Course 2: Becoming a 7 Cups Leader - (Discussion #5) Approaching Conflict Resolution: Dealing with Issues Directly

1.) I honestly haven't been on any side of conflict resolution situation ever. It normally is my own situation, or I tend not to intervene in others' business.

2.) Whenever I'm in a conflict, I tend to listen more than talk. I acknowledge that listening to the other person's opinion and their intention will help me to understand their argument more; hence, we can reach a common ground.

@Heather225

1. yes..way too often! I usually encourage both to try and talk it out in a calm way. It easy for it to turn into an argument which is why I remind them that misinterpretations are way too common!

2. when it's time to resolve the conflict I have only three words..LISTEN. LISTEN. LISTEN! It's so easy to interrupt the other mid sentence to defend yourself but its so much more helpful to be able to talk instead of yell it out!

1.) Have you ever been on either side of conflict resolution situation? How did you resolve it?

Ive noticed that a lot of the answers above seem to have misread the question and answered a different question – whether or not they have mediated a conflict situation, which of course should involve being on neither, rather than either side of a conflict resolution situation – just a thought.

Being on either side of a conflict is a far different situation to mediating a dispute in which you should have no personal investment or emotion at all. How Ive resolved disputes during my lifetime where the other side was clearly misbehaving is to refer to examples and to codes of conduct and to law and to escalate the dispute through internal and then if necessary external lawful processes. How Ive resolved disputes when I was the one misbehaving (accidentally) is to apologise and correct my behaviour.

2.) Can you think of any tips we haven't listed to facilitate healthy conflict-resolution?

Yes, for absolute certain, seeing you asked – In fact what seems to be entirely missing is any actual guideline at all: all I could find is a bunch of communication tips instead of any guideline or procedure to follow.

VENUE: PRIVACY

Firstly, the venue is majorly important – It is most important that if a complaint needs to be made to another user, that the complaint should be made in private. There is no point presenting or particularly responding to an issue of conflicting opinion in public – unless a person has literally put an idea in a forum while specifically asking for feedback about that idea, presenting an opinion conflicting their own in public is an act of aggression or abuse and is never appropriate.

Privacy is important because the idea of conflict resolution dictates that at the end of a successful discussion that the ideas of at least one (and in many cases both) of the parties will have changed – carrying on conflicts in public not only makes that sort of change just about impossible, but creates opportunities for others to pitch in and bully (i.e. impose unwelcome influence upon) either the person raising or responding to the issue.

ORGANISATIONAL PROCEDURE

There should be a step – by – step procedure to follow and a definition and guidelines for each of a few progressive levels of conflict resolution. For example:

Informal conflict resolution – where the parties decide to report that a conflict has occurred (Say, for example, if either the respondant or the complainant is a leader) but still want to attempt to resolve the conflict between themselves without mediation. This sort of thing might happen if the parties decide to make written undertakings about future behaviours.

Formal conflict resolution – where a mediator attends and conducts discussions with the complainant and the respondant in between the steps below

Escalated conflict resolution – where an appointed internal executive receives a report above the previous progress of the complaint from the mediator, and follows a different procedure, after which the executive makes a ruling and either separates both parties or punishes one or the other.

External conflict resolution – where a complainant who is not satisfied by or who is denied any of the processes above is entitled to follow lawful justice processes – e.g. mediation or tribunal processes for authorities that deal with specific complaints like discrimination or bullying, or plain old litigation over torts, such as claims for damages which can occur due to spite or negligence.

In Australia (therefore in most Commonwealth countries) court processes can require any organisation to summons anonymous volunteers to appear for any of these processes, although once an external complaint progresses beyond mediation level, such anonymity is no longer available. In any of the above processes, the organisation itself also becomes the respondant as well as the individual about which the complaint is made. Especially if there is no written internal complaint procedure (which is unlawful for volunteer organisations in Commonwealth countries, under fair work legislation) the organisation is subject to penalty, and logically if there is no available means to require the company to facilitate the summons of a particular anonymous person who has used their association with a company to cause harm, then that anonymity policy can also result in the company becoming the respondant (in place of the anonymous individual who volunteers for the company) in any country.

The guidelines should state who can be invited to participate in the resolution – most professionally prepared conflict resolution procedures allow for both the complainant and the respondant to bring a support person and state whether that person can be involved in the discussion or not. Human rights would require that the guidelines include an opportunity for those who might need an advocate to speak in their place or an interpreter to have access to this sort of assistance. Guidelines also need to provide a link where a standard complaint form can be found and require that the form is completed before any process begins – this written application protects a mediator or an executive from being accused by either or both sides of "butting into" a private conflict between 2 members. Guidelines need to specify that a complaint may be withdrawn at any stage by the complainant (e.g. in Commonwealth countries, where that right is protected under various legislation, including fair work legislation). Guidelines also need to state that any correspondence regarding the matter must be forwarded to both parties. They also state that the outcomes of any conflict resolution process must remain private and confidential.

