down a set of qualifications and certifying competence based on a single definition of practice could have the effect of stifling innovation in a dynamic field.

Numerous models of practice have evolved, each redefining the practice and emphasizing different skill sets. There are evaluative and facilitative styles of approaching dispute settlement, problem-solving and transformative models, as well as methods for dealing with identity-based and cross-cultural conflict, to mention just a few.

Mediators in the public policy field have adapted the practice not only to new thinking within the profession but also to new demands from conveners, stakeholders and the wider public. From an initial focus on mediation of isolated disputes, practitioners moved to policy formation, rule-making, planning and the facilitation of collaborative approaches to complicated regional, even global problems.

While basic elements of the impartial mediator role persist through all these adaptations, the field has also embraced influences from many other sources. Public involvement, participatory planning, organizational development, change management, among many others, have provided techniques for reaching agreement and finding common direction among stakeholders on larger scales through innovative group processes, like Open Space Technology, Future Search and Appreciative Inquiry. Mediation and conflict resolution practitioners have also added new dimensions of understanding to these fields. There is a rich exchange going on among them that will continue to serve as a source of innovation in the field.

Many mediators may find such changes and influences completely irrelevant to their work, and that’s to be expected. The world of conflict and agreement-seeking looks very different to a mediator handling hundreds of court-referred cases a year, each demanding resolution in a single session, and a public policy mediator who might be managing a handful of projects, each involving dozens of parties, extensive public participation and lasting six months to a couple of years.

Yet a movement toward general certification covering all types of mediation persists. It has produced several attempts to define the essential skills of a mediator and a lot of debate over methods for evaluating and testing those skills. Each of these efforts has produced interesting lists identifying the most important knowledge, skills and abilities required for effectiveness in this demanding field.

One such effort of the 1990’s came out of a project jointly sponsored by the Hewlett Foundation and the National Institute for Dispute Resolution. Known as the Test Design Project, it produced Performance-Based Assessment: A Methodology for Use in Selecting, Training and Evaluating Mediators. The report proposed general measures of competence for mediators as well as a methodology for performance-based assessments as predictors of successful practice.

These are the qualities proposed by the report as those “likely to be needed most to perform the most common and essential tasks of a mediator”:

• Investigation – Effectiveness in identifying and seeking out pertinent information.

• Empathy – Conspicuous awareness and consideration of the needs of others.

• Impartiality – Effectively maintaining a neutral stance between the parties and avoiding undisclosed conflicts of interest or bias.

• Generating options – Pursuit of collaborative solutions and generation of ideas and proposals consistent with case facts and workable for opposing parties.

• Generating agreements – Effectiveness in moving parties toward finality and in “closing” agreement.

• Managing the interaction – Effectiveness in developing strategy, managing the process, and coping with conflicts between clients and representatives.

• Substantive knowledge – Adequate competence in the issues and type of dispute to facilitate communication, help parties develop options, and alert parties to relevant legal information.

This list could be expanded to include skills in communication, cultural diversity, negotiation, process skills and many others. But it represents an effort to find the common denominator that can apply in all settings where conflict resolution is facilitated by a mediator. Its success in doing so, however, only underscores the limiting nature of a certification process intended to cover the entire field.

The underlying model for this set of competencies is one of the resolution of disputes. That might seem obvious enough for a field that’s been identified as “conflict resolution” or “alternative dispute resolution.” In fact, though, as often discussed in this blog, the public policy field has more diverse needs for the services of mediators and facilitators of consensus building processes. Those needs have reshaped public policy practice to such an extent that the resolution of disputes is no longer the only goal.

As Bernard Mayer points out in Staying with Conflict, people often need impartial help to engage with each other constructively over the long term in situations of conflict that cannot be resolved with finality through a single agreement. There may not be any dispute at all but rather a complex problem or condition that requires collaboration for management over time. This is especially true of the so-called wicked problems that likely transcend the authority of any single agency and can only be dealt with by collaborative efforts among multiple institutions, often combining the public, private and NGO sectors.

In recent years, this need has pushed far beyond dispute resolution into the field of collaborative governance. Public agencies are recognizing more and more that delivery of services and other public functions require collaborative networks of public, private and non-profit groups. Donald Kettl and other observers have been dubbed this the era of networked governance, and professional expertise is often needed to help produce agreements for collaborative action.

