Conflicts, disputes – Opinion
The corner office. It’s empty. No big deal, it’s only a room. It does have privacy and that view. Mmmm, it would be nice. It does stand out. Makes a statement,,, about me. I get to work early, work hard, and get the results. Now I think about it, I deserve that corner office.
Wait, hold on. Someone’s moved in. Wonder who it is? You are kidding me. I can’t believe it. Jonesy. Jonesy got the corner office! Wow. Wow. Wow. What’s he done to deserve that?
Mistake 1
Disputes are rarely about 1 or 2 issues. Disputes are ever-present. They exist in us as individuals, teams, businesses, and we have seen recently in a geopolitical sense, groups, and nations. The potential for disputes or conflicts exists under the surface for long periods of time, even without you knowing, until a trigger event – the corner office goes to Jonesy!
Underlying disputes exist because we all have differences. Differences in opinions, values, interests, or resources. These differences do bother us but often not enough to cause us to act and alter our actions.
We all want that corner office, so what’s the big deal? Well, there’s more, that’s why it’s a big deal. It is a big deal because you didn’t get that pay rise, well at least not as much as you think you deserved. You were also passed over for a promotion and that fully paid conference to Queenstown NZ was rejected too. Now I think about it more, someone must have it in for me. Who I wonder? And there you have it.
I often get called in to help parties who are in a dispute. Magically the mediation process should find a way to settle all the issues the parties have before them, such that they can all move forward and get on with life.
Mistake 2
One formal mediation will get it sorted.
Mediation works, so long as the process is respected by the parties and the mediator follows the tried and tested methods. Like a lot in life timing is everything and the same holds true for mediation. The parties may not be ready for mediation. They may think they are, or their adviser suggests it is the way to go. However, the parties may simply not be ready, and this is why mediation often fails.
You will hear about court-mandated mediation during litigation and whilst some matters resolve themselves this is more likely to be in the guise of mediation and is simply a settlement conference on the numbers, not the interests. Parties rarely get on with life as they did before the dispute arose when a matter is simply settled. That’s fine too. The cost of doing business, some say. Just notch that down to experience. Pain money. Whatever. It’s all over now.
Resolving a dispute takes time and it is why I promote the Mediation 1 on 1. Mediation 1 on 1 is a practice which enables a neutral to firstly understand whether the parties are ready to solve their challenges and secondly prepare people to mediate by walking them through what might be influencing their behaviour. This enables parties to ‘get ready for mediation’ with a view to achieving a successful solution to the dispute.
The basics of a dispute are:
o The undercurrent of a conflict exists waiting for a trigger event.
o The trigger event happens.
o The conflict emerges.
o The conflict escalates, it either becomes more destructive or resolves itself.
o The challenge with escalation is that it can go on and on and on.
o From there the dispute cycle takes over.
Escalation can be temporary or grow until a stalemate is reached. It can escalate and then de-escalate before escalating again. It continues to move in this cycle until a stalemate is reached, sometimes often.
This stalemate can balance out or get to a point where the parties are both in some form of pain. No one wins but no one wants to back down or take a hit or loss. So, the dispute now comes down to a simple cost-benefit analysis. Are you at the point where continuing the struggle exceeds the benefits of the outcome?
This is the point where an intervention is prime, where negotiations and settlements may result.
This is yet another reason why mediation 1 on 1 is useful. An assessment can be made as to whether the dispute is ripe and then you can start to design the dispute resolution process.
Mistake 3
We don’t give people enough time.
Finding the ripe moment takes some effort and skill. Sometimes you just get lucky. The often much-promoted active listening is the weapon of choice. Language such as ‘it’s not the same’ or ‘times are changing’ or ‘I just don’t have money to keep this going’ or ‘we need another way out’ or ‘it’s impacting my mental health’ or ‘my family situation is not coping’, compared to this language ‘I want my day in court’, or ‘if I can’t have it, they can’t have it’ or ‘if I go down, they will go down with me’.
This is consistent with loss aversion theory. In this theory, you want to avoid a loss or what ‘feels’ like a loss. You will recall my article about loss aversion theory demonstrated by Professor Santos who experimented with capuchin monkeys and food concluding that we switch between relative and absolute thinking. If you were given $1,000 and were told you have a choice between taking another $500 or taking a gamble, flip a coin and either lose the lot or win another $1,000 which would you take? Well, the monkeys took the first option, played it safe and took the $500. They avoided the risk. However, when the deal was reversed it, all changed. Say you are given $2,000 and told to either hand back $500 or gamble on a flip of a coin and either lose $l,000 or lose nothing, the monkeys took the gamble.
Game theory also helps our understanding of conflict or disputes. Without getting into the nitty gritty, game theory leads to a conclusion that interaction between people is not governed by one or two interactions but a series of interactions, where over time a relationship is established. If you have a positive experience with a colleague, it is likely you may also act positively, thereby both of you demonstrate a willingness to cooperate. The reverse also applies.
Both theories help us explore what drives parties’ behaviour. They are not answers or solutions, just a guiding light. This is why it is important to explore what is driving people’s behaviour. Naming the behaviour e.g. ‘you seem frustrated’ or clearing the path for a positive interaction ‘what would your colleague have to do to start gaining your trust again’?
This all sounds easy. It is not. The point is that interactions between people are complex, and these interactions develop over time. Don’t expect a dispute to resolve itself overnight. Give it time because it will take time.
When working with people around their disputes, start the neutral intervention early with at least one of the parties on a one-on-one. You never know perhaps you will find you were next in line for the fully paid conference to Tokyo next year!
