Archive for April, 2008

L. Deborah Sword CV

 Summary

Of the more than four thousand conflict management processes that Deborah has conducted, locally and internationally, very few have been alike. Because people are unique, so are their conflicts. Deborah specializes in conflict resolution processes that meet the needs of the clients, transforms their current situation into a more productive future, and also builds their conflict competencies for doing other conflicts better.

Deborah’s successes are in facilitating individual, group, team, and organizations solutions. Her training included multiple conflict management and resolution process skills and models. She teaches conflict resolution and management at universities, and privately, as well as training Boards of Directors in effective governance.

Clients appreciate Deborah’s ability to assess accurately and quickly what the issues are, and what they need in order to find their most creative and optimal solutions. Those clients include: government departments, individuals, universities, agencies, courts, lawyers, communities, Boards, Ministers of the Crown, insurers, non-profit, and business organizations of all sizes. Deborah’s expertise encompasses many substantive areas, to name only a few: workplace and employment, professional negligence, personal injury, harassment, insurance and disability, wills and estates, organizational development, and environmental assessments.

Deborah is active on behalf of the conflict community as a speaker, presenter, and author on topics of governance, and conflict management. She serves on the Boards of Directors of numerous organizations, and volunteers in the peacemaking and environmental movements.

  Education

 Ph.D. Conflict Analysis, University of Toronto

Complexity science is a new tool for analyzing conflicts and the discourses that arise during conflict events. This study investigated three social conflicts, using nonlinear dynamic approaches to the interactive relationships among the conflict agents.

 Master in Environmental Studies, York University 

This was original research involving six multi-stakeholder dialogue groups, located in three provinces as well as a national Round Table. The dialogue groups negotiated highly contentious social issues to create policy changes for environmental justice.

 Bachelor of Law, University of Alberta

 Bachelor of Arts, University of Alberta

 

Peacemaking Sports

Sports for peace

© L. Deborah Sword 

21 April 2008 

From archeological evidence, humans have enjoyed sports since the ancients celebrated hunting. As well as peacetime survival skills, sports were military training. In other words, sport, war, and peace have always intertwined.

Champions who affect history is a theme in literature of all epochs, cultures, and genres. David and Goliath, Hector and Achilles, Star Trek’s planets, all used the devise of heroes sent to fight a decisive battle on behalf of their respective states, and the individual victor determined the collective winner.

Can sports create peace, as well as replace war? They are separate issues because, as Baruch Spinoza defined, and Martin Luther King, Jr.,[1] restated, peace and war are not opposites: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension:, it is the presence of justice.” Negative peace is the absence of violence, and positive peace is harmonious co-existence. However, negative peace can describe fighting that has not yet emerged. Likewise, harmony can be artificially sustained through suppression of rights and freedoms. True peace is the presence of social justice and human security, since war destroys both.

Any expectation that sports would, could or should, solve conflict is misplaced; no games have brought permanent peace. However, it is appropriate to consider roles that sports have had in peacemaking, and look for lessons. There are examples in world histories of sports affecting peace, from which we can learn:

  •       An early conception of sports as a divide between war and peace was the “spondorophoroi” or ‘sacred truce’ during the ancient Olympiad, held every four years even during war and occupation. To allow safe passage for athletes before, during, and after the Games - between one to three months - no war or hostilities occurred. Weapons were not allowed, and no one was executed during the sacred truce.
  •       In the modern era, sports with military origins were re-branded as harbingers of peace and industry. Centuries after the ancient Olympics, the resuscitator of the Games, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, called it “the religion of sport“. He had seen the out-of-shape French troops lose the Prussian War in 1870. After all, messengers who carried battle strategies from the generals to the troops had to be fit and conditioned - the same justification used by CEOs who start their day with a recreational run, or compete in marathons. The “glory of sport and the honor of our teams” - the Olympic athletes’ oath, resonates into corporate boardrooms.
  •       In 1914, a spontaneous Christmas truce on the front line self-organized between Allied and German troops. They emerged from muddy trenches to play an ad hoc soccer game, giving the world a symbol of shared meaning of sports among enemies.
  •       Despite propaganda in 1936, the hiatus during the world wars, political boycotts in 1976, 1980 and 1984, and terrorism in 1972, the Olympic Games of the modern era have gone on since 1896, just as they did during the sacred truce of the ancient Olympics.
  •       During the Cold War, athletes were ciphers for nations, and a personal victory was reframed to represent the winning country’s superior ideology over the opponents’ impugned ideology. Political meaning was put on athletes as ambassadors, and source of national pride.
  •       The motto of Right To Play is: “When children play, the world wins”. Right to Play states:
“Community leaders, parents and teachers have reported that, thanks to Right To Play’s programs, violent behaviour among children has been reduced. In addition to offering an alternative to idleness that can often lead to violence, Right To Play’s sport and play programs teach important conflict resolution skills including teamwork, fair-play and communication. Sport can also reduce levels of ethnic violence by reducing the separation between and among groups. Individuals compete on the same teams and, as a result, learn about each other as people rather than abstract members of a hated ethnic community.     

  •       Athletes’ countries have sent political messages through them, even when diplomatic political relations are strained. In 2004 and 2006/2007, long time enemies India and Pakistan overcame tension along their border to successfully participate in a bi-national cricket tournament - a game that normally raises passions on the subcontinent to a fever pitch. Each game of the tournament was peaceful.
  •       At the other end of the spectrum, for many years South Africa was excluded from the international sports community, and could expect neither invitations to participate elsewhere, nor that elite athletes would attend South African competitions. Any athletes or countries competing against South Africans faced ostracism or sanctions from the governing sports associations. The total sports boycott contributed to the isolation of the Apartheid regime, and its dismantlement.
  •       In 2005, a peace team comprised of 27 young Israeli and Palestinian soccer players competed in Spain.
  •       Mixed Palestinian and Israeli teams have played soccer and basketball since 2002. In August, 2008, a Peace Team of Palestinians and Israelis sponsored by the Peres Center for Peace Sport Department, played Australian rules football in Melbourne, a mere months after learning the sport. They lost badly, winning only 2 of 16 games, but were the most cheered team on the field. 
  •       Arab and Israeli children are involved in Coexistence on Wheels, a project that has them bicycling together.

