[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.

[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/

[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-

[Advice] What Is For You?

“I guess this isn’t for us.”

“It’s always been done this way in our field.”

“I can’t do it because I don’t have the positional authority.”

“What will my co-worker’s say when I do this?”

“It’s easier to sue the people than to settle with them.”

All of these statements are fear based. All of these statements are stories; stories individuals (and there are a lot of them) tell themselves to stop themselves from embarking upon doing the hard work that matters. Doing that work will require a sacrifice of time, power, authority, influence, and many other intangible assets, and many of us are unwilling to give those assets up, because a bird in the hand is worth…well, exactly what we’ve always been told it’s worth.

Whether you’re choosing to dance with the Devil you do know, or choosing to avoid (or accommodate) the Devil that you don’t, you’re dancing with the Devil either way.

How about this instead: Don’t dance.

Don’t dance with the naysayers (no matter how powerful they appear to be); don’t dance with the status quo (no matter how entrenched it happens to be); don’t dance with the expectations and assumptions of others who have no idea how important the work is. Instead, dance with your own fear and seek not to conquer it; instead, seek to collaborate with it assertively.

Then, not only will the process, the philosophy, the service, and the project be for you, but it will also be for everyone else who can’t dance with their own fear.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] The Dark Heart of Man

Let’s talk about the kind of communication we want to have.

In person communications have always been fraught with difficulty, misunderstandings, miscommunications, negative escalations, and conflicts. When people talk with each other face-to-face there is always the opportunity for confusion and conflict, particularly if the conversation in question is questioning deeply held stories around values, worldviews, and frames.

It takes a lot of emotional quickening to escalate from a conversation to a confrontation to a conflict to a fistfight to a war. There are many discrete steps in face-to-face communication that social norming has established, developed, and refined for thousands of years to limit such escalation. But, as is always the case, human beings’ tools for communication get better, friction and misunderstanding increases, even as the speed of communication increases, and conflicts flare up.

From carrier pigeons to riders on horseback to the telephone to mail by airplane to emails and now Twitter, there have always been people who would rather have a fight than share an idea. And as the speed of our tools has increased how fast we get a message and then react to it, (going from days or weeks to micro-seconds) there hasn’t been a commensurate increase in the heart of rational contemplation.

Thus we get to social media communication. Trolls, bad actors, spammers, and others use the immediacy of social communication tools to psychologically manipulate people on the other end of the message into reacting rather than thinking. And there’s really only two reactions such individuals are seeking: fight or flight.

They aren’t looking for a measured argument.

They aren’t looking for reasonable discourse.

They aren’t looking for knowledge or growth.

They are looking for either a respondent’s heels or their fangs.

In the case of the Internet, and the communication tools we have built on top of it, we have exchanged immediacy for escalation, and have confused passion for legitimacy of an assertion. This is particularly problematic for people delivering messages that are outside the “mainstream,” or that rely on dispassionate examination of facts, rather than passionate reaction to opinions.

Ease of access to digital tools also allows communication to be focused on the tawdry and the spectacle—which is short term—instead of the deliberative and the reasonable—which is long-term. The creators of these digital tools—the owners of the platforms—may be publicly or privately traded companies, but make no mistake: the platforms are private property and the Internet, while vast, is not a place where 1.6 billion participants need to (or deserve to) cast a vote on the operations of a series of companies that built the platforms in the first place.

What kind of communication do we want to have?

The answer to that question, at least as is evidenced by the numbers of people using these communications tools, seems to be that we want friction free, painless, non-relational based communication when we want it, how we want it, that allows us to do what we want, when we want, how we want. But this is an inherently selfish and vain position, based in our perception of want, rather than a relational need.

Online communication will always be fraught with difficulty and no amount of changing a name policy, policing speech we don’t like, or building walls and doors into platforms, is going to prevent than difficulty. This is because the tools we use to communicate are the problem because of the assumptions and expectations built into them.

We’ve got to figure this out though, because at a global scale, there won’t be a positive outcome from communications wars between people. We are already seeing the beginnings of skirmishes around the edges of platforms such as Reddit and Twitter. We are also seeing responses to such skirmishes from companies such as SnapChat and WhatsApp, which promise to build platforms with more friendly assumptions around safety, conviviality, and trust built into them, rather than welded on from the outside as an afterthought.

More special interest groups meeting with Facebook isn’t going to solve this communications problem.

More governmental lobbying at scale by Google isn’t going to solve this problem either.

