Creativity & Growth in Conflict — notes from a conversation

Conflict can be a positive friction associated with movement, growth and true collaboration, or a disaster. Conflict can be the size of an argument, a 6-step divorce mediation, or a civil war. Conflict can simmer, boil, explode or stew. Conflict can erode, expand or enable.

Despite the fact that I’ve been trained in fantastic conflict resolution techniques, and even though I’m a facilitator who knows how to bring groups through confusion and into clarity — conflict is still an endless learning edge.

Luckily, I have friends who know more than me. So, sitting around plates of tacos, small ponds of refried beans, dripping enchiladas and steaming pozolé, we discussed our questions and excitements for creativity & transformation in conflict. This piece of writing is a little overview of the territory we went over together as it may be curious for others!

Basic framing for getting better at conflict:

Here are some key points which we surfaced as a guiding mentality when it comes to entering into conflict, or hosting/holding conflict.

• We’re always going to be in conflict, that’s not a bad thing — let’s make it awesome.
• Big issues are always made up of smaller issues so break it down.
• Conflict is NOT about what it’s about. Whatever seems to be the surface problem, is not the actual problem.
• All conflicts initially appear as incompatibilities — this is not an indication that people or ideas are truly incompatible.
• For these reasons, actively unearth more information when you see conflict arising.
• To engage effectively in conflict, we first have to engage effectively with our own needs.
• Come into conflict, or pre-conflict!, with a strong center on your needs, and an openness to being surprised by how easy it might be to meet the others’ needs.

Effective speaking and effective listening:

These are some key micro-skills which help to reduce the blame and finger pointing in conflict, and get to the heart of the matter more compassionately. We discussed how it can be difficult if one person is speaking with compassion while the other is not. Luckily, if you use “ARC” listening, you can listen to the other person so effectively that they become more non-violent. Typically, if you use ARC on repeat, the other person will become self aware of how much their point of view is being focussed on, and begin asking you about yours.

Speaking: Non Violent Communication

1) Provide a description of the situation as you have observed it

2) Comment on how that impacted you

3) Share the underlying need you have (e.g. certainty, support, space)

4) Make a specific and practical request for change

Listening: ARC Technique

A — Acknowledge: What you have told me you’re going through is valid & real

R — Reflect: I heard you say XYZ, did I get that right?

C — Curiosity: What else don’t I understand yet?

Basic journey of conflict resolution whether it’s a city or a couple:

Conflict distorts the way we understand each other, can make us feel distant and un-empathetic and can send us into primal responses. Despite what techniques or tools you might use (e.g. LEADR Mediation, Deep Democracy etc), getting into a constructive conflict moment will require this sort of storyline:

• Are we talking about the same things?
  (getting fully on the same page)
• Do we see each others’ humanity?
• Can we acknowledge and work with the fact that
  we’re in relationship even if we don’t know how to be?

This is an extremely useful thing to articulate. If you are in a conflict mediation process and you’re trying to solve something but you haven’t deeply clarified if all the parties are being heard and are fully talking about the same things, then you cannot move forward. And if the parties have not created shared ground enough to empathise or say “Oh I see what he’s saying now” then they will not co-create solutions that will work for all constraints.

Power & Paradoxes

Beyond false binary

In conflict, and other parts of life, we draw lines and describe polar opposites. Polarities such as inclusivity versus exclusivity, victim versus perpetrator, or even assertive versus receptive can be pushed into opposite corners. This can happen within yourself — like you feel your only choice is to take on one consistent position. This can happen within a group too when the group’s dynamic is pulling or pushing different individuals into different roles which contain a polarity the group is experiencing as a whole. Some people call this “being polarised”. One of the things we discussed together at dinner was breaking this down.

See this image here:

In the picture there are positive and negative attributes of both Assert and Engage. This immediately reminds us that neither is “better”, they have strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, you can use this map to locate yourself. “Where am I right now, in this?” If you can locate yourself, and acknowledge that none of these quadrants is the “best” state of being, then despite assertive seeming opposed to being engagement based / receptive then you can see there’s room to move. A simple reframing of polarities from being in opposing tension, to being a playing field where you don’t have to stay in one quadrant. And not only are you not stuck in one frame of mind, you can see the weakness of being stuck in one.

So we uncovered the value of seeing polarities or perceived opposite ways of thinking as a space where it is not best to pick a frame and stick to it, but best to never get stuck — to flow between the weaknesses of assertion into the strengths of engagement, and back to the strengths of assertion when you get into the weaknesses of pure receptivity.

Trauma containing the capacity for healing

We also explored the example of Colombian warfare and the efforts which have gone into peace building in Colombia. The talk linked here is with William Ury, a negotiator famous for the book “Getting to Yes”, as well as his extensive work describing “Interest Based Negotiation”. In this talk he outlines the work he has contributed to supporting President Juan Manuel Santos, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016 for his work on reconciliation. At our dinner, we explored part of this talk where Ury speaks about the families who have lost members due to state military violence, how they are willing to go to the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony and share with the world that they are willing to forgive Santos (but not forget!) and are seeking to create a new peaceful path forwards.

