A Place for My Papers

December 18, 2004

A paper written for “Mediation and Negotiation Strategies” (Leadership 9620).

For a number of years, federal government agencies have sought to diversify their workforces under the assumption that a diversified workforce makes “business sense.” Diverse organizations can harness that diversity and use differences as a strength, not a weakness. Organizations which embrace diversity and use diversity as a driver have better results than organizations which are homogeneous or organizations which see diversity among the workforce as a divider. However, even organizations seeking diversity sometimes find that all employees have not bought in to the idea of a diverse workforce. Sometimes managers and employees act in a discriminatory manner. In this paper, we will examine the Coast Guard’s equal opportunity program and ways for the Coast Guard to improve it’s discrimination complaint process.

The Coast Guard’s Equal Opportunity Program
The United States Coast Guard, one of the foundational agencies of the recently formed Department of Homeland Security, has more than 6000 full-time civilian employees (Sharn, 2003) who work alongside and support more than 40,000 uniformed Coast Guard military personnel (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004). These civilian employees play key roles in prosecuting Coast Guard missions around the United States and around the world. Civilians are a key component of “Team Coast Guard” – the human resources of the Coast Guard made up of active duty military personnel, reservists, civilian employees, and volunteer Auxiliarists. The Coast Guard, as an organization, is a strong advocate of diversity and equal opportunity in all it’s workforce components.

The Coast Guard mandates that all members of Team Coast Guard – regular and reserve military, civilian, non-appropriated fund, and Auxiliary – are to be treated fairly, with respect, dignity, and compassion. Each should be provided the opportunity to work, develop, and achieve his or her full potential, thereby enhancing unit cohesiveness, military readiness, and mission accomplishment. The Coast Guard prohibits any form of discrimination that violates law or policy in any action affecting Coast Guard personnel, those seeking employment with the Coast Guard, or those receiving benefits from any Coast Guard-sponsored programs. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-2.)

The Equal Opportunity Program Manual goes on to specify the Coast Guard must prevent “discrimination in the workforce, so that the only roadblocks to success exist in a person’s mind.” (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 1-2) Allegations of discrimination are made, however, and some of those allegations are found to have merit. The Coast Guard is not immune to discrimination. The Agency does, however, have discrimination complaint programs which detail “policies and procedures for identifying, investigating, and resolving allegations of discrimination in the Coast Guard.” (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 5-3)

The discrimination complaint program is administered by a team composed of unit commanding officers or commanders – senior, organizational leaders who are required to “exercise personal leadership in promoting equal opportunity and equal treatment of Coast Guard personnel and their dependents within their commands and local communities.” (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2-5) In addition, these leaders are directed to “take prompt, positive action to eliminate discrimination within their commands if it does occur. (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 2-5) Senior leaders ally themselves with full-time and collateral duty Equal Opportunity personnel including Civil Rights Officers (who manage the Equal Opportunity Program), Equal Opportunity Specialists (civilian employees dedicated full-time to the Equal Opportunity Program and Civil Rights operations and missions), and Collateral Duty Equal Employment Opportunity Counselors (civilian employees who spend some of their duty time working with aggrieved persons who allege discrimination. (U.S. Coast Guard, pp. 2-18 – 2-24) These four individuals form the basic Equal Opportunity Program team.

The Equal Opportunity Program Manual designates a fifth member of this team, Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediators. The Mediator is

a neutral party available to assist aggrieved personnel or applicants for employment and the Coast Guard in reaching a settlement of their difference in an allegation of discrimination. The Mediator takes an active role in defining the issues, encouraging communication, and offering options for an early resolution. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2-34)

Coast Guard employees certified, and designated, as Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediators become part of the federal government’s Sharing Neutrals Program. (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 2-35)

The alternative dispute resolution process is fairly new to the Coast Guard. The use of alternative dispute resolution in Equal Opportunity cases was implemented in 1999. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2) Even now, the use of alternative dispute resolution and mediators is fairly limited in scope, and the Equal Opportunity Program Managers continue to discuss ways to increase the use of alternative dispute resolution. According to J. Whack (personal communication, September 2004) discussions include changing the Equal Employment Opportunity process to mandate the use of a mediator in all cases before an aggrieved person is permitted to file a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint.

Under the current process, civilian employees, or applicants for Coast Guard civilian jobs, who believe they have been discriminated against have 45 days from the discriminatory event to speak with an Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor. The EEO Counselor – without evaluating the claim – counsels the aggrieved person on the Equal Employment Opportunity process, conducts a limited inquiry and fact finding into the matter, and attempts to bring about resolution. The Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor has 30 days to complete this process; if resolution has not been reached the Counselor provides the aggrieved person a letter providing them the right to file a formal complaint. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2-24) Without progressing through the informal process – the administrative remedy – the aggrieved person may not file a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint. The Counselor serves as the entry to the entire process.

