[Opinion] Self-Determination and Autonomy

As individuals continue to publicly engage in the completion of their own narrative arcs of conflict, personalized and individualized to them, external third parties have to determine at what point is it wiser to shut down their self-determination and deny their autonomy.

Self-determination basically says that parties in a conflict have a right to determine the outcome of that conflict with minimal influence from an outside, third party. Self-determination works really well when all parties in a conflict are on the same page and are talking to each other about the same thing. Self-determination doesn’t work so well when all parties in the conflict are pursuing their own ends selfishly.

Autonomy says that parties in a conflict have a right to make their own decisions, and to experience their own consequences. Consequences are an interesting element of discussions and debates around autonomy, because they come from a toxic mixture of responsiveness and reactiveness. Plus, there’s the interesting shift of responsibility around consequences: One party would rather not experience them; the other party would rather that they did.

When autonomy and self-determination are combined, sometimes parties in conflict feel as though they have a responsibility to administer consequences. This doesn’t come about without making a judgment about the other party, their motives, their autonomy, and without taking away their own self-determination.

Equal and opposite reactions apply mostly to physics experiments, and mathematical equations, but break down in the world of reality when they bump up against autonomous, self-determining, human actors. Neither is physics a worthwhile explanation (or justification) for dealing out consequences to another party in judgement. When this happens, human nature—deeply flawed, deeply evil, deeply selfish—takes over. And tools from social media applications to projectile weapons, become the means for one party to deal out consequences in judgment.

The thing is though, for as many justifications (or explanations) that are provided for engaging in judgmental behavior, using tools immediately at your disposal, there is little requisite increase in wisdom. And even if there were an increase, to paraphrase from Gandalf, “even the wisest among us cannot see all ends.”

No one can predict change in a party in conflict.

Just like no one can predict continuity.

Hindsight and confirmation bias trap both parties in a cycle of vicious violence, where peace takes a back seat, to reaffirming threatened identities, and maintaining a laser-like focus on the outcome of the conflict narrative that fits the worldview that doesn’t force change at all.

[Advice] Conflict-Resolution-as-a-Service 2: KPIs

Understanding where people’s conflict responses are in their quadrants and where they position conflict messages in their brains, are critically important to consider. Particularly as you develop key performance indicators as you start resolving conflicts in your organization, differently than you have been before.

If a person prefers an avoidance stance toward conflicts in my professional life, then a person with a more collaborative stance (in the quadrant opposite) will have some problems with the avoider.

If a person prefers to be in control and compete around conflict (as many in the aggressive world of work sometimes do) then the accommodator in the opposite quadrant might have some problems.

The marketing theory of positioning (as expounded by Trout and Reis) says that there is limited “shelf space” in a person’s mind for messages. It further states that, once a message has been anchored onto a shelf, it’s not going to be dislodged by a new message in the same space. Instead, the jujitsu lies in creating a new message in the quadrant opposite the established message.

In relation to conflict management, a key performance indicator of whether or not your conflict training efforts have “worked” or not is: are people communicating messages to each other in the heat of conflict in a different way that reveals messaging anchored in a different position in their minds.

This is a KPI that is so subtle, so hard to actually see, that many managers, supervisors, owners, and others, who aren’t necessarily dialed into to language, emotional depth, and other conflict driving factors, will miss it. However, outside of people communicating with each other with courage (which comes with coaching, not necessarily training) people communicating differently, using different words, phrases, and even body positions, and getting different outcomes, it’s the only metric that matters.

[Opinion] Show Them What They’re Made Of…

Show them what you’re made of.

Why would you do that?

The ultimate call to escalation, ego, and more conflict, comes first in the call, then the attempt, and at the end, either the success (they saw what you were made of—and backed off) or failure (they saw what you were made of—and you were found wanting) is writ large for others.

Instead, here’s a better idea.

Show them what they’re made of.

