21 February, 2018
Imagine that you spent weeks of time and effort preparing for a presentation at work based on guidance from your immediate supervisor. After delivering the presentation, you stand smiling, eagerly waiting for questions. Instead, your supervisor speaks up. “This wasn’t the direction we thought you would take, so I think we can skip the Q&A session. We are out of time, so I thank everyone for coming. I’m sorry this took all afternoon. Clearly, we need to re-strategize. I’ll send out an email tomorrow with follow up thoughts, and a plan outlining immediate next steps. I look forward to presenting something more of substance next month.”
By now, you are likely fuming. Blood is rushing through your body, and your fingers are tightening into a clenched fist. The anger, embarrassment, and betrayal you feel is visible on your face. Your next move could cost you your career, but you can’t even rationalize what to do next, because your brain is in threat mode. Overlapping processes in your brain and body are pushing you to create a conflict with your boss. To disrupt those processes, the first thing you need to do to is to understand exactly what is happening inside your brain during moments of stress.
Your brain is both gloriously complex and woefully imperfect. Your brain performs the miraculous feat of triggering multiple processes instantaneously, and almost simultaneously, to prepare you to identify and respond to danger. However, those multiple systems don’t always work in unison – they can sometimes compel you to behave in a more aggressive way than the situation requires.
Your Normal Brain
Whenever you experience a stimulus, either from the warm embrace of a loved one or from a disastrous presentation at work, the stimulus is first registered in your brain’s thalamus, the brain’s relay station. The thalamus then sends signals to the amygdala and the neocortex as well as other areas of the brain.
The amygdala plays a role in the generation of emotional responses, and in forming, storing, and consolidating memories. When a stimulus is received, the amygdala compares that stimulus to a reservoir of memories to determine whether the new stimulus represents a physical threat to your safety. For example, when a friend approaches with arms stretched wide, the amygdala registers a stimulus, compares it to your reservoir of memories, and determines that the stimulus is not threatening. However, if a stranger approaches with open arms, your amygdala, finding no record of this person in your reservoir of memories, might flag the stimulus as a threat.
The neocortex is a larger section of our brain that is responsible for rational thought processes, decision making, and moderating behavior, and it is often referred to as the conscious mind. When a stimulus is non-threatening, the neocortex plays a regulatory role, keeping you within a range of standard behavior.
You can think of the difference between the amygdala and the neocortex by comparing how they make decisions. The amygdala determines if there is a threat with a yes or no response. The neocortex works through a complex set of options and considers various outcomes and possibilities.
Your Threat Brain
When your brain does perceive a threat, things get interesting. As you stand feeling humiliated in front of your boss, multiple neurological processes are overlapping to create a whirlwind of potential pitfalls.
First, the amygdala receives stimuli from the thalamus before the neocortex does. In other words, your brain produces an emotional response milliseconds before producing a rational one. This is critically important. This process helps to mobilize your body to fight, flee, or freeze should the stimulus represent a physical threat, such as smoke in a building, or an attacker. However, your brain consolidates memories, and can register a stimulus as a threat when it is only similar to other threats or perceived threats. Sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder, commonly known as PTSD, might hear a loud noise, or find themselves alone in a room, and feel a sudden rush of fear or panic, triggering the same emotions as a past traumatic experience. You experience this all the time, but to a lesser degree. When you watch a movie where someone is drowning, it produces the same emotional response as if you were actually drowning, despite being in no real physical danger. If you were bullied as a child, your boss’s criticism about your presentation might trigger the same emotions you felt on the schoolyard so many years ago. The danger for you now is that you need to react differently to your boss than you likely did to a childhood bully.
While your amygdala is creating an emotional response, it also immediately restricts signals flowing to the neocortex, essentially shutting down your rational thought processes. When you experience a threat, this is a good thing because it enables your body’s emergency systems to take over to address the threat. But when the stimulus is registered as a threat, even when it does not actually represent a real threat, your body and brain still react to the stimulus as if it the threat were real. Your brain is ready to respond to your boss like they are a schoolyard bully, and your rational brain has been cut out of the decision-making process.
To compound the trouble, your brain, having registered a threat, triggers an increase of production of adrenaline and cortisol. With more of both chemicals pumping through your body, your heart rate increases, your breathing becomes faster and shorter, and your muscles become primed to either fight the threat or run away from it. With these three processes happening at once, your body is gearing up for a fight.