Mediation and Discrimination Complaint Resolution
Mediation is a growing practice in discrimination complaint resolution. Goldstein (1995, p. 28) indicates the number of employment discrimination cases filed in the federal courts rose more than 2000 percent from 1975 to 1995. Alternative dispute resolution is seen as a viable alternative to the courtroom for discrimination cases. According to Camp (2004, p. 66), “Mediation enables disputing parties to jointly craft a sensible remedy…. A fundamental tenet of negotiating an agreement is that each party to that agreement must agree to its terms.” Camp notes, “Successful mediation requires the assent of all parties…. The parties may craft an agreement that provides a better solution than a verdict or award ever could.” (p. 66) One of the benefits of mediation is that money isn’t the be-all and end-all: “Parties to a dispute should not miss the opportunity afforded by mediation to craft non-monetary ways to resolve the dispute.” (Camp, p. 66) Epstein (2003, p. 40) notes “mediation is a facilitative process” juxtaposed with litigation which is “inherently adversarial, requiring the two parties to face off in court.”The Power of Transformative Mediation
Bush and Folger (1994, p. 12) delineate two approaches to mediation. “The first approach, a problem-solving approach, emphasizes mediation’s capacity for finding solutions and generating mutually acceptable settlements.” This approach offers the focus sought by Camp, Epstein, and others. Bush and Folger, however, favor the second approach, a transformative approach to mediation, which emphasizes mediation’s capacity for fostering empowerment and recognition. (p. 12) They lay out a strong and comprehensive case for the transformative approach, even while acknowledging it is not the favored, or in vogue, mediation approach for many mediators. They suggest “the mediation process contains within it a unique potential for transforming people – engendering moral growth – by helping them wrestle with difficult circumstances and bridge human differences, in the very midst of conflict.” (Bush and Folger, p. 2) For Bush and Folger, the transformative approach creates two powerful states: empowerment and recognition. Empowerment is “the restoration to individuals a sense of their own value and strength and their own capacity to handle life’s problems.” (p. 2) Recognition is the ability for people to acknowledge and empathize “for the situations and problems of others. (Bush and Folger, p. 2) Rather than asking the mediator to face a “barrage of factual and emotional information” which needs to be “sorted and organized into negotiable issues”, a mediator practicing the transformative approach comes “ready to witness an intense interaction and exchange between the parties … filled with myriad opportunities for empowerment and recognition.” (Bush and Folger, p. 102-103)

What of the bottom line, however? We seek mediation to resolve disputes, not prompt personal growth. Bush and Folger (1994, p. 279) state

Since empowerment and recognition will probably produce desired settlements wherever they are really possible, mediation practice can attain both solutions and transformation – not by striving directly for both but by following the transformative approach alone. Practicing transformation mediation is the best way to meet both goals, because it will lead not only to transformation but to settlement as well, whenever a settlement is genuinely acceptable to both sides.

What Bush and Folger suggest is that through the use of the transformative model, problems will be solved; through the use of the problem-solving model, however, participants will not grow. By using the transformative model, with its mental roadmap of personal growth, participants are given the chance to grow through empowerment and recognition, and through this growth, resolution is possible. When the mediator starts with the transformative approach as a mindset, all things are possible; when the mediator starts with the problem solving mindset, the best that can happen is the particular problem will be solved; there’s been no movement on underlying issues.

This notion of transformation has taken root in a number of venues. In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Zadek (2004) outlines an organizational model of corporate responsibility. He provides a continuum of “five discernable stages in how (organizations) handle corporate responsibility. (Zadek, p. 125) In short, for Zadek, organizational growth comes from a transformation of organizational beliefs, practices, and actions. At its highest form, not only does the organization integrate responsibility in “core business strategies” but promotes broad industry and community participation in organizational responsibility. (Zadek, p. 127)

Transformative mediation falls in direct alignment with Zadek’s organizational approach. Creating an institutionally mature, civil organization, by “shifting the relationships between disputants so that their experience of each other changes before they return to the workplace … is a primary goal in each (transformative) mediation, as that supports the overall organizational goal, which is to actually change the workplace environment and culture.” (Begler, 2001, p. 67)

