The Ritual of Conflict Resolution: Mediation

In an introduction to an edition of the journal “Cultural Anthropology” Kevin Carrico of Stanford University had this to say about ritual:

“Ritual is arguably a universal feature of human social existence: just as one cannot envision a society without language or exchange, one would be equally hard-pressed to imagine a society without ritual. And while the word “ritual” commonly brings to mind exoticized images of primitive others diligently engaged in mystical activities, one can find rituals, both sacred and secular, throughout “modern” society: collective experiences, from the Olympics to the commemoration of national tragedies; cyclical gatherings, from weekly congregations at the local church to the annual turkey carving at Thanksgiving to the intoxication of Mardi Gras; and personal life-patterns, from morning grooming routines to the ways in which we greet and interact with one another. Ritual is in fact an inevitable component of culture, extending from the largest-scale social and political processes to the most intimate aspects of our self-experience. “

When we talk about why mediation is so successful in resolving conflict the discussion for the most part centers upon “win-win” negotiation and restorative justice and indeed those are its laudable results. But why does it work? Understanding mediation as both as a social phenomena and as a secular ritual provide some welcome guidance into its inner workings.

In the Fall of 2003, William Johnson Everett, a renowned professor of theology and ethics at Yale Divinity School delivered a paper titled “Ritual Wisdom and Restorative Justice.” There, Everett noted that:” Symbols and rituals are indispensable for our efforts to contain, transform, and resolve conflicts. Without them, our conflicts are reduced to the exercise of brute force and the loss of all the values of cooperation and mutuality that make life in community possible.” Rituals explained Everett are “repeated patterns of action that have a symbolic character.” For Everett, ritual serves three purposes, it legitimates authority, it orders relationships and allows people to “rehearse” participation in conflict resolution. In a ritualistic context, engaging in mediation constitutes an effort to “to emulate a deeper or higher pattern that can lend legitimization to our daily search for justice. In comparing the symbols and rituals of the courtroom to mediation, Everett believes that mediation derives its meaning from the circle rituals that we may find in committees, task forces, teams and even the football huddle and which represent powerful examples of human ordering. Additionally, ritual help to order relationships in mediation by providing a pattern of organization including, setting boundaries, establishing certain patters and process as well as evoking certain scripts and scenarios all of which are there to guide the parties towards a process of what Everett calls “justice seeking.” Everett notes that in our daily lives, we constantly rehearse smaller rituals of restorative justice through our interplay with the media of film, literature and theater and the news where the drama of justice is repeatedly enacted for us in our daily lives.

A deeper understanding of the significance of ritual and symbols and how they play out in the larger social setting can be gained by the offerings of cultural anthropologists that study secular rituals.

Conflict resolution and it’s processes play an vital role in our social order. It is therefore incumbent on us to understand these issues in a social context in which symbols and ritual play a large part. So doing, not only gives us a far deeper perspective into how to resolve conflict but why we do so. Many studies of conflict resolution and mediation center around psychology and interest-based negotiation and while these play an important part, they don’t tell the whole story. The social dynamics of conflict resolution and it’s attendant rituals and symbols offer  compelling explanations and pieces of the larger puzzle.

Here’s the link to Everett’s paper:

Click to access Ritual_Wisdom_Everett.pdf

Here’s a link to the Journal of Cultural Anthropology

http://www.culanth.org/curated_collections/4-ritual

Can a Sociological Perspective Help Resolve Conflict?

When he died in 1982 Canadian-born sociologist Erving Goffman was considered “the most influential American sociologist of the twentieth century” (Wikopedia). His most notable work was titled “The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life” (1956) in which he described face-to face interactions between human beings as dramatic performances where each actor to the interaction is plays a different role. Goffman postited that:

“When an individual comes in contact with another person, he attempts to control or guide the impression that the other person will form of him, by altering his own setting, appearance and manner. At the same time, the person that the individual is interacting with attempts to form an impression of, and obtain information about, the individual.^[ Goffman also believes that participants in social interactions engage in certain practices to avoid embarrassing themselves or others. Society is not homogeneous; we must act differently in different settings. This recognition led Goffman to his dramaturgical analysis. He saw a connection between the kinds of “acts” that people put on in their daily lives and theatrical performances. In a social interaction, as in a theatrical performance, there is an onstage area where actors (individuals) appear before the audience; this is where positive self-concepts and desired impressions are offered. But there is, as well, a backstage – a hidden, private area where individuals can be themselves and drop their societal roles and identities.” (Wikopedia)

Goffman is considered a main proponent of the field of symbolic action sociology that among other things included his “theory of frames.” Frame analysis is a way of looking at human interaction by dissecting it into discrete parts that Goffman called “frames.” By examining these frames Goffman posited, we can gain some perspective into the “organization of experience.” In addition Goffman studied and wrote about the ritualistic aspect of face to face interactions. So what does all this have to do with conflict resolution you might ask?