Moreover, as soon as your brain perceives a threat, your body starts using excess glucose, and for a period, the neocortex gets undersupplied. Glucose is the gasoline of your body, and when there is not enough glucose available, parts of your body can shut down. Without enough glucose, your neocortex cannot tell the difference between something good and bad, cannot make effective decisions, cannot moderate your behavior, cannot anticipate future consequences, and cannot properly express your personality. Now you stand in front of your boss, fueled by adrenaline, overwhelmed by emotion, and without the capacity to make good decisions.
These automatic processes happen completely outside of your awareness, and they can be triggered by anything, but primarily occur in your daily life when you are stressed or when you experience interpersonal conflict. It might feel reassuring to know that if you yell at your boss, your behavior in that moment is not totally within your conscious control. But, there are things you can do to disrupt your brain’s automatic processes and retake control of your behavior, even something as simple as taking time and space to allow your brain to return to its normal state. In the next few weeks, we will continue to explore how your brain’s overlapping processes inform your behavior while you are in conflict. In the final part of this series, we will explain more strategies to calm yourself and retake control of your rational brain when in conflict situations.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
30 January, 2018
Reading not only expands your knowledge but can also stimulate the imagination, foster empathy, reduce stress and improve communication skills – all great benefits for anyone engaging in conflict conversations. What books are you planning to read this year and why? Here are some books our team has on their 2018 reading list…
Dianne
The Conflict Paradox: Seven Dilemmas at the Core of Disputes by Bernard Mayer. This book reframes seven common dilemmas in conflict resolution from “either/or” to “both/and”. I am reading this book to deepen my understanding of how to recognize what is happening for parties in mediation. It also seems to be a good follow-on to Bernie’s earlier books – The Dynamics of Conflict and Beyond Neutrality – that encourage conflict engagement.
Bridging Troubled Waters: Conflict Resolution From the Heart by Michelle LeBaron. Having first read this book when it was published in 2002, I realize now more than I did then, the need for more nuanced approaches to conflict resolution. This book appeals to the intuitive and versatile side of my problem-solving brain.
Designing Your Life by Bill Burnette and Dave Evans. This book has a following among innovators. It’s language and model may be helpful for understanding some of my coaching clients better and provide me with tools that will appeal to them.
Rick
The Conflict Paradox: Seven Dilemmas at the Core of Disputes by Bernard Mayer. Mayer is a pioneer in the field of conflict resolution. My copy of his earlier book, The Dynamics of Conflict, has post-it notes sticking out of it, and yellow highlights throughout. I learn something new every time I reread it. Our President, Dianne Lipsey, recently recommended The Conflict Paradox. It was already on my reading list, but with Dianne’s recommendation, has been moved up the list.
Power: A User’s Guide by Julie Diamond. A friend forwarded a Youtube video of Diamond discussing power and I was immediately interested. I’ve read other books on the topic, such as The 48 Laws of Power, that present strategies to manipulate others and gain power by taking down the people around you. Diamond speaks about increasing personal power in a way that could empower the people around you. That is much more aligned with my overall philosophy on life, and I look forward to a deeper dive into the topic.
Cultures & Organizations: Software of the Mind by Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. Although, I have read a long list of books about organizational culture, I have never tackled this book from beginning to end. Geert Hofstede has informed my work as a consultant for years, and I am excited to discover how much I have yet to learn from him.
Shayne
Healing the Heart of Conflict: Eight Crucial Steps to Making Peace with Yourself and With Others by Marc Gopin. My instinctive approach to conflict is informed by analytical thinking and problem-solving – it’s just the way my brain works – but conflict is not always logical and data often doesn’t address emotions, perceived intentions, and trust. We are all capable of learning new behaviors to expand beyond our natural tendencies. In that spirit, I’m looking forward to reading Dr. Gopin’s approach to dealing with emotions in conflict, especially his emphasis on self-awareness as I firmly believe that our own response is the only response we can control.
Salt Houses by Hala Alyan. A novel about the displacement of a Palestinian family in the wake of war. The story is told from the perspectives of multiple family members as they deal with the cost of war, the loss of “home” and the rebuilding of lives in other locations. Sometimes the path through conflict is the ability to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes and imagine situations beyond your own experience. I find that novels are an engaging way to practice this skill.