Transformative Mediation in a Large Bureaucracy
The U.S. Postal Service’s mediation program for equal employment opportunity disputes, known as REDRESS, utilizes Bush and Folger’s transformative model and sets a goal to “afford the maximum participant self-determination at the case level.” (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 137) Empirical studies by the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute at Indiana University show the transformative model of mediation as implemented by the Postal Service resulted in “a statistically significant drop in formal EEO complaints of more than 17 percent annually” for a 3-year period. (Bingham and Pitts, p. 143) The authors of the study go on to assert a bottom-line organizational win: “Organizations can reduce transaction costs by resolving conflict at an earlier stage in the administrative process using appropriately designed mediation programs.” (Bingham and Pitts, p. 144)

In constructing the Postal Service mediation program, two variables were examined to determine the impact on the satisfaction levels of participants and settlement rates for the cases. The variables were “comparing inside and outside neutral mediators” and “examining the role that different kinds of representatives play in mediation.” (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 136) Inside or in-house neutrals are mediators employed by the organization; in this case, they were U.S. Postal Service employees. Outside neutrals are mediators who are not employees of the organization; in the Postal Service’s case, they were professional, contracted mediators. Results showed higher satisfaction for all participants using the outside mediators. (Bingham and Pitts, p. 138) One possible reason for this is participants might have an easier time believing the non-employee mediator “to be truly neutral.” (Bingham and Pitts, p. 138) Based on the data, “the Postal Service abandoned the use of internal neutrals in favor of independent, external neutrals.” (Anonymous, 2002, p. 6)

The second variable which Bingham and Pitts examined was the impact different types of representation that participants brought to the mediation sessions. In the Postal Service’s program, participants – both the aggrieved person and the person representing the agency – could bring representation into the mediation sessions. Representatives could have been an attorney, union official, coworker, or some other person such as a friend or family member. (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 140) Having representation present – no matter what sort of representation – increased the settlement rate and the duration of the mediation sessions. Union or professional association representatives had the greatest positive impact on settlement rates; attorney representatives had the least. (Bingham and Pitts, p. 140-141) Bingham and Pitts (p. 141) suggest this discrepancy may be in large measure because many attorneys are protective of their clients and are, by nature, adversarial. Simon (2004, p. 113) supports this assumption, suggesting, “lawyers’ typical efforts to mediate between clients … rely less on advocacy and more on information control.” He goes on to suggest “dependence on lawyers often impedes responsible or human behavior.” (p. 113) However, Bingham and Pitts note representation of any sort in mediation efforts was better in terms of settlement rates than the participants flying solo; they state, “these results are important because they indicate that various kinds of representatives are associated with differences in the dynamics of the mediation process…. Mediation outcome, party participation, and participant satisfaction with fairness are all related to the presence and type of representative the parties use.” (p. 142)

An apparent key element in the success of the Postal Service’s program is the fact the agency has a unified plan and program that they piloted in one area and then rolled across the country involving the entire service. Their deployment of the discrimination complaint mediation process was not a hodgepodge approach, but a proactive approach embracing a specific model of mediation – the transformative approach. Nothing in the literature reviewed indicated the Postal Service considered using mediation from the problem solving perspective

Underlying Costs Addressed by Transformative Mediation
A fundamental cornerstone for this rationale is likely a set of beliefs held by the designers of the Postal Service’s program. The Coast Guard has identified six “costs” for an ineffective equal opportunity program. These costs speak to the fundamental concerns serving as foundational for the transformative approach to mediation:

1. Processing formal discrimination and harassment complaints significantly drains resources from the Coast Guard budget.
2. Distrust, fear, anger, and other negative feelings pervade an environment that condones discrimination, harassment, and a lack of respect for diversity. Accomplishments and productivity inevitably decline along with morale.
3. Discrimination, harassment, and a lack of respect for diversity fracture the organization. With teamwork impaired, safety is compromised along with effectiveness and ability to accomplish Coast Guard operational missions.
4. If the Coast Guard loses its ability to perform Congressionally mandated tasks, service to the American public is hampered.
5. Internal discrimination and harassment undermine trust in the organization, among Coast Guard members and the public it serves.
6. Failing to comply with Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights mandates in its dealings with external entities damages the Coast Guard’s reputation. (U. S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-4)

