Session F2C
Decision-Making and Conflict Resolutions Skills
Enhanced by Virtual Facilitation: A Qualitative
Study
Adrienne Colbert, Angelica Guzman, Martha McQueen, Ray Luechtefeld
University of La Verne, adrienne.colbert@laverne.edu, angelica.lopez@laverne.edu, martha.mcqueen@laverne.edu
Abstract - Facilitation among engineers continues to
focus on the enhancement of technical knowledge. Very
little effort addresses non-technical skills. This research
explores the phenomenon behind the use of the
facilitation framework of Chris Argyrols and Marshall
Rosenberg in a virtual facilitation simulation tool.
Currently, the military uses simulation technology to
practice various exercises such as flight maneuvering.
The engineering arenas use of technology whether
internally or externally can be an innovative educational
tool. The focus of such a tool would enhance the quality
of decision-making and conflict resolution. This study
investigates whether the use of virtual facilitation during
a simulation leads to enhanced decision-making and
conflict resolution skills. This research focuses on the
use of the “Ugly Orange”, a commonly used negotiation
simulation, with interventions based on the framework of
Argyris and/or Rosenberg interjected into the
communication process. This research extends existing
knowledge on the effects of virtual facilitator to enhance
decision-making and conflict resolution skills, as well as
conditions to enhance participants’ openness and
interdependence.
Index Terms – Trust, Knowledge, Information Sharing,
Virtual Facilitator, Simulation Technology, Interventions.
INTRODUCTION
Facilitation among engineers continues to focus on the
enhancement of technical knowledge. Very little effort
addresses non-technical skills. This research explores the
phenomenon behind the use of the facilitation framework of
Chris Argyris and Marshall Rosenberg in a virtual
facilitation simulation tool. Currently, the military uses
simulation technology to practice various exercises such as
flight maneuvering. The engineering arenas use of
technology whether internally or externally can be an
innovative educational tool. The focus of such a tool would
enhance the quality of decision-making and conflict
resolution. The study seeks to address behaviors related to
knowledge and improved information sharing during
negation with a win-win potential and to investigate whether
the behaviors are related to the negotiators’ personal goal
achievements. The expectation of the study focuses on
supporting the hypotheses about specific behaviors used to
earn trust.
Trust
Trust can be defined as the willingness to risk increasing
“one’s vulnerability to another whose behavior is not under
ones control” [1]. Trust theorists agree trust is fundamentally
a psychological state [1]. Trust can also be defined as
interrelated orientations and cognitive processes, which
include a state of what appears to be vulnerability. The
vulnerability originates from uncertainty, intentions, and
prospective actions of others on whom they depend [2].
Trust may rise in any given relationship or trust can fall
within the anticipated fluctuation.
The study investigates the use of the virtual facilitation
and uses Chris Argyris’ facilitation framework. The virtual
facilitator will seek to determine if its use will lead to trust
and acceptable solutions. The sharing of relevant
information and negotiation are risky due to the increase in
ones vulnerability.
Negotiators who trust their opponent experience
confidence their opponent will refrain from using the
information in taking advantage of the negotiator’s
vulnerability [3]. Likewise, when a negotiator holds
information from their opponent he or she is seen as
untrusting [3]. Fisher and Brown researched and found trust
is developed by demonstrating concern toward the other’s
interests [3]. The research attempts to investigate the use
Chris Argryis’ facilitation framework within a virtual
facilitation to determine if the use aids in increased trust and
acceptable resolution.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Virtual Facilitator
When participants enter the chat tool over the internet, the
login names of the participants are recorded. The act of
recording the login names assists the virtual facilitator in
recognizing communication between dyads. When the
participants commence the simulation exercise, the software
dialogue can be observed in a dialogue box. The dialogue is
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2C-1
Session F2C
retrieved in “real time allowing the virtual facilitator to
intervene accordingly to the set of rules under evaluation [1].
The virtual facilitator checks for words or phrases that
trigger an IF-Then rule. When the virtual facilitator
recognizes a rule has been triggered a question or statement
appears as an intervention. Both participants can see the
string of communication during the exercise. A transcript is
produced and can be downloaded in Excel format. The rules
in the exercise are based on Chris Argyris work. The rules
are stated in terms of IF-Then relationships [4]. See Table I
for a sample of rules currently used.
TABLE I:
EXAMPLES OF IF-THEN RULES
Situation
Indicators (IF)
Deletion - Clearly
and Obviously
-ly ending or "it was
clear to me"
Deletion
Comparisons
-er, -est, more/less,
most/least, etc.
Better (faster, etc.)
than what? How,
specifically, do you
see it this way?
Deletion - Can't,
Impossible,
and
Unable
can't,
impossible,
unable, no one can
What prevents you
from doing so?
(Does anyone see
things differently?)
Deletion
Advocacy without
illustration
Distortion
Forcing or Making
"should,
must,
expect, encourage"
What leads you to
see it that way?
