Heather Mills and the things we say and do in conflict

On Friday 25th April 2008 I presented to a group of businessmen and women. We took a slightly different angle on the recent Mills and McCartney divorce and what we can all learn from the conflict led behaviours seen in that case.


The press coverage that Heather Mills has received following her divorce from Paul McCartney has been most unattractive.

Within our workshop we took a quick show of hands to gauge support for her.

I am pleased to say we had a couple of supporters for Ms Mills, but by far the majority were happy to denounce her. This is in keeping with the press coverage to date.

I shall be referring to the Judge's comments throughout this workshop, to see what we can learn from them.

Firstly let us look at how the Judge perceived Ms Mills and her conduct.

"She is a less than impressive witness."
"I cannot accept her case."
"Wholly exaggerated"

But for all of that, the Judge also recognised that Ms Mills is "A kindly person and is devoted to her charitable causes."

I want to explore the idea that Ms Mills is not as she has been portrayed - if she was then surely it is inconceivable that Paul McCartney would have married her - but rather that she is an individual who has fallen into quite typical conflict led patterns of behaviour.

I will look at 3 specific examples of conflict behaviours.

"To some extent she is her own worst enemy." Justice Bennett

How many of us, when reading these words, can hear the words of our parents or teachers ringing in our ears.

We are all capable of letting ourselves down and we are particularly at risk when we are in conflict situations. Kenneth Cloke wrote in his book, "Mediating Dangerously" that we get seduced by conflict.

There is a temptation to act in conflict driven ways, not least because we perceive that conflict feels so good. It is the "Yeah! That told them!" feeling.

When we are seduced by conflict we act in accordance with conflict's own agenda and not in keeping with our own values or how we would like to see ourselves acting. What was that quote about "Give a speech in anger and give the best speech you'll ever regret?"

Radiohead sang "You do it to yourself, you do, and that's what really hurts" and they were right.

Too often we think we are blaming the other person. We think we are proving that the other person is to blame to whoever might be listening. But all we are doing is letting ourselves down and shooting ourselves in the foot.

Because we lose control in the face of conflict we end up inflicting damage on ourselves. We do it to ourselves and we become our own worst enemies.

Think of a conflict situation you have had to face where you acted rashly and scored an own goal.

"She cannot have done herself any good... by her outbursts in her TV interviews." Justice Bennett

These TV interviews, see below, drew a great deal of criticism.

The public were largely unaminous in their views that these were a bad idea poorly handled.

But, again, was Ms Mills doing anything that you or I would not have done?

Think about it. Think about when you got home after an argument at the office, or having been cut up by another driver on the way home.

What do we do?

We tell our partners about it. Maybe we retell the story later on at the bar with friends, or on the phone to our parents or colleagues.

What exactly are we doing that for?

I suggest we do it to seek affirmation that we were not in the wrong.

"I mean, I was right, wasn't I?"

or

"Can you believe what they said today?"

When we retell these conflict stories we are looking to recruit supporters to our version of events so that we can be comforted that we did not make the mistake. It is a perfectly natural behaviour.

I think the only difference with Ms Mills is that she was given a much broader platform, namely live GMTV, from which to retell her story from her perspective.

Would we, if we were so inflamed by conflict, have been able to resist such an opportunity to set the story straight, as we saw it?

There is something else going on within these TV interviews and it is this.

Ms Mills is seen maximising her virtues and denouncing other peoples motives.

Again this is something we all do.

If I am late then I justify it my behaviour. there will be any number of explanations. If someone I am meeting is late, then I do not justify it and instead rush to condemn it.

Conflict tricks us into denigrating the other person and all that they say or do.

Many divorce clients when receiving a good, even generous settlement proposal from their estranged spouse, reject it immediately.

"Oh, there must be something in it for them."

We see a terrible conflict irony that the more generous the proposal, the greater the mistrust.

This in part can explained by Karpman's Drama Triangle which I shall now look at.

"The wife's campaign... portraying herself as the victim and he as the monster" Justice Bennett

Karpman created the concept of the Drama triangle in the 1960's. It relates to Transactional Analysis models of behaviour.

