Conflict resolution is neither rational nor objective.

I had an enjoyable breakfast with a friend recently.  He said he admired the work I do in writing and delivering training on conflict and collaboration communications because it was a more “Rational and objective approach to resolving disputes; You take the emotion out of it.”

I bristled.

For me, working with conflict is neither rational nor objective.

It is fluid, chaotic, messy and sometimes very emotional indeed.

Effective conflict leadership is rational in the sense that it has purpose and logic to it. Yet it is irrational in that it should not be a slave to hard logic based arguments.  Sometimes the irrational, the uncertain and unmeasurable holds the key to making progress.  They can certainly serve us very well as souces of inspiration or innovative thinking about how we might approach a problem.

And is it objective?

I would argue it is not.  Objective can mean distanced, aloof, dispassionate, disconnected.  To me, conflict leadership means being able to connect with the people involved and their fears, concerns and needs.  There is a balance to be struck in not becoming enslaved to those aspects but we certainly need to be aware of them, to acknowledge them and the flavours they impart to any conflict cocktail.

In that sense, effective, powerful dispute resolution does not make objects of the dispute and the people within it.  The conflict dialogue is an inherent part of that conflict drama being played out.  It is subjective, it must be.  And by stepping into these conflict spaces and contributing our own voices, questions and thoughts can we hope to build a different narrative.

By being objective, on the outside, we run the risk of not connecting.

This is not to say that dispute resolution experts should not strive to be neutral or independent.  They can and should continue to do so.

But we need to get stuck in, to be comfortable with the messy stuff and carefully, skillfully play a fully integrated role in enabling the disputants to be effective in building agreement.

Are Solicitors and Barristers really “The Full Range of Dispute Resolution Services”?

John Wotton , the Law Society President, gave a talk to the Said Business recently.  A full report can be found at Neil Rose’s Legal Futures blog here.

I found this paragraph, possibly misquoted or out of context, to be curious.

“John Wotton said that with the narrowing division between solicitors and barristers, “there must be competitive advantages and efficiencies to be gained from having the full range of dispute resolution services under the same roof”.”

This indicates two things to me.

1. Blindspots.  If my understanding of this passage is correct then John Wotton indicates that the full range of dispute resolution services is comprised of the two elements that precede that statement, namely the solicitors and the barristers.  That seems to be a dangerous report from the crow’s nest.  What about mediators, arbitrators, coaches,  facilitators, legal executives and many others?  My concern is that the profession underestimates the role and value offered to the “client with a dispute” at its peril.  There is a growing range of professionals who serve clients with disputes.  The legal profession needs to recognise that and ask
   1. What are they doing?
   2. How?
   3. How do they appeal to our previously exclusive marketplace and those who come into it?
   4. How does their work reflect upon our own very well established (some will say archaic) systems?
2. The confusion within the language used.  The phrase “Dispute resolution” has diverse meanings.  The work carried out by the contentious arm of the legal profession and portrayed as Dispute Resolution is often received as being disingenious.  The reaction to it might be “This is not dispute resolution.  This is outright litigation or positional argument and negotiation carried out against a backdrop of potential litigation.”  It seems to be the case that when people now hear the words “Dispute resolution” they anticipate an Alternative Dispute Resolution process, namely mediation, collaboration, interests based negotiation, understanding each others needs and circumstances and building consensus or, at the very least, tolerable solutions.

It may well be that the derivation of the ADR brand came as being an alternative to the conventional and well established legal processes.  It is perhaps encouraging that the conventional now sounds peculiar and almost wrong.  What was once the alternative to dispute resolution is perhaps claiming the title of, quite simply, dispute resolution.  It is as though we are getting to the stage where the choice is between dispute resolution or instructing a conventional solicitor or barrister.

Of course this is too simplistic.  Many solicitors and barristers do bridge conventional and what used to be alternative dispute resolution practice.

I am aware that working in the ADR sector and being such a keen supporter of it that I might be victim to my own blindspots.

Perhaps the public perception is that solicitors and barristers represent the “full range of dispute resolution services.”

Please, please, don’t let that be the case.

What do you think?

Why Collaborate?

Businesses that do not collaborate will be fine. 

They can rest, moored up, in their backwaters and the idyllic lagoons that they know so well.

From just over the bank will come the sound of white water.  Here, the river courses over the rocks and challenges of the marketplace.  And there is another sound.  It is the sound of excitement, innovation, creativity and the euphoria of entrepreneurs and leaders riding the rapids.