Interestingly, the transformative approach, with its emphasis on empowerment and recognition, addresses a number of these costs. The transformative approach deals directly with distrust, fear, anger, and other negative feelings. The transformative approach asks both parties – the aggrieved person and the alleged discriminator – to put aside distrust and fear and anger, to learn about themselves and the other person, and to see both participants as a part of some greater community. Discrimination and harassment and a lack of respect fracture the organization; the transformative approach works to cement the organization with “good mud” which bonds and holds tightly. The problem solving approach to mediation merely looks for a solution to the current situation; it does not deal with the fundamental costs. Transformative mediation can, as Begler (2001, p. 60) notes, “help to stabilize the workplace.”Recommendations for the Coast Guard
While the Coast Guard has officially implemented a mediation component for discrimination complaint processing, in practice it is nothing more than words on paper. Mediation is seldom used. In the Postal Service’s program, the aggrieved person decides whether or not to use the mediation program; “mediation is voluntary for the EEO complainant, but required for the supervisor respondent, who represents the USPS as an organization entity.” (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 136) In the Coast Guard, senior leaders have been known to refuse to proceed with mediation, even when requested by the aggrieved person. Mediation, voluntary for the aggrieved person but mandatory for the agency representative, helps provide the aggrieved person some sense of control. Begler (2001, p. 75) notes conflict is often “embedded with many assumptions, feelings of isolation, lack of understanding about others’ experiences, insufficient transmission of information, and limited organizational support and investigation.” Providing the option of mediation begins to address these for the aggrieved person. The Coast Guard should move to mediation voluntary for the aggrieved person, but mandatory for the person acting in the agency’s stead.

While some people have suggested, and continue to suggest, mediation should be mandatory, the research does not support this method. Mandatory mediation disempowers the aggrieved person by forcing them to take a certain path for the discriminatory complaint process. Mandatory mediation locks the participants into a format they may not be comfortable with and encourages a lack of trust.

The Coast Guard’s current mediation program does not specify the approach or model for mediation. All the documentation, including a “Sample Format for Mediation and Settlement Agreement” and a “Mediation Completion Form” focus on problem solving. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, 5-71 thru 5-72) It does not appear as if, at the present time, the Coast Guard’s mediation focus is on transformation, even though the costs outlined would clearly lead to the transformative approach. While the duties and responsibilities for mediators working within the Coast Guard are spelled out, and the desired knowledge, skills, and abilities are specified, and the specific training and certification standards are listed, there is no statement of model, approach, or process to use in mediation. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2-34 thru 2-35) Using the programs goals and stated costs (U.S. Coast Guard, 1-2 thru 1-5) as a starting point, the transformative approach appears to be a better mesh than the problem-solving model. Begler (2001, p. 59) notes, “When left unrecognized and unresolved, conflicts inside organizations frequently develop into major disputes that range from ongoing personal backbiting to multilevel turmoil.” Using the transformative approach “supports the overall organizational goal, which is to actually change the workplace environment and culture.” (Begler, p. 67) To meet the stated goals and overcome the identified costs, the Coast Guard ought to adopt the transformative approach and ensure all mediators are using the transformative roadmap as they work with participants in conflict.

Whether to use internal mediators, outside mediators, or a combination of both is a critical decision. As noted earlier, the Postal Service has moved to using only external mediators. A key to using external mediators for the Postal Service is that all of them use the transformative approach to mediation and all mediators working in the Postal Service program have “gone through a special mediation training sponsored by the USPS.” (Begler, 2001, p. 61) This, coupled with the agency’s relationship with the University of Indiana and the continuous gathering of empirical data, leave little to chance. The Postal Service has taken a systematic approach to their mediation program. This is not to say that external mediators are the best approach; Bingham and Pitts (2002, p. 138-139) write,

These results indicate that the outside model may provide a more effective mediation program overall than the inside model in circumstances where the program does not give participants a choice between models…. They were never offered a choice between inside and outside neutral mediation, as they might be in an ombudsperson program or integrated conflict management system. In these latter cases results might differ.

Since the Coast Guard participates in the Sharing Neutrals program managed by the Department of Health and Human Services (2004), the Coast Guard could establish a mediation program which provides the aggrieved person the choice between a inside, or Coast Guard employee, mediator and an outside mediator, an employee from another federal agency. Using the Sharing Neutrals program will help keep costs down; the use of outside, contracted mediators would raise the required costs for the program. All mediators practicing in the Coast Guard should be trained in, and use, the transformative approach.

One of the strengths with the Postal Service’s program is the collection and use of evaluative, empirical data. It is the use of data which supports assertions by Begler (2001, p. 61) and others that the Postal Service’s mediation program is a “success.” Success for the Postal Service is not anecdotal, but rather based on measurable data. The Coast Guard has asserted certain costs for ineffective equal opportunity programs including drains on budget, loss of productivity, reduction of operational effectiveness, and employee morale. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-4) The Postal Service used measures of effectiveness which included participant satisfaction with the mediation process, the mediator, and the outcome (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 138); additional measures of effectiveness included settlement rates (Bingham and Pitts, p. 138). Additional measures include time spend in mediation sessions and the number of formal Equal Employment Opportunity discrimination complaint filings following the administrative remedy of informal counseling and mediation. A combination of measures, based on desired outcomes and identified critical success factors, will provide information for review as the Coast Guard works to create a more effective discrimination complaint process.