It suggests that when we are in conflict we occupy one of the three corners of the triangle. They are labelled Victim, Villain and Rescuer.

Bizarrely, although none of us would ever admit to wanting to be the victim, we often rush to claim that very role for ourselves.

"Can you believe what they told me?/did to me?"

When we recount those conflict stories discussed above, how often do we portray ourselves as the victim.

The problem is that every victim needs a villain. Even if we do not name the perpetrator as a villain, it is implied that they must be villainous. And you better believe that they will know that, or at least "Feel" it.

And so we see Ms. Mills proclaiming her victim status live on GMTV. But her motive is that of the rescuer. She is seen to intervene into her own victimhood and attempt to rescue herself. She asserts that she is speaking out on live TV to set the record straight.

Very often the victim will have had enough and take such "rescuing" actions. The problem is though that she was then roundly condemned as the villain of the piece by having been perceived as attacking her spouse.

Watch out also for the priceless assertion that she is/was trying to "Protect" Paul McCartney.

Again, she is the rescuer. Here, she portrays Paul McCartney as the victim - powerless - at the mercy of shadowy unidentified villains.

Her outburst is not an attack, she would say. It is a virtuous action.

So look out for the drama triangle at play in your life, in your debates at work and relationships at home and in the community.

Watch out for instances where you are retelling a conflict story looking for recruits to join your side of the argument.

And above all, watch out lest you get suckered into carrying out conflict led behaviours rather than adopting a smarter approach to conflict resolution.

You'll be shocked to see that Ms Mills isn't all that different to you and I after all. It is just a question of scale.

It only takes one to tango

When I present on Conversational Riffs, a question that repeatedly comes up is how can these methods be of any use if the other person is determined to be difficult.

This is a question of “setting the stage” – how are we going to resolve this dispute? It is assumed that it takes two to tango in dispute resolution scenarios. If the other person doesn’t play ball, then our best efforts are all in vain.

I invite the questioner to turn the situation around.

Why would we allow the aggressive, or difficult party, to set the stage on their preferred terms?

Why should that process take priority over our own? If we give up in our efforts to create a positive dialogue then we are endorsing the other parties approach. We are saying “Our approach is not good enough in this situation. Your approach is right and we will commit to play, argue or fight by your rules.” We don’t want to do that, do we?

That only addresses the issue on one level. Implementing, and getting our approach to stick is another issue.

To be successful in setting the stage, we have to create that space within the dialogue which will draw in the other party. We need to anticipate what motivates the other party to resist and then meet, accommodate or resolve those concerns.

Through our own approach and careful communication we can create a conversation that will carry our colleagues or partners with us.

That is the whole notion of Conversational Riffs. The riff I play in an improvised piece of music will lead naturally onto the next passage. In conversation, the same thing applies. If I can pull out a conversational riff from my repertoire, I can influence how that conversation will progress.

My partner within the debate, argument or whatever, begins to improvise with me in creating a new meaningful, spontaneous dialogue.

The adversarial principle in society - Politics and the media

The title above is the subject of a debate being presented by CEDR and others on 11th September. I am looking forward to it very much as it is an area that I am increasingly troubled by.

A few weeks ago, I read about Cameron promising "Bareknuckle fights" over the NHS. That will help the A+E wards, then. Bareknuckle fights?

Peter Haine, for the other team, had been at it ahead of the Welsh Assembly election last year, same bareknuckle metaphor.

This weekend, we have the ever-macho William Hague making threats to Gordon Brown that he would be "In for the fight of his life" once any election campaign began.

What is it with this ridiculous posturing, this violent, threatening, pugilistic rhetoric? It is supposed, no doubt, to rouse the party faithful and show strong, fearless leadership. It comes across, however, as nothing more than playground taunting.

It is embarrassing and could well be contributing to the public disaffection with politics generally. There needs to be a new dialogue between our parties and the electorate, one that respects the electorates intellect rather than assuming that they can be whipped into a frenzy with this conflict laden, ugly, playground banality.

All in all, I'm looking forward to the seminar. Here's hoping it is the start of a new conversation.

Great discussion on Linkedin

Have a look here for a great discussion on "The gratuitous insult - How do you respond?"

