[Podcast] The Epidemiology of Conflict – The Earbud_U Minute

Conflicts, disputes and other disagreements are not the disease. They are symptoms of the disease.

When we think about how a virus spreads, doctors, researchers, data gatherers and others look at the patterns, causes and effects of health and disease conditions in a particular population.

Epidemiology is a very specific interdisciplinary science, but when we talk about the presenting issues that lead to conflict, even in our post-therapeutic age, we are still hesitant to become armchair analysts.

Or, we analyze and get it wrong.

The beginning of understanding the how and why the symptoms of conflict are confused with the nature of a conflict itself, begins with taking apart the behavioral and personality choices that individuals make—and that particular populations, in particular environments, support.

Think about it: In the workplace, there still remains the illusion that resources are limited, thus competition is reinforced.

Thus, individuals who would rather be collaborative are now in conflict with the underpinnings of the environment where they spend 40 to 60 hours per week.

Think about it: In the church—or any other religious organization—the illusion remains that faith and belief will remove the stain of previous wrongs and mistakes without active engagement on the part of the individual.

Thus, individuals who are looking for active engagement wind up within groups that would rather remain collectively passive in the face of all manner of wrongdoing.

Think about it: In the school, bullying behavior manifests, but politicians, teachers, policy makers and others would rather support a broken system that encourages collective, Industrial system based responses.

Thus, micro-schooling with smaller groups (or homeschooling) is pooh-poohed and parents (who vote) raise children who are overly aggressive due to familial environments, and are never directly confronted about the results of their uninformed parenting styles by the “system.”

Root causes—and getting back to them—is often the first thing that is dismissed by critics of therapy, counseling, and even mediation.

But without exploring and getting to the root of root causes, the solutions to the corrosive nature of conflict will never be fully teased apart.

And we will continue to be collectively surprised by apathy and inaction, bullying, poor communication, and ineffective organizational responses, even as we build more tools that separate us further.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principle Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

HIT Piece 07.07.15

I don’t know what lies in the clearing at the end of the path.

But I do know that the way forward is through content: written, audio, visual. Content is the oil that greases the wheels toward success, rather than failure.

People often ask me, “Where do you want to end up at the end of Human Services Consulting and Training?” Or, “How are you going to scale this?”

I don’t know whether I am going to register as a minority and women owned business. I have no idea.

What I do know is that the work (not the jobs, by the way) will continue. And by putting one step in front of the other, I will get to the clearing at the end of the path.

My answer to both of those other questions, by the way, is “I don’t know,” and “I’ll scale when I’m good and ready.”

Thanks!

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Opinion] Symbols Matter

Mattering and meaning are more important to the accomplishment of work tasks—and the avoidance of work conflicts— now than ever before.

But not if you talk to managers, supervisors, executives and others.

The people who are bosses still believe the Industrial Revolution idea that the work is the only thing that matters, that shows dedication, service and loyalty to the cause, the company and the future.

For employees though, symbols in the workplace have been cheapened because of the deeply held beliefs that bosses sometimes have, exemplified by human resource policies, time away, manifestos, and quotes on the wall. When asked, many employees (particularly those who have been in an organization more than six months) report that they “don’t even pay attention to that stuff anymore.”

This is because the symbolism behind the policies and procedures no longer matters to an employee, when the lived out, organizational substance doesn’t match.

In the world before Google based transparency, where rumors, tall tales and other misinformation could spread about an employer, the work was the substance and the symbols didn’t matter to anybody.

However, institutional lethargy and fear of change has caused many organizations to cling to the past, even as the waves around them swirl, demonstrating that symbols bring mattering to the workplace. And even more than that, symbols backed up by substance, history, and truthful stories told truthfully, are the only things that can give employee work meaning.

Otherwise, thrashing about work-life balance versus integration, time away versus time at work when away, and all of the other human resource based arguments that have arisen over the last forty years, don’t really matter much in the larger scheme of reducing workplace stress and conflict.

-Peace With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Advice] What Will You Do With That Freedom?