In 2012, Brian Jarrett of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks published a paper as part of a symposium on mediation. The paper titled  “Making Mediation Work: A Sociological View of Human Interaction” provided a practical application of Goffman’s theories to the practice of mediation. Jarrett makes that case that mediators can use frame analysis to gain perspective and “re-orient” disputants respective responses thereby enhancing more meaningful dialogue. He further argues that Goffman’s veiw of “game, drama and ritual metaphors” can help mediators by providing them with “powerful analytic tools for guiding clients through terrain which would otherwise be chaotic and overwhelming.” 

On first reading, if one is not familiar with the jargon of sociology, Jarrett’s paper can get confusing and difficult to understand. For while he makes an interesting and at times elegant argument for the application of Goffnam’s work, it’s difficult to ascertain how these additional tools would help mediators in their everyday practice. In terms of “frames”, when the analysis is applied to the conversation of mediation, one wonders whether such analysis provides clarity or confusion? Every seasoned mediator fully understands what it means to engage in interest based collaborative dialogue. With that understanding comes the ability to guide disputants not by framing but by simply helping the parties re-phrase the conversation using, to quote the Aristotle, “deliberative rhetoric.” 

Goffman’s metaphors of game, drama, and ritual are also difficult concepts to apply to mediation. The difficulty lies in understanding the benefit that a mediator would derive from thinking about mediation from the sociological perspective suggested by Jarrett. Sociology for Goffman was intended to gain a theoretical understanding of social phenomena and that’s where a practical application of his theories are present difficulties for mediators. 

Having said all that, Jarrett’s paper has  a lot to add to the literature on mediation. But what it adds isn’t practical but theoretical and introducing the work of Goffman. Where Goffman really shines is getting us to understand mediation in its full theoretical implications as a sociological phenomena. Students of conflict resolution should welcome this perspective and embrace it for what its worth, a serious look and more than that, a look at Goffman’s prodigious contribution to social thought. Do yourself a favor though, to understand Goffman, read him and not second hand sources or even papers like Jarrett’s .They simply don’t do him justice. He had a writing style that was amazing and make for fascinating reading. You will be dazzled. Share your comments and thoughts with us.

Here’s the link:

Click to access Making-Mediation-Work-Jarrett.pdf

What Can the Spirits Teach Us About Resolving Conflict?

Sometimes there’s a lot to be learned by thinking “out of the box.” When we’re talking about conflict management or resolution, the standard Western thinking will usually be along the lines of “interest-based negotiation,” and with it, it’s attendant higher virtue of self-determination. Principled, interest-based negotiation, so the concept goes, will arrive at the best possible agreement between the parties and by it’s process, improve and promote better relationships between the parties. The process, as described by Fisher & Ury in the seminal “Getting to Yes.” is rationally elegant and widely practiced and advocated by conflict resolution professionals. But, expand your mind a little and remember that conflict has been around for a very very long time and for just as long a time, there have been other ways to resolve and manage conflict that arguably have been just as successful as interest-based negotiation.

 In an eye-opening article published in 2012 in the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, F. Peter Phillips, a professional mediator and arbitrator, asks the question of what happens when the goal of conflict resolution isn’t to attain “justice” or someones “private aims,” but rather when the goal is “affirmation” or “healing?” In answer to this question. the author explores the Hawaiian spiritual practice of ho’oponopono which is understood to be “a structured ritual whereby a family gathers to exchange concerns, reveal wrongs and resentments, and set the family unit right. The author then describes the ritual in compelling detail and concludes that “it is a cogent, effective, rigorous method of conflict identification, resolution and prevention that is driven by objectives other than satisfying the self-interest of the immediate parties to the conflict.” The author then introduces us to the Arab ritual of conflict resolution called “sulha” that is a derivation from the word “Salaam” meaning ,peace. Just as he did with the Hawaiian ritual the author gives us a complete introduction to this ritualized form of conflict resolution. Just as with the Hawaiian ritual, Phillips concludes that the Arab process is equally effective as a way to resolve conflict in its respective society. He concludes:

So these processes are effective because they are honorable;
because they are restorative; because they are permeated with respect ; because they are led by wise and respected people; because they affirm shared social and spiritual values: because they preserve order; but most of all because they are necessary for the community to go on with their lives. “

This is not only interesting and compelling reading but indeed a wake-up call for expanding the boundaries of thought about conflict and how it should be managed and resolved. I highly recommend it to anyone who thinks they’ve read the last word about conflict resolution. Your comments are encouraged and welcome. 