Vision for the Future
The Coast Guard’s outcomes for Civil Rights are clear and include a “workforce that values diversity” and a “workforce free of discrimination and harassment.” (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-5) The use of transformative mediation following allegations of discrimination will begin to provide positive change; transformative mediation “creates the possibility for disputants to integrate strength of self and compassion toward others – a goal that neither problem solving mediation … nor other institutionalized forms of dispute resolution even seeks.” (Bush and Folger, 1994, p. 284) For the Coast Guard change its culture, transformative mediation provides an avenue which, while not quick is thorough, impacting employees, supervisors, managers, and leaders.References
Anonymous. (2001, November). Conference rewards outstanding federal ADR programs. Dispute Resolution Journal, 56(4), 6.

Begler, A. L. (2001, Autumn). Partnering with mediators: A collaboration that works. Employment Relations Today, 28(3), 59-77.

Bingham, L. B, & Pitts, D. W. (2002, April). Highlights of mediation at work: Studies of the national REDRESS evaluation project. Negotiation Journal, 18(2), 135-146.

Bush, R. A. B. and Folger, J. P. (1994). Promise of Mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Camp, A. (2004, September). Mediation’s advantage: Money isn’t everything. The CPA Journal, 74(9), 66-67.

Epstein, D. G. (2003, October) Mediation, not litigation: Alternative dispute resolution methods offer cost-effective, nonadversarial strategies for resolving workplace conflict. Nursing Management, 34(10), 40-42.

Goldstein, J. I. (1995, February). Alternatives to high-cost litigation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 28-33.

Sharn, L. (2003, August 1). Senate panel boosts Coast Guard acquisition effort. Government Executive online. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080103cdam1.htm

Simon, W. H. (2004, December). The confidentiality fetish: The problem with attorney-client privilege. The Atlantic, 294(5), 113-116.

U. S. Coast Guard. (1999). Coast Guard Equal Opportunity Program Manual (COMDTINST M5350.4). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Coast Guard (2004, June 24). Civilian career opportunities. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgpc/cpm/jobs/vacancy.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004, July 16). Sharing Neutrals: An Interagency Collaborative Effort in Support of ADR. Retrieved December 18, 2004 from http://www.os.hhs.gov/dab/sn/

Zadek, S. (2004, December). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125-132.

A paper written for “Introduction to Conflict Resolution and Alternate Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9610).

Note: To protect client confidentiality, while the specifics discussed in this paper are true and accurate, the name of the team leader, team recorder, and the name of the unit have been changed.

Meeting Purpose, Issue, and Parties
In the late autumn of 2004, ten members of the Coast Guard Group Northeast command, an operational unit responsible for Coast Guard small boat operations in a large coastal and river environment stretching several hundred miles, met to participate in a two-and-a-half day facilitated, collaborative workshop to assess their command against the Commandant’s Performance Excellence Criteria (2003). During the workshop, two facilitators led the meeting participants through a series of questions designed to help the unit personnel assess their approach and deployment of organizational leadership and management practices based on the Criteria. The Criteria, the Commandant’s Performance Excellence Criteria, is the Coast Guard’s version of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (2003) published by the National Institute of Standards and is composed of seven categories. The workshop has a set agenda and includes an introductory piece, a process to review each category, and a concluding piece. The facilitation team leader was Juliet; I served as the co-facilitator; a third person, Dwayne, served as the recorder, typing session notes on a computer.

The meeting was held at a local maritime museum’s meeting space, a cathedral-ceilinged room of nearly 2000 square feet with windows on three sides opening onto a river vista. The ten participants sat an a U-shaped table with a white board and flip charts at the open end of the “U.” A small table for the facilitation team was at the other end of the room; this table served as a place for process review and was where Dwayne sat to type the notes during the meeting. In addition, six other round tables were spread around the room providing space for small group and break-out work. The meeting participants were a fairly mature group, composed of long-time Coast Guard military members. Nine of the participants were men; all participants were roughly 35 to 45 years of age. Two participants were enlisted members of the Coast Guard; the other participants were all commissioned officers. The facilitation team prepared the room the morning of the first session. As a part of the preparation, we hung posters – including meeting ground rules and a place for a “parking lot” – on the walls around the meeting space.

Agenda and Meeting Process
The meeting was kicked off by the junior commissioned officer who had served as the project officer setting up the meeting. She opened the meeting, reviewed a few administrative details, and then introduced Juliet. Juliet began the introductory portion of the collaborative assessment with a broad overview of the process. She then had the participants and the facilitation team members introduce themselves; each person was to provide their name, role at the unit, and their experience with the Criteria. Following this round-robin introduction, Juliet launched into a 15-slide PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of the Criteria and the collaborative assessment process. She did not refer to the ground rules, parking lot, or other posters on the wall.