 These demonstrate a variety of approaches to politics in sports and to sports in politics. Since sports have played multiple peace and world building roles, the larger question is whether this can be deliberately leveraged. Politicians pay attention when people get involved in events where athletes represent national pride.

Despite any complaints, and those are legitimate, about the negative effects the Olympics has on the host cities’ underprivileged poor, homeless, municipal budgets, environment, and local inflationary pressures, there is one overwhelming achievement: Games bring together ethnicities, classes, nationalities, religions, cultures, genders, and races, to share a common experience, exchange pins and team shirts, learn about each other, and return home with new friends and knowledge. Most people agree that opportunities, however brief, for the peoples of the world to share an experience, learn about other cultures, spend time together, and focus on peaceful - albeit competitive - activities, is better than not having those opportunities.

 


[1] Spinoza, B. Theological-Political treatise (1670) peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice. Retrieved 21 April 2008, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza. King, Jr. M.L. unsourced quote. Retrieved 21 April 2008, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr.  

 

Personal Decisions Create Peace

 

Personal decision-making for peace

24 April 2008

South African dockworkers defied their government, hired lawyers, and inspired Africans to say ‘no’ to weapons and war.  

Starting 17 April 2008, the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU), representing dockworkers and transporters, refused to unload the container ship An Jue Yiang because the cargo was weapons, although the government had given the ship’s captain a permit for the Port of Durban.

The South African Litigation Centre, which promotes human rights and rule of law, took the matter to court, and the Durban High Court ruled the weapons could not be moved through South Africa. The action quickly spread to the coastal countries of Angola, Mozambique, and Namibia. The An Jue Yiang was in limbo for a week before turning back to sea, presumably sailing for its homeport.

SATAWU refused to unload the container ship, other countries’ dockworkers took up the cause, and there are 77 tonnes fewer weapons on the African continent. Imagine what the global consequences for peace could be if people simply refused to produce, traffic, and transport weapons. Before this story, the very idea sounded naïve, like the song: “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream“. Perhaps it is not so impossible? What other decisions, taking a principled stand for peace, we could all make?         

 

A Tale Of Cross-Cultural Relationships

 

© L. Deborah Sword, first written July 2005, as a sci-fi metaphor for the challenges, rewards, and insights of being in relationship.

Chapter one, Looking

 There was once a lovely planet with a magenta sky and cinnamon flavored water. Although the planet was small, it was possible to see it in the universe if you were in the right place at the right time and knew where to look.

The people on the planet belonged to many different social groups that lived together in communities, getting along with the others as best they could. It happened, on occasion, that someone from one group would develop feelings for someone from another group. That was seen as harmless by all the groups, but was not encouraged.

Such was the situation for two individuals that you might have noticed if you were looking in the right place at the right time. You could have seen BeeLa, a happy female of the Sparkle group, accidentally meeting Nonie, a quiet male of the Tinkle group, through no fault of either of them. Both had long lived contentedly alone, and neither had been actively seeking the complications of a relationship - and most particularly not a permanent relationship outside their own social group.

The first insight they gained was that feelings could guide someone where good sense would counsel one not to go. How we feel directs how we think and act, not the other way around.

So it happened. Nonie made an offer to BeeLa that, at first, she found easy to refuse. She was happy with her solitude as a single Sparkle and, even had she not been, she was not looking to change her life with a Tinkle, charming or otherwise. But charming he indeed was, and the offer he made was intriguing. He offered her only himself and her independence at the same time. Against everyone’s better judgment she accepted the offer just as it was, without any negotiating.

Chapter two, Cross-Cultural Couplings

 You might well ask if there was a reason that Sparkles and Tinkles, or any of the other social groups on the planet for that matter, did not couple with each other. In fact, there was a reason. It was easier to couple with someone of the same social group. This is their second insight: feelings can often take the hardest path possible. The hard path might not lead to happiness, but it certainly has the potential to lead to learning.

Sparkles and Tinkles, like all social groups, have their own cultures, rules and norms of acceptable behavior. No rule or norm was universally true for every culture, for all the time, or for every situation. Cultures, rules and norms are excellent things to have; they make it possible for social groups to function because everyone knows what is acceptable and how to behave. Cultures, rules and norms do everything from establishing the colour that means ‘go’ to determining what is beautiful, what is rude, and what is good to eat. Every part of life is described by culture, a rule, or a norm, whether we know it or not.

Coupling with someone from another social group could get confusing about how things actually worked. The Sparkle culture described certain things as good behavior and correct thinking, and the Tinkle culture described certain things as good behavior and correct thinking. But they were not necessarily the same things. This could be a challenge in couplings between individuals from the different social groups. Figuring out another’s culture, norms and rules required flexibility, perseverance, and a nimble mind.

Chapter three, Specifics of Sparkles and Tinkles 

Specifically, Sparkle culture evolved around personal privacy, and setting boundaries around what was your business and what was my business. No matter how close we might be in kin or friendship, you minded your own business and I minded mine. That was considered the only polite way to be in a relationship among Sparkles. Curiosity required poking into other people’s business. Thus questions, as a general social rule, were considered inappropriate. Loving a Sparkle meant respecting those boundaries of personal space.