The two natural processes of erosion and corrosion are long-term, insidious and the body being affected by them does not observe the effects immediately.

Erosion happens from the outside in: It’s a slow, steady, grinding down of the earth by the massive structural forces of wind, water and ice. It takes hundreds of thousands of years to complete and is never really over.

Corrosion happens from the inside out: It’s also a slow, steady process, where natural—or man-made—materials interact at a chemical level with the oxygen in the air. It takes less time to finish its work and is also never really over.

We underestimate the power of corrosion and erosion as entropy based systems that affect the earth, its properties and the things that humans create. But the circle of life—birth, maturity, death—continues inexorably forward.

On this July 4^th, the day that celebrates the United States of America’s founding with the signing of the most revolutionary document ever written (birth) let us ask two critical questions:

Where is our country, politically, ethically, morally, spiritually, and economically, at in the circle of life?
What social, moral, political and economic processes—either erosion or corrosion—are moving our country inexorably forward along the timeline of entrophy?

Countries, nation states and collections of people (tribes, if you will) also erode, and corrode, in their quest toward entrophy. This holiday weekend, let’s take some time, look around, and consider where we are at.

And what got us here.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Podcast] Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow – The Earbud_U Minute

The King James Bible explains Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus in Acts 26:14 this way:

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Modern translations of the Bible have changed the word “pricks” to “goads.” But the meaning—that it is unwise to rebel against authority, particularly Heavenly authority— resonated deeply for the Apostle Paul’s audience in the court of King Agrippa when he was explaining his conversion from Judaism to Christianity.

In addition to the spiritual point, the idea that people (as well as bovines) have to be pricked to alter their course and change their ways is as old as time. Or, at least as old as the Greek proverb from which the wording of the proverb originates.

People in conflict sometimes enjoy the outcomes that they experience through engaging, or avoiding, or accommodating, the conflicts endemic in their lives. When a difficulty arises in an individual’s work or family life, people respond in ways familiar to them and others, following established patterns and mouthing lines in a script written long ago and repeated so often, that it’s not new to anyone involved. When a disagreement between two people happens, they both respond in ways that are “baked in” to their biology and psychology—and then they wonder silently why the outcomes are similar all the time.

American culture celebrates a rebellious spirit. After all, the Founding Fathers rebelled, and all the way from then until now, rebellion, rioting, “speaking truth to power,” and all of the other iterations and manifestations of refusing to go along with any authority have been lauded and honored in American culture.

This is not a recent development. Marketers, novelists, and filmmakers (nonconformists all) were the people who created the image and mass marketed the message that sameness, uniformity and conformity was a negative rather than a positive.

But, think back to the beginning words of the proverb “It IS HARD for thee to kick…”

Rebellion leads to conflicts, wars, and disruptions as power structures at cultural, societal and even familial levels are overturned and democratized. But once the flame of rebellion is lit and stoked, it swells to a brush fire that consumes everything in its path—and its wake. We recall the legend of Mrs. O’Leary’s cow and the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.

For peace builders, rebellion begins with questioning the underlying assumptions that society has around peace, conflict, resolution, and reconciliation.

But it IS hard to manage, mediate, negotiate and facilitate the fires of rebellion, once they are lit. Saul turned Paul realized this. So did King Agrippa. And we would be wise to recall the deeper meanings and consider the hard ramifications of the old lesson, in our modern, fractious times, as well.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] You Can’t Get There From Here

Parties in conflict often ask the questions Alice did when she arrived in Wonderland.

The Cheshire Cat, that fictional animal who disappears, leaving behind only a grin was right, if a party in a conflict doesn’t know where they are going, then it doesn’t matter which way they go.

However, many parties in conflict are savvy enough to know (whether they are conscious of it or not ) that what got them into conflict isn’t going to get them out.

The problem is, many parties have a preference for when they would like the conflict to end (at a place of compromise, accommodation or winning) but they have no idea what the process to attain that outcome looks like.

Too many parties are also like Alice, in that they harbor suspicions of various peace building processes— negotiation, mediation, training, coaching, or litigation—not because they don’t understand the processes, but because they don’t understand themselves.

