On Holiday

Taking a holiday from conflict—either from managing them or resolving them—is something too many of us are engaged in too regularly.

A holiday is supposed to be a break and a time of renewal, yes, but it is also to be a time of mindfulness, refocusing, reframing, and rededicating ourselves, our behavior, our thoughts, and our feelings toward the future.

As has been recently said, holidays are a time on, not a time off.

Holidays are also a time for genuine celebration.

Celebrations come with different traditions, but practicing traditions (such as taking a day off) without understanding or appreciating the deeper meaning behind them, is hollow religion of the worst kind.

With that being stated work (or at least our modern conception of work) is considered a practice that a holiday is a break from.

But some of the best work is performed when a person is engaged with mindfulness, refocusing, reframing, and rededication to the outcomes, people, and relationships that matter.

Taking a holiday from conflict management, or from pursuing resolution, is a practice worthy of being abolished.

Go to work.

The original founders behind holidays—particularly those focused around renewal, unification, and reconciliation—would want you to go to work.

Where Do You Put the Work

If you don’t really know where you’re going, then it doesn’t matter which direction you go.

Not a bad point.

Here’s another one: Wherever you put your focus, that is where you will reap your greatest rewards.

Many people in a conflict focus on the conflict itself (the product) rather than the process that they took to get there in the first place. Focusing on the product seems to be the only way to resolve the issue. And besides, if we focused on the process, we may run out of time to focus on the product.

This is why negotiations (now we’re talking where the stakes are high and the process is more important 9or just as important) as the outcome) become time consuming. Time is the most valuable resource we have, and it’s the one resource that is totally and completely unsustainable. Expert negotiators, diplomats, and politicians know this fact more intimately than your neighbor does, than your kids do, or than even your co-workers do.

Time is on your side and it isn’t, but if you put your focus on regretting the time that it takes to resolve a conflict, rather than advancing and leveraging the time that it takes to get to a resolution, your focus will bear fruit.

When we focus on the conflict, the conflict grows larger and larger, dominating our scope of attention and awareness, seeming to develop a life all of its own. When we focus on the process, the conflict recedes and suddenly our focus shifts to the time that all of this resolution is taking.

But, if you don’t know where you’re going (or where your focus should be), then it doesn’t really matter in which direction you go (toward resolution or toward delay).

The choice is yours, in the same way, that it was Alice’s.

The Tower of Babel

At the root of all conflict is miscommunication.

The language that we speak, the “babble,” (or “babel,” if you will) is the thing that separates us. The language is not just verbal, of course, but the verbal prompts (or the lack of verbal prompts) create the initial opportunity for miscommunication.

Miscommunication impacts us all, and as more voices enter the public sphere, including voices that were never heard before, the level of noise (or static) increases. And genuine communication becomes almost impossible.

When the medium is also the message, miscommunication becomes the coin of the realm, ensuring access to less understanding and more conflict.

When distraction becomes the thing that drives entertainment (which is easy), rather than education (which is hard) it ensures that in the conflict between education and entertainment, miscommunication and obfuscation become the glass we communicate through.

Badly.

When the individual becomes the purveyor of what is “truth” and what is “lies” (or what is “fake”) the opportunities for those who have clarity about the difference between the two, to manipulate both communication methods becomes almost too tempting to avoid.

When the emotional power of stories matters more as a driver in communicating than reason, facts, and logic, miscommunication becomes easy because emotions are transient, explosive, and unpredictable.

The solutions (or resolutions) to all conflicts come down to attaining clarity in communication, but even if you personally pursue clarity in your communication, there’s no guarantee that your clarity won’t be interpreted as “babble” (or “babel” if you will) by the party you are seeking to communicate with.

Thus, ensuring that the root of the conflict won’t get pulled out from the ground of the fight anytime soon.

HIT Piece 12.20.2016

When thinking about conflict, the lock-in effect controls our reactions and responses.

We become accustomed to the reactions and responses that we have integrated into our lives on a regular basis. And the people to whom we are responding become locked-in to their responses and reactions to us as well.

Lock-in comes about when the benefits from a decision accrue at scale and the downsides are irrelevant.

Lock-in can be intentional (trying to use the other party’s known conflict responses and reactions to leverage them into or out of a decision), or it can be unintentional (“I don’t understand why he/she keeps reacting this way.”)

Some people are immune to the effects of lock-in, but many more people are controlled by the power of lock-in so much so, that they don’t even realize that it’s happening at the time.

Once a person’s conflict behavior and conflict choices are revealed to them, lock-in can become a powerful deterrent to future poor choices.

But only if we are aware of its presence.

[Advice] Fights of Fancy

The world inside rules the world outside.

One of the terrible functions of the last half-century has been the rise in the perception of people, both at the individual level and at the group level, as purely economic actors.

When viewed this way, people’s reactions and behaviors (and even group reactions and behaviors) are chalked up to science or economics.

