The #1 Reason Conflict Resolution Doesn’t work
I searched through several pages of conflict resolution strategies on the Internet. They all included useful ideas but none of them included the first and essential step. They included things like:
#1. Identify the problem
#2. Remain Calm
#3. Avoid using coercive language
#4. Focus on the problem not the individual
#5. Establish guidelines
#6. Don’t interrupt
The first step to conflict resolution isn’t identifying the problem. Focusing on the problem creates a negative environment.
Conflict resolution begins when everyone understands and agrees upon the end. The first question of conflict resolution is not, “What’s the problem?” The first question is, “What’s the solution?”
The solution is more important than the problem. Solutions define problems and uncover effective strategies by establishing positive outcomes. Furthermore, working toward agreed upon goals creates positive focus, gives context to remaining calm, and points combatants in the same direction.
You can begin the conflict resolution road map by establishing the destination. After identifying the destination, have all parties put themselves on the map in relation to the destination. Now it’s time to work on how-tos. Without a destination the trip may seem useful but it isn’t a solution it’s a band aid.
If you don’t like road maps here’s another illustration. Defining the preferred state identifies the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but it doesn’t identify the steps to get there. Let outcomes define direction.
Don’t jettison the good advice you’ve heard about conflict resolution. However, shift all the steps downward and create a new “step #1.”
#1. Define the solution
*****
What’s your best conflict resolution tip? Do you have a conflict resolution story?
*****
Leadership Freak
Dan Rockwell
Defining the solution is a great idea, but how does one get to a solution without defining the problem?
Wayne,
I’m not convinced we even need to delve into the problem that deeply. The fact that there is conflict is enough. If we let pain motivate us to change the most important thing is what do you want. I think we’ll get where we want to go if we can simply agree on the destination. We don’t need all the reasons why this or that happened. I don’t need to know that your last boss ignored you so you undercut her. I just need to hear what support looks like and how we’ll get there.
Thanks for jumping in.
Dan
Dan,
Maybe it depends on the nature of the conflict. I approached my response from more of an operational perspective than a relationship one.
Wayne,
On thing that came out in the conversation is the multi-headed beast that conflict resolution presents.
One commenter reminded us of the difference between conflict resolution and problem solving.
Good stuff.
Thanks again,
Dan
If we can’t lead ourselves first than we have no qualifier to lead anyone else. Finding solutions sounds easy however kaching kaching, how much money has society wasted on research alone. This tells me the want to find a solution matters first. All to often pavlov’s button gets in the way and a collaberative solution will not exist.
Isabelle,
Thanks for stopping in and participating. This conversation is filled with great comments and you’ve left one of them.
Thanks,
Dan
Dan I would have to say that the first step should be “Listen”. I was a mediator for a number of years and in my experience much of the problem arises because people (on both sides) do not listen. Much of the problem ceases to exist once people know they have been heard and when they have truly listened. To quote once of your recent posts “Connection, connection, connection.”
Paul,
Thanks for adding to the conversation. I’m trying to listen. 🙂
Best,
Dan
Paul blogs at: http://samuraiguy.wordpress.com/
No doubt that your steps are great advice, for me though, I have to give up my right to be right. I have to walk in humility covered in prayer and look at the greater good. I can’t change anyone but me and its me getting to the place of seeking God for His will and not my position or victory. Even this week, I knew I was right but it didn’t matter I needed to submit to what He wants and do what’s best for another.I can only be responsible for me and my change and my growth. If my submission and humility can be used as a tool and someone can benefit then that is on God to handle. Understanding my lack of self-importance is my key. The growth of others thru conflict is not my calling.It is me that has to change, it is me become more like Christ. This may not work in every situation but it works for me. (John 3:30)
Bob,
I love your suggestion about giving up the right to be right. I’ve found I wan’t right even when I “knew” I was. On the other hand, if you are responsible, in the end you have to make the call and giving up the right to be right may result in neglecting responsibility.
Thank you for adding value to the community by leaving a great comment.