Tinkles, in contrast, were curious by nature and got rewarded for asking questions early and often. No question was considered too stupid or intrusive to ask, even of strangers. Tinkles’ boundaries existed, but left plenty of room for inquiry. Also, Tinkles did not have the same number of rules of behavior that Sparkles had; a trait that might make Sparkles view Tinkles’ culture as messy, whereas Tinkles might view Sparkles’ culture as rigid.

Another difference in the two cultures was their verbalization of feelings. Tinkles said what they felt as they were feeling it, such as telling a loved one about that love just because it felt good to a Tinkle to say it. In Tinkle culture, if a male did not tell a female he loved her, it was because he didn’t. Sparkles also had strong emotions, but their norms were more constraining in speaking about their feelings. If a Sparkle male loved a female, he expected her to continue to know it until he told her otherwise. Tinkles should not expect emotionally revealing discussions with beloved Sparkles.

Tinkles were adventurers and Sparkles were homebodies. And so on. Perhaps you can see where this would lead for BeeLa and Nonie?

Chapter four, BeeLa and Nonie together

 BeeLa, as a typical Sparkle, needed a lot of privacy and boundaries set quite far away from her. Nonie proclaimed that he was the perfect male for her. He was much quieter than the usual Tinkle, which suited her need for alone time. Nonie did not seem inclined to profess love as soon as and whenever the thought popped into his heart. If he had, it would have made BeeLa uncomfortable, thinking that he was needy and clinging, two characteristics the reserved Sparkles found very off-putting.

Therefore, BeeLa was prepared to give Nonie a chance to be part of her coupling, which was how these things happened on the lovely small planet with a magenta sky and cinnamon flavored water. Those with whom BeeLa and Nonie associated were concerned, but offered unconditional support if it made the new couple happy to be together. Without that support, they would have felt isolated. That was their third insight; individuals, even in couples, do not function in isolation from their community. No matter how much personal space they require, they also need to belong to a social group.

The coupling went very well at first. Everything that one did was a delight for the other one. Nonie was thrilled to learn that BeeLa liked the same cream, hung her decorations in the same way, and enjoyed the same music as him. BeeLa enjoyed that Nonie did the same sports, knew the same stories, and had the same values as she did.

Then Nonie started behaving like a Tinkle, telling BeeLa he loved her whenever his heart felt it. At first, BeeLa thought that was sweet and replied, “same here.” After a while, it began to feel smothering, as if Nonie were colonizing her. When Nonie said he loved her, her reaction became, “whatever.” Nonie felt rejected, which made him insecure in the relationship, so he did what any Tinkle would do - he tried harder to be more loving so that BeeLa would respond lovingly, which made her withdraw because, to her Sparkle sensibilities, that was cloying.

To counter his fear that he was losing BeeLa’s attention, Nonie asked BeeLa questions to show his interest. At first, BeeLa thought it was sweet and shared her stories. Over time, she felt verbally invaded. The more she retreated, the more he tried to show interest in her.

Chapter five, Self-Defeating Acts 

From being delighted in the things they shared in common, they became strained over the differences in cultures, rules and norms. It looked to be leading to the end of the coupling. Nonie figured BeeLa had the most needs: for space, for rules and for things done her way. All he needed was affection and to occasionally share fun activities.

BeeLa, on the other hand, was pretty happy with the way things were. When Nonie was too intimate, she got irritated until he backed away into his personal feelings of rejection, which fit her expectations of a couple just fine. It was, she reasoned, his problem to deal with any feelings of rejection or neglect that he chose to entertain. The cycle became: Nonie showed his interest, BeeLa reacted with her withdrawal, that led to his feelings of rejection, which renewed her satisfaction that he was now leaving her alone, so she became sweet, and Nonie showed his interest again, thus sparking a repeat of the pattern. 

One day, Nonie sat glumly thinking about it, and concluded that, if one of them were to change things, it would have to be him. BeeLa was most content being coupled with him when he felt rejected enough to leave her alone. She inadvertently met her needs by not meeting his. So, asking her to not reject him was unlikely to succeed, since that change would work against her being satisfied. 

He could not set about changing his way of being in the coupling without help in understanding Sparkles. It was not enough to understand BeeLa because much of her needs and expectations were culturally based. He sought an expert in Sparkle culture who was not a Sparkle, since a Sparkle would just think BeeLa was correct, and judge Nonie as being wrong. That was his fourth insight: being in the culture does not necessarily allow you to see it objectively. The judgment of a different culture is made through the lens of your own culture, and your own culture will feel right to you.

Gadgets were a social group that, like all social groups, had its own culture, rules, and norms of acceptable behavior. Gadgets had a well-developed sense of humor and laughed at almost everything. As a result, they had almost no tragedy in their lives because they did not view life’s setbacks as misfortune. Death, for example, was one of their funniest rites of passage. Thus, they were gifted in their understanding of the foibles of life, romance, and dramas the social groups conjured for themselves. Most comedians on the planet were Gadgets. If you had a problem, a Gadget would put into perspective.

Nonie called a close Gadget friend. Terbah laughed, of course, at Nonie’s seriousness, and said they could meet that afternoon. That was a fifth insight: it helps to have someone who is willing and available to laugh and talk.

Chapter six; Laugh to Insight 

Terbah was brutally, humorously honest as they sat in a garden with containers full of cinnamon and dried plant flavored liquid, enjoying the outdoors.

“Whatever makes you think that the social groups were supposed to understand each other? Gadgets’ best material comes from the innate inability of the groups to figure each other out. If I give you ‘the secret’ to understanding Sparkles or them ‘the secret’ to understanding Tinkles, I lose much of what’s funny in my shtick.”

Nonie did not find this helpful or comforting. “Surely there has to be something that will bridge the communication gap. Isn’t there a compromise possible?” It was a statement more than a question.