When Millennials Take Over: Preparing for the Ridiculously Optimistic Future of Business by Jamie Notter and Maddie Grant. Jamie and I both graduated from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, though at different times, which is how I first learned of his work. Jamie and Maddie have a great perspective on organization culture in the social era and the generational issues that can arise. This book has been on my reading list since I read their previous collaboration entitled Humanize.
Hewi
The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz. This book has been on my list for years after listening to the author on Oprah. Ruiz discusses the source of self-limiting beliefs that rob us of our daily joy. Through the four agreements detailed in the book, you learn to replace your old toxic ways of thinking with the 4 agreements which help you experience a new type of freedom, true happiness and love.
The Power of Your Subconscious Mind by Joseph Murphy. All of our experiences, events, conditions and acts are the reactions of our subconscious mind from our thoughts. These are the inner assumptions that govern and guide our lives. According to Dr. Murphy, when we begin to control our thought process, we can apply the powers of our subconscious to any problem or difficulty. I look forward to delving deeper to apply this in my everyday life.
Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Set in Baltimore and written as a letter to the author’s teenage son about the feelings, symbolism, and realities associated with being black in the United States. A timely book that was recommended by a friend.
25 January, 2018
To change the mind of other people you must be open to changing your own mind first. If others cannot observe that you are willing to change at all, they are going to hold onto their beliefs tighter. But changing your own mind doesn’t mean that you have to stop believing something, or that you have to believe only what the other person believes. To change your mind, you must expand your current belief to allow new possibilities to coexist.
Imagine that after working hard on a project, delays initiated by another department caused it to be late, and subsequently your portion of the project was rushed and the quality suffered.
During a meeting with your team, your boss publicly reprimanded you, saying that work of this quality is “unacceptable.” You might deny accountability and shift the blame to the other department.
However, if you can expand your belief to include other possibilities, you might find that you could have communicated the delay more effectively, could have worked on pieces of the project while waiting for the other department, could have supported the other department to speed up the process, or could have done any number of other things to avoid the delay and dips in quality.
By acknowledging these new possibilities, you now have a more comprehensive picture of what happened. Rather than forcing your boss to decide that you deserve all or none of the blame, they are more likely to accept the impact of the delay because it is now one of many possible contributors. Additionally, you might now feel more comfortable accepting some of the responsibility now that you’ve observed steps you could have taken to protect against the delay. And, you certainly have more choices about how to avoid the situation next time. The next time you find yourself fighting against someone else’s belief, expand your own beliefs first to make room for what they believe to be true.
24 January, 2018
I’m betting that most of us who work in conflict resolution, whether formally as a neutral or informally in our roles within our organizations, know well a certain sinking feeling. That is, when the people involved have had a good dialogue and worked hard to come together and yet seem to balk just when a resolution is in sight. The resolution is still redeemable in many cases but in others, that little hesitation can be like the thread which, once pulled, unravels the whole thing. So, what’s that about?
When the parties sit down to engage in a dialogue about their conflict, their behaviors tell a story about why they may have avoided or not resolved the conflict in the first place and what might make it hard for them to face real and viable solutions that they say they want. The root of these behaviors can often be:
• Doubt from past experience. Many times parties in conflict will express serious doubt that anything will or should be accomplished in mediation or dialogue because past experiences have eroded their trust. They might say… “He knows what’s been happening and always says he’ll do something, but he never does.” or “I gave her another day of telework because of her situation but I could never find her when I needed to.”
• Hesitancy or a lack of confidence. When the parties are not clear on what they want or have the right to ask for, their ability to trust the offer from the other party may be compromised. They might say… “This is my one shot. What if I make the wrong deal?” or “If I offer a reassignment, then everyone will want one.”
• Fear, anger or hurt. These emotions, so often present in disputes, affect how the parties engage and ultimately move toward resolution. Fearful parties may be hard to draw out. Anger often affects how well parties can hear and interpret what is being said and how they express their own stories and interests. Hurt from painful experiences can cause parties to filter, and sometimes distort, the dialogue through an outer defensive shell.
• Ineffective communication. Varying levels of communication skills may make it difficult for parties to engage in a mutual exchange, cause the parties to fall into habits of expressing emotions more than interests or curiosity, and aggravate their discomfort about the dialogue process and confidence in possible outcomes.