The prickly questions of:

How did we get here?
Was I in the wrong and not the other party?
Do I have a responsibility to make it better?
What if it gets worse?

And on and on, doggedly insist upon themselves in party’s whisper spaces, before a decision, during the process of getting to resolution (or not) and after the decision is made. On the other side of the whisper space and resolution is the tug at our heart strings of the regret that we cannot go back to the ways things were before.

Or party’s try to go back and only reignite the old conflict.

What got you here (to conflict) won’t get you there (to resolution) especially if each party has no idea what “there” should look like when they arrive.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] Persistence and Commitment

Starting anything is easy, as we’ve pointed out before, because the social approval around starting is enormously powerful, positive and affirming.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s an education, a fitness plan or even a battle, starting is easy.

Continuing though, persisting through the slog of the middle, and coming out the other side in completion (whether in victory or defeat) is the hard part.

We were streaming a conversation with a blogger the other day and she mentioned how she had started a book, and then put it away for about a year, while she struggled with the decision of whether to publish, or not.

Starting is easy, the slog of the middle is hard.

She mentioned that, in the intervening time between deciding to write (to start) and deciding to publish (the middle) she had shown her manuscript (a fictional one) to a number of friends of hers to gauge their reactions.

Starting is easy, the slog of the middle is hard.

She mentioned that one of their reactions was to say, “You have gone through a lot.” But this person (assumedly) did not help her write the book, nor is she helping her critique the book.

Starting is easy, the slog of the middle is hard.

Persistence and commitment are the hallmarks of a successful person. But sometimes, human beings get caught in the idea that starting, going through the middle, and ending should follow in logical order, like lines on a map. We perceive the stops in time—and gaps between events—as places of failure, defeat and eventually, the place where everything stops.

Other people and their reactions, judgments and decisions affect us before, during and after the starting gun fires, the buzzer goes off, and the start begins.

But let’s not believe that the people who have the power to applaud, jeer, support, or be neutral have anything to do with us starting. Or getting through the slog of the middle.

That part is always in our power and up to us.

H/T to Jaimee Doriss

-Peace Be With You All-

[Podcast] Earbud_U, Season Two, Episode #1 & 1a – Neil Denny

Earbud_U, Season Two, Episode #1 – Neil Denny, Mediator, Collaborative Solicitor, Author, Grudge & Forgiveness Expert

Neil Denny’s perspective and approach to peace starts where most people think the path ends—at forgiveness and reconciliation.

But don’t get us wrong, he’s also a peace building entrepreneur who understands the need that all mediators, negotiators, attorney mediators and others have to do to get other people to walk along the path to peace.

Building a business and keeping your equanimity are not mutually exclusive. When the money doesn’t come in and when the doorbell (or phone) isn’t ringing, what else is the peace builder to do?

Well, applying principles of marketing and development can help, along with understanding how partnerships really work between people in business.

Neil is involved in a number of projects, developing new niches for peace, including Get Artisan with Jason Dykstra.

Feel free to connect with Neil in all the ways that he’s differentiated below:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/neildenny

LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neildenny

Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Neil-Denny/e/B005HSOTNY

Youtube: https://youtu.be/WTmUDGib-VQ

Get Artisan: https://getartisan.wordpress.com/

The Conflict Specialists Show w/Dave Hilton: http://www.conflictengagementspecialists.com/blog/collaborative-law-and-the-get-artisan-movement-with-neil-denny/

By the way, this is our first two-part episode here on Earbud_U. So listen to the first half by clicking on the audio player above and then come back here for the second part, later this month!

HIT Piece 06.30.2015

“He’s so full of himself.”

“He brought a NYCity attitude up here to Binghamton and that’s not going to work here.”

“He was totally a commercial the entire time.”

“His intro was too long. He talked too much about himself.”

And that’s the feedback that was written down.