“You’re seeing a communication gap, where BeeLa’s seeing too much communication. I encourage you to find an engineer who can build a one-lane bridge that is big enough for vehicles to enter at one end and too small for them to exit at the other end. The big vehicles enter at the big end, while the small vehicles enter at the small end. When they meet in the middle they have to stop. That’s a compromise, and all you’ve got is gridlock in the middle of an impassable bridge.”

“So, am I right in having too many words and emotion going onto the bridge at the big end, or is she right having few words and emotion going onto the bridge at the small end?” Nonie was genuinely confused about who was to blame for the metaphorical gridlock in the non-existent middle of the imaginary ill-designed bridge.

“Trust a Tinkle to simplify this complex issue to an dichotomous choice of right or wrong. You are both right and neither one is wrong. You can’t make her wrong for not being expressive or interested enough, and she can’t make you wrong for being too curious or expressive. You can both try, but you might as well make the sky wrong for being magenta, or the water wrong for tasting like cinnamon.”

Chapter seven; Compromise, Resolution, Transformation

“Okay, if compromise isn’t the way across the bridge, what are the other choices; to continue as things are or break up?” Nonie was losing sight of the Tinkle cultural trait of optimism.

“You’re again simplifying the complex; this time to create a false binary. If you identify only the extremes, then you get a choice of only two, of which one has be made good, and one has be made bad. It’s like saying that only small vehicles can use the bridge, or everyone has to stay off it, or at the middle all those who drove the big cars on will exchange with all those who drove the small cars on to continue the journey. It’s a forced, false choice. There’s also an underside to a bridge and magenta-space over it. Last I checked Tinkles didn’t have wings, but your social group evolves quickly, so don’t give up hope. But keep your driver’s license current just in case.”

Nonie suspected Terbah was mocking him but ignored that. “As it is now, my end of the bridge is wide enough for all my verbiage and exuberance, while BeeLa feels comfortable at the small end for her smaller verbiage and lesser curiosity. Both entrances to the bridge fit our individual needs until we get to the point in the bridge where we met. Then it is neither big enough for me to proceed, nor comfortable enough for BeeLa to proceed. And neither of us could turn on the narrow bridge to return the way we each entered. In other words, neither of us can win if we do it only my way or only her way. So, compromise is a partial win that leaves no one completely satisfied. I give up, Terbah, what’s left to try to resolve our problem?”

“Resolution only ends the current problem that’s been identified. Like, you both agree to buy one vehicle that will fit both ends of the bridge. Then, tomorrow the problem needing resolving is what to do with the old too big and too small vehicles. A compromise resolution is she agrees to talk more and you agree to talk less. Who’s happy with that? No, my friend, what you want is transformation of how the two of you interact when the problems arise, as problems always do. Change the interaction, or the way you look at the interaction, or the resources you have for addressing the interaction. Change something about how you interact around your problems. What makes a joke funny? Surprise. Irony. Novelty. Satire. The unexpected. Try something you haven’t tried before.”

Chapter eight, Getting Off the Bridge

 Nonie thought he was starting to understand. “If I was coupled with a Gadget instead of a Sparkle then, if I understand you, I would initially be delighted at your humor but I would become put off by the fact that you found my serious expressions of love and interest funny.”

“Just as I would go from finding your seriousness charming to finding you dull for being so serious. Gadgets rarely couple with other social groups; you’re a great audience for us but not sustainable in the couple gene pool.”

“But it isn’t your fault you find everything funny and everyone a potential audience. That’s part of Gadget culture and rules and social norms.”

“Yup, my point exactly. Expecting me not to find the humor in every situation is not much different than asking you to say something in less than a paragraph, with a back-story and more detail than BeeLa can possibly absorb. Or than asking BeeLa to give you a rich and full description of what she saw during her day. She isn’t interested because she isn’t interested. It doesn’t fit her rules of coupling.”

“So, I was becoming irritated with BeeLa for ignoring me, and expecting one of us to change our nature to suit the other. You are suggesting that we change how we interact with each other instead. So she could continue to be solitary when she needed to be, and I could continue to be gregarious when I needed to be. But we would not find that a problem because our new attitude towards the interaction was more understanding, more compassionate.”

“You got it Nonie, and I would contribute to that, even more trusting that the positive interaction in the moment would carry you through the present and next temporary irritations.”

Chapter nine, If it doesn’t change you or me, what does it change?

 Nonie mulled over the insight and listened with part of his brain as Terbah proceeded to make fun of his situation and tell old jokes about couplings, which on other days would have had him laughing until he gasped to breathe. Terbah, seeing that Nonie was neither laughing nor paying attention, rose to leave. Realizing how rude it was to not be the audience that Gadget culture, rules and norms thought he ought to be, Nonie started to promise his full audienceship if Terbah would stay.

“Call me when enough time has passed that your current calamity has become a comedy.” And, the sixth insight was that humor would go a long way to changing calamity into comedy.

Nonie wished Terbah farewell and sort of watched as his friend moved away. Gadgets did not exactly walk so the movement was worth watching, even for a Tinkle whose normally bottomless brain was now feeling full. Long after Terbah was gone from the garden, Nonie was still looking in that direction, unblinking, with his thoughts a bucket of colors, fragments, and pending breaches in his barrier to knowledge.

Eventually, he believed he had made sense of it. He struggled to frame another insight: a compromise was good enough for the time being but might not resolve the bigger issue; for example, agreeing on how much they talked. A resolution might solve a bigger issue; such as they might agree to some overall balance in talking, shared activities and alone time. A transformation, on the other hand, could change the nature of their interaction over how they addressed all their issues in the short and long term that left each of them meeting their own needs, and also being aware of and meeting the other one’s needs.

Compromise wasn’t enough. Only a transformation of the nature of the relationship could allow them to be themselves, and also with each other. Assuming he had that right, he still was not entirely sure where to go from there. However, he believed he and BeeLa could figure it out. 

