November 2, 2015 – Wolrim-ri, Hallim-eup, Jeju
A village meeting was held. The residents were divided over whether to establish a community café, and in the process of resolving that conflict, a few unexpected things happened.
This is a record of that experience.
1. Background
A “Two Birds with One Stone” Project – Training Facilitators through Observation and Resolving Real Community Conflicts
Collaborative governance was one of Jeju’s core policy goals. In response, the Jeju Human Resources Development Institute sought to train facilitators who could put collaboration into practice in the field.
In July 2015, 21 local residents were selected for “The Initiative,” a 24-hour comprehensive facilitation training program.
The participants came away convinced of facilitation’s power as a method for collaboration, but it was also realized that 24 hours of training was nowhere near enough to facilitate and solve the issue effectively. They requested ongoing support to continue developing their skills, and come to a positive conclusion.
The Institute responded by launching field training so these aspiring collaborative facilitators could gain structured, real-world experience. Three villages with pressing issues were selected. Actual workshops would be held to address their conflicts, while at the same time giving trainees a chance to observe and participate under expert guidance.
2. The Challenge of Field Training
The need for field training was obvious, but making it happen was another story.
First, it was hard to find a suitable collaborator. We needed a real issue where collaborative governance could be applied. While many communities had problems to solve, and we sent many official invitations — “We can help, please apply” — but many resulted in… no responses.
Despite the lack of responsible public official response, we didn’t give up. With persistence and patience, several villages were contacted, and eventually, we gained the agreement of three. Crucially, these weren’t villages pressured into participating — they genuinely had problems the community wanted to solve.
One of them was Wolrim-ri, where residents were split over whether to open a village café, and the disagreement had stalled any progress.
Once the site was set, scheduling became the next obstacle; aligning the availability of the lead facilitator, the village, and the officials wasn’t easy. But with persistence, the dates were set: November 2–4.
Then came the challenge of fitting the trainees’ schedules. Even though this whole program existed because of their requests, not all could attend. Still, the program had to go ahead — building local, in-house facilitation capacity was essential for Jeju’s collaborative governance goals.
(This is a real-world example of just how difficult it is to train facilitators who can truly resolve conflicts. It takes years of such experiences to cultivate skilled conflict-resolution experts.)
3. Three Surprises in the Field
Between expert facilitators and trainees lies an invisible boundary — the “line of trust.”
How much a facilitator trusts their participants directly shapes the quality of facilitation and the likelihood of resolving conflicts.
Classroom training can emphasize the importance of trust, and case studies can illustrate it, but putting it into practice in real-life situations is much harder. Until a trainee sees it for themselves, they tend to hesitate at that “line of trust” instead of stepping over it.
Hesitation reduces facilitation to little more than using flashy tools without unlocking their deeper effects.
First Surprise – Trusting Participants’ Indifference
At the start of the workshop, participants were asked:
“What are you hoping to get out of today? Please write it on a sticky note and place it on your table.”
Trainees often fear that if participants write down nothing “meaningful,” the workshop will lose direction. This can lead them to subtly coax “better” answers — a mistake.
The expert facilitator instead said:
“You’re welcome to write things like, ‘I just came for the food,’ or ‘I came without thinking about it.’ Anything at all is fine — write whatever comes to mind.”
This surprised the trainees. The facilitator was willing to acknowledge and accept participants’ indifference.
Hearing this, participants relaxed. They stopped trying to guess the “right” answer and started writing honestly. Smiles replaced tense expressions.
Interestingly, very few wrote anything related to the actual topic of the café. But that didn’t matter — the workshop’s success didn’t depend on it.
Second Surprise – Trusting Participants’ Right to Leave
During a break, the facilitator announced:
“If you’re busy, you can go home now. If today’s meeting feels like a waste of time, please go take care of your important tasks. If you feel it’s worthwhile, please stay and help each other.”
Trainees often fear that letting people leave will disrupt the atmosphere, so they avoid breaks or plead with participants to stay.
The expert facilitator, however, didn’t cling to anyone. As it turned out, almost no one left — and those who stayed did so out of genuine commitment, not obligation.
People are more motivated when they act by choice, not compulsion. A true facilitator trusts their participants to decide what is best for them.
Third Surprise – Trusting Participants’ Commitment
Through discussion, it became clear that the root of the conflict wasn’t opposition to the café itself, but concern that there would be no reliable people to run it.
The facilitator addressed this head-on:
“We’ve heard many great ideas for the café. Now, who will actually take responsibility for running it? If you’re willing to be part of the management team, please write your name on a sticky note.”
Someone muttered, “See? No one will do it!”
The facilitator replied calmly:
“Just wait — someone will step forward.”
And they did. One by one, names appeared. Residents were surprised — and perhaps reminded: “Yes, we do have that willingness in us.”
A facilitator’s trust means being ready to accept the possibility that no one will volunteer — and still making the ask.
Finally, the facilitator asked the group:
“Do you think these people can run the café well?”
“Yes.”
“Then shall we conclude that we’ll build and operate the café together?”
“Yes!” (Applause)
4. Feedback
As usual, after the workshop, the team held a debrief.
This time, because it was part of the training program, it was more formal.
The workshop had been a success — the village agreed to create the café and gathered ideas on what it should offer. The public official who had shouldered the difficulties of organizing it smiled deeply, and the colleagues who came to assist were visibly happy.
Trainees highlighted their three biggest surprises:
- Truly valuing all opinions equally.
- Having the courage to say, “If you’re busy, you can leave.”
- Asking for voluntary managers to step forward.
All three came down to trusting the participants. Seeing this in action, trainees learned how collaboration becomes possible — and joined the ranks of effective table facilitators.
And so the “Eumburi Café” was born.
Conflict, after all, is simply part of the learning process when people care about making something succeed.