• Physical distress. Whether from the dispute, the stress of the dialogue process, or other factors, parties showing tensions in their faces or bodies can find it very difficult to engage with optimism. The tension can also be telegraphed to the other parties and affect the dynamic in the room.
The behaviors from the parties give us cues about what will be most important in their ability to fully engage and work toward a resolution. As conflict resolvers, there are many ways we can guide our process to meet the parties’ needs. Here are a few approaches commonly used in mediation:
• Setting a good tone and making clear how a dialogue will take place can lessen physical and psychological stressors. This might mean taking a little extra time in the beginning and conveying calm and competent authority over the process so that parties can put their trust in the conflict resolver.
• Using separate sessions and letting parties know they can request to meet in separate sessions. This can help parties feel more confident in their ability to explore and get help in expressing their concerns and needs.
• Recognizing the level of emotion and what it communicates about whether and how emotions must be acknowledged before parties can move on. This may also require more time in the mediation or dialogue and may mean that the parties circle back to cover previously-covered territory to build their confidence so they can let go of emotions that are blocking them.
As conflict resolvers our ability to recognize those behavioral cues from the parties holds the key to helping the parties engage in their conflict and come together around real and durable resolutions.
Dianne C. Lipsey
President
22 December, 2017
In our professional field, we engage in a practice of reflection to support continual learning and development. Reflection is also a valuable way to learn from mistakes, gain perspective, generate ideas and acknowledge and celebrate achievements. As we close the year, our team has come together to share their reflections and hopes for the new year…
2017 – what a year!?! With so many ways to reflect, I want to acknowledge the women and men of the federal government we’ve had the honor to work with throughout the year. My generation was witness to our rivers and streams and air getting cleaner; civil rights expanding to embrace our national diversity; our enhanced commitment to the wellbeing of peoples of the world; our security and banking systems strengthened; our honor of the arts and so much more — all results of those dedicated federal employees. It’s been a hard year for many of them and so I reflect, with gratitude, on the pleasure of spending some of our year engaged with them to make their workplaces better. -Dianne
Change is hard – it can be disorienting, stressful and just plain exhausting even for those who fully embrace the change – and 2017 has been full of change! We are creatures of habit so when our usual patterns are disrupted, we are compelled to expend extraordinary amounts of energy to make sense of our surroundings again. Effective communication, kindness and hope are common casualties in this state of fatigue. We must remember though that we also have within us the capacity for resilience – to recover, bounce back and regain our footing perhaps in a new way that we could not have expected or predicted without the disruptiveness of change. My hope for the new year is to intentionally create space to remain curious even when I disagree, to find areas of agreement we can build on and to appreciate the unexpected gifts that come with change like new connections, renewed commitments and fresh ideas. -Shayne
Although it is easy to look back at 2017 and recall the challenging and tumultuous events that defined the year, it is certainly not comfortable or convenient to do so. 2017 was a hard year for many, and I cannot let this year pass without acknowledging the pain and exhaustion that 2017 will leave behind. I am also reminded, by countless courageous deeds, that 2017 is also the year that inspired people into action. Victims spoke up and found justice. Voters have turned out in record numbers. Citizens rose up into public service positions and political activism. Communities united to aide each other through destructive events. I feel like this was a year when people woke up. We all somehow realized that if we want change in this world, there is no one better equipped to inspire it than ourselves. As I take stock of what has been gained and lost this year, the sum of everything leaves me with humility and hope. I look forward to seeing what we will accomplish together in 2018. -Rick
The arrival of a new year provides a great opportunity to look back at the previous year’s accomplishments, challenges, and to anticipate and work toward a promising and inspirational 2018. I have a lot to be cheerful about this season as I’ve had opportunities to work with an exceptional group of people who truly believe and anchor their work in “Helping People Work Better Together.” With all the end-of-year goals and holiday preparation, it’s easy to forget to pause and reflect. A study by the Harvard Business Review found “reflecting on what you’ve done teaches you to do it better next time. And that reflection boosts performance.” My hope as we enter the new year is that we all take a second to reflect and concentrate more on the positive changes we can make both professionally and personally. -Heywette
20 November, 2017
Last month my colleague posted a blog and hosted a webinar exploring the question of whether the language we use to talk about conflict limits the outcomes in conflict resolution and whether the term Conflict Engagement might open more possibilities. This subject, combined with some very unsatisfactory recent mediations, has sent me into a deeper exploration of Conflict Engagement and back to a 2001 book by Bernie Mayer, PhD. Beyond Neutrality: Confronting the Crisis in Conflict Resolution.