Under the policies of the Obama Administration, numerous constituencies around the country as well as internal activists within government agencies have been pushing to make the work of federal agencies more transparent to the public. Participatory and collaborative efforts are important components of this Open Government Initiative, and opportunities should expand greatly for practitioners skilled in consensus building.

These are long-term trends that will pull public policy mediators and facilitators into new forms of practice that we can’t now predict.

In the face of so much dynamism, general certification on the basis of a narrow conflict resolution model can only serve to limit the imagination of practitioners. It could also quickly become irrelevant as the demands of evolving needs force new adaptations. It’s true, of course, that a core of skills in working with groups to resolve differences and build consensus will always be essential. But these basic tools are constantly being added to. The needs for quality control of specific forms of mediation can be met within the context of programs requiring just those skills.

Certification programs to meet these more limited needs are already in existence and serve an important need for such specialized areas of practice as court-related ADR, farm debt and foreclosure, mortgage finance or consumer issues. The needs of many other fields for practitioners with specialized knowledge are met by competitive review of experience and track record without resort to standardized certification. States have generally chosen not to create general certification requirements but instead have authorized rosters of mediators who meet certain training criteria.

Requirements like these make sense, but trying to certify all practitioners under a universal set of qualifications would be counterproductive in the public policy field.

Related posts:

1. Bernard Mayer: Staying with Conflict
2. Peter Adler and The End of Mediation

Image credit: Martin Bangemann – Fotolia.com

Stephanie West Allen recently posted an informative article at Brains on Purpose on neuroscience research about the ways in which brains of people in different cultures function in distinctive ways. References to her own earlier posts, especially What’s Universal in Mediation, as well as the work of Geert Hofstede on cultural difference are well worth exploring.

Her post has set me thinking about a general problem I’ve often run into. Stephanie is well aware of this issue, and I want to say immediately that I’m not talking about her post. She is one of the pioneers in educating lawyers and mediators about cross-cultural issues and knows better than most of us how complicated the issues are.

It’s a given that cultural differences must be understood and respected to achieve effective communication. Those differences concern basic values and beliefs that shape worldviews and guide choices for action in all walks of life. When values at this level differ in fundamental ways, misunderstanding of motives and interests is common, and clashes between groups become more likely and resolution more difficult.

But it is possible to exaggerate the effect of those differences on the process of reaching agreement itself. When culturally distinct groups see themselves in conflict, that perception often has a history of adversarial relationships behind it, tensions about interests that are considered incompatible by both sides, or even overt political domination of one group by another. Any conflict interweaves a complex set of influences.

When it comes to conflict resolution, I think of cultural differences as the most significant barrier to communication and hence to initiating any effective effort of the groups to come together for the purpose of resolving problems. Isolating the influence of culture on conflict as negotiation as a whole may be necessary to help one group learn about the unfamiliar values and ways of thinking of another. That process of study, however, can create an impression that cultural characteristics are more fixed and resistant to change that they actually are.

For educational purposes, separate dimensions and categories are useful to explain the nature of cultural differences – dimensions like a sense of time, the degree of individuality, expectations about authority, forms of social interaction, and the like. Unfortunately, this sort of study has led to overemphasis on composite and artificial concepts such as the Arab mind, the Native American worldview or any number of simplifications that sweep together numerous localized cultures and traditions into a single, “typical” cultural character.

In reality, no culture has survived over centuries without extensive change born of the necessity to adapt to new circumstances – such as new political realities, natural environmental changes, migration, influences of other cultures or the availability of new technologies.

A willingness to get together with representatives of a different culture to resolve conflict is also a willingness to consider adaptation to change. Rigid cultures resist change and are unlikely to show that degree of openness.

One example in the public policy arena comes to mind that illustrates the interaction of culture with other influences such as politics and historical relationships.

During a dialogue between a western state government and a group of deeply traditional Native American governments, it became obvious that the basic values of the two cultures led to sharply different characterizations of the problem under discussion.

The conflict concerned water, and the state interpreted the problem in the context of legal and jurisdictional systems. Against a background of regional demand, the state saw the issues as jurisdiction over the water source and its use for economic purposes. They spoke in the language of law, economics and hydrology. Future growth of the region was at stake.

Leaders of the native governments, on the other hand, interpreted the issue in terms of their community’s responsibility to sustain a source of water that played a central role in religious practices. They spoke in a language of story, ancient tradition and historical events of a spiritual nature (what western culture calls “myth”). Their concern was to continue traditional culture and protect the places of deepest importance to its practice. Time was not readily divided into past, present, future in this context. They had a sacred responsibility for the survival of traditions that defined a way of life.

