Dynamics of Conflict

Synonymous with this topic must come a discussion as to the

"nature of conflict" and the cultural/psychological response to
the phenomenon of diverse perspectives occupying the same
space. Whether in the church community or the corporate world,
leadership must encompass the emotional intelligence needed to
"lead from a different place." This means departing from
traditional roles where leaders directed the resolution to the
stance of facilitating the resolution of conflict.

The Nature of Conflict

Thomas Crum in The Magic of Conflict reminds us that "Conflict is natural;

neither positive nor negative. It just is." It is not whether we have conflict
in our lives; it is what we do with that conflict that makes the difference.
What do we do with conflict? By most standards of feedback, we handle
it poorly.

Professional groups like EAPA (The Employee Assistance Professionals

Assn.) and ASTD (The American Association of Training & Development)
indicate that the most requested consultation and training interventions
sought by organizations today, center upon the topics of Conflict and
Violence in the workplace. Last year, eighty seven percent of incidents of
violence in the workplace occurred between coworkers.
The Changing Organization
Increasing diversity and the pace of change requires the acquisition and
refinement of skills to interact more effectively with each other in all
manner of the organization of which we are a part.
From a management perspective, these trends force managers/leaders to
spend a substantial portion of their time and energy dealing with conflict
situations. Such efforts are necessary due to these growing trends of

diversity and change.

Trends from direction to facilitation in leadership
One of the historical trends that frames the facilitation approach to
conflict comes from what has happened in organizational behavior and
leadership trends since the mid-1980s. We have seen a transition in
organizational structures moving from the vertical managed-down parent
style approach to the more horizontal, flatter models that consist of
smaller teams referred to as participative management; self-directed
work teams embodied in the "quality" movement. This trend in
restructuring organizations, while it has been used by some as a rationale
for downsizing and reducing overhead costs, was proposed by Peter
Druker in The Coming of the New Organization in the mid-1980s. He
developed a model for teams of specialists to negotiate and build better
solutions and more creative decisions/products. The role of middle
management (supervisor/foreman), as it was practiced at that time, was
more expendable. This was largely the result of the role that the line
supervisor played in the more traditional organization, that of fixer,
referee, and/or coach who had arrived at that position by virtue of

experience and expertise in doing the job(s) they were supervising others
to do. In reality, however, the position of middle management has not
disappeared. It had just become necessary to "lead from a different
place."
Leaders in today's organization find themselves directing functions less
and facilitating process more. Richard Pascale, in an article for The
Harvard Business Review in 1997, describes this transition in
organizational "revitalization" as one of incorporating employees fully into
the process of assessing and solving problems. This trend in
organizational cultures has significantly altered the landscape, and it has
changed dramatically the required skill base of managers. It requires
process skills and the willingness to take the third party role of facilitating
others to confront and resolve the conflict between them. What we have
seen in this transition is the need for flexibility and "requisite variety"
among team members, as well as leadership.
Facilitating replaces directing and fixing and mediation replaces
refereeing. Pascale (1997) writes, "Leading from a different place requires
leaders to stand squarely in the zone of discomfort and ambiguity." It

requires resisting the temptation to provide the answer. The manager's

involvement comes only when the protocol is not being utilized or where
the procedure has unveiled a kind of needs-conflict that requires a third
party. The third party manages the process, not the substantive issues in
the conflict. To do otherwise is to win the battle and lose the war. By
rescuing the conflicting parties too early, the systemic phenomenon of
enabling is created. You know you are enabling if you are working harder
than your colleagues to find solutions.
This presentation is about conflict, what we do about it, and how we
resolve it. But it is also about whether we honor and embrace it as a "gift
of energy, when neither side loses and a new dance is created." That new
dance is dialogue.
Positioning parties to resolve conflict
In working with organizations, work teams, and families, I find that the
positioning of parties to engage in conflict is a major factor in reaching
positive resolutions. So, positioning has to do with the initial attitude
participants have about conflict as they engage in a dispute or difference
of opinion. What is so difficult about engaging in conflict?

Several years ago, I took part in a process of calling a new pastor to a

church. After months of exploration and deliberation, the search
committee brought their recommendations to the whole church in a
business meeting, and a vote was taken on the recommendations.
Approximately 90% of the members were in favor of the perspective
minister. Then a recommendation was made to call it a "unanimous
decision" by wording the call in such a way as to imply that the
congregation was "together" and everyone was behind the decision.
As I think back to that event and the process that unfolded, I cannot help
but wonder what was the underlying theme projected by that
congregation? Was it that, "We don' t have any conflict in our midst"? (As
though this was a positive thing, that conflict was not present!) Imagine
being the new minister and not having access to the reality that some
questioned the call. Certainly it would provide a false sense of knowledge
about this organization that he was coming to lead.
Sometimes in the context of a marriage counseling situation, a couple will
say that their marriage is in trouble, "but we never argue!" or "We
haven't had any conflict". It confuses them.