Best,
Dan
Paul is right…if we begin by the solution, this “solution” is produced by our brain, and it has nothing to do with what people imagine or need. The magic of conflict resolution is to give each contender a respectful ear, so he/she can vent and be listened to…The final product, the solution, is important in that it reflects both sides’ needs and aspirations!
If it is “the best solution I can give to the parties” it will be worthless. Both sides will hear with respect and continue fighting each other….funny, but I’ve been there.
http://www.passiveaggressiveworkplace.com
Thanks Alfaprima,
If everyone agrees on the desired solution, I don’t see the problem. I’d suggest listen to suggested solutions is the place to begin.
I’ll agree, if the solution is imposed from the outside and there is not agreement, it won’t work.
I’m delighted you added to the conversation,
Dan
Dan,
From the many immediate responses you received to this posting it is apparent that you are challenging many of us, myself included, to change our paradigm about conflict resolution. At first I found the very idea of not fully exploring the underlying problem creating the conflict kind of crazy. It was kind of a visceral reaction of ‘is he nuts?’ But after reading the replies and letting this idea roll around my brain, I’m begining to look at conflict resolution from a different perspective.
Thanks for the new point of view!
Veronica
Veronica
V,
I’m delighted we aren’t in conflict. 🙂
Seriously, I’m happiest as a blogger when others are thinking. I enjoy challenging the status quo so a bit of controversy is wonderful as long as no one feels I am attacking them personally.
Thanks for mulling this idea over.
Best,
Dan
Great point.
One problem I have with many “conflict resolution” frameworks is that they tend to be so tactical and process oriented, as if one set of steps could actually solve every conflict situation.
I recently facilitated a training session on conflict, and we had a lot of good discussion around some specific SKILLS that can be used appropriately, but not as much on process:
– Build trust and credibility proactively, before a conflict situation ever occurs
– Know your own natural reaction to conflict situations, learn how to understand and appreciate others’ reaction styles too
– Listen first – to be influential you must be influence-able
– Work toward discussing interests (goals we want to meet), not positions (methods we assume are the only way to get there)
We didn’t solve the world’s problems, but I thouht it was time well spent!
Tim,
Thank you very much for adding such a useful, real life comment to the community. You’re adding value and I appreciate it.
Looking forward to more in the future,
Dan
Hi Dan,
It seems that you are getting hammered here. 🙂
My opinions are as below.
1) Problem is something that we hate so much, it’s our biggest enemy. The key is to treat problem like we treat our enemy. When you hate someone, you shall not keep thinking about that someone. 🙂 Otherwise, your life will get haunted by that someone/your enemy/ problem.
2) The more you focus on problems, the more you will appreciate them. If solution is what we want, why must we focus on problem? I don’t think that the key to a solution is hidden in problem. I do agree that different problems come with different solutions, but it doesn’t mean that we need to focus much on problems.
3) Once we got problem, we immediately wanted to get out of it. Thus, why waste time focusing on the problem? It’s true that we need to understand problems in seeking solutions, but conflict is enough. We don’t have to explore deeper in problems, otherwise we’ll get lost in it.
4) “Focus 90% of your time on solutions and only 10% of your time on problems.” Anthony J. D’Angelo
Thanks..Will appreciate to be hammered. 🙂 Pain motivate us right? 😉
Syed,
Thank you for stopping in. I love your comment and especially the quote at the end. Yup, pain motivates us.
I appreciate your generous support on twitter and look forward to your future comments.
Best,
Dan
I recognize that everyone is coming from their own places of experience, that they have specific ideas and circumstances in mind as they read this. But Dan, from my places of experience, I have to agree with you. Establishing a direction out of the mess or circumstance is the first goal. You gotta throw that anchor out there. Then you work through the rest on the way there, keeping the solution clear in mind. This also re-establishes some team-work in my opinion, even amongst disagreement.
After that, all these steps do kind of happen at once. It’s not like we’re talking about a long drawn out process. Listening is also important along the way, but I also see the most thorough place for that in an “after action review,” which I tend to prefer. Listening is great, but it also needs to be pertinent to the issues. So direction is logical first since it also provides perspective.