"I had to, you made
me, you bore me”
What
experience
had you had that
leads you to believe
X? What was done
that makes you Y?
-
Questions (THEN
ASK)
What leads you to
see it that way? Can
you give specific
examples?
The simulation game includes the alternative of using or not
using the interventions.
The observation of virtual
facilitation explores the dynamics of the dyad conversation.
Two hypotheses are tested:
1. The use of the virtual facilitator improves decision
making among teams.
2. The use of the virtual facilitator promotes effective
communication
Chris Argyris
Chris Argyris is a Professor of Education and Organizational
Behavior at Harvard Business School. Chris Argyris work
contributes to the increase of knowledge in individual, team
and organizational learning[5].
Chris Argyris’ Model II behavior focuses on instituting
social values that help people to learn. The social values
appear in circumstances where one feels threatened or
embarrassed. Model II behavior encourages the confronting
of one’s ideas and aids in helping each other uncover
assumptions within the Model II behavior. The behaviors he
labels Model II is defined in his many writings and includes
many recognized expert practitioners. Together these
provide a wealth of operationalizable rules that, when
implemented in a virtual facilitator, are expected to help
teams learn to re-evaluate basic assumptions as well as
effectively share information and perspectives [6].
The virtual facilitator focuses on increasing group
effectiveness and improving the individual’s communication
skills. The virtual facilitator conducts interventions within
dyadic conversations. The “virtual facilitator” is a patentpending system that contains an interface similar to a typical
chat room. While dyads converse with one another, the
facilitator intervenes in accordance with the rules under
evaluation [4].
The research investigates the use of virtual facilitation
based on the facilitation framework of Chris Argyris. The
research seeks to determine if the virtual facilitation tool
leads to an increase in trust [4].
Rule Development
Argyris “Model II behavior is based on the values of seeking
valid information , free and informed choice, and internal
commitment to choices and monitoring of their
implementation. The outcomes are described as an increase
in learning and an increase in the effectiveness in teams.
Rule sets for Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent
communication have also been developed for use in the
simulation exercise [4].
The effects of Argyris Model II behavior on teams
consist of the involvement in a two hour-long role-play
simulation. The study findings consist of two results. The
first finding revealed participants asked increasingly more
questions throughout the duration of the exercise as opposed
to the control group. The second finding revealed a
substantial ability to deal constructively with the conflicts
included in the role-play simulation. Further evidence
revealed observational learning occurred. The determination
of observational learning was based on questions raised by
the system being used by the participants [5].
METHOD
Participants and Procedures
The participants used in the research were randomly grouped
into dyads to participate in the Ugli Orange Exercise [1].
The exercise places emphasis on the dynamics of conflict in
a negotiation situation [2]. The simulation uses interventions
based on Chris Argyris’ Model II Behavior.
The participants received enough information to enter the
simulation and complete the exercise. Because the
simulation exercise encourages real conversations, the
participants were not provided information regarding the
virtual facilitator interventions. The results of both the
treatment and control are then compared in an effort to
analyze the difference in critical skill components necessary
for effective communication.
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2C-2
Session F2C
EXERCISE DESCRIPTION
Role-Play Simulation
The role- play exercise illustrates the dynamics of conflict in
negotiating situations. Jones and Roland were the players
cast as doctors. The two negotiated an agreement in sharing
of scarce resources consisting of the Ugli oranges. This
research re-created a study done by Butler [2]. His
description of the procedure follows:
“Before the start of the negotiations, the participants
were asked about their level of trust using a 5-point
Likert-type scale. The Likert scale ranged from 1=
strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The firm Jones
oversaw developed a cure for an epidemic leading to the
damage of organs in infants. Roland’s firm gained
interest in neutralizing a lethal nerve gas escaping from
bombs off the coast of the United States. Authorization
by the firms allowed the doctors to spend up to
$250,000 on the single fruit exporter who owned all the
remaining Ugli oranges. In the end if the doctors shared
enough relevant information, they would realize one
might have only needed the rinds of the oranges while
the other only required the juice [2]. After the first 7.5
minutes of negotiating a Negotiator’s Interim Report
including questions about the process was developed
[2]. The report included a 5 point Liker-type scale
ranging from 1=very little to 5=very much. The purpose
of the line of questions consisted of determining
whether behavior and trust were related to the individual
participant’s goal of achievement or the achievement of
the dyad [2]. When the role players completed the
interim reports, negotiation continued for another 7.5
minutes. The role-play continues after the dialogue
continues for 15 minutes [2].”
RESULTS
In the research, 64 participants were paired in 32 dyads.
Chris Argyris’ rule sets were used within the simulations and
focused on his “Model II behavior”. Of the 32 dyads, 7
dyads were able to complete the virtual simulation. Twentynine of the 32 dyads failed to provide necessary interim and
initial trust information or the required dialogue necessary
for researchers to appropriately analyze trust levels. Seven
dyads were able to complete the virtual facilitation
simulating with initial and interim levels of trust, of these 7
initial trust levels ranged from 1(strongly disagree)3(strongly agree), and interim trust levels were from 1(Very
little)-5 (very much). From these, only thirteen participants
had both initial and later levels of trust.