Many parties in conflict have little idea of how much of themselves they show to another party through the conflict process. They give little consideration to the levels of vulnerability and exposure that they engage in when they choose to escalate. Many parties lack the awareness to know that their language choices, their communication styles, and even their conflict management stances, are all forms of reveal.

A magic trick has three parts: the pledge (the magician shows you something ordinary); the turn (the magician makes the something ordinary seem extraordinary by making it disappear); and the prestige (the magician brings back the ordinary thing).

Every conflict communication requires you to be a successful magician of resolution. Conflict is ordinary. To make it disappear through showing the other party what they’re made of, is the turn. And then to bring the conflict interaction back around to resolution (or at least engagement) is the prestige.

Show them what they’re made of.

[Strategy] How to Avoid Being Swept Away by Conventional Wisdom

There are two things to remember about conventional wisdom.

The first thing to remember is that the wisdom is conventional. Meaning that it’s the perceived wisdom of the crowds, held tightly, based in a cascade of life experiences, in accordance with what is “generally” done or believed. Conventional means standardized.

The second thing to remember is that the wisdom isn’t really wisdom. Meaning that the wisdom of the conventional variety is based in theory (what we’d like our interactions in the world to be like) and belief (what we’d like to believe our interactions should look like), rather than good judgment, principles, or any species of scholarship, lore, or sophistication.

Conventional wisdom only works when it works. And when it doesn’t work, people who formerly relied upon its benefits (as a shortcut to not engaging, thinking, or developing other ways of looking at the world) are often confused and irritated.

There are no simple ways out of the trap of conventional wisdom, but here are a few ideas:

One of the simplest ways to overcome the thinking around conventional wisdom is to realize that common sense is no longer commonly held. With the fragmentation of American culture in particular (and global culture in general) the power that commonly held sense used to hold is now dissipating.

The other thing to recall is that defaulting to conventional wisdom gives people in power a “leg up” over you and your situation. When they are operating within the confines of decorum, manners, and other conventional wisdom tropes, they can’t move as quickly to be creative, thought provoking, or to generate new wisdom based in changed mores.

Wisdom—just like courage—is in short supply. And it always has been. Wisdom can’t be downloaded or Googled. It has to be lived. And separating wisdom from the confines of conventionality allows the parties with that wisdom to be more cautious when responding to change. But it also allows those with wisdom to be more impactful when change arrives.

Conventional wisdom is often based in laziness of thinking and lack of imagination and curiosity, rather than any species of patience. Patience is the province of the unconventional.

Conventional wisdom is the province of the crowds. And the crowds have been wrong before.

And they’ll be wrong again.

[Opinion] Integrating the Path to Peace in Your Life

There is knowing the path toward peace, and there is having the courage to follow the path.

Many people know what they ought to do (or should do) but refuse to do it, mostly due to the influence of fears.

Many people know what they ought to do (or should do) and accept that doing it will be a struggle, full of moments designed to grow a person spiritually, emotionally, and psychically.

Both of these stories (and that’s what they really are) are designed to be true but not decisive. They are designed to be stories that push others towards the path of peace, while also courageously allowing ourselves a pass from the courage to make difficult decisions. They are designed to be stories that exemplify the dictum that “the high grass gets cut down” without the commensurate application of what a principled decision would look like in reality.

The path to peace must be forged with courage, and individual decisions, rather than with desires, hand wringing, pomp, or outrageous circumstance. The path to peace must be integrated within an overall vision of ourselves and what our futures hold along the path. Otherwise, the only principle worthy of discussion will be had along the path through the process of conflict.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Strategy] How to Put In the Work

Putting in the work has to happen even as the work changes.

Work is no longer just about physical labor.
Work is no longer just about mental labor.
Work is now about spiritual and emotional labor.

Putting in the work changes when the labor changes.

Labor is no longer about getting paid for just showing up.
Labor is no longer about waiting your turn, raising your hand, and asking if ‘Will this be on the test?’.
Labor is now about caring, engaging with other people, and doing it with courage.

Putting in the work is not about the tools.