But the representatives of these dramatically differing cultures shared goals and ways of thinking in this setting. For one, they both perceived their differences about this issue as a conflict that might be resolved through dialogue and negotiation. Both had the same fundamental goal – however they defined the nature and value of the resource – of having authority to control the water source and the waters flowing from it. Both had issues relating to internal decision-making and power dynamics among competing factions within their own groups. Further, they shared the desire for a productive relationship over the long-term.

Achieving success in the process required each side to be open to the other’s specific cultural style of interaction. The state negotiators could not assume that the burden was on the tribal leaders to fit into the non-Indian cultural style. Nor could they attempt to adapt their behavior entirely to the Native American style. Both extremes would be false, coercive in the first case, condescending in the second. Each group needed to speak from the integrity of its own values and cultural frameworks in order to have a productive conversation.

The two groups needed to help educate one another about their values and approaches to the water issue. In effect, they had to establish a common language to achieve the dialogue that could lead to agreement. Understanding cultural differences, especially differences in the way things are valued, was essential for communication, but once that step was achieved the dynamics of the negotiation process were conditioned far less by cultural issues.

Collaborative negotiation based on meeting needs and interests, as opposed to positional or adversarial negotiation, can be quite flexible in adapting to cross-cultural settings – provided the participants are open to understanding and respecting values and styles of behavior very different from their own.

In a 2008 post, Stephanie provided a list of some of the elements of a conflict resolution process that could vary in important ways in different cultures.

As we learn more about culture, we will continue to be surprised at what we thought was universal and in fact is not. . . .
For example, in many other cultures:

• Confidentiality would not make sense;

• Ownership of the dispute (and the responsibility to resolve it) would not belong to the individual;

• Insight about how the problem came about would not be valued (this is especially surprising for those mediators with a therapeutic bent to their model of mediation);

• Self-disclosure or discussing feelings would be inappropriate (particularly surprising for that same group of mediators).

The more we learn to question our assumptions about what is universal, the more culturally sensitive we can become.

Such sensitivity is essential on the part of all participants in order to create a process that they can trust as respectful and fair. Getting to that point can be extremely complicated and require preliminary dialogue sessions – perhaps a series of them – before negotiations to resolve conflict can be attempted.

A collaborative approach to designing the process ensures that the different groups are dealing with each other as partners and avoids the implication that one culture is superior to another. It challenges and hopefully removes unconscious cultural assumptions about how the process should work that could undermine any attempt to make substantive progress.

Openness to cultural differences, the desire to form mutually beneficial relationships, a willingness to engage in effective dialogue to resolve conflict and the ability and commitment to use an agreement as the basis for future action – elements such as these are prerequisites to negotiating agreements to meet important interests. But I would argue that these are not culturally unique. Culture determines the language, behavior and constraints as well as the content of values and needs that guide the participation of each side. Without the shared learning of how to communicate across cultural boundaries, reaching agreement about critical needs would hardly be possible, but that is one element among many.

Any discussion of culture and conflict resolution is controversial, and I’d welcome your ideas and experience to stimulate dialogue about this critical area.

Related posts:

1. Who Are You? Identity Across Cultures

This is the first installment of a periodic series of posts highlighting sources of information and insight about collaborative public policy and its many related fields. Cross Collaborate looks at collaborative public policy as an emerging field that draws on numerous sources, including change management, negotiation, collaborative networks, deliberative democracy, mediation, consensus building and other related areas of practice. Each of these sources of influence has provided specific concepts and tools that collaborative leaders and practitioners need to understand in order to select the appropriate method for each situation they encounter.

Each of the websites mentioned here offers a gateway to resources of many types to help deepen understanding of collaborative principles and techniques. These have been especially useful to me, but please add your suggestions so that we can continue to build a comprehensive list.

I’ve adapted these summary explanations from each site and highlighted especially useful resources.

CRInfo: CRInfo “is a free, online clearinghouse, indexing more than 25,000 peace- and conflict resolution-related Web pages, books, articles, audiovisual materials, organizational profiles, events, and current news articles. In addition to its easy-to-use but powerful search engine, CRInfo (along with its partner project, Beyond Intractability) provides easy browsing of information on 600 peace- and conflict resolution-related topics. Also available are recommended readings from our panel of editors on 425 topics, along with 225 ‘executive summary’-type overview essays on key topics and approximately 500 summaries of important books and articles.” These two sites comprise a single comprehensive resource. There are guides introducing conflict resolution to different groups, including adversaries, practitioners and “bystanders,” and another set of user guides discussing the application of conflict resolution methods to many different policy fields. Especially interesting is a large collection of audio-recorded interviews with practitioners and experts from around the world.