Once the overview was completed, the group took a short break. Juliet then began to facilitate through the first category, “Customer and Mission Focus.” The collaborative assessment was developed by a number of Coast Guard consultants; I was on the initial development team.

The collaborative assessment calls for each category facilitation to include three parts: pre-work, processing the category questions and determining strengths and opportunities for improvement, and post-work. The category pre-work is composed of five parts. The facilitator reviews the content of the category, including reviewing the questions. Participants are asked to identify which Criteria core principles relate to the specific category; they are asked which of the other six categories link directly to the current category; they are asked to review their unit’s “performance factors,” a document required to be completed before the start of the assessment, and identify which parts of the performance factors relates to the current category. For each of these identifications, the participants must articulate their rationale for choosing whatever they chose. The final bit of pre-work is for the participants to develop a list of characteristics, initiatives, process, and/or systems the “ideal unit” or “ideal organization” would do within the realm of the particular category. In the second major part of the assessment for each category, the facilitator has the participants answer the questions in the category. Participants are then to identify unit strengths and opportunities for improvement within the category criteria. The process calls for the participants to consent to three strengths and three opportunities for improvement. After processing the category questions, the post-work includes the participants identifying “results” which might come from the category content, identifying negative “systemic issues” which are beyond the unit’s circle of influence to correct, and identifying any “proven practices” the unit has within the content of the category. Finally, the facilitator is to review, and clear if possible, any items which the participants have placed in the “parking lot.”

Each of the seven categories is completed using the same basic agenda outline. Following the seventh category, the facilitation team helps the participants choose several initiatives and then develop action plans to implement those initiatives. Finally, the facilitation team provides an outbrief to the participants, and the collaborative assessment is thus completed.

Participants were in formal session for 50 to 90 minutes at a clip with ten to 15 minute breaks between formal meeting time. In addition, participants had an hour lunch break; on the second day, the participants had a working lunch and spent the hour together talking about some upcoming personnel changes and an impending reorganization.

Facilitation Process
As the facilitation team leader, Juliet conducted the initial introductions and facilitated the first category. In my experience, the first morning – which is the introductions and the first category – is usually a bit slow. This assessment was no different. The participants are not used to thinking systematically; they are not used to spending time together thinking and discussing important, but not urgent, issues. The Coast Guard culture puts a priority on urgency, and the assessment process and the assessment content is anything but urgent. In this particular assessment, this cultural priority was evident in the types of questions posed to the facilitator and the conversations around the questions. Juliet did not, however, provide what I thought was a satisfactory “business case” for the assessment or the Criteria to the participants. Another credibility issue came to light when Juliet cited the “performance factors” document, and the participants determined that the copy she had provided as a handout was incomplete. In addition, during this category Juliet mentioned a reference pocket guide by Mark Graham Brown (2003) which the participants did not have. While Juliet allowed silence to hang, using it as a tool for encouraging participation, all the work for the category was done with the ten participants engaged together around the table. At the conclusion of the first category, Juliet had captured 19 strengths and seven opportunities for improvement. These 26 items had been written on the easel paper at the front of the room; to narrow the field, Juliet attempted to have the group reach consensus on the most important issues. She did not use facilitative tools as provided in the Coast Guard’s Process Improvement Guide (1977), such as the affinity diagram or multi-voting, however, and allowed the participants to wander conversationally until the top five were identified.

At the end of the entire assessment process, each participant completed a two page survey indicating their satisfaction with the process and the facilitation team. One participant noted on the form:

A better explanation of the CPC process at the unit level at the beginning of the session would have been helpful. The info glossed over the program at a macro/CG-wide level, but we need a better understanding at the unit level of what we would do, why it was important, what it would do for us, etc. Peter helped explain this better when he introduced a later category after lunch the first day. (Coast Guard Quality Performance Consultants, 2004)

Having noticed the process problem in terms of engagement, I sought to take a structured approach to the process and to use various tools and techniques to increase participation and buy-in by the participants. In addition, I felt that by teaching an overarching model, I might be able to put into perspective the purpose of the meeting.

In starting the category work, I did a couple of things different from Juliet. The first thing I did was post a sheet with the category agenda on it; my first task was to review the category agenda and to explain the use of the parking lot. With the first four items in the pre-work, I had the participants work in pairs and then report out to the entire group. For the last pre-work item, identifying characteristics of the ideal unit, I used silent brainstorming; I had each participant right as many things as they could come up with, one each on a single “yellow sticky.” I then posted these and read them aloud. For the question review, I assigned each pair two questions and provided them ten minutes to discuss the questions and come up with answers. I then had one volunteer from each pair report to the larger group. After completing all the questions, I asked the participants to each identify no more than one strength and one opportunity for improvement in the context of the category and, during the break between categories, to write their responses on the flip charts at the front of the room.