People are perceived as rational actors, realizing that they are in a play called life, full of sound and fury, but ultimately signifying nothing.

Oh, but were this so.

The fact is, conflicts, disputes, disagreements, and more are worked out in the inner life between our two ears, in much more complex ways than economics or scientific analysis can determine. This happens long before they spill out of the container of ourselves and begin their impact on others.

The fights we have are of fancy: Trapped inside our own experiences, we struggle to get out, to escape, and to connect with others.

The very act of escaping from ourselves creates an internal conflict inside ourselves. And as our technology has become more granular, able to connect people at the surface level, across cultures, and even national borders, we have become blinded and less connected to the inner drives of other people.

The tools we have designed can be used to connect, but only if vulnerability, self-awareness, and introspection are built into the tools themselves.

And those traits aren’t built into the tools because they escape the notice of the builder. Primarily because of the inner life of the builder.

A clock with a clock maker.

The world inside rules the world outside.

The reasons why we have abandoned the exploration of the inner self are many, but the reason that we have abandoned even attempting to understand the depths of the inner world that drive conflict is one: We are afraid of what we will find and we are selfish in our interests.

The work of radical self-awareness, intentionality, empathy over sympathy, true vulnerability and intimacy with others cannot come through connecting through our tools.

We must escape the world inside (both ourselves and our digital distractions) and get to the world outside.

[Advice] Allergic Changes

Avoiding what we are allergic to is good sense when we are talking about preserving the long-term health of our physical bodies.

Avoiding what we are allergic to is not good sense when we are talking about preserving the long-term health of habits we have acquired that no longer are producing optimal outcomes for us.

Understanding the difference requires us to engage in radical and persistent self-awareness. But the act of bringing our behavior under control becomes difficult (if not impossible) when we are surrounded by more noise that signal, and by more marketing than wisdom.

Engaging in such self-awareness is the price that we pay for becoming the human beings that we want to be. But we cannot often do this out of our own power. Self-awareness comes from listening to others about ourselves, engaging with ideas and philosophies that are difficult and challenging, and then making the hard decision to make the hard changes to our ingrained behavior.

Conflict becomes easy to engage in when we lack self-awareness (or are allergic to our behavioral need for such self-awareness) because conflict becomes the way of life that makes meaning out of the confusing flotsam and jetsam of a life only barely lived.

Constructing a behavioral existence focused around avoiding the allergen of self-awareness results in the construction of elaborate mental and behavioral echo chambers, silos of information that the challenges of new knowledge cannot penetrate.

And all the intentional emotional and psychological energy that goes toward constructing this existence (which could instead be deployed against a lack of self-awareness) transmogrifies conflicts in our lives from events to be managed to problems itching to be resolved.

And always in ways that work for us, allowing a continuance of avoiding the allergen of self-awareness.

Learning, adaptation, gaining new knowledge and then deploying it to accomplish an outcome.

What’s really triggering your allergies?

[Advice] Values and Character

Values and character matter more than educational level when hiring people in an organization.

We can debate why that fact is important, but many organizations suffer from the effects of ethical lapses, poor judgment calls, and eroding communication patterns because they valued education above values and character.

Education in employees.

Education in upper management.

Education in board members.

Organizations very often struggle to define their own ethics and values, and thus struggle to hire people that are—well—ethical.

But there is a way out of this:

Determine what organizational ethics are and stick to them. Make them an integral part of the DNA of your organization. Have the courage to stick with those ethics, even when they impact the bottom line in the short-term.

Hire ethical people. The fact of the matter is, most (if not all) organizations are in a global war to hire and retain the most talented people that they can. And if a small manufacturer in Scranton, Pennsylvania and a large manufacturer in Birmingham, England are trying to get the same employees, the one who has a clear ethical stance will go a long way toward being competitive.

Get rid of unethical people. The whine here usually is “Well, we can’t get rid of (insert name of employee who is liked/perceived as bringing value to the organization here) because then we would get sued.” The majority of states in the US are “at-will” employment states. With this in mind, building in arbitration clauses (there are two kinds of arbitration, binding and non-binding) to employment contracts, creating NDA’s and fashioning a system where employees are educated on what their rights are, allows the organization to get rid of unethical people.

In reality, for most organizations, a lot of this comes down to having the courage to focus around the long-game of developing and encouraging values and character, rather than the short-game of quarterly revenue growth.

[Advice] Curses Are Stories

Stories have immense power and we are delusional if we think that we are going to change them with good intentions, by throwing more money at them, by passing laws or even by ignoring their power.

Curses are stories.

As are myths, legends, gossip, rumors, and even tall tales.

It takes more than just raw talent or brute force to break a story. Many stories are resilient, not because of the content of the stories themselves (that’s another matter altogether) but because of the feelings that those stories generate.

Stories of conflict, despair, defeat, disappointment, are even more powerful, because it’s easier to convince people of a negative outcome than a positive one. Parties in conflict believe that their negative story is the only story possible out of a range of stories, and because they believe that, they continue to perpetuate the same story repeatedly.