Chapter ten, If a Bridge is Non-Functional, Change Something

 Nonie still sat alone in the garden considering the insights as the magenta sky glowed darkly. He thought he was coming to understand the insights.

When it was time to make choices, it would be easy to grab at the first solution that came to mind. If his was the big, unusable vehicle, for example, whereas a small vehicle might fit both ends of the bridge, using only the small vehicle made sense. However, he thought he could also envision a lot of other possible solutions.

The bridge was the bridge and if it was already built, he could go around it, re-engineer it to fit both size vehicles, change the nature of all vehicles to fit at both ends, get out of the vehicle to walk the bridge leaving a vehicle at both ends, or build another bridge that fit.

“BeeLa wasn’t necessarily wrong in the coupling,” he said aloud to the now dark magenta sky, “unless she was made to be wrong so that I could be right. If she manages her feelings of irritation and silence, and I mange my reactions of rejection and enthusiasm, we haven’t changed us, but we have changed how we interact together.”

He figured he did not need to tell BeeLa this in order to fix things. BeeLa was right and he was right. Therefore, it was how they each managed their interpretation of the interaction between the two of them that could be transformed. Without consulting her, he could begin to not feel rejected and neglected when she needed to be left alone. The only thing that would change would be his interpretation of her attitude, acts, words, and intentions. It wouldn’t take long before she would be ready for the discussion about giving him the same benefit of the doubt when he expressed his jubilation and passion. 

He snapped a mental picture of what that change would look like: the attitudes of compassion, patience, warmth, and kindness, replacing the attitudes of irritability, impatience, rejection, and unkindness. If they made the effort, it would meet BeeLa’s needs and his needs, and it would become a habit. It was a habit worth forming, not just for this relationship, but also for how to live in the lovely planet with a magenta sky and cinnamon flavored water that contained many social groups, and all sorts of conflicts. 

The End

Conflict Ghosts

Exorcising the Presence of Absent People 

Anytime parties gather to discuss their issues, there are additional people who are not present but are still participating in their own way in the conversation. I call them ‘ghosts’. They are so prevalent, that I define a ghost as: some person(s) not present, whose role, opinion, or power are factors to be considered by one or more of the parties actually present in the session, before a decision can be made by those gathered. 

As the people in the session reveal their interests, the uninvited ghosts intrude. The question becomes, how does one exorcise these ghosts? Each ghost, and the following is not an exhaustive list, requires its own strategy for banishment. 

 

The precedent ghost is a common category. These ghosts are not parties, but they have the same cause at heart as one of the actual parties. Someone in the session will not want to make a decision out of fear the precedent ghost will learn about it, and want the same deal.  Being afraid of creating a precedent that other potential parties might rely upon can prevent an outcome the people in the room might agree upon. Banishing the precedent ghost is best done in a private and confidential process. Courts create precedents; conflict resolution sessions generally do not. The parties can agree to a non-disclosure term of their agreement, and avoid the publicity of open court.

 

Another type of ghostly personality is the party who should be there and is not. This party stays away from the session, and delegates limited authority to someone else, while retaining the right to make a final decision. The person who attends can speak but not decide. Every possible option has to be put on hold while the delegate confers with the person who should have been there in the first place. This is the executive ghost, whether it is the company president, a professional advocate, the politicians who will have to regulate the outcome, the police who will enforce the arrangements, or the financier who will fund the deal. The executive ghost has enough power to avoid being ordered to be present, yet controls the outcome from afar. In many cases, the executive ghost will deny being involved in the decision-making, but still has the power to veto any decision that arises. Dealing with an executive ghost many require a discussion about how fruitful the session can be. It may be necessary to adjourn the session until either the executive can be present, or the paths around the delegate’s limitations have been clarified.

 

The third ghost of our acquaintance is the adviser ghost, who has no place in this session, but whose specter is present nevertheless. The adviser ghost could be a spouse, relative, professional consultant, religious leader, business partner, or trusted friend. In this haunting, all the proper parties are in the session, but one of the parties has to check with this significant resource, whose judgment is sought by the party as affirmation that the decision is wise and appropriate. Sometimes the party wants to accept the decision, but as a courtesy, or obligation, wants to discuss the options with some person who has also suffered through the issue. It is human nature to want reassurance that a decision is correct. Denying this consultation is likely to frustrate everyone.

 

There are also many varieties of legal ghosts. The judicial ghost is invoked by some who claim, “every judge would agree with me.” The judge is unaware of being a player in the decision-making, even as the judge is relied upon to bolster the parties’ claim to correctness. The senior lawyer ghost stays at the office, leaving the session and hands of a junior lawyer who has some or all of the following: limited knowledge of the issues, or no experience in the area of law or the process, or no relationship with the client. Although the senior lawyer ghost does not do the work on a file, s/he will not give up control of it. The secret agenda ghost is a strange legal haunting. Perhaps a lawyer has told the client something in private that now ties the lawyer’s hands to prevent losing face. One example is a lawyer who tells a client, “You can’t lose in court, so you shouldn’t compromise.” Then, if the client wants to accept a negotiated offer, the secret agenda might prevent the lawyer from recommending it.

 

We try to work with the ghosts that are haunting the sessions, and make them as friendly as ghosts can be. We are always alert to their presence, and draw parties’ attention to them when they appear. Although we cannot see the ghosts at the session table, they are very real and present to the parties who are factoring them into the decision-making.

 

Consult Thy Neighbours

 17 February 2008

 Developers perform a valuable service; communities would not exist without them. Because developers take a risk in building, they receive profit as a reward. Once the communities come into being, people move in and develop feelings about the values associated with living there. Occasionally, the two groups, developers and community residents, find themselves in conflict over the nature of ongoing development. Add to this mixture a labyrinthine planning process, the politics of city building, and the politicians who are elected to represent community interests, and there is a potential stew of conflicting interests.

