Examining Conflict’s Past for a Better Future

When trying to resolve our conflicts, must we dwell on the past? I am often asked this question when assisting others in mediation or coaching them to address conflict on their own. The question is understandable. After all, don’t we want to move forward in a positive manner and put aside what’s come before and caused our difficulties? The past is murky and unsettling; why revisit it?

I respond that, no, we don’t need to dwell on the past, but should be informed by it. If we are to meaningfully address our conflicts now and for the future, we must understand how and why they occurred, continue, and hold us in their grip. I advise individuals to identify the most salient examples from past interactions that will illustrate their concerns to the person (or persons) with whom they are in conflict. Through this process, we find a few examples that will best serve to identify unproductive patterns of behavior and interactions and develop more productive patterns moving forward.

But from where do we pull the “data” to provide a clear picture of our concerns? We must look at the people, the problem, and the process so we may identify and change the pattern. Consider:

The People
We experience conflict with others because we don’t understand them and don’t feel understood by them. We must be willing to scratch the surface of our relationships and see one another as the complex, frail, ego-driven humans we are.

What barriers in personality, behavior, perception, and interactions consistently surface and prevent our efforts to address our conflicts? Are you an avoider, always finding a way to not talk about it, or confrontative, clumsily telling others what they did wrong? Are there differences rooted in upbringing, values, culture, and ingrained mindsets that you either don’t see or choose to ignore? What are you unwilling to acknowledge in yourself that causes you to hold onto the conflict or to concede in the other that may help you understand their resistance?

We dwell in conflict when we lack empathy and grace. Possibilities for resolution come when we begin to see our limits as people who can hold grudges, feel morally superior, and manufacture an unwarranted sense of outrage. It also comes when we try to understand the other person’s motives and reasoning for feeling and acting as they have, perhaps not to excuse them, but at least to realize we might think and act the same way under similar circumstances. We are not required to give in when we have good justification for believing the other person has been unreasonable. Neither should we let ourselves off the hook too easily for how we’ve behaved in continuing the conflict while failing to let others off the hook for similar behaviors.

The Problem
Conflict often continues due to fundamental disagreement about what issues are in dispute or how to define them:

One person perceives the problem with completing a complex time-sensitive project as a breakdown in communication and trust while the other believes it’s simply a project management challenge if only the other would “do what you are told.”

A faculty member claims the department chair deliberately misinterprets policy to serve their selfish interests while the chair views the faculty member’s constant barrage of email challenges, citing policy violations, as obstructionist and designed to frustrate progress.

An IT manager claims her unit can’t honor some requests because of budget constraints and workforce shortages while a department head in need of support for their unit claims there are technological workarounds of which they are familiar from work at a prior institution that the IT manager refuses to consider.

The parties in these conflicts are not aligned in their perceptions about the problem. They operate on different plains of understanding and are unable to connect eye-to-eye about their true differences. They must find clarity around the issues before they have a realistic chance at finding resolution. This may require finding clarity around the facts and data to ensure their assumptions and understandings are based on the same set of information. They may need to examine structural barriers such as institutional policies, higher level decisions and practices, or procedural hurdles that prevent one party from honoring the other’s needs. Or communication and relationship differences may require examination of “people” concerns addressed above.

One challenge is moving beyond position taking, demands, and posturing to explore underlying needs and interests. One or both parties may feel disrespected, undervalued, or their sense of security, position, or status may feel threatened. They may feel loss if they are expected to acknowledge and honor a request from the other. Through appropriate inquiry, issue framing, and exploring options, they must uncover and seek to satisfy common interests before resolution is possible.

The Process
Parties in conflict must also explore how they have attempted to address their dispute in the past so they may develop more productive methods in the future. This may involve understanding their preferences for responding to conflict, such as avoidance or confrontation, and learning different responses. It could involve overcoming mindsets about conflict as inherently adversarial and developing understanding, willingness, and skill to pursue more collaborative processes. Conversely, perhaps their relationship suffers from an inordinate level of politeness, tiptoeing, and formality, so they must learn to discuss concerns directly rather than seethe until matters boil over. Parties may also need to cease unproductive means for addressing conflict, such as hiding behind email, and engage in more productive means such as meeting in person.

Parties in conflict must be encouraged to reflect on how their standard mindsets, reactions, and comfort levels about negotiation and conflict resolution may not serve them and equip themselves to think about and approach their conflict more productively. They may need education about more respectful and collaborative ways to communicate and negotiate. They might consider finding a coach to talk and walk them through their conflict situations so they may then approach the other person in a more constructive manner. And, if parties continue to struggle on their own, they may need to find third-party support such as a mediator to help structure and facilitate conversation.

The Pattern
Looking back at their conflict, parties must consider three essential questions:

• Who is involved and what changes must each make in themselves to respond to the other and address their conflict more effectively?
• What are the salient problems they face and how must they define, or perhaps redefine, them to squarely address the problems to their mutual satisfaction?
• How have the parties attempted to address their conflict and what must they change in their behaviors, interactions, and processes to work through their conflict more productively?

These are pattern issues. Looking at the past regarding these matters, without dwelling on them, will help parties understand unproductive patterns and identify and learn to engage in more productive patterns in hope of achieving resolution. We learn from conflict’s past for a better future.