CONFLICT MEDIATION & RESOLUTION
Conflict is as inevitable as people differ and opposites attract, an inevitable fact of human reality. In as much as some persons compromise to avoid conflict, others persistently seek it. This attitude stems from erroneous convictions, arrogance, or domination. It is complicated if there is any personal, professional, or political bond that links the two belligerent parties. The involvement of a third party becomes indispensable if mediation is sought. Such an arbitrator is selected for influence, high moral values, and detachment. It must be a person of compassion yet assertive to be factual and apportion responsibility.
There are 3 approaches by the opposing parties involved in conflict mediation:
Avoidance, or confrontational.
Defeatist, or domineering.
Collaborating and compromising, or intransigent.
The arbitrator must possess the 7 qualities:
- Reputation, integrity, and dignity.
- Emotional intelligence: empathic, sympathetic, and understanding.
- Focus, empathy, and patience.
- Intense and strategic listening.
- Assertiveness and self-confidence.
Legal exposure and information are vital to dividing the parties and apportioning responsibility for the consequences of their final decision.
Planning is essential:
- Investigation: the duration and nature of the conflict. A personality check and background reputation of the belligerent parties. Is any party inflammatory and dismissive, combative and offensive, defensive and passive?
- Setting the objectives and fall-back options to be achieved, to resolve within a determined duration.
- Procedure: navigating and leading to a win/win solution. Expectations and realities. Compromise or consequences.
- Methodology: conceptualize, essentialize, and trivialize.
- Create rules. No identity attacks. No mention of third parties. No retribution or threats.
- Validating the verdict of the authorities involved. “Innocent until proven guilty.” “That which cannot be falsified is truth”.
Strategies are indispensable for the arbitrator:
- Conceptualize by requesting them to take a few minutes to note their grievances down.
- Request each party to declare their grievances, expectations, and the expected duration.
- Lay down the rules and proceed.
- Essentialize and strategize through silent pauses, taking notes, echoing, and repetition of key points. At times, “silence is louder than words”.
- Probe to define the actual causes of hostilities: character divergence, deception, impediment, provocation, aggression, etc.
- Interject with key leads (see below) to direct and control. Some may expose revealing points.
- Assess fears and apprehensions. Project them.
- Break every 30 minutes to summarize. Walk out (to the restroom, etc.), leaving them together.
- Focus on common interests, shared goals, and visions. As established walk-away points, overlooking minor differences. Identify solutions and consequences.
- If tempers intensify. Validate the first break and postpone for another meeting.
Leads:
“When did this conflict start and how?” Usually, the earlier date mentioned is the trigger. Its impact must be validated.
“Don’t believe everything you think. Keep an open mind.”
“Don’t believe everything you hear.”
“Is that your own opinion?”
“Tell me more.”
“Argument is not a skill.”
“We are not keeping score. This is not a competition. I am not a referee.”
“Could you please repeat what you just said?”
“As I said, and I repeat…”
“Aggression is a result of fear and helplessness”
“Is that what you expect to walk out with?”
“The Day after? The future?” Demand suggestions.
BARGAINING
Promote understanding and diminish divergence.
Project each party’s fears and concerns. How important are they long term? What is the solution? Is this relationship viable? Are interests alienable or aligned? Or do they stem from opposing values & cultural backgrounds?
Do they understand each other better after this meeting? Are there lessons to be learned from each other regarding the consequences of their breaking point? A respectable distance must be created and the relationship defined, permitting them to find their eventual course. It is not an excuse to intensify covert or overt aggression leading to capitulation. compromising for a more respectable relationship than before?
Make recommendations, highlighting the legal consequences.
CLOSURE
Insist each one participates in the final proposal to a definitive solution.
Obtain written undertakings or prepare a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed by both parties.
Conclusive options:
If talks fail and there is an impasse with no agreement reached, the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is an alternative course of action for the belligerent parties. The analysis determines each party’s reservation point or walkaway point. If both parties would prefer a set of resolutions, then a ZOPA exists. A Zone of Possible Agreement. It is a bargaining range area where the negotiating parties can find common ground. It can only exist if there is an overlap between each party’s expectations in concluding an agreement.
I have carefully followed the principles of negotiated settlements, adding my personal experience over the past 47 years in professional and personal conflicts.
I do hope that the outline serves as a structure of inspiration. It can be polished up to best align with any given situation.
Currently, we need to diffuse as many conflicts as possible in an ever-complex world, and as direct personal relationships diminish.
Best!
Sammy RNAJ
WhatsApp +96170499352
Medium — @srn.abuj
LinkedIn — /Sammy-rnaj-5847b8287
Substack — sammyrnaj.substack.com
Facebook — /profile.id=100094246617227
Instagram — /profile.id=100080997426450
Quora — /Sammy-RNAJ