Example Informal Conflict resolution procedure

1. Both parties put their (complete) issue or response in writing. Any screen shots regarding the dispute are provided to both parties. A date is sorted out that is convenient to both parties, and a venue is decided upon (obviously in this case, it would be an appointment for a private chat between both parties.

2. The person who raised the issue (the complainant) speaks first, states (a.) what happened, (b.) why they think that was wrong, (c.) how that affected them, and (d.) what changes they think should occur so that the same thing doesnt happen in the future. To avoid accidentally seeming aggressive, they can prepare what they are going to say and read their complaint. While this step is carried out, the respondent does not talk and can make notes of what is being said or thoughts which occur to them.

3. The respondent employs active listening – i.e. acknowledges what was just said in their own words – i.e. (a.) what the complainant says happened, (b.) why the complainant thinks that was wrong, (c.) how that affected the complainant, and (d.) what changes the complainant thinks could occur so that the same thing doesnt happen in the future. Then the respondent either agrees or disagrees and states a different version of either (e.) what happened, (f.) why they think that was not wrong, (g.) how that affect might e.g. not have been anticipated, or might seem to be due to a misinterpretation or misunderstanding or (h.) what different changes could also ensure that the same thing doesnt happen in the future. While this step is carried out, the complainant does not talk and can make notes of what is being said or thoughts which occur to them.

4. The complainant employs active listening – i.e. acknowledges what was just said in their own words – that is: (e.) what the respondent says happened, (f.) why the respondent thinks that was not wrong, (g.) how that affect might e.g. not have been anticipated, or might seem to be due to a misinterpretation or misunderstanding or (h.) what different changes the respondent thinks could also ensure that the same thing doesnt happen in the future. Then the complainant responds to those comments by disagreeing or agreeing, and can cross-examine any statement which the respondant has made, and can either agree to or suggest any further changes to the resolutions suggested in either (d) or (h) which might also be useful. While this step is carried out, the complainant does not talk and can make notes of what is being said or thoughts which occur to them.

5. Now that both parties have had an opportunity to both express themselves without interruption and assure each other that they have been heard, there can be a space allowed for informal conversation – the parties can decide together whether they will be able to achieve a resolution which works for both of them, or whether they might require a more formal process involving a mediator or beyond that an intervention by a senior 7 Cups executive.

6. The resolution which both parties agree to is written and either read out loud or signed by both parties and becomes an undertaking which is kept in separate records by a specifically delegated senior 7 Cups executive and which are confidential and available only to the parties involved.

Obviously a complete resolution procedure would have specific steps laid out for each of the levels of conflict resolution above. In Commonwealth countries law also requires companies conflict resolution procedures to state their address for notices (in order to establish in which state jurisdiction applies) and provide contact numbers for external authorities to which all volunteers and employees and members are entitled to make complaints without and discouragement or punishment by the company (which is called victimisation and incurs compounded penalties including jail terms). These may include phone numbers and websites for the human rights commission (for discrimination issues), the fair work commission (for bullying issues) etc, and for any other relevant authorities such as mental health authorities or community organisation authorities, etc.

So . . . yeah, in the view of countries that span half the world, including more than half of North America, there is a great deal more involved in healthy (not to mention lawful or prudent administration of) conflict resolution than a few communication or active listening tips could ever address – if a company with hundreds of thousands of employees neglects to construct and administer a written internal conflict resolution procedure, they are leaving themselves wide open to a lawsuit, not merely in countries where avenues and authorities already exist for any company to be found guilty and directly penalised for a workplace offense on that basis (i.e. neglecting to establish a dipute resolution procedure) at absolutely no cost to the complainant. Also they risk lawsuits which are just as harmful in any country where lawyers chase ambulances and offer to litigate on a no-win-no-fees basis regarding all and any kinds of negligence that they can prove has occurred e.g. failure by the company to create workplace procedures to address conflict even though they have already repeatedly acknowledged that this workplace hazard already exists in their own workplace. The more employees (including volunteer workers) that a company has, the higher the risk of a workplace injury occurring due to conflict, (i.e. the sooner that a conflict is likely to cause injury) and the less that a company has in writing to prove that they have taken proactive steps and established formal procedures to address, intervene and resolve conflicts between workers the higher that the damages they will eventually be obliged to pay are likely to become.

@Heather225

1.) Have you ever been on either side of conflict resolution situation? How did you resolve it?

yeah, it's close to impossible that someone has never been... and for me asking instead of assuming has always worked... and also to just "pause" when i can't think and give both myself and the pther person time to go back to reasonable mood
2.)Can you think of any tips we haven't listed to facilitate healthy conflict-resolution?

can't think of anything specific rn, maybe i'll add later!

