Mediation/Facilitation - What's the Difference?

The field of alternative dispute resolution (which is where mediation and facilitation reside) is as riddled with jargon as any other field. We talk much too loosely about "consensus" and "stakeholders," without defining what we mean. We even create confusion over perfectly clear words like "agreement" or "interests."

To clarify what I think I am doing for a living, I would like to at least distinguish between mediation and facilitation. For me, mediation involves a conflict that needs resolution, while facilitation requires management of a process where participants have a common interest.

• A mediator helps those in conflict find a solution that is satisfactory to all involved. A typical mediation goes through stages: assessment of the situation, determination of the feasibility of a mediated agreement; selecting the parties; developing the process; information gathering; generating options; analysis; creating potential solutions; seeking consensus; future steps.
  
• A facilitator helps a group communicate, increase mutual understanding, and move toward a common goal.
  
• A facilitator manages a process where a group of people is engaged around a similar topic. The focus is a task – develop a land use plan, learn about hazardous waste disposal options, improve service delivery for an agency -- not resolution of a conflict. A typical facilitation involves a group of people and requires guidance of that group through education, discussion, and perhaps decision-making.
  

A mediator has specific conflict resolution skills, which may be very useful in any situation, including facilitation. The facilitator's skills may also cross-over and contribute to a mediation process.

"Cultural Issues" A Variety of Cultures and Ways of Participating:

I t is important to realize that “culture” is not a word confined to “minorities” or those who are not mainstream white America. In my work, the culture of government agencies — the Army Corps of Engineers, for instance — can have profound influence on a process. Certain parts of the country have their own culture; certain age groups do, too. I am sure there are varieties of white American culture that seem very strange indeed to those we may think of as belonging to a “cultural group.”

As a mediator, I am often in the position of dealing with differences in race, culture, and language, particularly Native American and southwestern Hispanos. I notice that colleagues speak often of "cultural issues" in their cases, meaning that they have members of a minority involved.

But please remember that these groups are different, only in the sense of being contrasted with others. Too often I think we assume that the culturally different group is the problem. They don’t understand and conform to our way of doing business, we say. We must teach them this skill they lack, we say. This is, of course, untrue and demeaning. Every person and every group has a way of resolving conflict, making decisions, and participating with others. There is no lack of skill or understanding; there is simply another way of doing business — a way that may make us uncomfortable. Our goal is not to make other cultures conform to our processes, but to adapt our processes as much as possible to include all cultures comfortably. When and how to adapt those processes is the trick!