Julia,
Great to see you again. Your comment is kind and real. It’s adds value to everyone.
Regards,
Dan
LF readers can check out Julia’s blog at: http://aberrantcrochet.wordpress.com/
Problem solving Vs conflict resolution – if everyone wants to fix a problem then looking to the solution rather then back tracking over the cause makes sense (and works) of course you go back after for the learning etc.
Conflict resolution between parties – asking parties to define the solution will actually identify the problem, because both parties have very different views of what the solution should be.
I like the idea of posing the positive and “we now heading to solution” style
Good posts. as Veronica says different views = new thoughts.
John,
I appreciate your analysis and bringing distinction yet integration of problem solving and the more personal conflict resolution.
I think you are right when you say, defining the solution identifies the problem.
Thanks for the good word. I look forward to reading future comments from you.
Best to you,
Dan
Hi Dan, it just so happens that I discovered a while back that showing up on the front door with a smile and a solution is a great way to start the discussion; so I agree with you. My tactic which I have used for years is to appeal to everyone’s sense of giving by starting off saying” “Gentlemen we have a problem and I sincerely need your help.” I then summarize the issue, remind everyone we are on the same team and propose a roadmap which includes all in the room leading to the solution. Having this framework everyone engages in conversation offering modifications but all focused on the common goal. I just sit back, listen and moderate to keep decorum in check and discussions on track. Has this tactic always been successful, well no but most of the time it has been to some degree or another. I find that the true initial hurdle is getting all the parties to the table agreeing that we do have a Problem, and yes there is a Solution, now how do we go about it. I find that subsequent conversations tend to be a lot easier and with much less angst. I know everyone has heard the saying “bringing Physicians together is like herding cats” but my favorite one learned from my former CEO ( A retired Neurosurgeon) is “Bringing Physicians together is like eagels flying in formation.”
Al,
Wonderful real life example that sheds light on this important topic. I’m sure others will enjoy your wisdom.
I love how you “we” conflict resolution.
Be well,
Dan
Georgians are healthier because of the Harbin Clinic in Rome, Georgia
http://harbinclinic.com/index.html
Hi Dan –
Good topic.
The biggest issue with conflict resolution is how few folks are willing to face it at all. I think the point about resolving differences not being perceived as personal is key. Please consider two thoughts:
1. No one likes conflict resolution, but we do all like getting it over with.
2. Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Putting those two thoughts together makes the process more palatable, and is likely to generate acceptable results.
JB
Jeremy,
Thanks for leaving your suggestions and adding to the conversation. I think you are right regarding an unwillingness to deal with conflicts. That’s one of the reasons its important to deal with it.
Best to you. I appreciate you and the useful comments you leave,
Regards to you,
Dan
Jeremy’s focus is a cost effective problem solver for small businesses.
http://brombergllc.com/
Hi Dan, I’m listening and… everyone is right! There is an art to all of this. Sometimes you can go straight for the solution (though i wonder whether that arises when you have been listening and ignoring and therefore creating the problem), sometimes you have to listen with care and then assess what solutions are possible (especially as a mediator).
A great discussion however and I’ve got some great pointers from it. Many Thanks
Richard
Richard,
I’ve got some great pointers and clarifications from this conversation too.
Great to see you and I see your website is changing. 🙂
Dan
Richard is certified as a certified trainer in Taibi Kahler’s “Process Communication Model”
He recently wrote: “Less is More” http://croadworks.com/about/core-pages/less-is-more/
One of the ways I’ve learned that is handy to get people on the same page – (which is what I hear that you are saying by reassuring people a solution does exist) is to use Edward de Bono’s Six Hat Thinking.
Essentially, what you’re pointing out is that we need to design a solution together. Design is the important skill. Using any means to align the perceptional attitude so people are on the same side is the point. This way they can design a solution that takes all of their divergent concerns into account.