These foolish, reckless businesses have not turned away from the challenges of the marketplace, The sleepy backwater is not for them, nor the dry dock to preserve or repair their position.  It is almost as if they are drawn to raging torrent of the river, to the chaos and the thrill of the ride; as if the currents that carry them along had seduced them with the promise of adventure, new shores, treasures and markets further upstream.  For them, these swirling eddies hold the promise of new perspectives.

They know that as they journey along this turbulent tide that they are just one of a fleet of companies taking this ride together. 

They know that the rocks and currents will throw them together with competitors and unexpected partners from other sectors. 

From time to time they may lash themselves together and explore how their combined mass enables them to better navigate the chaos, to ride even faster or build and launch entirely new vessels into the marketplace. 

The journey will not be easy, but it will be exhilarating, and as they emerge changed but strengthened at the end of the rapids, they will look back at what they learned and where they came from, and they will look forwards to the new horizons ahead.  They will look around themselves at the new acquaintances they have made, the partnerships they have formed and the lessons and new products borne by that journey they have shared together.

And what of the businesses that chose not to collaborate?  Well, they are still fine. 

As we look back, far beyond us, we can just make out their masts as they remain, still, unmoving and untroubled, in their peaceful, idyllic lagoon.  And now, that peacefulness is almost perfect. 

The white waters that surged past them have now abated leaving nothing but dry rocks. 

The euphoric din of those other companies recklessy riding and colliding together through the maelstrom has long faded as they coursed many, many miles ahead.  The silence is now almost complete interrupted only by the whispered but persistent question being asked repeatedly; 

“Where did everybody go?”

Book Review; The Synergist by Les McKeown

The Synergist is Les McKeown‘s second book after his best-selling Predictable Success.

In that first book, Les drew upon his years of experience and multiple start-ups and maps out the familiar trajectories that start-ups follow as they mature, reach the pinnacle of Predictable Success, and the wane that can follow afterwards.  It is, in itself, a very good book and provides an excellent model that organisations can measure themselves against.  Doing so can lead to valuable reflection and debate in the boardroom – never a bad thing.

In this second book, The Synergist, Les takes a less organisational perspective and switches his attention to the individuals who populate these teams and companies.

The Synergist by Les McKeown

Readers who are familiar with the glut of Jung based and other twin axis personality typologies such as Myers-Briggs, Insights, Social Style, are going to face an initial hurdle here.

As I read Les’s observations on the Visionary, the Operator and the Processor I was unconsciously trying to pigeonhole these into pre-exisiting labels from other models.  Yellows, drivers, analyticals and the like.  This says something of the prevalence of twin-axis, oppositional personality typing within the consulting and training world right now.  The Synergist book does not seek to establish a physical juxtaposition between the roles it observes, it only needs to recognise the inherent and crippling tensions between them.

The other challenge is this.  There are essentially only three personality types, not four, not sixteen or, good grief, thirty-two.

Three.  Visionary, Operator and Processor.

The Synergist it seems to me, is predominantly a role, not a type.  It is a “Learned role” which powerfully enriches and transforms the “interaction between the Visionary, Operator and Processor.”

Les observes that there may be natural synergists out there but they are rare.  Instead, The Synergist suggests that the Synergistic skills and offerings can be learnt and developed.  We can all build up our “Synergist muscle.”  There is an invitation here.  We can each choose take up the Synergist role at varying times, to contribute to the effective management and leadership of our teams and organisations.  Les suggests something of a tipping point.  Once a third of an organisation are enabled and motivated to take on Synergistic roles then the impact escalates markedly.

Les McKeown provides clear practical steps to enable anyone do so.  And to what end? Nothing less than “Transfroming the group by transcending personal agendas.”  The beauty of The Synergist is this promise that we can all build up our “Synergist muscle” by first becoming aware and then practicising and reviewing their own implementation of The Synergist Toolkit, nine skills and a commitment presented in Chapter 8 of the book.

The commitment is to the enterprise and positioning the enterprise above personal agendas.

The toolkit explores the role of

1. Time management
2. Priority management
3. Crisis management
4. Delegation
5. Conflict management
6. Difficult conversations
7. Communication skills
8. Inclusiveness
9. Accountability

The first four represent personal self-leadership disciplines; the latter five enable the Synergist to lead the team.

None of these are particularly new and if this is where the book ended then it may well have been underwhelming.  Where the learn is found is in chapter 10, The Secret Garden, where these tools are implemented synergistically to unlock stuck teams.  The toolkit is used to ensure that a rhythm of Investigation-Interpretation-Implementation is properly adhered to – a process which is then further broken down into three sub-component parts for each stage.

Les goes further and identifies what those component parts will look like – how will we know if we are doing this properly and what behaviours would we expect to see?

