Lesson 02 - Thought Question - 02 - Determining when Conflict appears to be heading towards either Escalation or Avoidance.
Peggy Stine - January 25, 2013
In my personal experiences with other people, I rely on various signs in determining when a conflict appears to not be heading for a resolution. For instance in order to determine when a conflict appears to be heading towards escalation I look for signs that: * Parties are entrenched in the same arguments * Militant leadership emerges in response to a perceived threat or crisis * Veiled threats and demands are used to win arguments * Name calling and personal attacks are used * Reasonable requests and a justified refusal becomes a personalized battle of wills. * One party will talk about the other as if they know everything about them. * Motives are attached to actions * One party becomes the victim of others’ actions. * Parties exaggerate the consequences of inaction * Parties have formed coalitions based on relationships, power, influence and social climate * Body language (i.e. eye contact, hand gestures...) shows hostility or closure to compromise or new ideas * A battle of wills becomes intractable when the parties see themselves as evenly matched * The fear of ‘losing’ contributes to a ‘justified’ defensive action * There is a power imbalance where one person sees the other as stronger than themselves or having an advantage that makes them stronger * More energy is put into creating and monitoring a case against the other person and justifying a response than in addressing the problem or the real issue.
On the other hand in order to determine when a conflict appears to be heading towards avoidance I look for signs that: * Participants show lack of commitment or engagement to issue * Participants outright refuse to acknowledge the problem * Members provide ambiguous statements and/or skirt issue with respect to issue at hand * Parties do not share information or ideas * Evidentiary material in support of claims is not evaluated * Parties delay action or ignore critical problem at hand to address simpler agenda items upon which members could reach a comfortable agreement * Members reach quick acceptance of a solution without consideration of the implications and/or consequences of actions beforehand * Subject matter experts are notably silent * No plans are made to implement solutions * Unresolved issues repeatedly emerge in new forms, characterization and descriptions
In an attempt to de-escalate conflict; I have always attempted to view the conflict thru the eyes of a mediator or disinterested party. I attempt to invoke a methodology that is comprised of the following steps: * Invite a re-telling of the story by members * Show interest in the story * Listen but do not share the emotions. * Do not interrupt the initial re-telling * Do not agree or disagree with the speaker(s)
The process of the re-telling the story in a calm manner allows the participants to be heard. That in itself removes the ‘justification’ for escalation.
At this point, the focus is on the speaker(s)’ perception/version of what has happened and the effect on them, not the other(s) involved. The attention they are receiving also helps the speaker(s) feel empowered (i.e. that what they are saying is being heard and given the attention the speaker(s) requires).
In the initial re-telling of the story perceptions and actions are acknowledged, clarified and perhaps for the first time, separated.
From the outset the pace, tone and delivery I attempt to maintain is one of calm and respect. This serves to signal that the speaker(s) is (are) ‘no threat’ to the listener(s), that I am not the aggressor and there is no need to be defensive.
I attempt to not to assume a position of power, or assume knowledge of the speaker or attribute motives to actions.
By removing the perceived threat and the need to act or react to a real or perceived threat a calm space is created. I can then proceed to focus the participants on a reflection of: * What happened * How it is affecting them * Current (unmet) needs * What they would like to happen before making a considered choice about other ways to get their needs met.
My tactics have worked on most practical issues where unmet needs have been recognized and acknowledged.
The mediation or disinterested party process as I employ provides an opportunity for the parties to decide what is important and what each is willing to do to get their needs met in a different setting, recognizing the need to achieve the co-operation of the other party/parties involved in the current difficulties.