In his book, Dr. Mayer introduces a tension between avoidance and engagement in the use of mediation across all of its applications. He shapes the avoidance premise around forces that naturally discourage people from willingly investing in a mediated solution. Among them are that people actually want or feel the need for the power and authority that comes from an advocate rather than a neutral and they need a process and a negotiating partner that allows them to address the root causes of the conflict rather than just patching it up.
To move from avoidance to engagement there needs to be conditions and processes that will put the parties in the best position to participate openly and creatively. Ideal conditions start when there is just enough importance and risk to motivate parties to willingly engage in mediation but not so much as to drive them to legal or administrative alternatives; when the parties feel comfortable they can speak for themselves rather than through representatives; and when they believe the parties at the table are willing to honestly explore “what” needs to be fixed in addition to the “how” of the resolution.
In most workplace mediation programs, whether out of the best of intentions or institutional requirements, the decision to mediate rests with the employee. Regardless of how well suited the conditions are and how prepared the parties are, when an employee opts for mediation, the organization offers it. Further, when the conflict arises from a claim of discrimination, harassment or reprisal, the risk to the parties jumps way up and the dynamic becomes less flexible, making it much less likely that there can be a meaningful discussion of systemic issues. Most often, organizations have little interest in considering any systemic changes without sufficient risk or legal mandate.
Employees cede all the power of their claim when they accept the terms offered by management and sign a settlement agreement. For management, to reach a settlement they must offer something of value, sometimes feeling as though they are establishing a precedent just in the interest of settling. Parties on both sides often feel the risks are too high and the rewards too much in doubt.
This all being the case, here are some thoughts about engendering greater engagement in workplace conflict.
For mediation programs still in development, introduce and facilitate open exploration of options for:
• The program to encourage more “what” dialogues to balance the “how;”
• Establishing conditions of safety and commitments from the parties to address the risks; and
• Exploring conflict engagement options such as conflict coaching for when conditions for two-party dialogues or mediations would not be optimal.
For mediating within established and relatively inflexible mediation programs:
• Be deliberate in assessing the risk/reward levels of the parties to gauge the parties’ motivation for a mediated solution and how much farther they may be encouraged to work toward it; and
• To the extent possible, honor the root cause concerns as among the issues for resolution and allow them to play out more.
In all cases, as conflict engagement specialists, we need to recognize and honor the parties and their needs. When they are locked in emotion or resistance, when the employee has lost confidence in the organization and the organization is unable or unwilling to make changes to address root causes, then we may only be able to help the parties articulate and possibly agree to work toward, the conditions needed to move forward. While not a settlement, this is engaging in the conflict.
Dianne C. Lipsey
President
10 November, 2017
ADR Vantage, Inc. has an immediate opening for a Program Manager in its Washington, DC office to support its efforts to provide high-quality and effective collaborative solutions in the workplace. The Program Manager, working under the supervision of the Director of Programs, will balance time between direct client work, case management and coordinating the successful delivery of client services. The Program Manager will also coordinate with the Director of Operations to ensure compliance with contract requirements.
ADR Vantage is a leading provider of conflict management, organizational effectiveness, and employee engagement services with a 24-year history of work with the federal and private sectors. We are committed to our mission of helping people work better together, and our new team member must share the same passion for our mission, be process-oriented, flexible, proactive, and a self-starter as well as possess exemplary relationship-building, communication (written and verbal), and project management skills.
Essential Job Functions:
• Providing direct client service that may include facilitation, mediation, training, curriculum design and other program support.
• Managing projects including planning, coordinating tasks, tracking deliverables, monitoring for quality assurance, and preparing status and outcome reports.
• Providing mediation case management including intake and assignment to practitioner(s) on the applicable roster.
• Supporting the maintenance and further development of our nationwide roster of practitioners according to ADR Vantage priorities and project fulfillment demands.
• Creating content for business proposals, website, and social media.
• Contributing to the development of new service offerings, trainings/workshops and other company initiatives.