The Synergist is an engaging read.  Les’s style is personable and in places refreshingly idiosyncratic.  he has a lean writing style which ensures that he makes his point and moves on.

The book can be read as a provocation to stimulate further consideration and reflection or it could be taken as a manual by really working through the latter chapters and explicitly mapping out the synergistic tools and behaviours onto our own management teams.

There are plenty of models and resources to draw upon as well.

This is a well written, enjoyable and provocative read.  I recommend it.

By way of a personal note, I first met Les when we were both presenting at the Do Lectures in September 2011.  His brilliant 20 minute talk, touching upon both of his books, can be found here.

 

 

 

 

Another eggnog is not the answer

Many people, like myself, will be spending Christmas with extended family. That can be challenging. Family conflict and disagreements can soar at this time if year. Only this morning I was rightly held to account by a dear friend on Twitter for being grumpy and gnarly about my Christmas hosts; my inlaws.

What a horrible mirror it was that was held up for me to look into. What ingratitude, gracelessness and intolerance I displayed.

I escaped the house and had some time to myself shopping for late gifts. I spent the time reflecting on my earlier conduct.

What a fool and hypocrite I had been.

When we perceive conflict it is always the other person’s fault; it is always them who should change and if only they did then everything would be fine. But that is a lie.

When we are in conflict, or feeling the potential for conflict, then the only person we can change directly is ourself. And boy did I need to check myself this morning.

When I spoke earlier this year at the DoLectures I concluded with a bold challenge.

If we can bear with one another and build one another up instead of criticising and attacking one another, then community will inevitably and irresistibly arise.

Well, now is my Physician heal thyself time.

How can I bear with and build up my inlaws? Let me count the ways…

1. Recognise that I cannot change other people
2. Recognise that to wish that other people would change to fit my whim is ugly, arrogant and unacceptable. Just who do I think I am?
3. Recognise the qualities that others possess, the gifts that they can offer me (not literal gifts you understand. That would be wrong ; ) ) and the things that I could learn from them.
4. Be curious about their concerns. What is important to them?
5. Celebrate their differences.
6. Discern what they might want or need right now.

Do you know the worst thing? I knew all this all along. We all do and yet conflict seduces us to act in ugly ways and to then excuse our own ugliness.

There are easy things I can do. I can choose to smile, to engage, to ask questions and to demonstrate affection. Would a hug really be so hard in this context? Of course not but what do you think the impact might be? I’ll let you know.

I’m going to make amends and work on me, not them.

And with that I am going to sign off for Christmas. I hope you all have a blessed time filled with grace and rest. Be smart in the face of conflict and remember that another eggnog is not the answer.

…and Alison, thank you for the mirror.

What the Suarez “racist comments” verdict tells us about conflict

Suarez guilty of making racist comments

Suarez has been found guilty of making racist comments against Patrice Evra in a recent match between Liverpool and Manchester United.  He has been handed a hefty 8 match ban and a £40,000 fine.  The story is covered in full in many places including this BBC report.

What will now happen will be the playing out of several conflict dynamics which are worth exploring.

The Liverpool Defence

Consider the Liverpool football club statement in defence of their player.

“Liverpool is surprised and disappointed…” is an entirely conventional opening.  It suggests that the FA decision is unreasonable, that it has not reached the standards that are to be expected of them.

This is a classic lawyer’s opening gambit.  Lawyers never cease to be “Surprised and disappointed” within opening paragraphs!

It gets worse quickly.  The finding against their man escalates from merely surprising and quickly becomes “Extraordinary.”  Note the inflated language being used.

There follow a couple of paragraphs extolling Liverpool’s own anti-racism credentials, lest there be any doubt, before we see an attack on the credibility of the (seemingly vindicated) accuser…

“It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible – certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.”

“Some of my best friends…”

We then have the “Some of my best friends” defence proclaiming Suarez’s own mixed race background and involvement in mixed race teams in the past and present.  This is non-sensical and is no defence or justification.  It never is.

Still;

“It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented.”  Note the “Incredible” as in beyond credibility.  Note how the statement offers up an invitation to the reader or listener to adopt a position.  Will you side with us on the side of the reasonable and credible, or with the surprising, the disappointing, the non-ordinary (read strange) and the incredible?

Oh, and that best friends defence?  It really is there.

“He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends.”

“I do not recognise the authority of this court”

There is then the dismissal of the FA’s authority.

It starts off fairly nuanced.