The author raises a situation where he asks for an explanation and gets the surprising response "“If you don't understand what I mean, then that is probably your problem.”

Enough to take anyone aback.

The question has elicited 90+ responses so far with differing approaches.

Many people say ignore it, or walk away. Some look at reframing or feedback, others would adopt a more directly challenging stance.

More than one respondent suggests a hug.

My response is in the mid nineties... and is set out below




My Conversational Riffs material approaches any dialogue like a blues or jazz guitar solo. Sure, we can stick with the same old easy riffs we all know so well, the tedium of attack, defend and counter attack. That is the Status Quo and it neither interests us, nor serves us very well.

Instead, what we need is a whole repertoire of tiny riffs which we can improvise at any time to take conversations in whole new directions.

So, your colleague makes this comment - probably a defensive comment on his part following a mis-perception that you have just attacked his communication skills - and then counter attacks you in such spectacular fashion.

You can respond as expected above or throw in a new riff. Change direction. Improvise. Create a new dialogue. Try an encouragement, acknowledgment, agreement or invitation riff.. any of these will break the cycle that this conversation looks as though it is about to embark upon. Who knows what meaning and understanding you might create!

Holidays and a link before I go

That's it, I'm off work for a couple of weeks annual leave so it'll be quiet here for a while. I look forward to sharing more ideas and really making some progress with those other career plans when I get back mid August.

In the meantime here's an interesting post on Deloittes blog site that I thought presented some interesting personal dilemnas.

The relationship / time matrix

I was discussing matters with a colleague last week who could be called a "Distance service provider" - that is to say that their services were provided over the internet, mail, telephone, but not directly face to face.

This organisation were surprised at just how much conflict they had to deal with between the service provider and the consumer.

We had an interesting chat about an idea that occured to me there and then, namely the relationship / time matrix.

We explored whether the problem might be one of low relationship combined with long time delays between communications. Why should that provide a problem?

We came onto narrative theory. Within any given transaction there will be markers.

I placed my order on this date. I enquired by phone on this date and then the goods arrived on this date.

The problem is that the gaps between those recorded incidents then get filled with supposition as each party assumes what has been happening and what the other party has intended.

Within this particular industry, the relationship between provider and consumer of the service was low. This could have an impact given that it reduced understanding between the parties, leaving larger gaps to fill in with suppositions. Furthermore if the relationship had not been developed then there was nothing to preserve there through ensuring that we communicated carefully.

We then explored whether that low relationship was then compounded by the time between each response or element within the communication.

Whenever one party or the other raised a point, typically through correspondence, then there was a time delay. That creates more space to fill with second guessing.

We kicked about looking at a way of possibly reducing such conflict by enhancing the relationship to develop better understanding between provider and consumer, and also challenging the means of communication, systems and processes to ensure that such issues were handled more promptly.

It has led to me thinking, however, how such a matrix would map out. As relationship increases then we would presumably have some more lassitude on time. Indeed, we need to build in time if relationships are to be developed. But there will come a point on that time curve where longer time - too much time - will start to affect the relationship itself.

There you have it. A most nebulous of nebulous thoughts. I'll let you know of further developments on it. Is anyone else working on similar ideas?

Oh to be in Kalamazoo!

Oh to be in Kalamazoo. Why? Well to have an address like that would be enough. Just saying the word is beautiful. It bounces off the tongue. Even typing it has its own unique rhythm. Try it for yourself.

Kalamazoo.

But look at what insight into Kalamazoo life my Google alerts gave me this morning.

Not only have they got Richard's Magic Accordian Show scheduled for 7pm TONIGHT but they have a mediation drop in service at the Kalamazoo library. Now that is the first time I have seen one of those.

Count me as interested. Does anyone have experience of mediation drop in surgeries? I know that in my legal profession, especially in family law, that the free first half hour is prevalent, although it is not something I offer. If you put on a half hour free session then your client is going to be time wary. If they are watching the watch then they aren't able to relax into their story and I am only going to get the most cursory explanation of where their relationship has got to. At the very time that I need to understand them and develop trust and rapport, I restrict the likelihood of doing so because of time pressure.