What does "conflict" mean to you?

Let us do a word association game What is the first word that comes to
mind when you hear the word conflict? Usually it is words like fight, war ,
anger, stressful, and problems. What most of these words have in
common is that they are negative. This reflects some cultural hang-ups
we have regarding conflict. We think that if we are in a conflict something
went wrong, or that one of us has messed up.

It is often the case that we avoid bringing up a conflict fearing we

become the negative dimension, as in "kill the messenger." Such cultural
sentiments have left us with a fight-or-flight mentality rather than
proactive strategies for reaching successful resolutions.
Eastern vs Western culture regarding conflict

Here we can learn something

looking outside our culture. In the
Eastern culture, conflict is viewed
as positive. In fact in the Chinese
language, the word for conflict has
two distinct characters, one is
danger the other is opportunity.
The negative stance regarding
conflict adds considerably to the
problem of positioning parties to
effectively work through conflict.
Problems of safety, trust, ego, and
loss all come to the surface when
attempting to resolve disputes.

Moving from conflict to dialogue

In organizations, families, or individual relationships, the value we place
on conflict and dialogue has to do with creating and maintaining
wholeness.
What Conflict Resolution and Dialogue have in common, in addition to
both being a process, is that both have reaching synergy as their desired
outcome.
Synergy in a system describes the effect of two or more entities coming
together to produce a by-product greater than the sum of the two parts.
This is what happens when your point of view is different from mine, and
by interacting we reach a conclusion that neither had before we
presented them to each other.
In this presentation we shall explore both Conflict Resolution and

Dialogue, particularly in light of the impact they have on an

organization's health and vitality.
CONFLICT > DIALOGUE
INDIVIDUAL

_______________________________________

BIAS

SYNERG
Y

DIALOGUE > CONFLICT

Visualize a continuum with individual bias on one end and synergy on
the other. In the middle you find conflict and dialogue. Under some
circumstances conflict may spawn dialogue and in another, dialogue may
produce conflict. Each process can produce the other. In other words, two
parties can engage in dialogue, desiring to move beyond their individual
views, and can suddenly find themselves embroiled in a conflict. On the
other hand, those same two parties may come together to resolve a
conflict and in doing so they produce a climate of dialogue. In either case,
both processes can move individuals toward a state of collective thought
and synergy.
Both Conflict Resolution and Dialogue involve a sequence of exploring
issues from separate points of view -- a stage where assumptions are
made followed by a suspending of these assumptions, like being both

"inside" ones point of view and at the same time being "outside" of that
point of view. The result is a kind of collective exploration that can bring
to the surface a greater understanding of both self and other, and thus
moving beyond our bias.
Dialogue in Teams and Team Learning
Peter Senge (1990), author of The Fifth Discipline, states that in applying
these sequential movements and team learning we move on the
continuum from "incoherent thought" to "becoming open to the flow of
larger intelligence." He asserts that "we cannot just improve thought
individually, we must look on thought as a systemic thing arising from
how we interact and learn from one another."
When individuals or groups engage in interaction, whether sharing ideas
or trying to resolve conflicting points of view, the issues of wholeness and
boundaries come into play. They are explored here. In this manual I will
center more on the process of conflict and introduce a protocol I call
Process Management designed to produce resolution and create dialogue.
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

Leading from a different place requires a way of thinking or Model that is

grounded in a systems approach to human interaction. What this means
is that it looks at the conflict of two people as a focal point, not at either
of the participants. This means looking at the whole rather than at the
parts of the whole.
We are trained, in our culture to break things down into their component
parts in order to understand and manage them. Trying to explain
behavior this way, while it may make complex things more easily
understood it has a downside. Physicist David Bohm describes this
downside as "trying to reassemble the fragments of a broken mirror to
see a true reflection" adding, "after a while we give up trying to see the
whole together."
A mobile that hangs over a baby's bed is a good analogy for this thinking.
If one were to touch one of the components on the mobile, it would affect
the movement of the other parts in the system.
All systems are rule governed
A marriage therapist that is systems-oriented would work with what
might be thought of as a third party in the counseling room, one that