 Unfortunately, this has all come to be lumped under the rubric of NIMBY (not in my backyard) or its radical sibling NOPE (not on planet Earth). Many years of studying publics protesting against what happens in their backyards has convinced me that those acronyms do not do justice to the complexity of these local conflicts. To characterize it as neighbours exercising a veto to stymie developers, or developers ramming unwanted uses into communities, suggests only part of the nuanced and important relationships that exist among cities composed of distinct communities.

 There are a few options for dealing with disagreements over development. One way is through the halls of power, where developers and communities square off against each other in the planning approval process, in the hopes that there will be a clear victor and the other side will be defeated. This goes all through the appeal process until someone just has to live with whatever results. This route is fraught with the kind of stereotyping associated with labels like NIMBY. In this construction of the issue, the developers can express their frustration at being misunderstood, the residents can convey their outrage at the unwanted building being imposed, and each side can attempt to exert influence over the decision-makers, who wring their hands over planning policies that all sides accuse the others of not respecting. It is a common scenario. The mutual anguish, delay, expense, and rancor fractures any goodwill that might once of existed. 

 Conflict managers know that once the rhetoric heats up, listening and problem solving skills are proportionately reduced. Small wonder that everyone gets frustrated and anguished; they hear only some of what the other is saying, and interpret it as proof of bad intensions. No development has only one way of being approved. Plans can be modified, buildings can be adapted to landscapes, neighbourhoods can be successfully intensified, routes can be realigned, and approvals can be subject to conditions. When developers present a plan without input from neighbours, and insist that no changes are possible, they understand that the neighbours get upset. If any of us recall the last time someone imposed his or her will upon us, likely we reacted to the use of force against our will. That is the definition of conflict: intentional action to carry out a party or parties’ will over the objection of the other party or parties. 

 The good news is that developers everywhere have matured beyond falling into some of the mistakes that created the conditions for that scenario to play out. City planners and policymakers are encouraging community wide dialogues that are interest based win/win, rather than forcing win/lose outcomes. Once the level of rhetoric can be reduced, people can listen to each other, and share their interests as well as their positions. 

Put Good Governance in Government

Date: 17 January 2008

It seems that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are having a difference of opinion about what it means to govern. Ms. Clinton is quoted as seeing the role of Commander in Chief as running the country, setting the goals, and then steering towards them. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, wants to occupy the Oval Office as a visionary, who sets the broad goals, and lets others participate in how the good ship America achieves them.

The two agree on the responsibility in setting goals, providing a vision, and, hopefully, surrounding the Office with competent people who provide the information and advice necessary to get the job done properly. In implementation, however, Ms. Clinton would, it seems, be the direct supervisor of those who are fulfilling her commands. Mr. Obama prefers, according to his statements, to be the facilitator of those interpreting his commands.

Both candidates recognize that they remain accountable for the outcome, both want good outcomes, and they differ over how tightly the journey towards those outcomes needs to be managed by the President. For discussion purposes, let’s assume Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama are equally qualified for the position, equally understand what vision and leadership mean, and equally grasp what it means to develop public policy. Does it matter then that they disagree on how tightly to grasp the reins of their public employees, the Foreign Service, and other ‘incidentals’ of government? 

If you have been supervised by or lived with a control freak, you know how unrewarding an experience that can be. If you have ever worked for or been in a relationship with someone who operates without structure, you know how unsatisfying it is to try to get a decision made, or a project finished. Employees and citizens alike tend not to enjoy being micro-managed, or being left to figure rules out entirely on their own. Out of those feelings about management style comes conflict in all forms. Our politicians, our supervisors, and our significant others’ implementation styles can become a large potential source of conflict, whether in our lives, in our communities, or in our workplace. In other words, we can have the same goals, same values, same interpretation of the available data, and still have conflict about how to implement the plan.

Good governance distinguishes managing from leading, and lets the people who excel at each do the job they are given to do. Governance models that work strike a balance between the control freak and the control avoider. The irritating sources of negative conflict from implementation style can be made more productive. The conflict that remains is the positive kind of disagreement that is required for good policymaking. 

Dissent Is Okay

Protesters are “dissed and dismissed”

Date: 31 October 2007

An agency hires investigators to spy on Alberta landowners. China arrests people demonstrating for a free Tibet. Sydney fortifies when APEC leaders visit Australia. These are not reactions to alien invasions. Powerful policymakers deploy spies, police, and military to avoid or to control citizens whose viewpoints differ from official public policy. University of Calgary professor David Taras said, “Power comes through the ballot box.” Perhaps he was referring to traditional political power, but, as current events demonstrate, that is only one kind of power.

The news stories of protest power have become familiar: government/State on one side, protesters on the other side, with uniformed, armed men inside the frame. Protest is depicted as tense, messy, and expensive. After a dozen years studying protest, some patterns are discernible. In nature, of which humans are a part, everything is connected. Seeing patterns assists in understanding systems. Here are five interconnecting protest system patterns:

1. Protests are an emergent property of a policy system. Policies are an initial condition for a protest group to form, in order to influence changes in the policy they believe may harm them or the planet. Unlike special interest groups and lobbyists, who seek long-term access to policymakers, protesters may not stay active beyond the end of their particular policy conflict.

2. People have different risk tolerances. Each side brings forth experts’ reports, risk assessments, and information it claims is correct, and which discredits the other side’s reports, risk assessments, and information. Sincere belief about a policy’s risks spur people to action they see as participating in civic engagement to prevent policy mistakes. Policymakers are confronted with concerns about potential harm that they have not considered, think is a tolerable risk, or do not accept as possible.