@Heather225

1.) Have you ever been on either side of the conflict resolution situation? How did you resolve it?

Yes, many times. when it comes to conflict people are very stubborn and often refuse to understand the other side. I tried to avoid it as possible but also there are many times I was called ' sitting on the fence' or my opinion was taken lightly. It's difficult to resolve a conflict, sometimes it's find a common ground, negotiation but sometimes just step down and let both of the parties sort out themselves.
2.) Can you think of any tips we haven't listed to facilitate healthy conflict-resolution?

Listen and watch out what you say.

1) Yes! It's hard being on either side. I tried to use direct conflict resolution while expressing I wasn't mad. I was there to talk, not blame. I also have received feedback and apologized profusely and attempted not to do the action again.

2) We resolve faster if it's right away than if we wait and let resentment build up.

@Heather225

1 Have you ever been on either side of conflict resolution situation? How did you resolve it?

I was in charge of Finances and Fundraising for a large education charity project in my country. As such, I had periodic clashes with the Project Director (who was an Education scholar), because she was always adding new activities and operations to the original project, that were beyond our budget. I was the liason with the donors (wealthy individuals and companies), and she would always complain that these added activities were indispensable for helping poor school children (the project mission), and that the donors were very stingy, even cruel, by not increasing (significantly) the contributions they had commited to the project. I had heated private discussions with her. I took the standpoint of defending the Project in itself. On one hand I was very firm to her (who was my superior in a way) in that we had well-defined commitments with our donors and our beneficiaries (schools) of things we had to deliver timely, and we could not risk that by diverting funds to other things. And that we had promised our donors to do those things with the money they had already commited. We would lose credibility among them and the business community at large (potential source of future added funding) by expanding all the time our demands for more money from them. On the other hand, I negotiated with her the scaling down of this additional activities, and then tried to get some additional funding from our donors “selling” them this scaled-down newly added projects. All of this was kept confidential. At the monthly meeting of the Board (she, the main donors, and me were members), everything was all set, we all had nervous smiles on our faces, and both Finances (me) and Operations (she) presented a coherent plan. In spite of all the previous tension and heated discussions, the Board meetings always developed smoothly. This happened several times. The project was completed with total success (it is in the Unesco “menu” of successful methodologies and approaches to improving poor children education), and she finally expressed me, very warmly, her gratitude for protecting the Project from financial distress (or even collapse) and keeping a great reputation among donors, which kept them paying their commited donations. So it was a tough, but direct and honest confrontation, in which both tried to improve and promote the Project’s health from our own responsibilities, thinking paradigms, and perspectives (mine was that “Needs are infinite, but resources are limited”). The end of the story is that we love each other, we have a very strong bond, mutual respect and mutual admiration, that goes way, way beyond our professional relationship. Maybe, paradoxically, all that heated confrontation, managed directly, honestly, without “dirty tricks” or “triangulation”, created a strong bond of Trust between us.

2 Tips to facilitate healthy conflict-resolution

- Apply the balanced principle of “Go hard on the issue and soft on the person.” Be as nice and appreciative as possible with the person, while maintaining a firm, ethical stance with the issue at stake. Don’t give up on a just cause to gain “points” with your counterpart. Don’t insult or humiliate the person because of frustration from failure in attaining a solution.

- If possible, adopt and promote the mind attitude and the stance of two people confronting a same problem. Collaborating to find a solution to a common problem, instead of fighting against each other to “win the fight”, “prevail”, “be the winner”.

@Heather225

1.) Have you ever been on either side of conflict resolution situation? How did you resolve it?

Yes, I've been in a similar situation. I agreed to meet with the person and listen to what they had to say. We realized it was just a misunderstanding.
2.) Can you think of any tips we haven't listed to facilitate healthy conflict-resolution?

Always recognize when you are wrong and apologize. Sometimes we want to be right about someone so badly that we don't want to admit when we're wrong. A simple apology can resolve a conflict.

@Heather225

Question time!

1.) Have you ever been on either side of conflict resolution situation? How did you resolve it?

I have, yes, naturally, as conflicts are natural though undesired states of affairs in each community, being 7 Cups one. I resolved it by finding a common ground, stay committed without imposing my "truth" to the other person. Some conflict resolutions were harder and more hurtful than others, but all were worth it and necessary.

2.) ÃÂ Can you think of any tips ÃÂ we haven't listed to facilitate healthy conflict-resolution?

Try to see the conflict through the other person's "lenses".

@Heather225

in my time here its quite fortunate that i have not been in any side of conflict resolution and thats a blessing in disguise for me.

the thing i would like to add about conflict resolution is that , we should not let this effect us negatively or take it negatively, i am sure for some the experience is hard but at hard times it's important to focus on positives. I would also like to add that refrain from triangulation

thank you

@yourstruly2000