“The victims made statements saying that we need an end to this conflict and we are prepared even to forgive­ — not to forget. There’s a big difference between forgetting and forgiving. To everyone’s surprise, the victims played an enormously constructive role in reminding people of the deep wounds in a way that clarified and advanced the process. There were many well-intentioned people in Colombia demanding to put the FARC leaders in jail, which would have brought negotiations to a complete stop because the FARC had not been defeated. There had never been a peace settlement in which the guerrillas had freely agreed to lay down their weapons and go to jail. The victims were among the strongest voices for a restorative approach to justice, rather than a punitive approach. All of that was based on listening and bringing attention to the trauma, rather than forgetting the past.” — William Ury

Paraphrasing the myriad of messages across his interview (that I would highly recommend reading) — paradoxically, the more trauma someone is exposed to, the greater capacity they have to forgive and transform conflict.

What does this mean for us today? What we talked about was the issues of power and access to wealth in the context of crises. There is great inequality in society, and the people with the most resources to mobilise towards working on global challenges are the ones least affected by the trauma of the challenges as they unfold. We spoke about how folks with assets (at any wealth level) have a fear of losing them and losing their sense of security — and when you address people with power and invite them to share their power there can be a very normal human reaction of fear of loss, and a sense of scarcity. But if we explore what Ury has shared about the paradox that the most traumatised people have the greatest capacity for forgiveness and transformation, then those without power and resources might be the most ready to talk about how to redistribute resources fairly.

Democracy

Finally, we talked about the realisation that democratic processes provide a format to agree to disagree at scale. Democratic process is a resolution of the ongoing power struggle between different people and ideas. Let’s revisit the mentality I mentioned earlier in this piece of writing:

• We’re always going to be in conflict, that’s not a bad thing — let’s make it awesome.
• Big issues are always made up of smaller issues so break it down.
• Conflict is NOT about what it’s about. Whatever seems to be the surface problem, is not the actual problem.
• All conflicts initially appear as incompatibilities — this is not an indication that people or ideas are truly incompatible.
• For these reasons, actively unearth more information when you see conflict arising.
• To engage effectively in conflict, we first have to engage effectively with our own needs.
• Come into conflict, or pre-conflict!, with a strong center on your needs, and an openness to being surprised by how easy it might be to meet the others’ needs.

If we will always be in conflict, then democracy isn’t dying, it’s that we need to create better democratic formats than the ones we have now to be in creative conflict at scale. Now there’s a growing consensus that the current systems aren’t working — this is an exciting time to look at exemplary conflict transformation processes around the world as indicators of how we can include many voices to create coherent resolutions. I have often referred to conflict resolution processes as design or innovation processes. They are certainly different when the parties are under deep stress or experiencing trauma, but the essence of coming to terms with our own ways of thinking, and being creative about how our unique subjective selves can harmonise or cooperate (or safely agree to disagree) is the same. We are an interconnected humanity and we need these skills to help us inter-be effectively.

Transformation awaits

Whether it’s democratic processes, civil war, conflict at work or an argument in the kitchen — there are some patterns for what can help find shared ground across difference. Enacting these patterns requires a lot of personal awareness, skill and willingness to step outside of your victimisation, blame and pure rage to communicate and listen more effectively. The piece that stands out to me in this conversation is the basic arc of conflict mediation: Are we talking about the same thing? Do we see each others’ humanity? Are we willing to acknowledge that we are in relationship even though we don’t know how to be? Each of these are steps not to be missed. I hope we can all grow our capacity to hold each piece of that arc of conversation in order to create more shared ground and see conflict as a space for transformation.

“When you know there is disharmony and you hold that “knowing,” through your knowing a new factor has come in, and the disharmony cannot remain unchanged. When you know you are not at peace, your knowing creates a still space that surrounds your nonpeace in a loving and tender embrace and then transmutes your nonpeace into peace. As far as inner transformation is concerned, there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot transform yourself, and you certainly cannot transform your partner or anybody else. All you can do is create a space for transformation to happen, for grace and love to enter. So whenever your relationship is not working, whenever it brings out the “madness” in you and in your partner, be glad. What was unconscious is being brought up to the light. It is an opportunity for salvation. Every moment, hold the knowing of that moment, particularly of your inner state. If there is anger, know that there is anger. If there is jealousy, defensiveness, the urge to argue, the need to be right, an inner child demanding love and attention, or emotional pain of any kind — whatever it is, know the reality of that moment and hold the knowing. The relationship then becomes your spiritual practice. If you observe unconscious behaviour in your partner, hold it in the loving embrace of your knowing so that you won’t react. Unconsciousness and knowing cannot coexist for long — even if the knowing is only in the other person and not in the one who is acting out the unconsciousness. The energy form that lies behind hostility and attack finds the presence of love absolutely intolerable. If you react at all to your partner’s unconsciousness, you become unconscious yourself. But if you then remember to know your reaction, nothing is lost.” — Eckhart Tolle, 2016.

Thanks to Duncan Autrey, Justin Hartery and David Hodgson for a deep conversation. Thanks to Jason Meek and Brian R. Weinberg for both (!!) connecting me to the the Ury interview link. Hope this is valuable for readers — let us know what you think!