Following the second category, Juliet began the third category. She took from my example and used pairs during the pre-work portion. The day ended before getting to processing the category questions.

Facilitator Interventions
During the ride from the meeting facility to the hotel, the facilitation team discussed the day and the facilitation process. Juliet was concerned with the pace and content of the introductory piece. Dwayne, having never participated in a facilitated, Baldrige-based, collaborative assessment asked questions concerning both content and process. The facilitation team also met for dinner and continued to discuss methods for involving the participants. I noted I thought the large group discussion wasn’t particularly effective in getting participation; Juliet noted that in one prior group she’d worked with, pairing participants had not worked as the participants spent the time talking off-point and not dealing with the issues or questions provided for the pair work.

As the co-facilitator and not the team lead, I was willing to offer suggestions and facilitate by example. I did not feel comfortable directing facilitation method. Indeed, even when I am in the lead facilitator role, I will usually coach and lead by example rather than direct.

The second day’s session began with a brief hello from Juliet and then straight to work. She divided the participants into three groups, choosing the groups to allow for distribution of personalities and of organizational roles. She then assigned each group a single question from the category and told them to identify two strengths and two opportunities for improvement for each question. She gave them a 20-minute limit, provided each group with a large sheet of paper and a marker, and directed them to go spread out in the room to work. After 20 minutes, Juliet brought them back and asked each group to brief-out. She allowed each group’s presenter to make the presentation as they saw fit. One group’s presenter sat at the table, another stood at the top of the “U” after taping the flip-chart paper to the white board, and the third group’s presenter stood at the top of the “U” and wrote on the white board. Juliet then repeated the process, covering all the questions.

This process engaged the participants and allowed for a variety of styles. The small groups remained focused as Juliet occasionally circulated around the room observing the groups at work and answering content questions. The process did take a bit longer than usual.

Following my facilitation of a category, Juliet returned for the fifth category, “Human Resource Focus,” a fairly long category with 10 category questions. She processed the pre-work as she had her last time before the group until she got to the “ideal unit” portion. For this segment, she had each participant draw out a piece of paper from a cup. The papers were numbered from 1 to 10, and each participant pulled one piece of paper. Juliet then asked the participants to silently brainstorm what the ideal unit would look like or do in regard to the category question which matched the number on the piece of paper. She asked them to think of as many items as they could; how would the ideal unit answer that specific category question? After several minutes, Juliet called time; she then told them that when the group had answered each question during the process the category portion, the person with the corresponding number would provide their additional suggestions as to what the ideal unit would do. I thought this was a novel way to engage the participants.

Juliet then began to process the questions with the entire group, capturing the strengths and opportunities for improvement on the two flip charts at the top of the “U,” one flip chart for strengths and the other flip chart for opportunities for improvement. After each question had been answered, she had the “ideal unit person” offer their thoughts.

During the processing of one of the questions, the commanding officer of the unit began to dominate the conversation. The domination was so intense Dwayne passed me a note asking me what I would do when the commanding officer takes over the conversation. I wrote back that I’d either shut him down right away, talk to him off-line, or do nothing. Juliet allowed the conversation to run on; after the two senior enlisted members made a comment, Juliet stopped the conversation by saying it was time for lunch (and it was).

There is a tension between allowing people to talk in meetings and staying on track. What I had not seen from the back of the room, but what Juliet told me over lunch, is that the senior enlisted were chomping at the bit to speak, and she did not want to end the conversation until they had had a chance to say their peace. Juliet understood the need for the senior enlisted personnel to be heard and understood the cultural significance of their input as the voice of the enlisted members.

Interestingly, Juliet had facilitated the first seven questions in the standard form with the larger group. I had noticed a lack of energy, as there had been during the first category question period. Over lunch she asked for feedback; I noted that when we broke up the groups there was more energy and things moved quicker, or at least it seemed they moved quicker. Certainly, in pairs and groups the participants were more engaged. Juliet noted that this fifth category was one she did not usually facilitate and she was less familiar with the content. She noted that she had never thought of breaking into groups, even though she had with her last block of facilitation. She had reverted to the basic process because she wasn’t familiar with the content. In a sense, she’d frozen on process and reverted to the very basics.

For the last three questions, Juliet broke the participants into randomly assigned groups and had each group discuss one of the remaining questions. Energy and conversation increased.