I offer a fixed fee at a nominal charge but the meeting can take as long as it takes - normally around 90 minutes. You can see the client talk themselves through their initial anxiety, and time concerns, and there comes a stage where they visibly relax. There is a realisation that they can take their time and hopefully ensure that they are fully heard.

That in turn helps me to advise in a way that I hope might be more in keeping with their values and in response to what they have told me their position is.

How, I wonder, can the Kalamazoo mediation surgery settle the participants and get to an adequate level of communication working in the time available? If it works then it could be expanded upon. Imagine, you could have conflict kiosks everywhere. If people cannot agree on something they just pop into their neighbourhood Conflict Corner, settle into their booths, mediate, settle and move on with their day.

On closer examination I learn that Kalamazoo has its own website.

Here it proudly proclaims its status as a "Cool city" - which seems to be trying a bit too hard. Of much more interest though is the story of the Kalamazoo Promise which is a much more interesting matter altogether and something I'm going to have to look into. Real altruism. Real vision. A much more interesting story indeed.

Good morning Kalamazoo! We love you!

Conflict and social networking

Here's an invitation. Have a look at this networking site for people working in or having an interest in conflict resolution or peace work generally. There is some good debate starting to warm up over there. The site seems to be finding it's feet and I am benefiting from some interesting connections that are likely to lead to future collaborations.

My page can be found here. Please leave a comment there and introduce yourself.

The membership is predominantly people working in the field in conflict areas, as opposed to those in training or the corporate aspects of conflict. However there is a broad range of opinion, emphasis, experience and origin. A real hotbed of conflict thinking and application. Join in!

Airport queues and dispute resolution using conversational riffs

Have you ever been spear fishing? I had the opportunity to try it yesterday and it was remarkable. I caught a sea bass weighing about a kilo. Not bad for a man with a fish phobia. There was some healing going on right there. Albeit not for the fish.

Anyway I digress.

As we drove down to Studland Bay I was talking with a great chap called Lee. He travels frequently between the UK and America. We were discussing conflict and how people react to it.

He recounted an incident at an American airport. His flight was lost - whether cancelled, overbooked or whatever. He was in a queue of understandably angry people trying to get more information.

He got to the front of the queue and just had this one other passenger in front of him who proceeded to give the clerk an insight into his frustration.

Not surprisingly he was told there was nothing that could be done. He would need to come back the following day to continue his flight. Apologies on behalf of the airline and so on. He was frustrated when he started, he was angry when he spoke to the clerk, and he was still frustrated when he finished.

Lee steps up, with the same frustrations as the guy in front but tries a very different tack.

"Hi. How are you getting on?" he asks the clerk. "This can't be easy for you. What is the situation with flights?". The clerk tells him what she had told the last passenger, but then goes on to volunteer;

"If it will help I can offer you some meal vouchers while you are waiting"

Sure, says Lee, appreciating the gesture...

"And I can arrange" she goes on "complimentary hotel accommodation overnight to minimise your inconvenience"

The result? He didn't get home any quicker but he got to enjoy his unavoidable day in New York with only minor inconvenience and reduced stress. The passenger before him, with his aggressive, albeit understandable stance, was left with only his rage.

I wrestled with this, while fishing. Was Lee just being polite? Undoubtedly. But what else did he do?

He recognised or acknowledged the clerk's role in this situation, and gave her respect by doing so.

He also created space for himself to consider a different perspective rather than being consumed by the situation he found himself in. The result is that the situation was resolved as best as it possibly could have been.

Lee explained that a favourite line of his when faced with other frustrating situations is "Is there anything you could do to help. I'd greatly appreciate it if so." Again, Lee is inviting co-operation rather than laying down a challenge and even as he asks the question, he is reassuring the other party that they are safe to explore solutions together.

The other passenger was not only rude but unwittingly contributed to his own situation. Given the tack he adopted, which was quite a natural one in the circumstances, he not only reduced the likelihood of working together to find some solutions - meal vouchers and accommodation provided free of charge - but he made such collaboration impossible. In the face of his stance, was it easier, or safe, for the clerk to offer him assistance - which may well have provoked further outbursts - or easier to shut up shop, withdraw within herself and wait for him to move onto the next desk?