exists because of the couple, but is separate from and greater than the
two individuals in the marriage. In all systems there are rules and
principles that govern how the system operates. Here is an example:
If an individual, with a team of co-workers, does more than their share of
work, other team member tends to disengage or put out less energy to
that degree. Leading from a different place focuses on the laws governing
the process of the system.
The Law of Requisite Variety
Another systems principle applies here:
"Rescuers always become victims"
Resisting the tendency to be pulled into a conflict underscores the need
to be flexible and have a repertoire of approaches to a problem situation.
It means having Requisite Variety. One of the most useful concepts in
applying a systems theory to Conflict Resolution is The Law of
Requisite Variety, which states that "in any system (family,
organization, church, etc.) the part of the system with the most
responses, determines the outcome of that system."
Let me illustrate this principle in a couple of situations.

A family comes into my office for a counseling session. They have

brought Tommy, their 15 year old son. When I ask what is the
outcome they seek in coming, Mom and/or Dad begins to tell me
what is wrong with Tommy, "He is failing in school, he is not
minding, he provokes his sister, he does nothing around the home",
etc. As they recite this list of stressful scenarios, their stress
becomes obvious, voice tones elevate, perspiration appears on
dad's brow, and mom is clenching her fist as they describe the home
front. When I look over at Tommy and ask why he is here, he gives
he a predictable response, either "They made me come" or "I don't
know." He delivers this in a sullen, laid back monotone which
suggests non-involvement and defiance.
When I think about the process that is unfolding here in the office, I
ask myself, "Who is in control here?" It is obviously not the parents,
but TommyTommy is in charge. He has the requisite variety. He
has found more ways to push the parents' buttons and get them all
bent out of shape than they are exercising in shifting the discomfort
back to Tommy, the one behaving in the problematic manner. It
further becomes obvious to me that if any therapeutic work is going

to take place in this session(s) the parents need to make a

significant change from the current way of doing their parenting
business. They need to define the problem they are having with
Tommy rather than staying locked into thinking about Tommy's
problem.
Requisite variety means when some way of doing something does not
work (and no strategy works all the time) then try something else.
Requisite variety means having flexibility and a repertoire of strategies.
Three components of persons that have requisite variety are:
1. I know where I am going (Maintaining Outcomes)
2. I know what I am getting (Feedback-Sensory Acuity)
3. When what I am getting (Feedback) tells me I am not going where I
intended,
I am able to do something else (Flexibility)
The tension created by being in a conflict causes reactive behavior. This
is when the way most familiar is resorted to over and over, even when it
may not work. This is also a time when I am most apt to be rigid and

compulsive (the opposite from having requisite variety).

The structure of a protocol provides more opportunity to be proactive and
less controlled by my emotions. When it comes to conflict, our survival
instinct takes over. Survival is an "absence of pain" mode, somewhere
between pain and feeling good.
Outcomes in resolving conflict
Consider the following situation and ask yourself how you would handle
it.
Several of you have a standing routine of going to a favorite restaurant
for lunch once a week. It is a custom that it is social and not business.
Recently, everyone has noticed that Blanche, when it comes time to pay
the tab, usually comes up short. It has occurred enough times that some
resentments are beginning to take place. The restaurant is unwilling to do
individual checks. Everyone likes Blanche and wants her to be a part of
the group, but they are getting tired of subsidizing her lunches. Today is
the day you usually go to lunch and you have decided to nip this situation
in the bud. How are you going to go about it?
One possibility would be to convince the others to choose a restaurant

that gives individual checks. Another would be to leave it alone because

Blanche is having a financial problem. Another strategy would be to tell
Blanche that her not paying her share of the bill is a problem and to get
with the program. Or you could each give Blanche your part of the bill
and leave her to handle the payment?
Winning the battle and losing the war is what happens when we too
quickly solve the substantive problem without addressing the systemic
process. Ask yourself what components would go into the ideal solution
to a conflict, no matter what the conflict is.
It is my belief that there are at least four essential parts for a successful
outcome to a conflict.
1. To resolve it in such a way as to solve the essential problem.
2. To resolve it in such a way as to maintain the other party's selfesteem or ego.
3. To resolve it in such a way as to leave me feeling okay about myself.
4. To resolve it in such a way as to enhance the relationship between
the parties (which would increase their potential for resolving

effectively the next problem).