3. Protesters and policymakers ‘diss [disrespect] and dismiss’ each other. Instead of addressing the interpretive differences about the policy’s risks, the sides demonize each other, mostly through the media. Policymakers see protesters as unelected, unrepresentative, and unaccountable malcontents. The policymakers dismiss protesters’ attitude as “counterproductive”, its claims “ridiculous”, its opinion “a minority”, and its analysis “irrelevant”. Protesters dislike being dissed and dismissed, but believe they are right, as do the policymakers, so both carry on.

4. Each side encourages democratic public participation. Policymakers prefer policy discussions within official public participation processes, such as town hall meetings, focus groups, opinion surveys, or open houses. They expect the public to attend, be orderly, listen to hired experts who manage technical information, and then give input for the policymakers to consider. Protesters also characterize their actions as democratic public participation. On occasion, more people in total attend a protest than go to the notably under-attended official public processes, making protest, they argue, as representative of public opinion.

5. Protest creates knowledge. The controversy of protest keeps everyone learning about alternative policy interpretations, and potential risks. Like news media, policymakers follow the noise. Policies, and their attendant protests, become Trojan Horses for other agendas, such as who is acting democratically, who speaks for the majority, ethics of governing, and how tax dollars are used. It generates research to prove/discredit each other’s policy interpretations. Policymakers consider more options as a result. Decisions improve through diversity of opinion. Protest groups freely give, and policymakers can accept, alternative knowledge and perspectives as part of policy formulation. The alternative knowledge stays in the policy system long after the protest about the policy ends.

Patterns reframe protest as a contribution to mutual learning participating in policymaking, rather than placing protest as a cost outside policymaking, or an attack on democratic institutions, or as group dysfunction. It is tempting to want to sort good guys from bad guys, and have the news media bring it to the comfort of our homes. However, maybe the option is to spot patterns that help understand protests with more depth than simply regarding protesters as rowdy people who represent no one, or government as a monolithic bureaucracy making policy for the few.

Managing Environmental Conflicts

Integrating conflict management into environmental policy

 Date: 27 February 2008

Environics polling found that 29 per cent of Canadians see the environment as our most pressing problem today. Second on the list of most important issues was war/peace at 28 per cent. Canadians are smart to put the two issues together, ahead of the third place concern by a large gap of 15 per cent. Environmental problems have both direct and indirect connections to peace and security. When the environment degrades, people behave in foreseeable yet unpredictable ways that, intentionally or otherwise, create conflicts. Panic can have that effect.

Our leaders should be paying attention to those connections now, when formulating environmental policies. As well as sound environmental management, Canada will need complementary strategic policies for conflict management. Consider the simplest and most obvious policy conflicts that could arise from environmental issues, such as climate changes.

Topping the list is environmental refugees, which might seem simple and obvious, but will likely be one of the hardest to manage. When water runs out in one place, people will migrate to where there is a supply. When food becomes scarce or bugs overrun someplace, people will search for hospitable locations. A planning decision, such as Calgary’s one year development freeze, could take on sinister significance if it restricts the migration of Ontarians seeking houses that have water in the taps. Conversely, if Calgary’s water source melts away as some suggest, a migration east would further strain the already falling water levels of the Great Lakes. Adaptation to environmental degradation must address the potential for emotionally charged, difficult to resolve conflicts over scarce resources that will arise from mass voluntary population displacements.

Another possible source of environmental conflicts will be the pressure on land use. Land use conflicts go to intrinsic values, worldviews and beliefs, which are among the most intractable conflicts to resolve. Canadians are justifiably proud of and attached to parklands. If prairie farms become nonviable and people are hungry, there could be policy crises over protected natural lands. The conflict might be a forced choice between keeping parklands as a bastion against further environment degradation; or, overturning parklands’ status because they are needed for growing crops and grazing domestic herds. Conflict over food reduces life to its most basic.

Another likely conflict may be over health care services, which will make current complaints about long wait times and inadequate numbers of health care practitioners seem trivial. The medical system will be dealing with quantities and types of patients it is badly equipped to handle. Health administrators have feared being overwhelmed by flu pandemics that sweep through, devastate, and leave, after which life returns to normal. Climate change is not likely to behave that neatly. Unpredictable messiness may be the new long-term normal for public health.

Finally, the forms any of these potential policy conflicts take will depend on the totality of the conditions at the time. Conflicts are nonlinear dynamic systems that are dependent on their initial conditions. Conflict reacts to what happens to and around it. If the initial conditions of the conflicts are well managed, the outcomes for people are more likely to be tolerable and productive. The outcomes for governments are, on the other hand, slightly more predictable but far less comforting. Most states, whether democratic or totalitarian, whether successful or failed, are solely mandated to apply force; although violent and failed states may have competing non-mandated forces. Canadian governments have used force against citizens in various policy conflicts but it really ought to be the very last resort, when all other policies are inadequate. In the absence of strategic plans and policies to manage climate change conflicts, there is a risk that government sanctioned and citizen self-organized forces will become the available choice.

This list barely begins to itemize the many sources of potential conflicts that scarcity, change, turbulence, and uncertainty might bring. Conflict resolution would be useful after such conflicts arise, but it is not necessary to wait for that harm before thinking about the policy applications of fair and wise conflict management strategies. Those conflict management policies will need to be long term and systemic, or the conflicts may escalate over who gets what, how much, and when.

Some of the conflicts can be seen on the horizon, and ought not to be ignored. In fact, ignoring them, while at the same time having a discussion about, for example, adaptation to climate change, detracts from the strategic value of that discussion. Conflict management policies ought to be a necessary adjunct to the climate change policies already being developed.  The point is to have in place policies to address how to manage climate related conflicts as they become known or anticipated.

The Premiers have agreed to get scientific studies to aid strategic policies for adapting to climate changes. Hard sciences are not a complete solution, since policy will then be used to interpret those scientific findings. It is almost guaranteed that there will be competing interpretations of that scientific data; that is normal. All information is subject to having its meaning interpreted. Conflict management also helps set policy directions in anticipation of whatever disagreement over the science may occur. When developing plans to manage the environmental risks, it is prudent to include plans to manage the risks of environmental and public policy related conflicts.

