[Advice] Absorption

This Thanksgiving, let us be grateful for the moments of silence, inside and around the moments of noise.

The most important voices, and the most attention, go to family on this day. And while there may be things left unsaid, conflicts left unaddressed and fights left unkindled, today is the day of absorbing less of the noise that doesn’t matter and more absorbing of the silence that does matter.

Have a Safe and Happy Thanksgiving.

-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] On Fences, Boundaries and Good Neighbors

Does the admonition my mother gave me during my childhood still ring true in an era of refugees, immigration and fears?

Natural boundaries have existed since the dawn of human existence to separate “them” from “us” and, once Dunbar’s Number kicked in at scale, political boundaries existed as stories that developed into myths designed to separate “us” from “them.”

In the 21^st century though, the illusion of noise as communication has convinced many people that boundaries (natural and otherwise) are the provenance of a time long past, and a people long dead.

The ability to erect an artificial barrier(anyone remember the Maginot Line) or to manipulate a natural one (“Don’t bring troops across the Rubicon River…”) has always acted as a trigger in the human psyche to the prelude for greater conflict. This is not necessarily always cast in military or political terms but, as human beings are conflict prone and naturally political, it often comes across in such ways.

And then we throw race, gender, national origin and culture into the mix and things get really dicey.

Which leads me back to my mother. When I was a child and my two sisters and I would have a conflict, unless we could work it out between ourselves (most often we could) my mother would separate us with the admonition that “Good fences make good neighbors,” and would put use each in our rooms—with the doors closed. This would precipitate a “cooling off” period before the real negotiation/resolution would begin.

Political boundaries existed as symbols, designed to protect and grow cultural stories around “us” and “them” and to allow people in charge to manipulate power, create conflicts, control resources and at the furthest end, start larger conflicts.

This all seems so illusory in an era of the 24/7/365 news cycle and the false dichotomies of conflicts. But in the world that average people live in, fences, borders and boundaries are still fiercely enforced, from families to neighborhoods and even at scale. And without such stories—which is all that those political boundaries really are—the chances of conflicts arising and becoming more virulent as those stories change and grow due to the reactions to the human choices to make war, migrate, emigrate or to have fears, is more and more likely.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] Building a Real Relationship…

There’s not an “access to skills” deficit in resolving conflicts.

The access to learning, cutting edge developments, and research around engaged communication, emotional intelligence, active listening, body language cueing, and other areas is available virtually everywhere, whether through a trip to the library, your local bookstore or via a Google search.

The understanding that treating people in a civil manner, using power collaboratively rather than in a domineering fashion, and that “sharing is caring” is still taught in the kindergarten years.

The courage of people who have cared enough to take a risk to reach out, show vulnerability and work towards resolutions with other parties in conflicts (personal and professional) is evident all around us, from quiet ways in our families, to our neighborhoods and even the workplace.

And yet, many still believe that the tools for engaging with conflicts in a healthy, growth oriented way, rather than attacking, avoiding or accommodating conflict is somehow an esoteric and mysterious skill, available only to the select few.

Acting upon this belief gives our families, communities and workplaces more conflicts, more disputes, more misunderstandings and more problems.

Acting upon this belief in overt (and covert) ways tills the ground for the planting of the seeds of dysfunction that render our organizations incapable of change, our communities unable to confront hard decisions, and our governments paralyzed and impotent in the face of crises of our own making.

There are reams of paper and thousands of bytes of words expended on the “how-to” of resolving conflicts, and even more spilled on the benefits of the “why” of resolving conflicts. And yet, much of the resistance to taking (and implementing) the ideas of resolving conflicts proactively and in a healthy manner, is rooted in fear.

There’s not a skills problem for resolving conflicts. There’s a fear problem at the core of continued conflicts in our lives, our families, our workplaces and our neighborhoods.