Required Skills/Qualifications:
• A degree in conflict management or related field (advanced degree preferred);
• 40 hours of Mediation Skills training from a suitably accredited program, such as those approved for certifying mediators, mentoring mediators and providing continuing education credits;
• At least 5 years of experience in conflict management or related field and strong group facilitation skills (practitioners certified in areas such as mediation, facilitation, coaching, etc.
and with federal sector experience are preferred);
• Significant experience working directly with clients and providing project, program or case management;
• Demonstrable good judgment, integrity and respect in decision-making and communication;
• Exceptional writing, research and communication skills (experience in writing proposals, whitepapers and/or for social media is preferred);
• Highly adaptable and self-motivated with equally strong abilities to work independently and collaboratively in a team; and
• Commitment to continual learning, development and growth.
To apply:
Send a statement demonstrating why you’re a good fit for this position, a current resume, a writing sample (5 pages max), and three references. Email applications to workbetter@adrvantage.com with the header “Program Manager” by November 30, 2017. Incomplete applications will not be considered. No phone calls please.
11 October, 2017
Why is it so challenging for us to develop productive and meaningful approaches to conflict when conflict, in varying degrees, is something we live with daily? Conflict is a normal and inevitable aspect of our lives that can be a stimulus for positive change, and yet, the language we use in describing conflict increases the likelihood that we will adopt strategies that will, prolong, ignore, or even have the effect of escalating the conflict. If we change our language, we discover a radical new way of thinking about and addressing conflict.
Three words that are commonly associated with the word conflict are prevention, resolution, and management. When we talk about conflict as something to be prevented, resolved, or managed, the image we create is something to be impeded, avoided, suppressed, and confined. From this view of conflict, we might internalize narratives such as, “If you don’t have conflict now, then you need to make sure you don’t have it ever,” or, “If are you in conflict now, then you need to fix it, or confine it to minimize its impact.” The language we associate with conflict has two effects.
First, the language as described above reinforces prevailing negative associations and attitudes that conflict is something painful and undesirable. While this might reflect what we experience when we are in conflict, it ignores a fundamental truth about conflict. Conflict is a natural part of human interaction. It is likely that we all have experienced conflict with a romantic partner, a family member (parent, child, sibling), a coworker (colleague, boss, subordinate), a neighbor, and a friend. We experience conflict in every arena of our lives, and if we have interacted with other human beings, then we likely have experienced conflict. If we view conflict as only negative, then we treat it as something undesirable and avoidable, and we deny its inevitability. Whereas if we acknowledge conflict as normal and inevitable, then we can learn to integrate it into our daily lives and leverage it for positive change.
Second, our language encourages us to develop unhelpful approaches to conflict. When we treat conflict as only negative and as something to be avoided, we subsequently develop strategies to ignore and deny the existence of conflict, rather than dive in and confront what needs addressing. If we think of conflict as something to be fixed, then we might rush to a resolution without giving full attention to the various dynamics fueling the conflict. If we treat conflict as something to be suppressed, we might encourage conversations to include as few people as possible, ignoring others who are directly or indirectly affected by the conflict. To change our attitudes and approaches to conflict, we first must change our language.
Conflict Engagement
If the language of conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and conflict management encourages unproductive attitudes and approaches to conflict, then conflict engagement may offer a different, and immensely more useful, way of thinking about and approaching conflict. So, what does it mean to be engaged? Current academic research points to a three-pronged definition of engagement. To be engaged in something means to be involved, energized, and enthusiastic. To be involved means to actively seek opportunities to perform the task, and to do the task whenever it requires being done. To be energized means to be motivated or incentivized to perform the task. To be enthusiastic means to be excited by the task, to look forward to it, and be passionate about it. If we apply these concepts to conflict, we are presented with a radically different conflict philosophy.
To be involved in conflict would mean to seek opportunities to enter challenging or difficult conversations rather than avoid them. It would mean acknowledging when conflict exists, and looking for ways to unpack the conflict in collaboration with others who contribute to or are affected by the conflict.
To be energized by conflict would mean to be motivated by the positive benefits of addressing conflict head on. Conflict often becomes destructive when it is ignored or when we apply hurtful or damaging conflict strategies. However, when we take part in meaningful dialogue, and seek to understand others involved, working through conflict can produce clearer shared understanding, deepened relationships, and innovative solutions. If we focus on these positive aspects of being in conflict – without ignoring the difficult and uncomfortable aspects of being in conflict – we are more encouraged to step into hard conversations and work toward shared goals.