Here’s the link:

Click to access CAC206.pdf

Can You Handle the Truth in Mediation?

Can you handle the “truth” in mediation? And what is the truth anyway? Often in mediation one is faced with two or more competing versions of the truth. When this happens there will invariably be an effort between the parties to convince one another that one party’s version of the truth should prevail over the other”s. The question of what really happened and who’s version of reality should be accepted will then become the focus of the discussion and until that issue is resolved,  progress  towards resolving the conflict will be impeded.  Ralph Kilmann, PhD is an inventor of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (TKI), an assessment tool that has been used by many experts for over 35 years to study conflict and model solutions. He is also a founder of Kilmann Diagnostics, a website that offers training in conflict resolution and the use his now-famous assessment tools. In a blog post, Kilmann used his assessment model to look at what happens when faced with parties that are competing over different versions of the truth.  By using TKI, explained Kilmann, he came to the conclusion that the goal of parties faced with different versions of the truth is to move collaboratively to a solution based upon a “whole new version of the truth.” . Kilmann concludes as follows: 

“There are three truths: My truth, your truth, and what really happened.” But if we think of the possibilities for synergy (collaboration) of two people’s versions of reality, maybe it would make it easier to realize that some truths are socially constructed anyway…so we might as well negotiate it into something useful and healing.”

What we each think of as the truth is based upon our different perceptions of reality. Not surprisingly, managing conflict will involve a process of moving beyond  competing perceptions towards mutually held version of the truth. . Your comments are as always, welcome and encouraged.

Here’s the link:

http://www.kilmanndiagnostics.com/blog/2012/oct/30/resolving-truth-between-two-people-conflict

 

Use of Assessment Tools in Workplace Conflict Management

Psychometrics is leading Canadian provider of workplace assessment tools and training. The company published a report on how to use the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) assessment and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument together in order to maximize the data available for analysis of workplace conflict.The TKI assessment has been in use for over 35 years to help people define their best approach to resolving interpersonal conflict. Meanwhile, the MBTI assessment has been around for over 60 years and is used to identify people’s preferences and their approach to conflict. The Psychometrics report is important since it blends the two approaches and by doing so builds a more powerful platform for conflict assessments and approaches. Both of these tools require specific training and experience to obtain valid results but the Psychometrics approach is one worth looking at if you’re using these tools. Your comments are welcome and encouraged.

Here’s the link:

Click to access tki-assessment-mbti.pdf

Learning Workplace Conflict Resolution from the Girl Scouts?

Can we learn anything about workplace conflict from the Girl Scouts? That may sound like a strange question but I think the answer is a resounding “YES.” I don’t know how I came upon it but in one of my strange internet searches I came up with a document titled ” Conflict Resolution Techniques” that was published by the Girl Scouts of Eastern Iowa and Western Illinois. The document was written for Girl Scout leaders, states as follows:

“• Girls need to feel secure, capable and accepted by the group. When they do, conflicts occur less often. 

• When girls feel accepted, they are more likely to empathize with others and understand a different point of view.
• When girls feel that they are actively making decisions and setting the goals for their  activities, then they are less likely to jeopardize those activities through misbehavior.”

When things aren’t going quite right with the Girl Scout troop the article suggests:

• Mediation – A third person just listens without deciding who is right or wrong. Each person Mediation gets a chance to tell her side of the story without any interruptions. Then the mediator helps girls think of possible solutions to the problem and helps them choose one.
• Time Out – Ask the girls to go to a quiet spot and give them a set time period in which you Time Out
expect them to return with a solution. If they cannot come up with one, then you might need to appoint a mediator.
• Role Reversal – This is a form of role-playing in which the participants reverse their roles. Role Reversal
This can increase empathy and problem-solving skills.
• Contracts – For a continuing problem, make a contract. Work out a compromise, decide Contracts on a solution, and write up a contract that the participants sign. Make sure the contract is realistic. Remember, contracts can always be renegotiated.

The article goes on to discuss other common problems like tattling and hurt feelings. The more I read this the more I thought about the workplace and thought, is it really that much different from the Girls Scouts?  You read the article and let me know. 