The only way to overcome this fear is through engaging with something as equally as “unsexy” as engaging with conflict effectively: Building real relationships with people.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] How to Mediate – Establish Rapport with Disputants

The fact is, they both might like the conflict more that they want to get to resolution.
The fact is, they both might be feeling alternatively powerful and powerless in the conflict and may not want to break out of that cycle.
The fact is, they both might like the relationship that they have built with each other, over time around the conflict.
The fact is, they may not see resolution as a way to “win” and instead are focused on just maintaining forward motion in the conflict.
The fact is, the conflict may have begun around a material issue, but has now transformed into a conflict around values, using the language of principles, to describe positions.
The fact is, they may not understand how resolution as a process works, and may mistrust the process and the person advocating for it.
The fact is, they may not be exhausted enough yet to get to resolution—or to try resolving the conflict—and may have enough energy to continue the conflict, but not enough energy to expend on resolving the conflict.
The fact is, they may be surrounded by other players, third party individuals and others who are encouraging them, behind the scenes and away from the negotiation table, to continue the conflict.
The fact is, they may just not be “ready” for resolution.

When tasked with mediating a conflict, whether between two parties at work, or between two parties at home, many people don’t take into consideration the above list (not exhaustive) of factors that influence the lack of ability by disputants to “get to the table.” Instead, many non-professional mediators spend an inordinate amount of time convincing the conflicting parties that the mediation process is a good idea, rather than doing the other things with each of the parties that allow space for mediation as an option, to grow.

Establishing rapport with parties in conflict involves planning strategically and behaving tactically in three areas:

Building the relationship with both parties—The relationship is everything. If there is a pre-established relationship (for instance, between neighbors, family members, or even work colleagues) the relationship building goes faster, but if there’s no relationship, then empathy, active listening and engaging emotionally are a good beginning.

Establishing trust and credibility—Remember, there’s not a skills problem to resolving conflict, there’s a trust problem. Parties in conflict, for all of the reasons listed above and a laundry list more, trust each other collectively in a conflict scenario, because the other party seems predictable, more than they trust a third party individually. This seems wrong and counterintuitive, but think of how many conflicts you’ve let drag on endlessly, without resolution, and were offered the services of a third party.

Understanding each party, but not being driven by either of them—This last piece is the province of the professional mediator, but many people—from supervisors to pastors to therapists—are called to render a neutral decision on conflict questions, with little pomp and circumstance. The ability to be neutral may be held in suspicion by some parties, but third parties who can behave neutrally through nonverbal and other forms of communication, stand a better chance of building rapport with both parties before an option for resolution is even offered.

The path to resolution is carved through rapport, built on relationship, cemented through trust and credibility, and “locked-in” through understanding. Without those three areas, all the factors for not getting to table may render more weight with each party than the process of resolution ever will.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] Perceptions of Power

There are conflicts everywhere.

From wars to rumors of wars, people, nation-states, corporations, organizations and many other individual and corporatized entities, are locked in conflicts, rooted in two factors: perceptions of reality and perceptions of power.

Perceptions of reality:

This one is the hardest to address, because from every person to every organization, perception is based on past experiences, contextual clues, and even the psychological and emotional make-up of people. No one agrees on the nature of reality, because, very few can agree (with 100% certain) on the nature of objective truth and facts. Both of which are mixed up with emotions when defining reality. Which lead to differences in perceptions, and ultimately create the spark that causes conflicts to rage like wildfires.

Perceptions of power:

Power is an interesting phenomenon, because everyone “knows” what “it” is—the ability to influence others to do your will—but no one can put a finger on where “it” shows up in the world. People, organizations and even nation-states, equate all kinds of material, psychological and even emotional “goods” with power. They make the same correlation with the trappings of power, or even the results of wielding power. But, no one can tell anyone what power actually is.

Perceptions of power and perceptions of reality both spring from the seeds of fear. Fear as an emotional driver motivates and animates most conflict scenarios. Whether a person is an employee at work, or the Pope in Rome, everyone fears something (an outcome) or someone (a person) and this fear drives the lust for power, the inability to establish a shared reality structure, and the desire for conflict.