To be enthusiastic about conflict would mean to feel enough of a sense of competence and confidence in our ability to productively work through conflict that we are willing to initiate what might be a conflict conversation. Unfortunately, although we have lived our entire lives in conflict, most of us have an underdeveloped conflict skill set. Cultivating enthusiasm for conflict engagement would encourage us to strengthen the skills and strategies we bring into conflict conversations.
Refreshing our language from conflict prevention, resolution and management to conflict engagement gives us a new template for our attitudes and approaches to conflict, and provides a shift that will help us acknowledge conflict that already exists, step into conflict more willingly, and develop a more effective set of skills to help us navigate conflict. This month, as we celebrate conflict resolution month, let us also focus on new directions for our field of practice.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
23 August, 2017
Having been a mediator for nearly eleven years, I can’t say that I have seen it all, but I’ve certainly found myself amid plenty of intense conflicts. I’ve sat calmly at a table while people a foot away from me stood screaming into each other’s faces, or pounded on the table hard enough to lift it off the ground. I’ve witnessed people sit silently and then suddenly explode into wild expressions of emotion. Over the years I have observed and learned. I can mostly predict with accuracy when someone is about to escalate, and can point to what triggered the escalation. More importantly, and eminently more useful, I have also learned how to deescalate people. The questions of what makes someone escalate and makes them deescalate can both be answered with another question, “Does that person feel heard?”
My mantra is that people will escalate if they do not feel heard, and will deescalate if they do feel heard. If someone is getting louder, repeating themselves, or using increasingly destructive methods to get their point across, it’s because they don’t feel heard.
Mostly, when we listen, we listen ineffectively. We try to make certain that we understood what has been said, and that we have the facts straight, but the most well-trained listeners fall victim to confirmation bias, where we listen for information that confirms that narrative we have already created in our own minds. We frequently listen ineffectively because we filter out information that doesn’t fit our narrative, and we either narrowly focus on or even add information that confirms what we already believe. Truly effective listening happens in three stages:
1. Loosen your grip on your own story – You must be willing to acknowledge that your own version of what happened, is happening, and will happen might not be the true story, the only story, or the whole story. Stay open to new or missing information, and information that counters what you already believe.
2. Accept the other person’s story as equally true as yours – Rather than trying to assert your version of the facts, or disprove the other person’s story, accept their story as the truth. If someone says, “you disrespected me,” and you believe you did not disrespect them, and it was certainly never your intent to do so, rather than disprove them or argue back, allow their reality to coexist with yours. Allow the possibility that you did disrespect them and then dig deeper into their story. What did you do that they perceived as disrespectful? What impact did their feeling disrespected have? What could have been done differently that would have made them feel more respected?
3. Listen so that the other person feels heard – Pull out key information from what the other person has said, and repeat it back either verbatim or in your own words. Ask yourself, “what do they want me to hear and understand?”
Effective listening is a power tool in deescalating strong emotions, and fostering shared understanding. The next time you find yourself in conflict, follow the three-step process to hone your effective listening and de-escalation skills.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
17 August, 2017
Listening or active silence is like a “wonder drug” for communication. Staying silent but attentive to conversations, staying curious and asking questions to draw out others and clarify meaning, and sharing our own views as a reflection of what has been said, opens new possibilities. It helps people feel their contributions matter, conveys respect and respect builds trust and trust is the currency of our relationships.
It can be very hard to keep our thoughts to ourselves in a high-pressure exchange of ideas. Often there is reward in being the first to say something important or to be the one credited with the best idea. AND it can just be hard to do: Many of us like to jump in the fray; some of us may be impatient as the conversation veers too much from the points we think are important; and lots of us don’t like the awkwardness of silence. Here’s some food for thought as your organization sets goals and implements strategy to Work Better Together:
A typical study points out that many of us spend 70 to 80 percent of our waking hours in some form of communication. Of that time, we spend about 9 percent writing, 16 percent reading, 30 percent speaking, and 45 percent listening. Studies also confirm that most of us are poor and inefficient listeners. Listening is a skill that if practiced and honed will lead to better relationships.