Here’s the link:

Click to access working_thru_confilcts.pdf

Managing Organizational Conflict: A Theoretical Perspective

Sometime ago I started a discussion in a group of mostly professional mediators on Linkedin, regarding the need for a distinction between conflict management and conflict resolution. From a mediator’s perspective at least it appeared that the distinction seemed trivial in terms of how they appeared to view their work as conflict professionals. Something rubbed me the wrong way about that perspective and the more I thought about it the more I realized that the distinction is not only needed but critical to understanding workplace conflict. When I posed my question, I hadn’t yet read  M. Afzalur Rahim”s highly influential paper, published in the International Journal of Conflict Management in 2002 titled “TOWARD A THEORY OF MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT.” Rahim is a Professor of Management at Western Kentucky University and the founder and current president of the International Association of Conflict Management. In his article he explains that common approaches towards conflict resolution fail to deal with three critical issues in understanding workplace conflict and appropriate interventions. They are the need to: a) minimize “affective conflict at various levels”, b) to” attain and maintain moderate levels of substantive conflict”, and c “)select and use appropriate conflict management strategies.” Rahim defines “affective” conflict as that which stems from incompatibility of interpersonal relationships.between organizational members. He further defines “substantive” conflict as a disagreements over “task” issues. Rahim observes that any effective conflict management system has the goals of minimizing affective conflict while maintaining and appropriate level of substantive conflict which is beneficial towards promoting productivity and innovation. Rahim concludes that:

“The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of and intervention in conflict. A proper diagnosis should include the measures of the amount of conflict, the styles of handling interpersonal conflict, sources of conflict, and learning and effectiveness. It should also indicate the relationships of the amount of conflict and conflict-handling styles to their sources and learning and effectiveness.”/blockquote

The article makes very worthwhile reading and helps both managers and  conflict resolution professionals attain a better understanding of how to analyse both conflict and proper interventions in organizational conflict. In ending his discussion, Rahim concludes as follows:

“In sum, organizational conflict must not necessarily be reduced, suppressed,or eliminated, but managed to enhance organizational learning and effectiveness.The management of conflict at the individual, group, and intergroup levels involves: (1) reduction of affective conflict, (2) attainment and maintenance of a moderate amount of substantive conflict for non-routine tasks at each level, and (3) enabling the organizational participants to learn the various styles of handling interpersonal conflict for dealing with different conflict situations effectively. Effective conflict management should result in organizational learning and effectiveness. The decisions that are made in the process of managing conflict must be ethical and should satisfy the needs and expectations of the relevant stakeholders.”

I would urge all readers of this blog to pay some close reading to Professor Rahim’s paper and to share your comments with us.

Here’s the link:

Click to access Organizational%20Conflict.pdf

Promoting a Culture of Workplace Conflict Resolution

My goal in this blog is to give an international perspective of managing workplace conflict. I believe that there’s a lot to be gained by this approach. Indeed, other nations have taken far greater leaps in building awareness about about workplace conflict than we have in the US. In no small part, due to our litigation-oriented and winner- take- all, “rugged individualism” the US workplace has been slow in embracing a conflict management culture. Due work that is now going on in the field of conflict resolution,the US is slowly waking up to the possibility that there is a better way to manage our workplace. As our workplace becomes more open to positive psychology and “constructive conflict” managers will invest the necessary effort to turn organizations into more innovative and productive conflict-managed workplaces. For that to happen though, there must be greater awareness of how to properly manage conflict. A fine example of building this kind of awareness is going on in Canada today where local government, seeking to promote a culture of conflict management publishes material for dealing with workplace conflict. In Alberta, Canada for instance, Alberta Human Services, a governmental agency, published an excellent guide that serves as a primer for explaining the workplace conflict process. It’s called “Let’s Talk: a guide to resolving workplace conflict.” Not only is it an excellent publication but it’s one that we need a lot more of here in the US. I commend the Canadian publication to your review and suggest that you find ways to promote greater awareness of workplace conflict management here at home. Your comments are welcome and encouraged.

Here’s the link:

Click to access letstalk.pdf

How Confidential is Mediation?

Mediation carries an allure of allowing parties to settle their disputes confidentially. But is mediation really that confidential? Would it surprise you to know that each of the 50 states except for 8 that have adopted the 2003 Uniform Mediation Act have different laws regarding mediation confidentiality? There are lots thorny issues surrounding confidentiality in mediation that still rear their ugly head but the problem has been well known and often commented upon in scholarly journals for a long time. Going back to 1992 in the Journal of Dispute Resolution, here’s what  one scholar concluded:

“No mediator can tell a client with complete confidence that everything said during the course of the mediation will remain confidential in all circumstances. Topicality requirements or definitional technicalities pose serious threats to absolute confidentiality, even in states with blanket confidentiality statutes. It is very likely that there are mediators practicing today who know that and still induce their clients to disclose embarrassing and potentially damaging information with promises of confidentiality. Such mediators should realize that they incur a  duty on such promises and may find themselves defending suits for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, or fraud. If the mediator is paid, such fraudulent misrepresentations could even trigger criminal sanctions.