On this Veterans’ Day in the United States of America (and Armistice Day, everywhere else in the world), we think on the ramifications of the impacts of reality and power and reflect on how much blood (both literal and metaphorical) has been spilled, in how much mud (both literal and metaphorical), since the dawn of mankind.

And how much blood (both literal and metaphorical) has yet to be spilled.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] BATNA-WATNA 2

In any negotiation scenario, there are three possible outcomes:

An agreement

This is what happens when every party gets an agreement they can live with and one that meets, not only their own needs, but also the needs of other parties not present at the bargaining table.

A best alternative to a negotiated agreement

The BATNA is what one party has in their back pocket that will allow them the “freedom” to walk away from the table without negotiating an outcome. The term has the word “best” in it, and represents what the party who has come up with it, thinks is the best. One party may look at (or hear about) the other party’s BATNA and think privately (or say out loud) “I’d never go for that outcome.”

A worst alternative to a negotiated agreement

The WATNA is what one party has in their back pocket that binds them to the table with the other party, whether an outcome is negotiated or not. The term has the word “worst” in it, and represents what the party who has developed it, believes is the “worst possible outcome, in spite of all other outcomes.” One party may look at (or hear about) the other party’s WATNA and think privately (or say out loud) “That alternative outcome isn’t so bad. What’s the problem?”

In a negotiation, because human beings have to be prompted to act altruistically, parties often overlook BATNAs and WATNAs. Even worse, the negotiating parties often overlook BATNAs and WATNAs, until either a stalemate is reached, or a checkmate situation looms on the horizon. The term “alternative” is often emphasized in discussions of BATNAs and WATNAs because human being like the idea of having access to alternatives in a negotiation scenario with a party they don’t trust, but actually accessing and developing those scenarios, requires expending emotional energy.

And many parties would really prefer to “win” the negotiation rather than to take the time to develop alternatives, and to map out possible scenarios, if things go sour at the bargaining table.

There are three ways to limit the power of this tendency to go for the “win” at the expense of developing alternative scenarios to a “win”:

Recognize that the other party is often dominated by factors they don’t bring to the table. For instance, if an employee is negotiating a raise with their boss, they should keep in mind that the boss reports to other people as well. Then they must ask the question “How would my boss, giving me the raise I deserve, make my boss look good?”
Recognize that you are dominated by factors that you may not want to have the other party bring to the table. In the example, the employee may need the raise in order to care for a sick child, or to meet an emergency expense. The boss in that scenario might want to ask himself or herself “What are the motivating factors behind this person asking for a raise?”
Recognize that agreement doesn’t always have to be the ultimate outcome. Both parties can always separate and come back, while they develop BATNAs and WATNAs. This feels counterintuitive, but the best diplomats never try to close a deal immediately. And the best negotiators open soft, give the other party time to think the process over, and always follow up promptly. The caveat to this is that timeline will vary per the context of the negotiation. A police hostage negotiator may have minutes to get to agreement, a diplomat may have weeks, months or even years, but an employee may have days.

Expending emotional energy to develop negotiation alternatives (both “best” and “worst”) can help a negotiator move from someone who merely pursues short-term gains to one who develops long-term engagement with the other party.

-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/

[Strategy] Pivot to a Stalemate from a Checkmate

There’s a bind for supervisors in the workplace, when they act as mediators, inserting themselves into conflicts between their employees, whether they want to insert themselves, or they are compelled to insert themselves.

