I think your steps are a decent approximation, but I don't think they are fully general. For example, sometimes clarifying the details and reality of a conflict causes the conflict to be more directly inflammatory. And if you're following a procedure that has "be less inflammatory" as a metric, then you'll fuck that up. (For the record, I don't think it's a bad heuristic to follow. Most of the time you do actually want "less inflammatory").
A few months ago I facilitated a conversation in which some old friends/coworkers were trying to have a conflict, and they were being SO careful, and SO polite, and SO open to each others' perspectives. Yet neither of them was willing to be fully honest about the pain and blame they were feeling. Things didn't really move forward until I started making clarifications that sounded like impassioned, inflammatory accusations, which really got to the heart of what was at stake emotionally.
I think the real guiding principle is truth tracking, at its core--ie. as a facilitator noticing when something is being confused or hidden, and bringing it more out. In practice, bringing more truth to light normally causes relief and feelings of safety, but sometimes what the reality of the situation calls for is more like "honorable combat," which is made honorable because it's direct, straightforward, and open hearted.
So maybe I'd change that step to "Restate the problem in a more truthful way."
Yes, you are spot on with that example and I have had similar experiences when mediating with parties that have higher EQ, but lack a rich set of soft skills. My process doc addresses the basics of facilitating conflict resolution as could be taught in a one day class. Your example is something I would consider to be more advanced and requiring an experienced mediator. I'll also say that most conflicts requiring "honorable combat" lend themselves better to an interests-based negotiation approach. I really appreciated your comments here and would love to get your feedback on my doc. Email me if you are interested.
I think your steps are a decent approximation, but I don't think they are fully general. For example, sometimes clarifying the details and reality of a conflict causes the conflict to be more directly inflammatory. And if you're following a procedure that has "be less inflammatory" as a metric, then you'll fuck that up. (For the record, I don't think it's a bad heuristic to follow. Most of the time you do actually want "less inflammatory").
A few months ago I facilitated a conversation in which some old friends/coworkers were trying to have a conflict, and they were being SO careful, and SO polite, and SO open to each others' perspectives. Yet neither of them was willing to be fully honest about the pain and blame they were feeling. Things didn't really move forward until I started making clarifications that sounded like impassioned, inflammatory accusations, which really got to the heart of what was at stake emotionally.
I think the real guiding principle is truth tracking, at its core--ie. as a facilitator noticing when something is being confused or hidden, and bringing it more out. In practice, bringing more truth to light normally causes relief and feelings of safety, but sometimes what the reality of the situation calls for is more like "honorable combat," which is made honorable because it's direct, straightforward, and open hearted.
So maybe I'd change that step to "Restate the problem in a more truthful way."