Change Management Toolbook: The Change Management Toolbook is a collection of more than 120 tools, methods and strategies which you can apply during different stages of personal, team and organizational development, in training, facilitation and consulting. It is divided into three principle sections: Self, Team and Larger System. Registration is required. Free registration is required. Many materials are free, but others require payment. This is one of the most comprehensive collections of practical tools useful not only in the change management field but also in consensus building and other forms of group process.

The IAF Methods Database: This site is intended for professional facilitators and is dedicated to online and face-to-face methods for creating, leading and following up group meetings. Three levels of techniques are used in the IAF Methods Database; Applications such as Scenario Planning, Methods or Models such as Mind Mapping and Interventions for ensuring efficient meetings. Each of the levels is explained and examples are given. The searchable database contains 455 techniques. The database is located at a different site from that of the International Association of Facilitators, free registration is required for access to the materials. Recent changes to the site have greatly improved access and browsing of explanations for each of the methods.

Open Space World: OpenSpaceWorld is a portal site, functioning as a global community resource. It is managed by a volunteer webmaster, supported over the last ten years or so by a number of helpers and contributors, and linked to several other Open Space community gathering points and resource sites. “Membership,” online and around the world, is open, informal, self-selected — and active. Resources available include authoritative introductions to Open Space methodology, including a sector by Harrison Owen, who developed the method. A couple of earlier posts here provide a very brief introduction to Open Space and to OpenSpace Online, a website replicating the process in online meetings.

US Environmental Protection Agency Center for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPRC): CPRC provides alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services to the entire Agency. The CPRC “develops and implements Agency ADR policy, administers Agency-wide ADR programs, coordinates case management and evaluation, and provides support to program-specific ADR activities. Building on existing ADR efforts at EPA, the CPRC assists other Agency offices in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent, and resolve disputes, and makes neutral third parties more readily available for those purposes.” The site has an excellent collection of documents on federal government policies and use of conflict resolution methods. The EPA site on Public Involvement has an even more extensive collection of resources, including EPA policy documents and Presidential Executive Orders on public involvement. The site also makes available an enormous collection of tools, guidance documents and handbooks prepared for implementation in several EPA programs. Similar materials from other federal agencies and a searchable database make this a comprehensive information resource.

World Directory of ADR Blogs: “Bringing together the world of blogs covering mediation, arbitration, negotiation, conflict resolution, and people-focused innovations in justice and law.” Assembled by mediator and lawyer Diane Levin, the directory contains information and links to blogs on 15 subject areas in the conflict resolution field, and includes sites from 30 countries. This is the most comprehensive listing of blogs by ADR experts from around the world.

Mediate.com: Mediate.com has been one of the most important sites in this field for more than ten years. It includes a comprehensive directory of mediators in all fields of practice, and an assortment of resources prepared for this site. There is free access to many resources, but practitioners, in particular, can readily sign up for a free Basic Membership. This includes access to over 5,000 Mediate.com articles & resources, a basic directory listing for practitioners for home state, county and area code, and the Mediate.com Weekly Newsletter. Especially helpful is a huge collection of online articles by practitioners and experts, contributed over the past decade, that cover every aspect of mediation, consensus building and negotiation. A weekly selection of posts from practitioner blogs is another unique feature. (Disclosure: this blog is now included.) Paid membership also provides access to a series of video interviews with senior practitioners as well as books and DVD’s.

Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation – Clearinghouse: “The Program on Negotiation (PON) is a university consortium dedicated to developing the theory and practice of negotiation and dispute resolution. As a community of scholars and practitioners, PON serves a unique role in the world negotiation community. Founded in 1983 as a special research project at Harvard Law School, PON includes faculty, students, and staff from Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts University.” PON is especially renowned for its intensive training courses and for publication of the Negotiation Journal. Of greatest interest in this context is its Clearinghouse, a collection of well-tested training materials and simulations. Many are free, but most require payment of modest fees, on a per role player/instructor basis. The simulations are often scorable and are known for their thoroughness in bringing out the fine points of negotiation and mediation skill building.