“We do not recognise the way in which Luis Suarez has been characterised.”  This finding has no bearing on our own subjective understanding  is what they mean to say.  It is almost as if they are saying “They are not talking about our man.  They must have the wrong guy.  It’s not us”  This promotion of subjective perception, or even what they would like to believe, this promotion from subjective to some kind of objective truth is very often seen within conflict.

And then we have the real killer and how this comment made it into the press release I have no idea.  It comes across to me as petulant, sulky, child-like in transactional analysis terms.  Brace yourselves.  It’s remarkable;

“It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November.”

This rejection of the validity of a tribunal’s authority is frequently seen.  Saddam Hussein tried it.  An anecdote comes to mind of one defendant in a trial who upon receiving a fine from the Judge proclaimed that he did not recognise the court’s authority.  The response from the Judge was “Well, this court recognises you…” and promptly doubled the fine. (Note: Possibly apocryphal)

Meet the attribution theory 

Attribution theory has two parts.

When we are in conflict we attribute the actions of others against alleged innate characteristics that the other person, or body, possess.  The characteristic here is that of bias, a determination to scapegoat and villify, implicit unfairness and an inability to form an empirical view.  They are conspiracists seemingly playing out some mysterious agenda.  They clearly cannot be trusted.

Secondly, when we are in conflict we attribute our own actions not to fallible and undesirable characterisitcs but to being the product of circumstances we find ourselves in.

The final paragraph is also ugly.  We now see a classic “Counter-attack” as discussed in my book “Conversational Riffs; Creating Meaning Out Of Conflict” in Liverpool calling upon the FA to also prosecute Evra.

The Pundits’ Commentary

The commentary is going to whirl around the Drama triangle.  The drama triangle has three positions upon it

1. The victim
2. The villain
3. The rescuer

Consider who is the villain of this piece?

Is it Suarez, for the comments he has been found to have made?

Is it the FA for imposing such a hefty punishment, and of course Liverpool FC’s strong allegations against them as agenda holding conspiracists?

Or is it Patrice Evra even with allegations of “Prior unfounded comments.”

Who is the victim?  Evra or Suarez (“A very difficult day for me and my family”)? The Liverpool supporters and club?

And who is the rescuer?  The FA?  And if they were did they slip over into villain by the severity of their punishment?

Is the author of the Liverpool statement now trying to intervene, to rescue the situation?  Will Evra himself speak out on the matter?

All in all, this is a fascinating display of conflict dynamics.

I have no interest in either team,  whether any appeal is successful or whether this current finding against Suarez is upheld.  The point of this article is only to flag up discernable and often repeated patterns of conflict behaviour.

How well do these patterns serve us?

What other response might the various protagonists have made?

Neil Denny is an author and presenter on conflict management and collaboration.  He speaks to public and private sector organisations across the UK and North America. 

Being still in the face of conflict

One of the greatest skills I have learnt in dealing with conflict is the notion of being still in the face of it.

When I first become aware of the conversation or situation becoming difficult I will deliberately slow myself down and do… nothing. It is a delicious moment to experience.

My inner dialogue is saying, quite explicitly, the following…

“Hold on Neil. This could be a conflict conversation. Now you know that sometimes you are capable of really fouling these up, jumping to conclusions and creating a situation that is worse for yourself and that hurts other people, so let’s put a lid on that and think about what might be going on.”

In this moment of awareness, of “Aha! Conflict is with us” I get to enjoy the most fascinating slideshow of conflict fuelled emotions and sentiments.

• Anger
• Indignation (oh the most gloriously righteous indignation)
• Vengeance
• Hurt
• Sulkiness

Being still for a moment and explicitly but silently acknowledging, mentally naming, such sentiments as they rush in in those split seconds, enables me to keep my balance and composure. and then… what?

And then follow my own advice from my Conversational Riffs book.

If I am still feeling too hot then I’ll respond with an invitation. “Can we talk about this this evening/tomorrow/after lunch?” building in time for both of us to gather our thoughts and allow the adrenaline to subside.

Or I’ll ask questions to encourage more information. “Tell me more about that” or more often a very simple “Go on… tell me more.”

The acknowledgement says “Hmm, yes, I can see what you mean.” Or “Yes I hear what you are saying.”

Now I don’t get it right all the time, but when it works the results are astounding. The conversations that follow are extremely creative and collaborative. They feel powerful, unique and valuable and are things to celebrate and cherish.

They are well worth the effort and a moment’s stillness when it feels as if it is all kicking off.

Collaboration? Oh we don’t do that here.

Collaboration is bandied around a great deal. It can feel as if every team, organisation or change programme shouts the need for collaboration from the rooftops. The reality is that collaboration is often resisted very strongly. Why is that?

