The Jeffrey Group

[At the 1999 Annual Meeting of ISP, Professor John N. Warfield, Director of the Institute for Advanced Study in the Integrative Sciences at George Mason University, summarized the following report from his colleague, Carol Jeffrey, on the use of the process and methods of Interactive Management to get warring parties in Liberia to agree on ways to achieve disarmament and demobilization in Liberia’s Civil War. A continuing issue in Panetics is how to bring groups with different values and conflicting aims together in ways that will reduce the human suffering that their conflicts engender.]

In September 1996, the European Community along with the Liberian National Disarmament and Demobilization Commission (NDDC), agreed to host a workshop that would use the processes and methods of Interactive Management to develop an Action Plan that would specify actions that NDDC could take to help the International Community implement the August 1996 Abuja Accord and the Liberian Peace Process and bring an end to bitter civil war.

The workshop participants were members of the NDDC and included the Chiefs of Staff and one senior officer representing each of the six warring factions. The regional coordinator plus two deputies from each of the country’s three regions also took part. Each of the factions was represented equally in order to ensure that the diverse opinions and perspectives of all factional and regional concerns were raised.

Interactive Management

The methodolgy used for the workshops was Interactive Management, a structured process developed by Professor John N. Warfield, of George Mason University. The aim of the workshops was to obtain a clear definition of the problems impeding disarmament and demobilization and to define an action plan. Using Professor Warfield’s table of "Levels of Success", the group would attempt to progress from Level 1 to the beginning of Level 5:

Levels of Success

1. Learning more about what is involved in approaching the issue.

2. Learning more about the issue itself.

3. Achieving a good definition of the issue.

4. Finding good alternative designs to resolve the issue.

5. Arriving at a good choice for action to resolve the issue.

lnteractive Management (IM) is a process and method to help groups or orgar¹izations deal with complex issues. It is premised on the assumption that unless all the parties who are part of the problem are engaged in defining a solution, success is unlikely. It is designed integrate diverse views, backgrounds, and perspectives in a search for communication, consensus and commitment from participants.

The process is designed to prevent groups from (a) prematurely focusing on solutions before they have adequately defined the situation, and (b) underconceptualizing design alternatives. Special methods are employed to encourage the participants' creativity, and facilitated group processes are used to effectively manage the group's communication.

The methodology consists of three major components of problem solving:

Content :The ideas and information relevant to the problem situation. The content is provided by the participants, who are content experts on the situation being addressed.

Context : The entire environment within which the problem is embedded. The context is defined prior to group work, through interaction between the Facilitation Team and the Sponsor, who represents the interests and needs of the organization.

Process: The design of the problem-solving environment, including the system of procedures, methodologies, and communication structures used foraddressing the problem situation. The process is implemented by the Facilitation Team, who are experts in the management of group problem solving.

The workshop was divided into two phases, each lasting two days. The first phase was a

Problem Definition Phase held on 7-8 October 1996. Phase II, the Action Planning Phase was held the following week on 14-15 October 1996.

Problem Definition

It was important to begin the workshop with a non-threatening and leveling

exercise to help the participants relax and begin to talk to each other. The first question they

were asked to respond to was:

"Given the stated vision for disarmatnent and demobilization in Liberia, we should

implement the process because. . . "

Each participant was asked to complete the sentence on an index card. These cards were

collected and redistributed so that each participant read tbe response of another person at the

table. Not surpnsingly, the responses were similar–back to school, concern for Liberian children's future, free movement in the country, time for peace and stability, etc.

The primary objective in this first phase of the workshop was to determine the barriers to implement disarrnament and demobilization. The participants were asked to

respond to the question:

"Given the current situation within Liberia and the most recent Abuja Accord, what

are the barriers to implement the agreed upon Disarmament and Demobilization

Action Plan?"

Using a modified brainstorn¹ing technique, the participants were asked to silently generate responses in writing to the question. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used so that all participants would have an opportunity to respond to the question rather than having one or two persons dominate the forum. Another advantage of the NGT, is that the participants are requested to only ask clarifying questions when referring to the items generated by the group. This helped the participants learn to listen to each other for understanding rather than evaluate or pre-judge their ideas for agreement or disageement. The participants generated 65 responses to the question.

After identifying and clarifying the barriers, the participants were asked to vote on the five most important issues from the list and indicate whether each of those issues was the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth in importance. The results were interesting in that, from a group of 23 voting participants, several items received a large number of votes. It is not surprising that all but one of the barriers that received many votes dealt with the lack of support and resources for the Disarmament and Demobilization Commission (NDDC). The items receiving the largest number of votes were:

• The NDDC has not been strengthened to carry out its mandate. l 9 Votes

• NDDC doesn't have resources to enhance the peace process. 18

• The lnternational Community has not made available logistics to the legitimate arm of government and NDDC. 1 6

• Failure on the part of the European Community and United Nations peace-keepers to carry out disarmament and demobilization through the NDDC. 1 6

After reviewing the results of the voting, the participants were asked to group the barriers into categories. The group was rerninded that there is a difference between categorics of and rclationships between ideas. Professor Warfield has developed software (called Interpretive Structural Modeling–ISM) which enables participants to quickly see graphically the relationships which they see between barriers.