The main advantage of the Six Hats thinking is that people are encouraged to think away from the positional arguing of the “Black Hat” orientation of thinking style. Six hats thinking is one means to put the behavior of shooting down solutions and trotting out “why it won’t work” on cue – and then ask for suggestions from other perceptual attitudes such as describing the benefits, the facts, creative integration, feelings, etc.
Of course, being willing to reveal the driving motives, values, beliefs, criteria of success and priorities takes daring on the part of the participants. They often believe they have something to lose by revealing these points. This is where the art of mediating comes in.
Francis,
First, thank you for leaving your first comment on LF. It’s wonderful.
I’m delighted you bring de Bono to this conversation. He’s amazing. You’ve also add an important term, “positional arguing.” Positional arguing as you indicate puts everyone one in a win/loose conversations. Well said.
Thanks for adding value to this useful LF discussion.
Regards,
Dan
Francis recently wrote: “Design isn’t Opinion.” It’s a blog explaining her technique for convincing clients to listen to her expertise.
http://myhalfof.blogspot.com/2010/05/design-isnt-opinion.html
Dan,
I absolutely agree with your tip, with proviso. If people in conflicts can come to the table with the resolution to seek solutions, leaving their ego and pent-up emotions at the door, it is the way forward.
The end solution should be driven by the Win-Win principles. And, the pain of the prolonged situation must be equally felt by both parties to affect them into the solution focussed framework and mode. When you dwell into the problems, there is a tendency to get sucked into problems within the problem. And, this could hijack the entire conflict resolution.
Having said that, I believe most people take a more cautious, sensitive and safe approach to conflicts, because there is always two or more sides to the “problem” defination in conflicts. The biggest challenge is to identify (through listening and probing) the real problem that is causing the conflict, in the first place. If this is not done, there is a strong chance for the solutions to suffer two undesirable consequences. Firstly, it could be the wrong presciption medicine with a short term focus. Second, people may be forced to agree to the solution but refuse to honour or work on it. That’s how it normally escalates to and warrants bringing third party interventions.
My personal experience says, conflicts are more anchored on emotions than the actual problems. Exceptions are rare, in which case the warring parties can jump straight to the “future”, knowing well all are on the same page. The conflict is seen as a challenge.
When coaching, I often encounter dwelling into the problem, just to identify the sources of “self-conflict”. Digging deep through powerful questioning helps unearth the “aha” moments before a workable solution can be found.
Another great theory or insight to support the solution focussed technique in coaching and other interventions comes from the works of Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer at BFTC (Brief Family Therapy Centre) Milwaukee. They pioneered that knowing the problem is not important. Their model is chatacterised by SIMPLE.
Solutions – not problems
In between – the action is in the interaction
Make use of what’s there – not what isn’t
Possibilities – past, present and future
Language – simply said
Every case is different – beware ill-fitting theory
The last advice is the best takeaway that I heed religiously.
Yuvarajah,
I’ve said so frequently that I appreciate the input this post has generated that it seems redundant. I certainly hope my appreciation for your insights doesn’t seem like empty courtesy.
You’ve added great value to the LF community.
I love your statement “sucked into problems within problems.” It’s so true that conflict resolution gets way-laid by irrelevant, unproductive conversation.
Best Regards,
Dan
Dan,
Thank you for the kind words.
Compliments from you is never empty. We may be miles apart, but I can see genuineness in your words.
It’s rare to see someone respond in such a personalised fashion. I guess it comes naturally, a sign of humility and magnanimity.
And, you Sir, have added great value to my life, through the many sharings of great wisdom coming from your posts and rich comments by others.
I often remind my trainees, “the master will appear when the student is ready”. Thankfully, you have not failed me in appearing. 🙂
Thank you, well done and best wishes.
Yuvarajah,
I’m humbled by your wonderful words. Thanks for helping create a useful community.
Be well my friend,
Dan
Dan –
The conversation is rockin! Kim Hogue just pointed out that we both posted on conflict today in out blogs – what are the odds!
Ditto all the thoughts above about challenging my thinking on putting the solution first – I like it!
Keep ’em coming!
Geoff,
Thats too funny. I’m a fan of yours and always read and enjoy your posts. I’m honored you stopped in today.