Process vs Content in conflict
We have all been in situations where our approach has solved the
substantive part of the problem but damaged the relationship, or left one
of us resenting the other. There may also be situations where we "walk on
eggshells" trying to maintain self-esteem, but never get around to
resolving the problem. All of the ways mentioned regarding the Blanche
situation resolved some part of the ideal solution but not all four. It is a
tall order to move toward a solution that is win/win and that can
accomplish the four objectives listed, considering the cultural hang-ups
we have about conflict.
Rules (protocol) in resolving conflict
Consider a set of rules or a procedure, a template that parties can utilize
that will increase the effectiveness of entering a conflict situation, that
will provide greater chances of both reaching a win/win outcome, and will
address the individual's ego needs and thereby strengthen the
relationship. Some background may serve to provide a frame for our
discussion.

Observe the early stages of the creative growth in the Silicon Valley
region of California where the coming together of bright individuals come
together with strong ideas and produced outcomes that have changed
our lives. Both their use of dialogue and a willingness to engage in
conflict are hallmarks of that dynamic growth. Conflict for the most part
was perceived as necessary to break through to the other side of thorny
problems to form creative solutions.
Another non-traditional way of thinking that emerged from that time was
the phenomenon of "If I have an idea and don' t know what to do with it,
you are welcome to it." This is quite a contrast to the American Corporate
models of turf guarding, secrecy, and win-loose competitive edges.
This was a period of creative energy that can serve us well as a
laboratory of what is possible when diverse thought and a value system
that embraces conflict, comes together.
Developmental theory has it that when we are powerless and experience
pain, whatever skill we discover that tends to reduce that pain we tend to
habitually use thereafter. It becomes like our dominant hand-ness, or our
comfort zone. We can get "stuck" in such comfort zones, confusing them

for feeling good, when in fact they are only "absence of pain" zones.
This is why when attempts to feel good do not work we most often drop
back to the next best position of not feeling bad. If you ever have had the
experience of breaking your writing hand or arm and have had to wear a
cast for any length of time, you find that you can become pretty good at
using your other hand. If a sudden demand or crisis occurs we may
instinctively grab for the writing instrument with the preferred hand, but
in time, we can acquire the ability to use either hand interchangeably.
This process suggests that conscious effort to practice something is like
"tying our preferred hand behind us long enough to complete the learning
curve." This is where a structure or protocol fits in. It becomes a
conscious framework for learning new tools and exercising choice.
Process
Each time we communicate with others, we do so on two levels. On one
level we send and receive messages of a substantive nature, where the
information or what we are talking about takes center stage. The second
level is almost invisible to us, but plays a powerful role in the outcome of
the communication because it is usually most important in order to

receive the message. It is the process dimension, or how we are talking,

when we examine any communication. Gregory Bateson used a term
called framing to describe the context from which a communication
emerges. Framing is a way of understanding how we mean what we say
or do and figuring out how others mean what they say or do. Non-verbal
signals serve to frame a statement, as if a message-within-a-message or
meta-communication. Lets take a rhetorical question for instance.
A teen arrives home two hours past curfew and the anxious or angry
parent shrieks "Where have you been?"
It's obvious that the parent is not seeking information as much as
communicating how angry or disgusted they are that the youngster
would violate the agreed upon time he/she was were to have come home.
Perhaps the earlier interaction where the curfew time was discussed was
too a matter of two frames of reference not coinciding, even though,
there was an agreement. Perhaps mom said, "Twelve o'clock is late
enough for a kid to be out, ok?" and the teenager mumbles "alright" as
he rushes for the door. Mom's frame was that of a protective parent who
thought providing such a command was what a loving parent is supposed

to do. While at the same time the boy's "alright" comes from a context of
how one feels about a controlling parent. On the surface, an observer
from another planet who did not understand non-verbal signals, would
have thought these two had a contract. So, in communication a "frame of
reference" refers to the intent behind the communication, which may be
congruent with the words we say, or it may be different.
Deborah Tanner has devoted much of her research and writing to this
phenomenon of frames based on linguistic style and gender. In an article
from The Harvard Business Review, 1965, she asserts that "In every
community known to linguists, the patterns that constitute linguistic style
are different for men and women." The impact of frames is that they do
their work out of the spotlight of conscious thought and substantive
meaning.
The psychologist Eric Berne, developed an entire model (or frame) of
human behavior based on the concept that different parts of the
personality, he called "ego states," could produce different frames almost
simultaneously. We may be speaking from our parent ego state reciting
some information we believe coming from our internal rule book such as

"you're too young to be out that late." While at the same time being
influenced by a frame coming from our scared child who is experiencing
an earlier event when something went terribly wrong at a late hour. The
two ego states (imagine the parent ego and child ego as two overlapping
circles) produce a statement that sounds rational (at least to the speaker)
but is interpreted by they listener as prejudicial feeling, "Do as I say - not
as I act."
Advertisers and powerful communicators make use of frames in very
dramatic ways by associating with the frame reference that comes from
our kid ego, which wants, feels, or needs. The "Marlborough Man" is an
example of that powerful association. It does not tap into our parent
frame or rational part, it connects to our need to be a tough man, free to
roam the prairie
A case may be made that any communication where one person is trying
to influence another will utilize this association process if the expect to be
successful.
I may not even consciously realize that I am using your frame to
formulate how I construct my communication. This is what an intuitive

person does. When this happens there is rapport.