The formalized feedback process for workshops, seminars, in-person trainings and other events is based off of an old model that hybridizes the immediate feedback a stand-up comedian receives (either the audience claps or boos) and the more long distance feedback that politicians and actors receive (either the audience buys a ticket, or doesn’t).

Both methods of giving feedback to a presenter, or speaker, are gradually fading away in an era of immediacy with social media, but that’s with crowds that are majority 18-34. The crowds that I still present to, train in front of and receive feedback from (like that written up there in those quotes) is still in the 35-55 year old age group.

I was going to write today’s HIT Piece about the endgame for this entrepreneurial project I’ve got going, but the feedback issue has been growing in two ways:

Audience members now feel comfortable enough with me (which I guess means that there’s a sense of rapport now) where they feel as though they can come up to me and say almost anything. Like the gentlemen that approached me and said “f—k you” to me after a workshop I did recently.

Audience members now feel comfortable enough to give feedback in the forms of praise and support; or, critique and condemnation. Critique and condemnation are easy to give. Praise and support fade over time when immediacy of feedback (“I’m really excited about you, how can I help you now!” “Well, you can get me hired someplace else.” “…oh…ok…”) looks to the receiver like a call for more business.

I don’t know what the way forward is out of this, but I have more insight now into why it’s easier (not better) for celebrities, politicians, comedians and other performers to put up walls (psychically, socially, culturally, economically, emotionally, etc.) between themselves and the audience—after the show is over.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] Separating People From Positions

Too many times, well-meaning people cannot emotionally separate the personage of the other party in conflict from that party’s positions.

To do this successfully requires an understanding of (and a caring about) the difference between principles and interests.

Principles are based in values, traditions, and narratives that give meaning to each party in a conflict.
Principles are typically non-negotiable and—when it comes right down to it—parties in conflict view their principles (when they think about them at all) as their “Alamos.” In essence where they land emotionally, psychologically and narratively in a conflict as a last resort.
Principles do not change, they are “baked in.” Principles go to the core of who a person is, and why they value what they value.

Interests are none of these things.

Interests are negotiable, ever shifting, mercurial in their manifestations and outcomes and temporary at best. Interests may have a high negotiating price, but they are negotiable. Interests can unite disparate parties around the pursuit of a common goal, but this unity may sometimes come off as cynical to others, based on avoidance and accommodation of other conflicts, and ultimately damaging to both parties.

In current society and culture in the Western world, there is a lot of confusion around principles and interests. Many individuals and organizations confuse their interests for their principles by using the language of principles while actually expressing an interest. What follows from such confusion is social shaming, public bullying, and even emotional, legal and cultural efforts to engage in destruction of the character of the other party in conflict.

This is part of the reason why many social media based movements fizzle and die: It’s easy to dump a bucket of water on your head to support a cause (interest), but it’s hard to go to a place where people who have different principles from yours gather and actually get to know them as people (principle).

Conflicts in the culture, the workplace, schools and churches grow ever more violent, corrosive and detrimental to all parties as the line between principles and interests becomes more and more confused.

What’s the way out? Well there are three steps, each harder than the last:

Decide what you believe. In a conflict scenario, take some time and examine your own motives, interests and your deeper principles. This seems easy, but much like empathy, active listening, anger management and many other areas of conflict, if you’re choosing not to do it, then it won’t be easy. It will be hard.
Separate people from positions. Positions are always based in interests. Principles are always based in character. Hate the sin, but love the sinner. Easy sounding, but hard to do for each party in a conflict, no matter what the root cause.
Unite with the other party on principles. This is the hardest thing to do, because it requires leaving the comfort zones of separation, demonization, bullying and “othering” and requires each party to go and see “how the other half lives.” By the way, if you think that you know how the other party thinks, feels, and what their principles are because of a few examples of behavior in the past (or present), you really don’t.

When we separate people from positions, they transform, from the image that we have of them in our heads to the reality that they are in the world. We get an opportunity to preserve their autonomy, freedom and integrity. And, we don’t take actions to escalate conflicts, pushing the other party toward their personal conflict “Alamos.”

And we avoid pushing ourselves there as well.

-Peace Be With You All-