Policy Consensus Initiative (PCI)/ National Policy Consensus Center( NPCC) : “PCI builds and supports networks that provide states with leadership and capacity to achieve more collaborative governance. NPCC develops collaborative governance systems that enable leaders to achieve better solutions to public issues. We produce and distribute a range of tools and resources, including publications and videos, that promote best practices and provide guidance on the use of collaborative governance.” I have featured several PCI videos on this site because they are the best produced and most concise explanation of public policy consensus building that I can find on the web. In addition, PCI has produced carefully reviewed guidebooks for conveners of consensus processes, focusing on the needs of state legislatures and other officials who have play this role. These are some of the best guides I know to introduce any interested person to the field.

Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC) – E-PARCC Maxwell School, Syracuse University: Adapted from the website explanation: Collaboration is an essential tool in an increasingly interconnected world. PARCC examines how collaborative governance has altered political and social relationships across national and international landscapes. It seeks to identify the best practices of collaborative governance. – Two of its leading researchers, Lisa Bingham and Rosemary O’Leary, have produced authoritative guides to the use of collaborative methods and networks in public agencies. Another resource, located at the E-PARCC website, is a unique set of teaching resources. This collection includes case studies, simulations, course syllabi and other resources relating to collaborative public management, public agency networks, collaborative governance and collaborative problem solving. Many of these materials are produced as part of a competition judged by an international panel of experts. The prize-winning simulations, syllabi and other teaching materials are freely accessible online. Like materials from PON, these are useful for general learning purposes outside instructional settings, especially for the case studies and scenarios of conflict resolution.

US Institute of Peace – Resources and Tools: “USIP provides the analysis, training and tools that prevent and end conflicts, promotes stability and professionalizes the field of peacebuilding. USIP Online Library has over 12,000 items dealing with conflicts, diplomacy, negotiation, and mediation. Resources also include: interviews with experts on recent global conflict developments; a practitioner’s toolkit with tools for the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of conflict; and digital collections of peace agreements, oral histories and other documentation.”

International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) – Public Participation Knowledge Network: IAP2 is the major professional association in this field. Its Knowledge Network is a growing resource that includes a forum for feedback and discussion. “Developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and Portland State University’s Center for Public Participation, this interactive network is a resource for both academics and practitioners who are interested in sharing knowledge and research on public participation. The network consists of: a searchable database of books, articles and websites related to public participation; an online discussion forum for sharing research-related knowledge and experience.” The database provides abstracts and detailed references for over 300 research articles and 45 case studies. Especially useful for anyone wanting to learn more about public participation practices globally are summaries of almost 50 websites, with listings of the types of resources available at each site.

Every conference I’ve ever attended in the field of conflict resolution has featured some sort of organized discussion about the role of humor in mediation. These sessions are often quite analytical and serious, but occasionally a workshop is held that’s entertaining because the facilitators are demonstrating rather than describing their approach. It always seems, though, a little forced to urge people to be funny. After all, a helpfully humorous remark depends on spontaneity and a sense of timing that’s impossible to reduce to a formula.

Because humor can help so much when it succeeds (and also hurt when it misfires), it’s important to learn as much as can be taught about it. There are several theories and explanations about why and how it works, and the explanations tend to be completely unfunny, as I’ll demonstrate in a moment. The effort, though, has to be made because everything mediators and facilitators do in a roomful of people should be a conscious tactic designed to achieve some purpose. So what’s the tactical purpose of humor?

Here’s one example of an answer that I learned by trial and error.

I once participated in a collaborative workshop that came to a difficult moment. A few members of the small group (there were ten of us) started arguing about a particular approach to dealing with a problem. They were seasoned activists so they tossed familiar rhetoric at each other and were on the verge of getting angry.

The facilitator suddenly interrupted, clear in his mind about what was happening. “This is the wrong process!” he said. I could see what he meant, but the others – who were not facilitators – were puzzled. Then he explained the difference between a collaborative process aiming at agreement and an adversarial process aiming at victory over others. It all sounded pretty abstract and didn’t make a big impression.

When I ran into similar situations, at first I did the same thing – gave an explanation about why, at least in this room, advocacy bad, collaboration good. Not much impact.

I was looking for a different approach when the same thing started happening in another group I was managing. I didn’t have anything planned but just sat and listened for a few minutes. The arguments and rhetoric came quickly right around the room, everyone was getting into it, and at that moment I couldn’t help but admire their practiced skill in this form of combat. It occurred to me that I should tell them that.