Best regards to you,
Dan
Leadership Freak readers can check out Geoff’s post on conflict resolution at: http://geoffreywebb.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/how-to-capitalize-on-conflict/#comments
Dan,
I’ve been in tons of meetings where the biggest reason no progress was made is because everyone was fighting for their solution. I think that what’s lacking is agreement on the direction. My experience is that the desired outcome needs to be very specific to make sure the proposed solutions are helpful in the bigger context and not just band-aids.
Maybe it’s a matter of semantics or a misunderstanding on my part, but I think the destination must be defined before the solution and that solutions help you get to a destination you’re not currently reaching.
Jim
Jim,
Thanks for your comment.
I think I understand that you are saying… Determine the Destination. Solutions are the steps that get you to the destination.
You’ve added value by adding your insights and perspective.
Cheers,
Dan
Hello Dan
Thanks but like I said I think it can work if both participants are willing to resolve their conflict. However when one/both party/ies feels like they are not being heard (if ones views are not regarded or taken into consideration during the resolution) it might not work.
Additionally as per Jim’s comments determining the destination of the resolution can only work if both parties are reaching for the same goal or end result. Where both parties are aiming for a totally different outcome you can not achieve a satisfactory resolution.
I believe that in a dispute resolution one can never have too much information on both sides. The more information provided to one another as to the cause of the dispute and the probable effect of the dispute the easier it would be to establish a quicker and tolerable resolution.
If one is to apply the clean hands doctrine of equity (“he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”) in a dispute resolution; coming in with an open forgiving mind, and being prepared to put oneself in the other party’s shoe we might achieve a tolerable result.
Then again if both parties seek a tolerable result then determination is established not so?
Conflict resolution can only be visited on a per individual basis and so I disagree with Dan. Don’t ask don’t tell policy might not always be the solution.
I have been working as a community mediator for only a year now and found these posts really useful, thanks Dan for starting the conversation.
I have found that the amount of time I need to spend on “the problem” depends on how long or how intensive the conflict has been. Sometimes when the parties have not spoken to each other (or only spoken angrily) for months it seems really useful when they get together at the mediation for them to empty the bucket. In doing so they usually find that there is no root cause to the issues at which point there tends to be an air of exhaustion, a greater willingness to look for a solution and probably a wish to go home.
David,
Very useful insight re: the length and intensity of conflict is proportional to the time you allow for uncovering/exploring/expressing the problem.
Best,
Dan
Hi Dan,
It’s interesting to read what others have said here. I found this blog as I was looking for opinions about why the conflict resolution model doesn’t always work. I can see where you are coming from, preferring to look at solutions rather than problems. Perhaps a solutions focused approach is appropriate sometimes. But I wonder if anyone would agree there are times when the conflict resolution model is NOT an appropriate model for workplace relations problems AT ALL?
So my first point here is that it’s important to make sure that the scenario is in fact a ‘conflict’, and not something else, before deciding to use the conflict resolution model to address it.
The danger is that employees could be drawn into a ‘conflict’ scenario where really the issue they raise points to something that management needs to take hold of themselves (eg someone not following ethical guidelines, bullying etc) Drawing an employee into a ‘conflict resolution’ process too soon could miss the point, and even expose the employee to more of the problem.
I am thinking of a situation in a vertical organisational structure, where employees may have a problem with someone higher up ladder, or perhaps with a procedure that is being used in the organisation. In some workplaces, if such an employee raises a problem it seems the only solutions possible are not going to favour that employee, and may even impact them negatively for having raised the issue in the first place.
I have seen it happen so often. Employees know that it is better to leave a job, or to sit down and not say anything, than to raise a ‘problem’ about a higher ranking employee or an organisational system.
In my view, the conflict res model works when there is equal status, or status is not a prominent feature of the problem. But a power imbalance in the conflict resolution session puts the employee at a huge disadvantage, not just for their current workplace, but also for the future if they leave their job and need references.
I’d be interested to know what you think about this.
Brigitte