Category Archives: Working With Conflict

Healing Wounds

Last month I was sitting with friends and discussing recent events at the University of Missouri. One of those present – an African American – said with sadness “it’s getting to the point where I hope there isn’t another African-American president in my life-time.  I don’t remember it ever being this bad.” Another member of the group replied: “Sometimes you have to lance an infection so it can heal. What first comes out is ugly but that’s what starts the healing.”

Since then I have been thinking about wound care, and what we as facilitators can learn from it.

First, like an infected wound, unresolved conflict festers.  When lanced, or when the stitches previously put in place are pulled, there is often an explosion, and at least a quick leeching out, of the infectious agents and residue.  Opening the wound allows this not just to be released; it allows the infectious agents to be examined and removed, and the infected site to be cleaned and treated.

The worst infections are healed through “open wound care.”  This is a slow process, requiring constant care and vigilance, until the surrounding tissue begins to heal itself from the inside out. When that happens the tissue becomes lively and vibrant. Still check-ins are needed at regular intervals to prevent the infection from recurring.

Healing an infected wound takes considerable time, setbacks are not uncommon. Patience and perseverance are required.

Even when the wound seems to be healing well – or closes on the surface, pockets of infection may remain. Ongoing monitoring is still required, and use of the surrounding muscle may cause pain.  There is a need to go slow, to remain vigilant, and to be patient.

We have a long history of hate.  Dialogue can help us heal.  Yet that dialogue needs to be ongoing, consciously worked at, not sporadic. Vigilant monitoring with a readiness to intervene when needed is required to sustain progress and restore us to to health. In this season of peace and hope it is worth remembering that we each have the power to speak up, to pursue dialogue with others, and to disturb the patterns of hate when we hear them.  Working together we can make 2016 a better, healthier year.

“America’s diversity offers so much richness and opportunity.  Take a chance won’t you?  Knock down the fences which divide.”  – Justice Thurgood Marshall

 

 

Simple Tools For Sorting and Mapping Public Input

Last week on a call with others who are working on “naming and framing” various issues in their communities, someone asked for recommendations on how to sort the notes of various volunteers into a summary document that would be useful. As we discussed on the call, one simple low cost approach is to set up a spreadsheet (using a platform like Google Drive allows for easy sharing) that corresponds to the five sources of conflict.  As they take notes, volunteers can code them (V = values, S = structure, R= relationships, IN = interests, and IF = information) and then sort those later into the corresponding sections of the spreadsheet. Levels of intensity can also be marked on the notes with a + corresponding to higher levels of emotion and ++indicating an even higher level of tension evidenced by  “us v. them” language and active expressions of threat or fear.

As a baseline, those coordinating a project might map what they expect to hear based on sources like newspapers and blogs and then, as notes are entered, analyze whether what they are hearing confirms or challenges those expectations.  Other sources external to meetings or planned dialogues could also be captured and compared throughout a project.

Another tool we have used to track dialogues is to sort comments and questions into a grid tracking “What” (what topics are coming up, what themes are appearing, what information is being used, what values are referenced, what tensions are present; what regulatory or other limitations exist, etc.); “Who” (who is present, who is missing, who is referenced, who would be affected, who can help, etc.); “How” (how would we accomplish that, what resources are available, how can they be accessed, and “Why?” (this category encompasses mission, and vision (why are we doing this?), ideal scenarios (why not dream big?), and creative thinking (“why not do this a different way?)).  Grouping things this way during a discussion has the added benefit of helping the facilitator in real time identify, sort, and sequence questions in ways that promote effective  group discussion.

A complementary process that might be used as volunteers report in, particularly to capture new people and organizations being brought in, ideas generated, and actions taken, would be to track those through ripple mapping.  In any event, planning questions or categories in advance that help you “harvest data as you go along” will make the job of compilation and analyzing what you have much easier!

Navigating DIfficult Dialogues: Phrasing Is Key

As a culture, we easily fall into “power based” patterns in our discussions.  Don’t believe me? Try filling in the blanks in this simple test:

  • “I’m right and you’re____.”
  • “It’s my way or the _____.”
  • “I’m going to talk and you’re going to sit there and ____.”
  • “You’re with us or _____.”

The ultimate question underlying all of these phrases is of course, “who is the winner, and who is the loser”? No-one wants to be the loser.

These power-based patterns occur in subtler forms:  “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “That is just stupid.” “Everyone knows …” “Yes, but …” Underlying all of these statements is the “right/wrong, winner/loser” dynamic. And that dynamic, in whatever form it is used, erodes trust; invokes negative emotions like disgust, anger and fear; and invites push-back. This is the dynamic behind our increasing partisanship, and inability to talk through difficult issues even with (or especially with) friends and family.

For these reasons, consciously avoiding “power-based” framing is a first step in talking through a difficult issue. The dialogue patterns of listening, reflecting, sharing, and inviting invoke very different responses than the “patterns of power.” This is because they accept the other person’s thoughts and feelings as sincerely offered and avoid the “winner-loser” dynamic.

Here’s an example of how that works in practice:  Recently at a wedding, I joined a conversation between a younger relative (liberal) and an older family friend (conservative) which quickly became strained.  The relative had observed that political decisions were often hypocritical, referencing conservative politicians who sought storm aid for their states having previously opposed such aid for New York City in the wake of a hurricane.  The friend responded that the denial of aid was justified “because no US citizens currently live in NYC”.

This was a surprising assertion to me because much of my family (all native-born US citizens!) live in NYC.  However, I could see that both were upset and the discussion was likely to get out of hand if I approached it as a question of “right or wrong”.  So I said to the family friend, “I can tell this issue is very important to you” (acknowledgement), and “I am curious where you got that information, could you tell me more?” (invitation).  That prompted him to talk about a news station he watched, and as we continued to listen, his concerns with over-reliance on government spending and immigration.  I then said “Sometimes it’s hard to know what information to rely on” (acceptance), “although your statement surprised me because much of my family lives in NYC” (sharing).

This exchange in turn led to a question of how my family fared in the hurricane, and then to a discussion of where he had been raised, why he had left, and how reliance on government welfare had undercut his family and the community he once lived in.  During this discussion, the relative was able, in a low-key way, to share information on how statistics were often mis-used, common assumptions that research had proved wrong regarding net givers and takers in various states, and other factual information, without any push-back.  We ultimately all agreed that if “ordinary Americans” had more opportunities to sit down and just talk, much could be learned and many problems could be solved. The conversation ended on a friendly tone, and when the friend saw both me and the relative at another wedding several weeks later, he greeted us warmly.

We need not agree on facts and policies or even values to communicate with one another.  We do, however, have to do something more than assert our own point of view.  We have to have a desire to understand and to connect.  The compassion for, and interest in others that underlie effective dialogue help us to connect.