A client experiencing a sudden conflict among a work team called an emergency meeting. She identified one person as a source of the problem. She asked me if the “problem person” should be invited to the emergency meeting. It was a fair and good question.
My response was: “Yes, please do invite him to the meeting, and let him know that everything is up for discussion, so he can have his say, and ask his questions, and vent if he wants to.” Naturally, the client was concerned that blaming and accusations would derail the meeting. Indeed, blaming and accusations might have happened. But, that would not necessarily derail the meeting. Instead, the client could listen to this “problem person” in a new way. I urged the client to stop thinking of him as the problem and listen for the content.
I coached the client to hear within his words all his emotion and passion in order to understand his position, his expectations, his interests, and his disappointments. During the meeting, we came to understand what was creating the situation. As that happened, the situation was less frightening, threatening, and intimidating, and he was able to decrease his contribution to fueling the conflict.
People tend to be uncomfortable in and around conflict, because of how we perceive conflict. Conflict, however, is data. Seeing the conflict as information about how people are interpreting a situation makes a conflict more understandable. Conflict, then, is evidence that people care enough to engage with each other about a topic they have in common.
I’m referring to a specific type of data, because some uses of data can make a conflict intensify and last longer. The three recurring ways that data are used in conflicts are:
1. Data offered as objective probative facts that ought to ‘win’ the conflict.
There is a theory that facts are objective. If this were true, people would not disagree about what facts mean. However, facts have an element of subjectivity. Facts do not speak for themselves. People interpret facts through their personal fears about potential harm, risk assessments, and belief systems. Usually, even scientifically robust information is interpretable through the different values and worldviews of each side. This type of data can be seen as information about values and worldviews.
2. Data that entrenches people in their conflict
Conflict resolution is only partly about sorting through whose version of the facts is correct. Determining ‘who said what’ is generally not the path to a solution in conflict resolution. Each side will be able to find facts to support a position that they already believe to be true. Then, they will reject the facts that the other side believes to be true. The conflict becomes focused on which of the competing and inconsistent facts ought to be accepted as accurate, and whose facts ought to be rejected. When everyone deeply believes s/he is correct, and the others are incorrect, adding more facts adds information to disagree about. This type of information can be seen as data about temperaments.
3. Data that can help move people to a solution
The fact that ’someone said something’ is often a useful bit of data in conflict analysis. The data was not what was said, but - more importantly - how people interpreted it, how they felt about it, what emotion it brought up for them, and how it motivated them to take their next steps. Rather than fighting over whose facts are correct, we discuss the interpretation of the facts, how the people interpreting the facts assess the risks associated with the facts, what beliefs underlie the facts, how the assumptions that support the facts might be variables, where fears apply to the facts, gaps in information about the facts, and so on.
Conflict analysis and resolution is about how people interpreted and felt about those facts. So, every one who had data was welcome at the meeting. In fact, we needed their data to formulate the messages, plans, strategies, agendas, and solutions to go forward as a happy, productive team in a healthy workplace. The “problem person” contributed his facts and that data was included in the meeting outcomes. That was how we came up with a plan to address the client’s emergency situation. The “problem person” was transformed into a part of the solution.
I like this approach as it fits well for those who tend to be scientific and are accustomed to analysing data and remaining open to unexpected findings that may lead to new directions.