Neuro-linguistics
In the 1960's John Grinder, a linguist, and Richard Bandler, a brain
physiologist, collaborated to produce a powerful methodology to
influence others called Neuro-Linguistics or NLP. Their hallmark two
volume book, The Structure of Magic, was based on painstaking
observation of successful communicators. Among these were therapist
Virginia Satir, hypnotist Milton Ericson, evangelist Oral Roberts, and
Martin Groeder, a national leader in insurance sales. What they found,
and formulated as a systematic scientific model of human
communication, was the process of framing and re-framing. They
discovered that all successful communicators, whether they were aware
of it or not, matched their frames with frames of the responding person.
Through receiving feedback they were able to use the frame of the
listener to create a frame that was congruent, thus creating a mirroring
or matching frame. Thus producing a kind of rapport that was necessary
before they could persuade, sell, or direct. When there was not an easy
match, they were flexible enough to try other approaches until they

were able to produce this mirroring/matching frames until they became

congruent. In the business community this leadership technique/strategy
is referred to as paradigm shifts.
Gregory Bateson coined the term meta-communication referring to the
talking about the communication or naming the frame in order to move
beyond them. Jesus, the ultimate communicator, sometimes spoke in
parables. This is a process that seemed to use stories that both merged
with existing frames and expanded that frame.
Jeanie Laborde, author of Influencing with Integrity, systematically
examines this sequences of establishing rapport. One of many writers
who refer to communication as "dance"; she describes the need to be in
the same frame before I can ever hope to lead or change your frame.
Competing or misunderstood frames of reference may produce a conflict
and vice-versa, a conflict may produce a diverging frame of reference. A
case in point:
Two business associates are trying to reach consensus on a decision
whether to engage in some capital expansion in their business. One says
"we need to have more revenue in the bank before expanding." The other

replies, "we need to expand in order to produce more revenue." After an

hour of deliberation a stalemate is reached and the meeting concluded.
In later discussions with the associates about the meeting, the
descriptions of "tight" and "spendthrift" are used to describe each other.
Which is the chicken, which is the egg?
There are various frames of reference about conflict, as was discussed in
part one, frames that produce a climate of Fight-or-Flight. For instance,
one person's frame of reference about conflict might be that it is fun and
challenging, while another's frame may be one of dread and avoid-at-anycost. Such frames may be the products of earlier experiences, and stay
with us as "baggage" that will shape the outcome of conflict. If a child
grew up in a home where the parent's arguments were frightening and
never got resolved, they are going to be influenced by a frame that
suggests that conflict is bad. These biases can be pervasive and destroy
the opportunities available to negotiate.
Margaret Neale, in an article for the Academy of Management Executive
in 1992, listed several common cognitive mistakes that produce nonrational negative frames that limit our options in negotiation with others.

These are:
1. Individuals in conflict tend to be overly affected by the form of
presented information.
2. They tend to escalate commitment to previously selected course of
action when it is no longer a reasonable alternative.
3. They tend to assume that their gain must come at the expense of
the other party. And there for miss the opportunity for mutually
beneficial "trade-offs" between the two.
4. Their judgements tend to be anchored upon irrelevant information.
5. Parties that rely too much on readily available information.
6. Parties fail to consider information available from taking opponent's
perspective.
The impact of such biased frames of reference shape a reliance on a tool
we call mediation. The prevalence of conflicting frames also shapes the
need for structures or templates that guide us, in conscious ways, to step
outside of their limitations. The most effective structure is that of
processing. The act of deliberately calling attention to HOW we are

communicating.
Here we are using process as a verb, as in "to process" instead of as a
noun. "To process" is to act in a rational manner upon process. An
example of this occurs when one person asks another, "What is wrong
with this picture?", or in the case of active listening when we make a
feedback statement such as "You seem to be upset when you talk about
Mary." This calls the speaker's attention to the "how they are
communicating" and away from the content of the message. This is
especially useful when our substantive message and the process
message are not congruent.