Upon examination, usually through robust facilitated dialogue, it becomes apparent that collaboration is misunderstood.

Collaboration is still perceived in too many organisations as a weak approach. We need less collaboration, one team leader might say, and firmer approaches to resolving conflict.

This presumes that collaboration is soft or somehow conflict averse. Effective collaborative working should harness the conflict between teams and individuals and enable those debates to be had.

Within even half effective collaborative endeavours we should expect to see a level of trust and commitment that will make it possible for the divergent voices to speak out their own concerns and also to hear, and explore the other.

Another reason for dismissing collaboration is that previous experiences have created an expectation that collaboration is a mere talking shop. This is something I have experienced myself.

Collaborative conversations that go on and on are unhelpful. Planning the conversations and allocating time to consideration and specific expectations of when we shall decide upon a way forward can help greatly.

Be sure to allocate enough time for full but not interminable collaborative explorations to take place.

A final reason for not collaborating may be as a result of previous collaborations producing less than optimum results.

This is regrettable not least because the outcome is the responsibility of both collaborative partners. The sentiment that we agree to an outcome and then complain that the outcome did not serve us well disregards our acquiescence.

This can happen when those collaborating have not invested in the skills required to collaborate properly, to be assertive and aware of the dynamics within collaborative teams, or perhaps to invest in conflict competencies that enable us to keep pushing for those optimum outcomes.

If collaboration results in less than optimum results then you only have yourself to blame. You should have said no or, even better;

“You know, I don’t think we are quite there yet. Let’s try harder to see how we can improve on this.”

Collaboration Evangelists

“Great groups think they are on a mission from God”

writes Warren Bennis in his 1997 study of collaborative groups “Organizing Genius”

“Great groups are filled with believers, not doubters… and often have the zeal of converts” he goes on.

 

This is a strength of the collaborative group.  It firmly believes in what it is doing and what it can achieve.

And yet there is an almost mocking tone within the statement.  Having read the book I know that it is not Bennis’s intent to mock, but this evangelistic determination is often portrayed in such a way.

I think there is a distinction that helps.

When the fervour is for the collaborative process itself then it can be misplaced.  Organisations indulge in ill-fitting and ill advised collaborative projects for the sake of collaborating.

When the fervour though is for the thing that is being collaborated upon, the creation of product, process or settlement, then that commitment is an immense strength that will cement the collaboration through setbacks and challenges.

Is there room for collaborative evangelism?  Absolutely and in both terms.

Even in the former, the collaborative argument will challenge the assumption that otherwise conventional patterns of contractual relationship, competitive jousting or zero sum arguments is the only way forward.  Just don’t be blind in walking into it.

 

Leadership in uncertain times

It is a common cry, a plaintive cry, that those who are in charge, whether referees in a football game, employers or political leaders do not know what they are doing.

This morning in my Twitter stream was such a cry…

“You really do wonder if politicians have a clue about what they are doing.  I see disaster on the cards…”

I replied;

“I am sure they do not know but we the electorate, fuelled by the media, demand that they act as if they know”

And this is the modern leadership dilemma.

We, within our societies, or within our businesses and even within our families, look to those who we perceive as leading us and expect that they know all the answers.  When it becomes clear that they do not, then we become anxious or disillusioned.

So we look to our voted MPs, and more critically at those with leadership and cabinet roles amongst them.

We look to the CEO, the MD or the owner manager, and expect them to know the answers and to get it right.

As a father and husband I am acutely aware of times when my children and wife look to me, needing me to have THE answer.

And sometimes we have to put up our hands and say “You know what?  I don’t know.”

Very often we do not know what we are doing.  We do not know how we are going to resolve a situation, a conflict or a problem.  Our politicians do not know what will work in a rapidly changing economic and political landscape.  Business owners do not know that their latest initiative will deliver the results they have forecasted.

I am convinced that over the next 10 to 20 years we are going to have to get used to dealing with ambiguity, get more comfortable with the “Not knowing.”  If we do not then we will fall into a leadership vortex where the new man or woman is voted in only to become pariah within months or weeks as the next wave of change breaks upon the shore.

Organisations need to realise that leadership will be more about holding the collective uncertainty at tolerable levels so that the people within the organisation can continue to operate. (For more on this see Ronald Heifetz’s work on Adaptive Leadership)

And in families, more than ever, we will need greater intimacy and vulnerability, certainly between husband and wife, so that when either of them “does not know” then we can be frank, open and fallible with the other.

Neil Denny is an author and speaker on conflict and collaboration skills.  You can buy his book Conversational Riffs; Creating Meaning Out of Conflict here