A simple fable but one I enjoyed in the telling. Thanks Lee for letting me share it. Now, anyone for sea bass?

Conflict resolution in practice

Just as very exciting things are happening to me here in the UK with various new developments, here is a top journal entry from Kumvera on developments in a mediation process in Zambia.

There is something about this article that really appeals to me. For whatever reason it feels wonderfully hopeful. Perhaps it is the opportunity to see conflict resolution in its most early stages. Besides, the photo-montage of the farmers meeting is a real winner and worth clicking through to in itself.

I hope that this journal will continue and that we can all share in the trials and tribulations that lay ahead. Please do visit Ka-Hey over at Kumvera and leave a comment encouraging more reports.

Conflict like Nam Pla

I was reminded today of a situation where someone had lost their cool in a meeting I was in. They were upset in case they had "Blown it."

They couldn't have been further from the truth. I explained that often conflict, or differences in opinion are like Nam Pla, or Fish sauce as it is better known.

Those of you who enjoy Thai cooking will be familiar with Nam Pla. It is made from steeping, or brewing, dead fish. It is utterly rank with one of the most offensive smells to come out of a bottle. But when it is added with other ingredients to make the dish, then it imparts this wonderfully evocative depth of flavour.

Very often, if we try to pass through a dispute without addressing the conflict then we only get part of the picture. We are trying to resolve matters at the levels where both parties feel comfortable. However, if we can make it safe to communicate our or their strongest grievances then we add so much flavour and understanding to the process.

Fish sauce on its own is rancid. But handled carefully, and added to the recipe at the right time and without allowing it to overpower the dish, then you get the full flavour. To leave it out altogether would only result in a tasteless compromise and deny all of the participants within the meal a full appreciation of what could have been.

5 tips on embracing conflict - from Jamie Notter

A great article here by fellow blogger Jamie Notter with no less than 5 tips on just how to embrace conflict. Please do click through to read them.

I responded in his comments that I once spent all day in a meeting where we there were some serious managerial issues to resolve. I knew that one of the non-agenda, unspoken issues was a dispute between two members and I spent the best part of the day trying to get that dispute to surface.

If we didn't then the ongoing animosity would have surfaced in some other environment or at an inopportune moment. At least if we wrestled with it here and now then we could ensure it was safe to explore the topic. I call this "bloodletting", a safe controlled releasing of the pressure.

A greater concern of mine was that if the matter was left unresolved then it would have sabotaged the real progress we had made that day.

It was frustrating that we got to 30 minutes of the end of the meeting only for the topic to rear its head then. I do wish we had got it out earlier. The participant who raised the issue had been worried that if he had raised the objections earlier that he would have spoiled the meeting.

A pity. If we are able to recognise our differences and embrace our conflicts, then we create such richly textured, sincere relationships on which to build future agreements. Who knows what we could have achieved. Who knows what suggestions might have been held back before the grievances were aired and resolved.

Despair within Conversational Riffs workshop

One of the cards within my Conversational Riffs workshop is despair. The "Black card of despair" as I call it.

Despair is a powerful concept and one we are all familiar with.

"This is pointless, we'll never get this sorted, here we go again..." and so on.

As I was presenting this on Wednesday I became aware that by raising the prospect of despair that I am in a way mapping out the future perils we should expect to encounter as we work in dispute resolution.

Just as a roadmap might show a perilous cliff, or (more colourfully) a treasure map might show an erupting volcano, if we are able to map out the future perils we will encounter then we give them a very different meaning.

Now, when I reach the cliff, or I see the fiery lava flow, my first response is not peril and a need to flee, but instead I am reassured that I am heading in the right direction. So, if I feel despair looming, I need not be overwhelmed and controlled by it, but rather I can think "Oh, there it is" and use that as a reference point as I continue to negotiate my way through the current conflict resolution.

Just a thought, and probably a good platform for a workshop game.

The fire powered fridge

Does such a thing exist? I remember reading something about one in "The Mosquito Coast", but I was young and I cannot remember what came of it. My Google searches so far have been fruitless.

The reason it sprang to mind was the concept that we can embrace something that threatens us - conflict or fire - and in doing so we not only negate the threat it presents but we can turn it to a quite opposite purpose.

