INTRODUCTION

The process analysis examined in this case study took place in one of the TV programs in the United States.  The stated purpose of the process was to come up with a solution to marijuana legalization.  The debate question was; is it necessary to legalize marijuana? This debate has been a source of a heated conflict between the supporters and the opposers of the motion. The purpose of the meeting held was to find an answer on whether to legalize marijuana or not. The people in the meeting were five individuals; the first was Charles; he was the speaker in the session, and was also supposed to facilitate the meeting. The other two individual Kim and John were on the pro side of the issue; they supported on the motion that marijuana should be legalized. There were two other individuals Harriet and Michael were on the con side; they opposed the legalization of marijuana. The term used to describe the facilitator role was a speaker, and the facilitator in the conflict resolution process was Charles. The type of group, in this case, was a task group; this is because the group helped to discuss various policies that are affecting the society today. In the group, the current stage of development is the storming phase; in this phase, the members are willing to express their conflict directly. In this case, the pro side is ready to show how they feel and what they lose without the legalization of marijuana. The approach to group facilitation used by the debate in this meeting was a debate. In this case, the conflicting members were allowed to express their particular positions on the issue of marijuana legalization (Hunter, 2009). The meeting aimed at providing a solution to the long-heated problem of marijuana legalization, through thinking and speaking together in one collective voice.

CONFLICTS

There were various types of conflicts that arise in this process. The first type of conflict that come out in the meeting was professional differences. In the process, there were many professional opinions raised by both parties in the conflict. These opinions later created conflicts in the meeting. For example, the pro side said that marijuana had some health benefits to the user. This then brought some commotions in the meeting where the opposers said that this was a lie and there is no need to lie. The opposing side greatly opposed this issue, and a heated dialogue arose. In case the decision being made by the facilitator is left irreversible, or when the impact of making a wrong decision can significantly impact the people involved, the relationship could be spoilt even after coming up with the decision. The other conflict that emerged in the process is the personality issues. It seemed that some individuals in the group disliked one another, and others felt that they were being threatened. They, therefore, ended up causing conflict in the meeting. For example, it seemed the john, one of the proposers and Michael, one of the opposers had some issues. This is because they keep getting personal on some problems in the meetings.

There were various strategies used by the facilitator in an attempt to deal with these conflicts in the process. The first strategy was spotting potential disputes early before they arisen. The faciliatory always watched the body languages of the members. For example, in case he saw a sad facial expression on one of the members he usually solved the issue before it goes beyond the solution. In the case of professional differences, the facilitator made sure that the members are given the opportunity to express their views as early as possible to ensure that the meeting proceeds on a transparent basis. The other sign that he checked in the session is when the members whispered to one another; this indicated that the member is frustrated and probably seeking support for confrontation (McCorkle, 2015). The facilitator gave an equal opportunity to ensure that these conflicts are solved. The other approach used by the facilitator is questioning; whenever he noted a conflict in the process, the facilitator turned the focus from conflict to research.  He encouraged the members in the group to say their views rather than saying that they were angry or they disagree. To achieve this, the facilitator did not ask a yes or no question but looked for a method in which the disagreeable topic would become acceptable to the members. The other strategy used to solve the conflict was taking things offline; there were some things raised in the process based on sensitive personal issues, and these issues could not be discussed in public. As I said earlier, the conflict resolution process took place in a favorite TV station. In case of sensitive personal issues, the faciliatory just acknowledged the agreement and said that a specific meeting would be arranged to address that issue.

CHALLENGES

Various challenges arise in the process; the first challenge different agendas; sometimes the facilitator found it hard to deal with the many topics that were raised in the debate. Some of the members failed to understand that the meeting was not designed to solve the issue of marijuana legalization. Everyone attending the meeting is supposed to have adequately prepared (Wulf, 2013). There other challenge in the meeting was the issue of lack of focus; some of the members in the meeting failed to focus when the meeting was proceeding from one topic to the other. Some of them raised the points of the previous focus. This was a challenge because it wasted time. The other challenge was domination; in the group, some people dominated, and in other cases, some people spoke louder. This was also a challenge in the debating process.

However, various approaches were put in place by the facilitator to help deal with all these challenges. To deal with the different agenda challenge, the facilitator used mediation skills to help the members come up with a mutually acceptable agenda. Here, he shuttled back and forth until the members come into an agreement (Kourany, 2014). To deal with the issue of lack of focus, there were various strategies he applied. The facilitator guided the members towards different stages of the meeting. For example, he used terms such as, “we are all moving to the next stage which is explaining the need of marijuana legalization.” The facilitator also used a different technique to deal with the challenge of domination; to promote equal participation in the meeting, the facilitator created a room where everyone could speak. He also gave a room of speaking to the less powered people in the group.

ALTERNATIVES

The alternative to solve the conflict is this meeting is the collaborating style. This approach is based on a win/win strategy where all the members of a group work together to find a solution that works for both parties. The facilitator could use this strategy to makes sure that both sides in the debate are satisfied. To be able to achieve this, the facilitator can create an open discussion containing all the issues and concerns, and exploration of the commitment and honesty among the team members. To achieve effective collaboration in conflict resolution, both parties need to surface concerns in a non-threatening way. This approach also prevents professional issues and personal issues among the members of the meeting. Collaboration style does not focus on facilitator giving up things that he wants in the hopes that the other side will do the same and produce an outcome, but it majors on trying to provide a solution that satisfies both parties.

The reason why I think that collaboration style is the most appropriate and effective approach is that it merges insights from individuals with different perspectives on an issue and the outcome is a strong commitment to the solution from every side. The downside of this approach is that it is difficult to do because it needs close attention to the problems at hand and the emotional state of the other side.

CONCLUSION

Group facilitation is significant, especially when speaking about various issues that concern people. Although multiple conflicts arise when in the process such as professional differences, proper group facilitation reduces these problems. In the debate process, there are many professional opinions raised by both parties; these opinions later lead to conflicts in the meeting. The facilitator gets in this situation to end the disputes through the application of group facilitation skills such as listening, questioning and focusing abilities. There are also various challenges that may be present in these meetings such as domination and raising of different agendas. The facilitator also used these skills to solve these challenges. Group facilitation skills are therefore critical to resolving a conflict between different people.

REFERENCES

Hunter, D. (2009). The art of facilitation: The essentials for leading great meetings and creating          group synergy. John Wiley & Sons.

McCorkle, S., & Reese, M. (2015). Personal conflict management: Theory and practice.          Routledge.

Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77-104.

Kourany, J. A. (2014). Human enhancement: Making the debate more             Productive. Erkenntnis, 79(5), 981-998.

Liu, J., Fu, P., & Liu, S. (2009). Conflicts in top management teams and team/firm outcomes: The moderating effects of conflict-handling approaches. International Journal of Conflict      Management, 20(3), 228-250.