Mediation is communication. It often requires disclosure of embarrassing and potentially damaging information. Such self-disclosure is a very threatening process for most people. It requires a willingness to assume the risk of rejection and abuse, but it is absolutely necessary to the proper functioning of the mediation process. Mediation is built on trust. Without trust participants will not disclose their true needs. But before participants can trust each other they must trust the mediator. If mediators are to be trusted they must be truthful. Frankly informing parties to a mediation of the limitations to confidentiality may in the short run discourage some disclosures and hence reduce effectiveness.  In the long run, however, it is the only viable solution.”

While parties sign confidentiality agreements as a prelude to mediation, such agreements induce a false sense of security. Both courts and parties often disregard these agreements with little if any consequences, especially where courts are seeking transparency between parties in discovery and litigation. By the same token mediators have at times been compelled by courts to testify. What is important is for the parties to understand the limits of confidentiality in mediation.

Here’s a link to the article:
http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=jdr

Functional or Constructive Conflict : What’s the Story?

In 1996, Anil Menon, of Emory University published an article in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, entitled : “The Quality and Effectiveness of Marketing Strategy: Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict in lntraorganizational Relationships.” Menon’s study consisted of asking 236 top marketing executives a battery of questions that among others. included questions about the effect of conflict on the introduction of new products in their respective companies. Menon’s research concluded that if positively managed, conflict can actually contribute to innovation and positive outcomes. Accordingly Menon was able to distinguish between constructive and destructive workplace conflict. As explained by James Larsen, PhD (http://www.businesspsych.org/articles/135.html):

“Conflict was constructive when managers guided discussions that included vigorous challenging of ideas, beliefs, and assumptions; when they encouraged people to consider new ideas from other departments; when they encouraged their own people to offer ideas to others; and when they encouraged the free expression of opinions and feelings. Under these conditions, mistakes were avoided, weaknesses were spotted early, differences were settled amicably, and the new products they introduced did significantly better in the marketplace.

Conflict was destructive when managers allowed subordinates to distort and withhold information, to express hostility and distrust, to create obstacles to impede decisions, and to overstate needs to falsely influence others. Under these conditions, mistakes and weaknesses went unnoticed, differences graduated into feuds, and the new products they introduced fared poorly in the marketplace.”

Since the publication of Menon’s work it has become commonplace to talk about constructive conflict as a spur to greater work productivity and innovation. As one might imagine, discussions about constructive conflict have been well-embraced by the management consulting that almost routinely give advice about managing this type of conflict in the workplace. In 2013 for instance, an article appeared in Harvard Business Review by Ron Ashkenas and Lisa Bodell that explained the “how and why” of constructive conflict and invited “nice managers” to embrace the concept by following several precepts including the “Godfather” quotation: “its not personal, its strictly business.”  The authors concluded by urging managers to “set the ground rules for conflict” as follows::

“Since everyone struggles with conflict to some degree, develop a few standards for how your team can manage it constructively. For example in one company’s review sessions, participants need to begin with at least two positive comments before anyone is allowed to throw in a criticism. Although it feels a little awkward at times, this practice forces everyone to take a more balanced view of other people’s work, which reduces the tension and allows for more productive discussions. In another firm, every meeting ends with five minutes of what’s called a “plus/delta” critique of the meeting – with quick comments about what was good about it and what should be changed the next time. Again, this more structured practice makes it easy and acceptable to openly and constructively criticize.”

On a professional level, I find this kind of advice not only short-sighted and misleading but downright foolish.The simple reason is that it totally ignores the larger contextual problems of conflict management. Simply instituting policy that allows for greater critical expression by employees will never work unless it is done in tandem with the promotion and implementation of a culture of conflict resolution within the organization. A cultural shift is never easy in any organization, much less one that requires not only an understanding of conflict resolution techniques, which have to be taught, but actually implementing a “safe” enough environment that will foster critical debate between managers and employees. So while I do agree that constructive conflict spur positive results, it cannot do so in a vacuum. Without a corporate culture that embraces conflict resolution, constructive conflict will forever remain little more than illusive. Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Here’s a link to the Harvard Business Review Article:

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/nice-managers-embrace-conflict-too/

Here’s a link to Anil Menon’s study on conflict:

http://jam.sagepub.com/content/24/4/299.abstract