What is Conflict Competence?

 

 

 

Conflict Competence can be broken down into capacities you can develop:

  • be able to meet your needs and interests
  • and the needs and interests of others
  • in almost every situation
  • no matter how stressed, or tired, or emotional or threatened
  • everyone might be feeling at the time.

  The goal of being Conflict Competent is:

To have appropriate conflict competence capacities

in almost all situations with most people 

(no one can be perfect every time all the time)

It is possible to be both conflict competent and conflict incompetent. You may be conflict competent with some people and conflict incompetent with others. Different situations call upon different conflict competence capacities.

For example, you might be extremely conflict competent at work, yet fall apart when your aging parent telephones for the fourth time in a day, or your ex arrives late to pick up the children, or your sibling reminds you of something you did decades ago. As a businessperson, you might allow a disappointed client to speak to you in a way you would not tolerate from your friends. Or, you might enjoy arguing in a debate with colleagues, but the same argument with an in-law might hit all your hot buttons until you retreat into behaviour left over from childhood.

Different people will have different effects on you depending on the shared history, power imbalances, emotional content of the conflict, and how you feel about the relationship. You can develop appropriate conflict competencies for various interactions.

Keys to Conflict Competence:

1. Recognize your triggers and be mindful of alternatives meanings to them 

2. Identify the types of patterns in your conflict conversations

3. Manage your reactions to those conflict conversations

Sports for Peace

As the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games approach, the global conflict has come down to the forced choice of boycott the Games to express displeasure at the host country’s human rights record, or ignore the politics of the host country and enjoy the Games. It’s either sports and politics don’t mix, or politics enters everything including sports. A forced choice is a dichotomy, meaning that there is a contradiction between the two options. Whenever I’m faced with a dichotomy I ask: what are my other choices? Dichotomous thinking is “either/or” and that ignores the creativity of problem solving. Good problem solving resists dichotomies.

Here’s an article I wrote on another way of thinking about sports and politics that resists the either/or dichotomy. Thanks to my colleague Barbara Benoliel for her input.

Boycotting the Beijing Olympic Games:

Sports and Politics Make Not So Odd Bedfellows

What started as a murmur is becoming a movement urging a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games, or, at the least, the opening ceremonies. The counterargument, that politics has no place in sports, has also become louder. The decision is being presented as either/or, meaning choosing to do one precludes also doing the other. However, that dichotomy, or forced choice between two irreconcilable actions, may not be the only option.

In reality, sports and politics have been entwined since the Olympics of the ancient era. Cheating was recorded in the Games of 388 BCE; punishment included whipping and building public statues with the fines  the cheaters paid. Roman Emperor Nero competed in 67 ACE, and was judged the winner of the events he entered. When he fell from his chariot his Greek competitors, knowing that he murdered anyone who displeased him, waited for him to remount so that he could claim first place.

In the modern era, bids to win hosting privileges from the International Olympic Committee are themselves high stakes politics.. Every 2-year Olympic cycle brings political and city-building powerbrokers together into a consortium from all sectors striving for IOC votes for their city. The prize is publicity, potential economic boosts for infrastructure, and legitimacy to the host country. IOC votes are courted in a charged political environment.

Athletes experience politics in funding, team selection, drug testing, and judging, although those decisions have become much fairer and there is a conflict resolution mechanism for them (www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca). Their own countries use athletes to send political messages across boundaries, even when diplomatic political relations are strained. In 2006, long time enemies India and Pakistan overcame tension along their border to successfully participate in a bi-national cricket tournament - a game that normally raises passions on the subcontinent to a fever pitch. Each game of the tournament was peaceful. At the other end of the spectrum, for many years South Africa was excluded from the international sports community, and could expect neither invitations to participate elsewhere, nor that elite athletes would attend South African competitions. Any athletes or countries that did compete against South Africans, faced ostracism or sanctions from their governing sports associations. The total sports boycott contributed to the isolation of the Apartheid regime, and its dismantlement. In 2005, a peace team comprised of 27 young Israeli and Palestinian soccer players competed in Spain. Mixed Palestinian and Israeli teams had been playing soccer and basketball since 2002. Arab and Israeli children are involved in Coexistence on Wheels, a project that has them bicycling together. These events demonstrate that there are a wide variety of approaches to politics in sports and to sports in politics.

History has shown that the political action surrounding sporting events can be constructed as good or bad, depending on ‘whose ox is being gored’. Thus, the question is not whether to politicize the Beijing Games - that was done long ago – but rather what form the politics in 2008 should take. The IOC succeeded beyond its agenda, by putting the spotlight of the world’s moral compass on the Chinese realpolitik. Possible political actions range from ignoring everything related to Tibet and Human Rights abuses and just enjoy the Games, to a boycott of the Games to express displeasure at China’s deviation from acceptable behaviour.

In between those extremes, is the option of sidestepping the conflict of the dichotomy by doing both/and rather than either/or thinking. Send athletes to the Beijing Games AND work to help China come into compliance with Human Rights and Security. Since sports have played multiple peace and world building roles in intransigent conflicts, this can be leveraged. Politicians pay attention when people get involved in sporting events where a country’s best athletes represent national pride.

If the spotlight the IOC aimed at Beijing in 2001 is shining at last in 2008, we can manage the global concern for social justice and, at the same time, support the athletes. Instead of a boycott, this may be the optimal time to engage China in dialogues for change. Public conflict often means that a political system is becoming unbalanced, and the status quo is threatened. Social change comes with turbulence. A system in that state of turbulence is at its most open to being tipped into accepting change, however reluctantly. The 2008 Games, for any harm it might have done to China’s image, environment or budget, might also do good.