Unfortunately, too many people are still confusing the tools with the work, and thus are missing out on chances to shape how the future of labor and work looks.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] Who ‘Unmakes’ Your World?

The hinge swings both ways.

Human beings made the system of conflict you are in; they can unmake it.

The knife cuts both ways.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

When you’re in a conflict, it may seem as though there is no way out of it. When you’re in conflict, it may seem that the hinge only swings one way, that the knife only cuts you, and that there is no way out.

Well, actually there is. But it requires you to do some courageous work early (when everyone is excited), in the middle (when everyone quits) and at the end (when victory appears in sight).

Hinges, knives, pennies, pounds, and the will to undo, unsew, unravel, unmake, and unwind, the mistakes we have already made, the damage we have already done, and the past that seems to never stop shadowing our futures.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] Challenging Your Conflict Culture at Work

Yes, changing your conflict culture in your workplace will require you to take risks with courage.

Yes, changing the conflict culture of your workplace will require you to start with yourself and them move onto all those “other people” who currently seem so problematic to you.

Yes, changing the conflict culture of your workplace will be unpopular, particularly if the people inside the organization like the outcomes they are currently getting with the approach to conflicts they are currently using.

Yes, it will seem to take a long time to change your own internal conflict culture, in the same way that it will seem to take a long time to change the external, organizational culture.

No one is going to ever give you enough permission, reassurances, or hedges against outcomes occurring that you may not like, so that you won’t have to take on any risks at all to make change.

But not one significant innovation—of people, products, processes, or philosophies—has ever occurred without the changes that conflict brings. And if your culture truly wants to innovate, then changing the conflict culture is the first innovation you have to embark upon.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] Fighting on Ground You Didn’t Choose

We often engage in conflicts on ground we didn’t choose.

We go into engagements with people and wander through them, surprised by the depth of the presenting problems, caught off guard by the visceral nature of the emotions, and completely off balance in how to respond.

In addressing conflicts on topics we didn’t choose (the ground) we often take the Donald Rumsfeld approach of engaging in the conflict we didn’t want with the tools we already have, and we wind up in the opposite of the General Grant position of worrying about what we are going to do in the conflict. Our responses become reactions, our reactions become incendiary, and then we engage in conflict avoidance the next time a problem arises on ground we didn’t choose.

There are a few ways out of this:

Make a plan. Never go into an interaction with someone where you know that a conflict will arise, without making a plan for what you’re going to say or do.
Implement the plan. Many plans fail for lack of execution. Many approaches to conflict fail, because it’s easier to rea a list of best practices and then forget about that list, than it is to implement them.
Ruthlessly focus on your goals in the interaction. Make goals in the planning stages and then ruthlessly focus on accomplishing them. Your goals might be to preserve the relationship, to side-step an older argument, or even to hold onto your heart, but no matter what they are, focus on accomplishing them.
Let adults be adults. Don’t own the other party’s emotional content. They can carry it around by themselves well enough without you. Constantly checking in on yourself internally as you engage, may seem like a daunting task, but here’s the thing: it’s even more daunting to just surrender and accept the other party’s paradigm or premise.
Get out. Sometimes, an exit from an interaction is the entirety of the purpose of your interaction. There’s nothing wrong with choosing this as a goal. But how you exit one interaction, sets up how you enter another.

The best case scenario is to engage in conflict on ground you have chosen. Barring that option, engage with intentionality and focus.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] Hold Onto Your Heart

In any conflict, the hardest thing to do is to hold onto your heart.

When people mediate conflicts, whether professionally or informally, they run the risk of being demoralized by seeing the behavior of participants in the conflict.

Have you ever heard the joke about the family and divorce mediator who mediated their own divorce after doing this work for many years?

It’s not a good joke.

Hold onto your heart. Hold onto your vulnerability. Hold onto your tenderness. Hold onto your openness.

It’s too easy to let go when everyone around you is letting go as well.

-Peace Be With You All-