More closing off, disengaging online, or demanding more censorious penalties for people we don’t like, saying things that make us feel threatened, abused, or bullied (the aforementioned trolls, bad actors, and spammers) isn’t going to solve this problem either.

The solution to all of this, as with most things, lies in changing the motivations toward selfishness, vanity, and revenge that lie deep in the heart of man.

And, to borrow from Einstein when he was talking about the outcomes of the development of nuclear weapons, I’m going to bet that the founders of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and many, many other chatrooms, message boards, and email systems since the web was democratized, secretly wish, deep in their hearts, that they could go back in time, and instead become watchmakers.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] What We Subsidize…

What a society taxes it gets less of, and what a society subsidizes it gets more of.

For various social, economic, psychological, emotional, and other reasons, societies around the world, throughout history, have taxed peace, while subsidizing war.

This is not a statement of judgment, just one of objective observation.

We honor dead soldiers, and only occasionally talk about dead peacemakers.

We have thousands of anonymous soldiers who go out and make war, as we have thousands of anonymous peacemakers, who go out and make peace every day. But only one group has a flame burning eternally for them at Arlington Cemetery in the US.

We honor the dead soldier, because we (and by ‘we’ I mean humanity as whole) value valor, honor, respect, dignity, and the ideals of revenge and justice, far more than we revere those same values at the peacemaking table. This dichotomy is the most obvious at scale, where there are holidays honoring the sacrifice of life of the soldier, but no parades in your town for the generations of deceased divorce mediators.

These are not a statements of judgment, just ones of factual observation.

When we do choose to honor the diplomat, or the statesman, who brought us peace, we tend to honor the ones most vociferously who also guided us through war. Churchill is lauded far more than Chamberlain.

Unfortunately, as was pointed out years ago by the band Pink Floyd, the statesmen turned diplomats are the very same ones who sat in the rear of the line (or sat in an office back at home) and commanded “Go forward!” even as the soldiers in front, out on the line, died by the thousands.

Young men have always died valiantly fighting old men’s wars.

The fact is, we will always have more people willing to make war, than we will have people willing to make peace. This is a sad fact of the fallen state of humanity.

This is not a statement of judgment, just one of spiritual observation.

On this Memorial Day, let us take a moment to remember those who made the peace, as well as honor those who fell in the war, because, if humanity is to move forward in any kind of meaningful way, we need to subsidize the peace, and place a higher tax on the war.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] On Winning at Nuclear Poker

Nuclear weapons are a touchy subject in geopolitical negotiations.

Almost everyone involved in the negotiations around nuclear weapons knows what the outcomes of launching them against another country could be, which is why, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, regionalism in arms races became a geopolitical concern.

But in reality, the issue with nuclear weapons is not really the weapons themselves. In reality, the issues around negotiating with developers of nuclear weapons is the attitudes, motivations, and psychological desires of the people who run the governments that are either developing nuclear weapons (North Korea, Iran, etc.) or who already have them (Russia, the US, China, etc.)

This is similar to negotiations that go on around issues that are less geopolitical and more commonplace. When you are negotiating with your wife about where to go to dinner, her mindset, attitude, body language, motivations, and your previous history with her, matter more to the outcome of that negotiation, than where you eat.

In our individual and corporate lives there are many nuclear weapons that we hide inside of our interactions. Some of them take years to build and only a minute to deploy and to wreck destruction.

We often don’t talk about our tendency to build up resentment, unforgiveness, anger, bitterness, and hatreds, until they are primed and ready to launch. Exploding on another party. Usually, not the party that we want to have them explode upon.

That person (a parent, a child, a former spouse, a family member, a neighbor, a politician) is usually either too far away emotionally, or too distant physically, for us to actually launch our carefully curated and developed personal stockpile of nukes upon them.

Mob behavior, direct democracy, these are both example of personal nuclear behavior writ large, at scale, and just as destructive as at the personal level. Nuclear poker is played at this level as well: by politicians, pundits, professional prognosticators and others. But here’s the thing, from the geopolitical level all the way to your individual level of your individual world:

Nobody knows how anybody else is going to respond to a nuclear strike—either personal or global.
The appearance of being crazy, or dysfunctional, enough to destroy everything can sometimes act as a deterrent to people actually going ahead and pushing the button to destroy everything—either personally or globally.

The personal (and global) question in any negotiation where the threat of nuclear destruction is on the table, is: How crazy do you want to be to ‘win’ at nuclear poker?

-Peace Be With You All-