The group identified nine categories of barriers:

1. Lack of Commitment

2. Communication Gap betweeen fighters and their leaders in each faction.

3. Lack of Support for the Disarmament and Demobilization Commission

4. Uncertainty of Fighters’ Future

5. Lack of International Integrity.

6. Lack of International Interest.

7. Prejudice and Selfishness

8. Misinformation from the media.

8. Reintegration of Combatants.

The group was then asked: Does Category "x "Significantly Aggravate (Make Worse) Category "y"? Yes or No votes were fed into the computer and a relationship "map" resulted. The direction of arrows indicate which categories and barriers aggravate which:

In reading the map, the category of barriers entitiled "Lack of Commitment" significantly aggravates all of the other categories of barriers identified by the group. According to the discussions and voting of the participants, that is the "root cause" of the lack of implementation of disarmament and demobilization in Liberia. Without the commitment of the leadership of Liberia, the problems associated with both "International lntegrity" and ''International Interest'' are exacerbated, resulting in the problems associated with the"Regintegration of Combatants". The other pathway from "Lack of Commitment " shows that those same barriers aggravate "Lack of Support for NDDC", "Communication Gap ", "Uncertainty of Fighters Future", "Prejudice and Sdfishness", "Misinformation", and again, the "Reintegration of Combatants".

The map also depicts two "cycles'~ of barrier categories. Cycles mean that the problems in those categories cannot be worked on in isolation. The barriers are related so that a "systems approach" to resolution must be adopted. Solving barriers in "Lack of International Integrity" will help alleviate the problems associated with "Lack of International Interest" and vice versa. The same is true of the cycle containing "Uncertainty of Fighters Future", "Prejudice and Selfishness", and "Misinformation"; solving problems in one category will have an impact on the solution to problems in the other categories.

Action Planning Phase

The second phase of the workshsop was designed to detern¹ine actions that could be taken to alleviate the barriers identified in Phase I. Each category of barriers was addressed separately by the participants who were asked to respond to the question:

"Given the barriers to implementing the disarmament and demobilization plan idenfified in Phase I, what actions can be taken to alleviate those barriers?"

After the participants identified actions for each category, they self-divided into three groups to review the actions in the categories assigned to them. One group reviewed "Lack of Commitment ", "Lack of International Interest", and "Lack of International Integrity", another group reviewed "Lack of Support for NDDC" and "Communication Gap"; while the third group reviewed "Uncertainty of Fighters Future", "Prejudice and Selfishness", "Misinformation", and "Reintegration of Combatants."

The groups were asked to decide whether each action in a category was to be a recommendation to another organization or agency which was external to the Commission, or if the item was an action for NDDC. If it was an action, the group was asked to decide if the action should be addressed in the short-term or long-term. The participants were reminded that an implementation schedule had been developed for the Liberian Peace Process and that any actions taken by the NDDC should reflect that schedule. For example, the disalmament process begins on 22 November 1996. Actions that NDDC could take which would support the disarmament of the fighters need to be started quickly.

Each group was asked to select at least one action in each category and develop an Action Planning Statement. After responding to a selected set of questions, the participants should have been able to use those responses to write the statement. Because this task was new to the group, the resulting statements should be understood to be initial or draft action planning statements. Due to the shortage of time, this exercise was used to provide the participants with a process that they could use to develop the actions that the NDDC could implement.

Some of the ideas that were developed by the groups included establishing a team of factional leaders in each region who would help build confidence in the peace process and alleviate the fighting in the areas. Another idea was to create Public Awareness Programs which would help to educate the fighters about the disarmament and demobilizatin process. Counseling was another action identified to be developed by the NDDC. One group decided that regional offices should be opened with coordinators deployed to those offices. Preregistration of combatants for disarmament should begin. Radio programs were identified as a means by which the fighters could be reached to explain the disarmament and demobilization process. Vice-councilman Taylor donated broadcast time for this effort.

Conclusion

In the first phase of the workshop, the participants identified 65 problems related to implementing the disarmament and demobilization process. These problems were discussed at length by the group so that a "shared" understanding was developed. Each time a problem was addressed in a different task, the group defined the issue at a deeper level of understanding. The graphical result of the discussion about the interrelationships of the categories of barriers helped the group to visualize interconnections between problems and how they should be resolved.

Based on their understanding of the problems, the group then detern¹ined actions that would alleviate the problems. Actions were identified for each categoly and determined to be either recommendations for external agencies or organizations or actions for the NDDC to take. Initial Action Planning Statements were developed for at least one item in each category.

Participants stated clearly that because they knew who their fighters were, they would be able to disarm them at the appropriate time. Because the NDDC is made up of members of each faction, they felt that they could explain the diarmament and demobilization process to the fighters.

They felt strongly that there was no disarmament package. The ISM map shows clearly that this is essential to integrate the fighters back into society. Lack of information causes them to continue to harass communities and not put down their guns. The participants explained that the fighters were more interested in long-term approaches, such as work programs and educational opportunities than in receiving a bag of rice or bulgar wheat and some money.

Another day or half-day would have helped flesh out the Action Plan more completely, but the time was not available under the provisions made by the European Community hosts and the NDDC.