“Boy,” I said. “You are all so good at what you do!” Everybody laughed and looked rather sheepishly at each other, as I went on. “I love this – nobody misses a beat, no point goes unanswered, thrust, parry, thrust. I really admire how well you do this … However…” And then I reminded them that this sort of thing had absolutely nothing to do with why we were there, etc. It was the humor that immediately got the group to reflect on what they were doing. The brief explanation that followed wasn’t really necessary for them to get the point, but I needed to make sure everyone understood exactly what I meant.

In this case, there were two styles the participants could use in relating to each other. The advocacy style was the one the participants best understood and knew how to use. The collaborative style was much less familiar to this particular group and not yet reinforced by positive experience. This little bit of humor jarred them in a pleasant way into realizing that they were falling into an old habit, one that hadn’t solved their issues up to that point. They needed to use their limited time together trying to work collaboratively. And so they got back on track.

The comment also worked because it was spontaneous, quite heartfelt on my part and grew directly out of the moment. I could never repeat that same comment in a different group because the conditions would not be exactly the same, and the words wouldn’t sound as natural because I’d be reading from a rehearsed script. It’s one of those “you had to be there” remarks that doesn’t transfer like a standalone joke with its setup, development and punchline.

In fact, jokes strike me as the high risk-low return form of humor in a conflict resolution setting. Of course, I’ve always heard the advice: Tell a joke to break the tension in the room. But a typical joke doesn’t necessarily grow out of what’s happening to the group in the moment. Instead of leading a group to reflect on its own behavior, it’s a diversion away from immediate concerns. The focus is on the mediator/facilitator and how well the joke is told. It’s a performance that will be judged by the delivery and content. If successful, it will get a laugh and release a little tension, to be sure. But if telling jokes and stand-up comedy don’t come naturally, the performance is likely to sound forced or just lame.

As to explanations of humor, there is an especially influential one originated by Edward de Bono, the author of Lateral Thinking, Mechanism of Mind
and dozens of other books. For de Bono, humor is effective because it stimulates creativity. It does that by helping the mind break out of habitual patterns and pull in ideas from different areas of experience.

In his view, the mind works by fitting experience into patterns that can be readily recognized. The mind has different ways of using these patterns and the information they contain. One way is through logical or “vertical” thinking, which selects the information needed to make a series of linear connections leading to a conclusion. Patterns can be quite complicated and relate to such things as the diagnosis of a disease or the purchase of a car or a decision about where to build a highway. These situations present choices and problems that usually yield to analysis within a familiar framework of thought. But often people get stuck in those habitual ways of approaching problems and can’t find any answer.

This is where creative thinking is needed. People have to be shaken out of their accustomed patterns into different ones. At that point, new possibilities open up, and creative solutions may be found. “Lateral thinking” uses numerous techniques to help stimulate the mind to break free of a limiting pattern. In less predictable fashion, humor is especially effective in provoking the mind to jump out of old patterns instantaneously. But in order to work, the linking has to be unexpected. In my example, it was unexpected to hear a mediator praising an adversarial style. The surprise made it easier for the group members to look at their own behavior.

Surprise may be impossible. A joke can be so well worn that everyone has heard it dozens of times. Because there’s nothing unexpected about it, it can’t be funny. Mental defenses against pattern switching are in place and won’t break open when listeners know what’s coming. For example, if you hear a federal official referring to the “epoxy that greases the wheels of government” as a humorous touch in a speech, anyone accustomed to listening to similar speeches won’t think it’s funny at all because they’ve heard that one a dozen times. (Of course, a fixed organizational pattern of thinking will take this one out of the filing cabinet marked “humor” over and over again.)

Humor also plays a role in the learning experience that is often part of any consensus building process. The group in my example, as is true for many groups trying to reach consensus, have learned and used adversarial techniques for years but are far less familiar or comfortable with the methods of collaboration. One role of the mediator/facilitator is to help the group gain mastery of a collaborative style so that they’ll use it more readily in other circumstances. Laughter is a great way of reinforcing a learning experience by making it more vivid and memorable. There is no greater opportunity to learn than when you’re in the midst of a high-pressure task and looking for the right methods that will help you complete it successfully. Humor can open the eyes and mind of participants and mediator alike and make it easier for new ideas to take hold.

Those are a few thoughts on the usefulness of humor. You may not be able to order it up on demand, but if you can make it work there’s no better way to help a group pay attention to new information, restore its spirits and keep it on a collaborative track.