FINDING
The conversations were coded based on the degree virtual
facilitator influenced behaviors. The level of influence was
determined by the participants’ response to the Likert-type
scale where they referenced their level of trust. The Likerttype scale asked participants to place a number from 1
through 5. The number 1 signified strongly disagreed and
the 5 signified strongly agree.
In this study, 7 out of the 32 dyads had conclusive
evidence to use towards determining the intervention role of
the virtual facilitator. Seven dyads were able to complete
the virtual facilitation with initial and later levels of trust.
Three of the 32 dyads discovered a win-win solution after
completing the virtual facilitation. Overall, the study had
thirteen participants that were used to determine hypothesis
1 and 2.
TABLE 1
TYPES OF BEHAVIORS
Positive Connotations of Trust
Negative Connotations of Trust
Contributes
clarity in the conversations
Dyads reach mutual understanding
Emphasis goals
Questions are not answered
Emphasize of win-lose
competition
Contributes to empathy
The conversations between the dyads were saved and
evaluated for results on the two hypotheses.
An Independent T Test was performed to evaluate whether
there was a significant difference in the means initial trust
and the later trust. The test was based on the assumption
that the Group ID Dyads were independent of one another.
Participant #
TABLE 2
LEVELS OF TRUST
Initial Trust
Later Trust
1
2
2
Difference
(positivenegative)
0
2
2
2
0
3
2
1
-1
4
3
2
-1
5
1
5
4
6
3
5
2
7
1
3
2
8
3
3
0
9
2
3
1
10
2
3
1
11
3
2
-1
12
1
2
1
13
2
2
0
The results of the hypotheses are:
1. Hypothesis 1, was not supported, the use of the
virtual facilitator does not improves decision
making among teams.
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2C-3
Session F2C
2.
Hypothesis 2, was not supported, the use of the
virtual facilitator does not promote effective
communication
5.
Conducting numerous simulations in different types
of working environment such as business, school,
profit, non-profit will also give the outcome of
results a broader band of participants.
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
This work investigated the use of virtual facilitation based
on the facilitation framework of Chris Argyris’ Model II
behavior to determine if its use leads to increased knowledge
and improved information sharing. The results indicated
that the use of this virtual facilitation model into dyad
conversations did not significantly improve decision making
among teams. It also indicated the virtual facilitator does
not promote effective communication.
There was no assessment to determine the reliability of
the measures. This unreliability could contribute to the
limited number of participants who completed the exercise.
To determine a greater knowledge of the impact the virtual
facilitator has on teams it is recommended that a greater
number of participants be involved in the virtual facilitation
program.
CONCLUSION
As an investigation of the facilitation framework of Chris
Argyris, this study tested if the use of virtual facilitation
leads to increased decision making amongst teams and
promotes effective communication. Results did not support
our hypotheses.
These results have the following
implications.
The number of participants who successfully negotiated
through the virtual facilitation limits the study. The virtual
facilitator did not appear to benefit the dyad in reaching an
agreement. The virtual facilitator does not appear to modify
behaviors by increasing the number of dyads that had
positive effective communication.
These results suggest additional research is necessary to
further study the effects of a virtual facilitator based on the
Chris Argyris’ model has on dyads reaching an agreement.
Some avenues to explore are –
1. Using the virtual vacillator program on a larger
number of dyads would help increase the number of
participants.
2. Increasing the number of novice negotiators that
participate in the virtual facilitation
3. Further developing the types of intervention the
virtual facilitator does during the simulation to
create effective teams.
a. Pursuing of self-interest
b. Sharing information
c. Goal achievement
d. Win-win negotiations
4. Further developing the program by expanding the
types of questions it asks participants to address
efficiency, fairness, durability, and community
interests from Fischer and Ury’s criteria [3].
1 Kramer, R. M., “Trust and Distrust in Organizations:
Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions,” Annual
Review Psychology, 1999, Vol. 50, pp. 569- 598.
2 MacDuffie, J. P., “Inter-Organizational trust and the
dynamics of distrust,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 2011, Vol. 42, pp. 35-47.
3 Butler, J. K., “Behaviors, Trust, and Goal Achievement
in a Win-Win Negotiating Role Play,” Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, December
1995, pp. 486-501.
4 Luechtefeld, R., Singh, R. K., Watkins, S. E.,
“Expert System for Team Facilitation using Observational
Learning,” Frontiers In Education Conference,
October2007. pp.10-13, Milwaukee, WI.
5 Luechtefeld, R., “Use of Role-Play Simulations
and Computationally Intelligent Dialogue Interventions in
Research and Education,” Industrial Engineering Research
Conference, 2008, J. Fowler and S. Mason, eds.
6 Luechtefeld, R., Virtual Facilitator Project Description
Document, Received January 2011.
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2C-4