When one employee won’t move, shift or change their approach to conflicts with their co-workers in any meaningful way and the mediator, acting as the supervisor, that party may try to maneuver the supervisor into a stalemate. This maneuvering could appear in three forms:

Game playing the mediation/supervision process through telling the supervisor one story, and then telling the other employees another story.
Gossiping by telling the mediation/supervisor nothing at all—or actively avoiding the interaction with the mediator/supervisor (or any other passive aggressive acts)—and then passing around a story about the other party in conflict.
Harassing the other party in the conflict and, sometimes harassing (or intimidating) the mediator/supervisor into making a decision favorable to them in resolving the conflict.

Stalemate makes the mediator/supervisor as the third party feel powerless, impotent and feel as if they have no chance to affect change in the outcomes of the conflict process.

But stalemate is really a checkmate—imposed upon the instigating party who won’t move—initiated by the mediator/supervisor, sometimes not consciously and based on the stories that the mediator/supervisor is telling themselves about the conflict process.

Which means the power really lies with the mediator/supervisor and not the party who thinks they have the power, the instigator of the conflict process, and the other party in the process who may be looking to escalate the conflict to satisfy their own motives.

Other mediator/supervisors in the past may have given up their power, to the two parties in conflict before, but that doesn’t mean that the current person has to continue those patterns of behaviors.

Checkmate.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] Voting on Conflict

Every day is Election Day, when you are making choices about how you respond (or don’t) to a conflict or dispute.

Avoidance means you’re voting with your emotional feet to keep going and not confront.
Attack means you’re voting with your emotional feet to engage the other party in a way that makes you feel comfortable, but which may do nothing to alleviate or change the process.
Accommodate means you’re voting with your emotional feet to “go along to get along” as either part of a larger strategy, or just because you don’t have the energy to confront, don’t think that it’s worth it, or don’t want to be involved with the conflict process at all.

There are many societal and cultural messages about voting on Election Day in the United States. Many of them focus on words like duty, responsibility and accountability and equate voting for a person with meaning and mattering in a civic sense.

In a democracy (or a republic) voting matters for many reasons, but the words that we use to get across the message that going to perform a public act privately one day every two to four years, could also be applied to educating ourselves about the ways we vote with our emotional feet.

Otherwise, why make a choice (about a candidate, or a conflict) at all?

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] Leadership Through Reconciliation

“Our values are our strength.”

“Our people are our greatest resource.”

We could go on, but pointing out the hypocrisy evident in the difference between the words written on the organizational masthead, and the actual organizational action, has been written about to death.

Leadership in many organizations is tricky for a variety of reasons, but the primary one is that organizational values are often seen as a marketing tool for advertising to external and internal stakeholders about how great the organization really is, rather than as a daily, lived ethic in the trenches. For the latest example of this disconnect, see the publication of the most recent “expose” of working conditions at Amazon.com.

There are inertia issues in all organizations, when the culture, much like a child, just begins to grow out of hand.

But leadership requires guiding that growth, especially through conflict situations, disappointments, economic downturns, and other unforeseen troubles. It is in crisis that true values, competencies and strengths are exposed, to say nothing of weaknesses.

Nowhere is this more evident than when an organization has to seek reconciliation with another entity (a person, another organization, etc.) that they have wronged–or who has wronged them.

Leadership—management, supervisors, etc.—in organizations view reconciliation in the same way that many individuals in the general public do:

They believe that reconciliation means returning to the status quo of the relationship before the conflict occurred—it doesn’t.
They believe that reconciliation provides the other party (who they still think is in the wrong) with the tools and means to hurt them again—it doesn’t.
They believe that reconciliation prevents justice, truth and “the real story’ from being known to the public (i.e. other parties not involved directly in the conflict) and thus being unattainable in the future—it doesn’t.

These three wrong assumptions haunt the ability for leaders to step out of their protective, organizational shells and do the hard work of forgiveness (another thing that’s not often talked about), provide apologies (something rare to even hear) and seek reconciliation (name the last time this happened with a public or private organization).