Hence, embracing conflict to get to a resolution, or peaceful progression at least. Embracing fire to get refrigeration. Now if only I could reassure myself that such a thing exists, there is probably a whole workshop right there. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

A warm welcome to workshop and seminar guests

Hello to people who are visiting following my presentations on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.

I'm glad that you found your way here to my "Embracing Conflict" blog. I use this site as a depository to jot down thoughts that occur to me where conflict can be seen impacting on our lives. It may well be that the material can then be used as examples within future workshops, or maybe, future articles.

Please do feel free to have a look through the various articles below for an extra insight into my approach to conflict and, specifically, the developing notion of embracing conflict.

If you have an issue you want to raise, or challenge from the workshops then please do not hesitate to post a comment and I'll be sure to respond to it.

Teaching children a new way of disagreeing - "Starting Young"

Meet Tar Heel, one of my fellow Bloggers within the www.ADRblogs.com stable.

He has a charming piece from earlier in the month that I have only just got round to reading. He comments on his young children and their fledgling attempts to resolve differences.

What are peoples thoughts on children and dispute resolution? When would be an appropriate age to start exploring other approaches with them and what challenges do they present all of us as we try to practice what we preach?

I would be interested in exploring this issue with readers. Are people aware of programs already out there? Even more interesting, anyone fancy a collaboration on this issue?

Conversational riffs - revised

I had something of a breakthrough earlier this week. One of my workshops/skill sets is based upon some material that I have always been quite pleased with and has certainly been well received by various audiences.

I was always aware, however, that one or two of the elements were rather clumsy. You become particularly aware of this when you are delivering the workshop and can almost feel yourself blurting it out instead of enjoying the material.

I have a very exciting opportunity to present to some major employers next week and so I took the opportunity to revisit the material. I was able to come up with new, better titles and the impact has been great. With only a few different words, the material is now much stronger. The eleven components of the course group together in a natural thematic way, into elements of language that we currently use too readily, to components that we can aim to try more frequently and finishing up with a couple of punchy no-go's - Despair and flair.

Despair is that temptation to throw your hand in or give up. Flair is any comment that comes from showboating, being over-elaborate, or self indulgent flippancy or sarcasm.

I'm looking forward to getting the improved material out there and will be sure to let you know how it is received. If my own vanity gets the better of me, this will probably be the book I write.

Things I still love you too much to say - the need to encourage your opponent to elaborate on their complaint

On Elvis Costello's Spike album there is a top song called Deep Dark Truthful Mirror which contains the lyric there are "Things I still love you too much to say". A painful realisation and one I often see my clients wrestling with.

They feel a need to redress a situation within their relationship but cannot bring themselves to say what is going wrong. The result? "Oh we've just fallen out of love." - not a line, actually, that I let my clients get away with.

It is a key problem within dispute dialogue and one reason for conflict aversion.

For a more general application the lyric would be changed to "But if I tell them that, they might be hurt and I wouldn't wish that on anyone."

The result is that we hedge around the issues without openly or transparently communicating what is bugging us. As we continue to avert the problem though, the behaviour or characteristic continues and our irritation increases.

We become frustrated with ourselves for lacking the skills to sensitively address the issue and then compound our irritation with blame for the way it is making us feel. A vicious circle.

In the end, the frustration and irritation explodes in a disproportionate and hurtful outburst. For example, we see couples divorcing when really they need an honest communication about their respective spending plans, personal hygiene or dress sense. They hold off communicating out of love and the result is one of those dispute ironies, that their marriage and the love they were trying to protect is lost within perceived conflict.

So, as we look at learning communication skills, one of them has to be encouragement. If my wife has a beef with me, I need to be able to reassure her that it is safe for her to truly communicate whatever the issue might be.

The same applies in the workplace. Chances are that an employee will do anything they can to avoid raising a problem. They like their boss, or are grateful to a colleague for something they did, but there's just this one thing...

Employees need a safe environment where they can communicate grievances and employees ought to provided with the skills to enable them to do so. It will make a difference on how they, in return, carry out their employment.