But then, ever so often, a story has the power to change, from a negative one, to a positive one.

Usually this happens after the people hearing the story, absorbing the story, and repeating the story, either surrender, lose hope, or move onto to another story altogether. When a story changes from a negative to a positive, it usually takes one person (and usually that person is a man) to lay out a vision of another path, another story that can supersede the one that is ingrained in listener’s ears, hearts, and minds.

In the realm of politics (where stories—or narratives, if you will—drive votes) the name for the person who used to lay out the vision and tell a different story, and then doggedly pursue that story, was a statesman, or a visionary.

Part of the trouble with the modern (and post-modern) world, is that when every individual has a right to their own narrative (but not their own facts) the power of a story becomes even harder to break. It becomes integrated so deeply into identities, behaviors, and lived out choices, that it seems as if there could never be another version of the same story.

Or even, another version of a different story. And when every individual has a right to their own narrative, it becomes almost impossible for a single statesman to step forward and offer a unifying vision, because they aren’t granted the authority to do so by the same audience who desperately longs for a different story.

This is both a positive and negative development. It is corrosive because, without a sense from the individualized mass audience consuming the story that the story can change—it doesn’t. It is positive because it means that each individualized person can believe differently, act differently, and tell a different story without permission from above.

Stories have immense power. And the only way that we can change them is by becoming the visionaries we need to be to change the stories we tell ourselves.

And each other.

[Opinion] Charisma and Conflict

The vagaries and gossamer of human communication patterns, dictates that intuition, visualization, rapport, and patience, matter more than the one trait many parties believe matters the most—charisma.

Charisma is fine.

As a matter of face, in the pursuit of persuading parties to get to the table of resolution, charisma will take the 3^rd party persuader far.

But the charisma of one party, in the face of the lack of belief of the other party, won’t go far at all.

This seems obvious.

What’s less obvious are the impact of each of the party’s past behaviors, choices, and communication patterns around the four areas that do matter: intuition, visualization, rapport, and patience.

Intuition—the feeling that one party is not being honest, engaging in prevarication, or may have ulterior motives, can be a powerful driver for avoiding resolution. Charisma may serve to buffet intuition, but an impression—a snap judgement, if you will—once made, is almost impossible to charisma away.

Visualization—the ability to vision a future without a conflict with the other party across the table, has to come from inside each party. When there is no vision, the peace talks perish. Charisma may hold the parties at the table, but charisma can’t replace “buying into” a persuasive vision all parties can visualize.

Rapport—the ability (and desire) to get along (which seems counter-intuitive) matters more in resolving a conflict that most parties would think. But the hope that a future can be better, combined with a positive intuition about the other party’s motives, can water the seed of rapport between parties. Charisma can trigger rapport, but it can’t bring hope.

Patience—in resolving conflicts, patience is an underrated, underappreciated, and under-acknowledged, trait of parties. Patience matters more than charisma. Parties often though are impatient—with outcomes, with the speed (or lack thereof) of the process of resolution, and with the nature of each party themselves. Charisma may help move people toward patience, but it won’t keep them patient.

The parties in conflict who will be the most successful in moving toward resolution and reconciliation, will be the ones who realize that what got them to conflict, isn’t going to get them to a solution.

Much less resolution.

[Advice] Re/Solution

What’s going to be on the test?

Is this going to work out?

What can we get here?

Who benefits?

All questions that revolve around what is commonly known as resolution. Some in psychology call it closure, but really it’s the mental and emotional process of getting a definitive answer that “ties off” any loose ends.

Narrative structures such as novels, films, short stories, all rely on an ending that is “settled.” Even when we talk about data and research—areas that should have nothing to do with a narrative, but are merely reflections of the world as we have objectively tested it—we use the phrase lately “the science is settled.”

Yeah. Ok. So why are we still arguing?

The problem is not closure, an answer, an end to a narrative or even getting other parties to agree. The problem inherent in all of this phraseology and narrative structure around conflict is two-fold:

We are framing our arguments, negotiations, mediations, and litigations, in the language of closure and resolution, when in reality we are selfishly seeking a way for us to win, and for the other party to lose. Rather than chasing a “lose-lose” outcome, this is a corollary to the idea that we seek an answer—or a conclusion—that matches our worldview, which is the best one, or else it wouldn’t be our worldview.
We are seeking a manipulation, not of facts, but of other people whose ideas, positions, and interests we find to be distasteful, disagreeable, or just downright wrong. We seek to shut “the other” up, raise our own perspective up and devalue the other party, all in one fell rhetorical swoop.

When we seek to disconnect, rather than connect, and to ignore rather than understand; when we seek to replace the value already provided in an experience with the value we would rather the experience have; when we seek to judge rather than to educate; we aren’t looking to get to resolution.

We are merely seeking a solution.