Participant Feedback to Facilitators
At the conclusion of the two-and-a-half day workshop, each participant was given a two page survey to determine satisfaction in terms of the purpose of the workshop – to educate participants about the Criteria and to assess the unit against the Criteria – and to determine satisfaction with the facilitation team. Eight of the ten respondents indicated the time spent on the process was “just right.” The other two respondents said the time on process was “too long.” In terms of “return on investment” (“Based on the time and resources invested, what do you believe your return on investment will be”), three respondents said 1x, two respondents indicated 2x, three respondents said 3x, and two respondents indicated the return on investment would be more than 3x.

The participants also had an opportunity to evaluate the competence of the lead facilitator and the co-facilitator. The responses from the participants are indicated in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, both facilitators received a preponderance of “master” ratings and no ratings below “practiced.” Juliet received 14 “practiced” ratings and 46 “master” ratings, while I received 12 and 48, respectively. While novice, practiced, and master were not defined, all participants had experience attending facilitated meetings and working with facilitators. Of interest to me were the responses to the characteristic of being “courteous and respectful.” While Juliet received ten “master” responses, I received only 8. This, I believe, is an accurate assessment. As I noted to Dwayne when he asked about handling an overbearing commanding officer, I actually consider shutting the individual down as a possible intervention. I’m direct and sometimes abrupt and can see not being assessed as a master at being respectful; while I always use “sir” and “ma’am,” I’ve been known to have an “edge” and a sense of sarcasm less than courteous. Juliet is another matter, however. She is always courteous and respectful no matter what the situation.

Another question on the survey, a referral business indicator, asked if the participant would refer this facilitator to another unit or leader. All ten respondents answered “yes.”

Intervention Success
Overall, this workshop was a success, in large measure because of the facilitation by both Juliet and me. As Schwarz (1994) notes, working with another facilitator can be challenging. While Juliet and I have different styles and personality types, we are complementary when it comes to facilitation. As Schwarz notes, “cofacilitation can be effective to the extent that the facilitators’ orientations are either congruent or complementary.” (p. 211) We are not competitive, but seek to learn from each other. And, when we work together, we have a clear definition of roles and responsibilities.

Schwarz (1994) also defines nine types of interventions. (p. 123) While neither Juliet nor I did much “reframing,” Schwarz’s ninth intervention, we did use the other eight fairly often and generally without even ascribing the type of intervention we were using. Both of us were able to focus on process while keeping an ear toward content, as we were also the technical content experts with regard to the Criteria.

Certainly, the facilitation was not perfect, but as co-facilitators, we did a good job of adjusting on the fly and keeping the participants on-task and on-message, providing them with an opportunity to both learn about the Criteria and to assess their unit against the Criteria. And, all three people on the facilitation team learned new techniques for facilitation and were able to grow as facilitators.

Data for Table 1: On Site Facilitation Competence
The numbers indicate the number of responses in that block by the meeting participants. n = 10

Knowledge elements

Exhibits subject matter expertise

Juliet – Novice: 0
Juliet – Practiced: 1
Juliet – Master: 9

Peter – Novice: 0
Peter – Practiced: 0
Peter – Master: 10

Ability to apply theory to practice in client’s world of work
Juliet – Novice: 0
Juliet – Practiced: 5
Juliet – Master: 5

Peter – Novice: 0
Peter – Practiced: 3
Peter – Master: 7

Oral Communication elements

Ability to keep group interested and engaged

Juliet – Novice: 0
Juliet – Practiced: 3
Juliet – Master: 7

Peter – Novice: 0
Peter – Practiced: 2
Peter – Master: 8

Is courteous and respectful
Juliet – Novice: 0
Juliet – Practiced: 0
Juliet – Master: 10

Peter – Novice: 0
Peter – Practiced: 2
Peter – Master: 8

Facilitation elements

Ability to keep the group focused on desired outcome
Juliet – Novice: 0
Juliet – Practiced: 2
Juliet – Master: 8

Peter – Novice: 0
Peter – Practiced: 2
Peter – Master: 8

Ability to effectively manage the group’s time
Juliet – Novice: 0
Juliet – Practiced: 3
Juliet – Master: 7

Peter – Novice: 0
Peter – Practiced: 1
Peter – Master: 9


Brown, M.G. (2003). The Pocket Guide to the Baldrige Award Criteria (9th ed.). New York: Productivity, Inc.

Coast Guard Quality Performance Consultants. (2004). [Unit survey responses for Commandant’s Performance Challenge collaborative assessments]. Unpublished raw data.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2003). Criteria for Performance Excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Author. {See this website.}

Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The Skilled Facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2003). Commandant’s Performance Excellence Criteria Guidebook. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Coast Guard Quality Center. (1997). Process Improvement Guide (3rd ed.). Petaluma, CA: Author.