Only last week I was in a large department store in Bristol in the shoe department. A floor manager had just spoken to the young sales assistant who then wheeled away from the manager with a scowl on her face that spoke volumes to me, the customer. It said, this is not a happy place. I do not want to be here. I have a beef with my manager and if you so much as think of asking me to try a pair of those shoes in size 9 I will give you everything that I am currently holding back from telling my boss. If you even attempt to buy shoes here you will only be compounding my misery by endorsing the abuse I perceive I have to suffer under this tyrannical regime.

I didn't buy the shoes. I turned and left.

I have turned and left pubs or restaurants where there is an atmosphere between staff as well. Clients see this stuff going on and they respond to it. I know that if I've been a bit stressy that it will impact on my secretary and that is disastrous. On the telephone, the dissatisfaction is even more deafening.

Is there a role for conflict in conflict resolution?

As I was working through my Collaborative law training I was repeatedly troubled by the role that conflict actually has to play within the process.

We were taught that when one party starts to express some strongly held opinions, no doubt in equally strong terms, that we should seek to acknowledge that with a phrase such as "I can see that this is clearly an important matter for you."

I explored the possibility of not seeking to contain the grievance in this manner but to really embrace it and get it out in the open. If I am in a dialogue with my client, and his/her wife, and one spouse is getting agitated about something then I want to understand just what is at play.

The alternative, to nod, acknowledge and contain, deprives us all.

The concerned party is deprived of what might be the only opportunity or forum to safely set out what their position is. Such an opportunity can be incredibly cathartic and just knowing that they have been heard can provide real breakthroughs. There is always the possibility that the storm might blow itself out and simply pass once it has been aired.

Both myself and my collaborative colleague are denied the opportunity to fully understand the dynamic between the parties and so we are left with our own guesses filling in the blanks.

We are all denied the possible insights that a fully aired grievance might provide. Perhaps that raw and unguarded outpouring might offer footholds or show signposts to a new shape of proposal that hadn't been anticipated before.

"Alison, while you were explaining how you felt about John leaving, you indicated that none of this would be as bad if only the problems with Connor's schooling hadn't started 2 months earlier. Would it help if we looked at addressing that problem before moving forwards with ...."

Both partners can be coached that such complaints are normal and almost inevitable. We can listen and acknowledge, we can listen and choose not to defend ourselves. "I hear what you say and I can see why it must have felt that way to you." Full stop. There might be a role for apologies.

So is there a role for conflict in conflict resolution? There has to be. We should be skilled enough and courageous enough to embrace it. How can we ensure the communication is expressed without violence or intimidation? How can our clients be assisted and coached as to what is likely, almost inevitable? How can we move away from the reactive response of seeing criticism as an attack. Very often it is nothing more than the other party's opinion. They are entitled to that and we can learn a great deal by hearing it and understanding how they came to hold that opinion.

"If someone responds to your negotiation offer with a fist, it is almost impossible to resist responding in kind."

Colin Rule posts in his blog about what he states are the very clear limits of non-violence.

I responded that we have no real choice but to continue to find other ways to avoid the classic cycle of provocation and escalation. But just what would that take, and just who has the alternative?

Is it enough for bloggers to continue to post in their optimism without having plans or solutions or are such hopes nothing more than trite sentimentality?

I don't pretend to have the answer to resolve the plight set out in the article that Colin links to but that uncertainty is all part of the process within dispute resolution or management. It is one reason why the indulgence in conflict is so attractive because at least it is certain and we know the rules, even if we cannot fully anticipate the fallout.

It is not for us as observers to impose solutions upon the parties involved. Instead what is required is a means of referring to suitable services so that all the matters can be explored. The full range of conflict, of differences between the parties need to be communicated and acknowledged before anyone can start even contemplating solutions that might fit.

It is a temptation, always, to respond in kind when we feel provoked. I address this temptation to some extent in an article below "...But conflict feels so good". We don't have to have all the answers. What we need is the will and conviction to carry on searching for other ways to resolve issues such as these and the skills and enthusiasm to encourage others to do the same.

I have mentioned De Bono's book called Conflict below. In that book De Bono suggests an International body working on possible solutions. This could have been just the kind of scenario he had in mind.