For leaders to break the culture of the organization and to seek reconciliation, they must first break the culture of themselves, and be willing to dance with vulnerability and fear, and focus on long-term growth rather than short-term stock prices. There are three places to start this process:

The culture must be reorganized philosophically around the long game—this is the hardest step, which is why we put it first. Organizational philosophy begins with the founders or owners and filters down to everybody else in the organization. Leaders below the founder/owner level are either told directly what the philosophy or are left to figure it out themselves from nonverbal cueing and behavioral tics exhibited by other leaders. Articulating the principles of the long game and the philosophy behind it has to come from the owners/founders. If it doesn’t, the leaders will organize around their own short games which can damage the organization in the long term.

The culture must be articulated—Having a meeting is not always the best way to do this. We heard a story from a high producing sales employee in an organization that reflects this. The story focused on some conflict scenarios going on in the hierarchical structure that the employee didn’t understand. The employee stated that the only reason she was still at the company in the midst of all of the conflict, was that a leader she respected (instead of calling a meeting) actually came out the sales field and talked to her directly. That’s a leader articulating culture through action rather than through a meeting.

The leaders must be humble internally and externally—many leaders believe that humility is best left to the marketing department and that brash, arrogant, or out of whack pronouncements are the way to create and manage change, push employees to do their best, and to get innovations out the door. But here’s the dichotomy: Humility is a character trait, arrogance is a marketing tool and the public (and internal and external stakeholders) are not always going to know the difference.

To build a culture where apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation with another party in a conflict is even possible, first there must be the environment for such things to even happen in the first place. The core of much of designing a system for resolving conflicts internally and externally that leaders can advocate for, followers can believe in, and external parties can trust in, begins with philosophy and continues with internal humility.

Such developments transform past the masthead proclamations and get to the core of what organizations really are, what their leaders really believe, and what their teams can really accomplish.

Download the new FREE eBook courtesy of Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT), on Forgiveness and Reconciliation by clicking the link here.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] Leadership Through Risk

A results driven organization is typically led by managers and supervisors out to minimize downside risk, maximize upside shareholder value and drain all the unique out of the pond called their product.

Consequences, results if you will, are inherently unknowable, and many organizational leaders, cognizant of that fact, seek to either avoid or accommodate employee disputes. They typically do this by handing off the responsibility to professionals in the human resources department, but then they do not empower these individuals to make real changes.

Because, that would be risky.

The paradox of risk in conflict is that if an organizational leader does nothing, it might get worse, or it might “go away;” and, if an organizational leader does something—anything—it might get worse and not go away.

This perception of leadership as a spot to squat was never an okay position to take, but many leaders are encultured and trained through looking and role modeling, and if organizational leaders have never done more than avoid or accommodate risk, future leaders will do the same.

The inability to take on a risky conversation, a risky conflict scenario, or even a risky business decision, defines many organizational environments and outcomes. There are two solutions to this:

Recognize that what’s underneath all of that risk is fear—fear is a powerful drive of conflict, but it’s also a powerful driver of attacking, accommodating or avoiding conflict. Most of the time, directness in communication is associated with courage because there is so little organizational courage. It’s not courageous to engage in a high-risk, highly emotional, conflict conversation, if you as an organizational leader are not “built” to handle it. It’s more courageous to say “I can’t handle it” and hand it off to someone in the organization who can.

Build an antifragile culture in your organization—antifragility builds on accepting the idea that there will be organizational conflict wherever there are two or more people. After that’s accepted, then comes the material fact of acknowledging that the culture has to build around, not managing the conflict through avoiding, accommodating or attacking, but through addressing, engaging and communicating assertively about the material facts and emotional content of conflicts. The last part of developing an atifragile ethic in an organization involves engaging with emotional labor in a meaningful way and figuring out how to recognize and reward that labor in an organization, beyond a once-a-year, alcohol-fueled bash.

Ultimately, the question that leaders both avoiding, accommodating and attacking risky conflict scenarios, and engaging with them effectively, is the same question:

What kind of conflicts do we want to have in our organization?

-Peace Be With You All-